For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-98-310 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ¢ Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress ¢ The Senate frequently enters into unanimous consent agreements (also called "UC agreements") that establish procedure on a bill that the Senate is considering or soon will consider. There are few restrictions on what these agreements can provide, and once agreed to, they can be altered only by a further unanimous consent action. In recent practice, the Senate often begins by adopting a general UC agreement, then adds elements in piecemeal fashion as debate continues. UC agreements often contain provisions affecting the floor amending process, most often in one or more of the ways detailed below. For additional information on legislative process, see http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/guidehome.shtml. Amendments in Order and Adoption Thereof..................................................................... 1 The Order in Which Senators Offer Amendments .............................................................. 1 The Right to Offer Second-degree Amendments ................................................................ 1 The Time Available for Considering Amendments............................................................. 2 The Subjects of Amendments ............................................................................................. 2 Points of Order Against Amendments................................................................................. 2 Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 4 T he Senate frequently enters into unanimous consent agreements (also called "UC agreements") that establish procedure on a bill that the Senate is considering or soon will consider.1 There are few restrictions on what these agreements can provide, and once agreed to, they can be altered only by a further unanimous consent action. In recent practice, the Senate often begins by adopting a general UC agreement, then adds elements in piecemeal fashion as debate continues. UC agreements often contain provisions affecting the floor amending process, most often in one or more of the ways detailed below. For additional information on legislative process, see http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/guidehome.shtml. Under Senate rules, amendments may be offered to a bill until the bill has been amended in its entirety (but not thereafter). A UC agreement can limit the amendments that are in order. For example, the agreement may include a list of the only (or only additional) amendments that Senators may offer to the bill; these amendments may be identified by some combination of number, sponsor, and subject.2 The UC agreement may also provide that, by agreeing to it, the Senate also be deemed to have adopted a specified amendment; for example, the agreement may provide for the adoption of a committee substitute (and may also treat it as original text for the purpose of further amendment). Under Senate rules, once committee amendments to a bill are acted upon, Senators may offer amendments to the bill in the order in which they seek and receive recognition from the presiding officer. While the parties' floor leaders--and, to a lesser extent, the bill's majority and minority floor managers--receive priority in recognition, Senate rules and precedents do not otherwise specify a sequence in which amendments to a bill are to be offered.3 A UC agreement can provide the order in which Senators are to offer certain amendments to a bill. For example, an agreement may specify which amendment the Senate will consider after disposing of the pending amendment. A more encompassing agreement may specify the sequence in which a list of amendments will be considered. Under Senate rules, Senators usually may propose second-degree amendments to a first-degree amendment while it is pending, and may continue doing so until the first-degree amendment has been completely amended. A UC agreement can prohibit all second-degree amendments, or all second-degree amendments on a certain subject. It can also allow Senators to offer only specified second-degree amendments. 1 This report was originally prepared by Stanley Bach, former Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process at CRS. The listed author has updated the report and can respond to inquiries on the subject. For a broader overview of UC agreements, see CRS Report 98-225, Unanimous Consent Agreements in the Senate, by Walter J. Oleszek. 2 Inclusion of an amendment in an adopted UC agreement constitutes action on the amendment. Until the Senate has taken some action in relation to an amendment, the Senator offering it may modify or withdraw it at will, but cannot offer an amendment to it. 3 For example, Senators may offer amendments to any unamended section of the bill at any time. Under Senate rules, the debate on an amendment can continue (unless cloture has been invoked) until no Senator seeks recognition to speak on it, or until the amendment has been disposed of in some way. A UC agreement can limit the time available for debating a particular amendment, each of several specific amendments, or all amendments to the bill. The agreement can provide different amounts of time for debating individual first-degree amendments, and it can provide more time for debating first-degree amendments than for debating second-degree amendments. UC agreements often divide control of the time for debating an amendment between the Senator offering it and another opposing it (often the minority manager of the bill, or alternatively, the minority leader). In addition, a UC agreement can limit the total time devoted to acting and voting on all (or all further) amendments to a bill. For example, the agreement may specify that consideration of amendments shall end at a time specified. Increasingly, UC agreements provide that each of a series of amendments be considered and then temporarily laid aside rather than voted on, and that votes then be "stacked" to occur in immediate succession on all of them at some later point (often just before a final vote on the measure). Under Senate rules, amendments offered to a bill need not be germane to that bill, except for amendments to general appropriations and budget reconciliation bills or unless the Senate has invoked cloture. A UC agreement may require that certain or all amendments to a bill be germane or, more often today, that they meet the less strict standard of relevancy.4 Either standard may also be applied to second-degree amendments. Under Senate rules, an individual amendment may be subject to procedural points of order--for example, to enforce the congressional budget process--that, if raised and allowed to stand, would prevent consideration of the amendment. A UC agreement may waive points of order against certain or all amendments, thereby protecting consideration of certain amendments that Senators may offer. UC agreements can limit the amending process on the Senate floor in ways not mentioned above.5 For an explanation of how these agreements can affect other aspects of Senate floor proceedings, see CRS Report RS20594, How Unanimous Consent Agreements Regulate Senate Floor Action, by Richard S. Beth. Two UC agreements from the 109th Congress follow below. Each illustrates several dimensions on which an agreement may affect the amending process. Order No. 191 first proposes that the Senate amend S. 1566 by virtue of agreeing to the UC agreement. It then allows for only the listed first-degree amendments, setting time limitations for the consideration of each. Order No. 4 See Floyd M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, Riddick's Senate Procedure, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 101-28 (Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 1344-1353 for precedents on germaneness under UC agreements, and pp. 1362-1363 for those relating to relevancy. 5 See Riddick and Frumin, Senate Procedure, pp. 1314-1328 for precedents affecting the amending process under a UC agreement. For example, if the agreement specifies a time for specific votes or time limitations on debate, a number of precedents specify the circumstances under which further amendments may be in order but not subject to debate. ).6002 ,3 .guA( .tnemeerga siht fo eutriv yb deviaw eb redro fo stniop on taht ,rehtruf ;etabed ro noitca gninevretni yna tuohtiw egassap no etov a ot deecorp etaneS eht dna emit driht a daer eb ,dednema sa llib eht ,emit fo kcab gnidleiy ro esu eht dna stnemdnema fo noitisopsid eht gniwollof ,rehtruf ;llib eht no etabed lareneg fo ruoh 1 dna stnemdnema eht fo hcae no dedivid yllauqe etabed rof ruoh 1 eb ereht tahT ,rehtruf deredrO tbeD kartmA--snoisseS noititepmoC--ununuS sniarT ecnatsiD gnoL--ununuS ytiruceS liaR--niaCcM :ksed eht ta si hcihw fo txet eht ,gniwollof eht eb redro ni stnemdnema rehto ylno eht taht dna ot deerga eb ksed eht ta )nikraH .rM( awoI morf rotaneS eht yb dereffo tnemdnema eht ,tnemdnema rehtruf fo sesoprup eht rof txet lanigiro sa ot deerga eb ksed eht ta tnemdnema sreganaM eht dna nwardhtiw eb etutitsbus detroper-eettimmoc eht taht dedivorp ;sesoprup rehto rof dna ,kartmA ezirohtuaer ot llib a ,6151 .S fo noitaredisnoc etaidemmi eht ot deecorp etaneS eht ,redaeL citarcomeD eht fo ecnerrucnoc htiw redaeL ytirojaM eht yb denimreted eb ot emit a ta tahT ,deredrO )532 .ON REDRO( 6151 .S ).6002 ,1 .guA( .radnelac etaneS eht ot denruter eb ,dednema sa ,6651 .S taht dna egassap no etov a ot deecorp etaneS eht dna emit driht a daer eb ,dednema sa llib eht taht ,rehtruf ;foereht ueil ni detresni eb ,dednema sa ,6651 .S fo txet eht dna nekcirts eb esualc gnitcane retfa lla taht dna ,noinapmoc esuoH eht ,3744 .R.H ot deecorp neht etaneS eht taht ,rehtruf ;emit driht a daer eb ,dednema sa llib eht ,stnemdnema fo noitisopsid eht dna emit fo kcab gnidleiy ro esu eht gniwollof taht dna llib eht no dedivid yllauqe etabed fo setunim 03 eb ereht ,stnemdnema eht no deificeps emit eht ot noitidda ni tahT ,rehtruf deredrO )dedivid yllauqe ruoh 1( ytirohtua s'CTFC--darnoC ))niveL .rM( nagihciM morf rotaneS eht fo lortnoc eht rednu emit ytironiM eht fo setunim 03 htiw dedivid yllauqe sruoh 4( snoitcasnart ygrene cinortcelE--nietsnieF )dedivid yllauqe ruoh 1( secirp muelorteP--llewtnaC )dedivid yllauqe ruoh 1( secirp muelorteP--snevetS/htimS :redro ni stnemdnema eerged dnoces on htiw ,ksed eht ta era hcihw fo txet eht ,stnemdnema ruof gniwollof eht eb redro ni stnemdnema rehto ylno eht taht ,rehtruf ;ot deerga eb )ssilbmahC .rM( aigroeG morf rotaneS eht yb dereffo ksed eht ta tnemdnema eht taht dedivorp ;sesoprup rehto rof dna ,tcA egnahcxE ytidommoC eht ezirohtuaer ot llib lanigiro na ,6651 .S fo noitaredisnoc etaidemmi eht ot deecorp etaneS eht ,redaeL citarcomeD eht fo ecnerrucnoc htiw redaeL ytirojaM eht yb denimreted eb ot emit a ta tahT ,deredrO )191 .ON REDRO( 6651 .S limitations). agreed to, followed by a list of the only other permitted amendments (with attendant debate as the original text of S. 1516 for amendment and an additional named amendment be deemed 235 provides that, upon adoption of the agreement, a new "manager's amendment" be considered Valerie Heitshusen Analyst on the Congress and Legislative Process vheitshusen@crs.loc.gov, 7-8635 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-98-310