Motions to Proceed to Consider in the Senate: Who Offers Them?

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS W eb
Motions to Proceed to Consider in the Senate:
Wh o O f f e rs T h e m?
RichardS.Beth
Specialist i n the Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Summary
In recent p ract i ce, t h e S enat e general l y conc edes t o i t s m aj o ri t y l eader t h e
prerogative of calling up m eas ures for floor consideration. Most meas ures are called up
by unanimous consent, but when this consent cannot be obtained, a m otion t o p roceed
to consider is u s ed. S ometimes a Senator other than the m aj ority leader offers this
motion, but usually only i n coordination with him and as his designee. Of 261 motions
to proceed offered i n t he S enate from 1979 through 2002, all but eigh t were evidently
offered ei t h er by t h e m aj ori t y l eader or at hi s d irection. Only one of the remaining eigh t
successfully resulted i n consideration of t he meas ure i n question . T h i s report will be
updated at t he end o f each Congress.
The M otion to Proceed and t he Senate Agenda
Busi ness m ay reach t h e fl oor of t h e S enat e for consi d erat i o n i n t hree ways : pursuant
to a call o f t he Calendar, by unanimous consent, or through agreem ent t o a motion t o
proceed t o consi d er. T he form al C al endar cal l h as for s e v e ral decades becom e di sused,
and t he m o t i o n t o p ro ceed t o consi d er i s norm al l y used onl y when unani m ous consent
cannot be obtained. As a consequence, most measures (bills and resolutions) t oday reach
t h e fl oor by un ani m ous consent ; t h e num ber cal l ed u p t hrough a m o t i o n t o p roceed t o
consi d er has not ex ceeded a few doz en i n any recent C ongress.¹ The m easures cal l ed u p
by motion, however, are more likely t o b e controversial o r h ighly contested.
S e n a t e R u l e V III, p a r a g r a p h 2 , p r o v i d e s f o r t h e m o t i o n t o p r o ceed t o consi d er a
m easure o r m at t er (oft en cal l ed s i m p l y a “m o t i o n t o p roceed”).² Theruleplaces no

¹ It ems of executive business ( i.e., nominations and t reaties) a r e a l s o called up by unanimous
consent or t hrough motions to proceed to consider. T his r eport, however, e xami nes only motions
to proceed to consider legi slative business.
² U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate M anual, Contain i n g the St anding Rules, Orders, Laws, and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

restrictions o n w h o m ay offer t he motion.³ In the course of the t wentieth century,
however, t he Senate came i ncreasingl y t o accord its majority leader the responsibility for
arranging and implementing its floor agenda. T he Senate nowadays normally concedes
to the m aj ority leader the prerogative of calling up m easures , e i t h er b y motion or by
unanimous consent. In the absence of this deference, it would b ecome difficult for any
m a j ority leader to carry out the function of managing the schedule. Even in recent
C ongresses, nevert hel ess, som e m o t i ons t o proceed have al so been offered b y o t h er
Senators. These actions suggest questions about how far S enate d eference to leadership
scheduling efforts ex t ends.
Senators Offering the M otion t o P roceed
Most m easures reach t h e S enat e fl oor by unani m ous consent . Thi s consent m ay be
granted i n t he form of either (1) a simple request for unanimous consent t hat t he Senate
proceed t o consi d er t h e m easure, or (2) a broader unani m ous consen t a gr e em ent t h at
ei t h er speci fi es when t h e m easure s hal l com e before t h e S enat e, or aut hori z es t h e m aj ori t y
leader to call i t u p at s ome s ubsequent point, and al so sets terms for its consideration. If
a S enat or obj ect s t o s uch a request , especi ally a s i m p le unanimous consent request, t he
m aj o ri t y l eader m ay t hen o ffer a m o t i o n t o p roceed. A l s o, i f t h e l eadershi p i s aware t hat
a unani m ous consent request woul d m eet obj ect i on, t h e m ot i o n t o p roceed m ay b e o ffered
without first m aking s uch a request.
In cont em porary S enat e p ract i ce, requests for unanimous consent t o c o n s i d er a
measure, especially broad unanimous cons ent agreements, are most often p ropounded b y
the m aj ority leader personally. S ometimes, however, especi ally in the case of simple
consent request s, t h ey are o ffered b y t he m ajority whip, or by another S enat or acting i n
coordination with and as t he design ee of the m aj ori t y l eader. Fi n al l y, s uch a request al so
may be offered by a Senator not acting i n coordination with the m aj ority leader, but in that
case t he leader, or a Senator acting for him, will normally object to it, thereby protecting
majority party control o f t he floor agenda.
Similarly, motions to proceed to consider measures a r e m ost o ften offered b y t he
majority leader personally, but they al so may be offered by t he majority whip or another
S enat o r act i n g for t h e m aj ori t y l eader. In addi t i o n , S enat o rs have occasi onal l y offered
m o t i ons t o proceed i n t h e absence of di rect i o n o r even consent from t he m aj o ri t y l eader.
The t abl e on t h e fol l o wi n g page di spl ays t h e num ber o f m ot i ons t o proceed t o consi d er
offered by t he majority leader, t he majority whip, other designees of the m aj ority leader,
andotherSenators,inthe96^th through 107^th Congresses (1979-2002).

² (...continued)
Re s o lutions Affecting t he Business of the United States Senate, S.Doc. 107-1, 107^th Cong. , 1^st
sess., prepared by Andrea LaRue under t he direction of K ennie L. Gill, Staff Director and Chief
Counsel, Committee on Rules and Administration ( Washington: GPO, 2002), s ec. 8.2.
³ A motion t o proceed may also be offered pursuant t o a statute t hat establishes procedures for
expedited consideration of a specific measure, such as a r esolution of a pproval or disapproval.
In general, these s tatutes t oo place no formal restriction on who may offer t he motion t o proceed.
For i nforma tion on t hese “expedited procedures,” see CRS Report 98-888, “Fast-Tr ack” or
Expedited Procedures: Their Purposes, Elements, and Implications, by Christopher M . Davis.

Motions to procee d o f f e r ed b y t he majority whip were presumed to have been
offered i n coordination with the m aj ority lead er. Other Senators offering motions were
al so presum ed t o be act i n g as d esi gnees of t h e m aj ori t y l eader unl ess t h e r e c o rd of
p r o ceed i ngs afforded positive evidence t o t he contrary. In m ost such cases, t he
pro c eed ings offered positive evidence t hat t he motion was offered b y d irection o f t he
majority leader. S ometimes, for ex ample, S enat ors offering thes e m otions stat ed
ex plicitly that they were doing so on behalf of the m aj o r i t y leader. In other cas es , t he
Senator offering the m otion also s ubmitted a petition for cl oture on t he motion t hat was
si gn ed, am ong ot hers, b y t he m aj o ri t y l eader. On o t h er occas i o n s , t he S enat o r o fferi ng
the m otion did so in the course of a s eries of actions normally carried out by the m aj ority
l eader or hi s d esi gnee.
Senators Offering M o tions to Proceed to Consider M easures,
96^th-107^th Congresses
OfferedBy
Congress Tot a l Majority
and ( Y e ars) Majority Majority Le adership Other
Le ade r Whip De s i gne e
96 (1979-1980) 15 11 1 1 2
97 (1981-1982) 12 10 1 0 1
98 (1983-1984) 22 20 2 0 0
99 (1985-1986) 14 10 0 3 1
100 (1987-1988) 24 24 0 0 0
101 (1989-1990) 16 15 0 0 1
102 (1991-1992) 40 30 7 3 0
103 (1993-1994) 11 10 1 0 0
104 (1995-1996) 14 10 2 2 0
105 (1997-1998) 30 20 0 9 1
106 (1999-2000) 41 38 1 1 1
107 (2001-2002) 22 13 8 0 1
Total 261 211 23 19 8
Percent of t otal 100 81 9 7 3
^Source:^L^e^gi^sl^a^tⁱ^v^e^I^nfo^r^m^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^S^y^s^t^e^m^o^f^t^he^U^.^S.^Co^ngr^e^ss;^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^;^J^our^nal^of^t^h^e
^Senat^e^.
Method and S ources of Data. From the 97^th Congress onward, the m otions to
proceed accounted for i n t he table were i dentified t hrough an electron i c s earch of
legi slative s tatus i nformation i n t he congressional Legislative Information S ys tem. For
earlier C ongresses, this database contai ns only limited l egislative s tatus i nformation, and
m o t i ons t o proceed i n t h e 9 6^th Congress were identified i nstead through ex amination of

the Journal of the S enate. For all C ongresses, information about who o ffered t he motions
was obtained from t he Congressional Record and t he Journal of the S enate.
Sometimes m ore t han one motion t o p roceed was o ffered o n a single measure. This
may o ccur i f t he Senate fails to adopt the first motion, or returns t he measure t o t he
C al endar aft er som e consi d erat i o n and l at er t akes i t up agai n. The t abl e t reat s each m o t i o n
t o proceed separat el y; i n o t h er words, i t shows t he num ber o f m ot i ons t o proceed act ual l y
offered on bills and res olutions, not the number of bills and res olutions on which m otions
to proceed were offered. Also, t he table i ncludes m otions to proceed not only t o t he initial
consi d erat i o n o f m easures, but al so t o consi d er conference report s .⁴
M otions Not O ffered by Direction of t he M ajority Leader
Summary and Context. By the criteria noted, during t he 12 Congresses s tudied,
onl y ei ght m o t i o n s t o proceed t o consi d er coul d b e i dent i fi ed as o ffered o t h er t h an by
direction of t he majority leader. Of t hese eigh t m otions, four were offered b y t he minority
leader, and three by other minority party S enat ors. Also, s even of the eight motions were
offered under t he general rules of the S enat e, while the eighth was offered pursuant t o a
statute establishing an ex pedited p rocedure t hat m akes privileged t he consideration b y t he⁵
S enat e of a s peci fi ed m easure, such as a resolution o f approval o r d isapproval.
O n l y o n e o f t h e s e e i g h t m o tions ultimately succeeded i n b r i n gi n g a bout consideration
of the m easure i n question. Three o f t he eight were t abled; two were ruled out of order;
and one received n o further action after the S enate voted not to invoke cloture o n it. The
one offered by a majority par t y S en at o r was adopted, but this action was immediately
afterwards vitiated by u n a n i m o us consent. The one offered pursuant t o an ex pedited
procedure was adopted, and the S enate p ro ceeded to a final disposition o f t he measure.
C o m p arabl e dat a on t h e d i s posi t i ons of m o t i ons t o proceed offered b y, or i n
coordination with, t he majo ri t y leader have not been comprehensively compiled.
Norm al l y, however, few m o t i ons t o proceed a r e d efeat ed out ri gh t , because a m ot i o n
unlikely t o command majority support would not likely b e o ff e r e d i n t h e first place.
In stead, m ost o f t hose not adopted never r each a final vo t e . S o m e fail t o reach a vote
because the S enate u ltimately agrees to take up the m easu r e b y u n a n i mous consent. In
ot her cases, for ex am pl e, a fi l i bust er p re vents a v o t e f r o m o ccurring, o r t he motion i s
ei t h er di spl aced by subsequent act i o n o r wi t hdrawn.

⁴ T he motion t o proceed to consider a measure i s normally debatable, except under certain special
circumstances. T he motion t o proceed to consider a conference report, an item o f e xecutive
business, a measure s ubj ect to an expedited procedure, or another privileged matter i s generally
not debatable. T his report does not consider which of t he motions to proceed it examines were
debatable or non-debatable.
⁵ A motion t o proceed may also be offered pursuant t o a statute t hat establishes procedures for
expedited consideration of a specific measure, such as a r esolution of a pproval or disapproval.
In general, these s tatutes t oo place no formal restriction on who may offer t he motion t o proceed.
For information on these “expedited procedures,” see CRS Report 98-888, “Fast-Track” or
Expedited Procedures: Their Purposes, Elements, and Implications, by Christopher M . Davis.

Similarly, this report does not attempt t o present data on unanimous consent requests
to consider measures or the frequency with which d ifferent Senators propound them.
Motions Not O ffe re d b y Dire c tion o f the Ma jority Le a d e r . The following
paragraphs descri be t h e ei ght m o t i ons t o proceed t o consi d er t h at were not offered b y
direction of t he majority leader . Each description i dentifies t he measure number and
subject, t he C o n g r e s s a n d d ate o f action, and t he disposition o f t he motion t o p roceed,
with a citation t o t he Congressional Record and (where avai l abl e) Senate Journal . E ach
description also notes any s pecial circum stances surrounding the m otion t o p roceed and
any s ubsequent action o n t he measure. This a dditional i nformation was drawn p ri nci p al l y
from t he Record and t he legi slative status dat abase of t he Legi slative Information S ystem
ofCongress.
S.Con.Res. 119, 96^th Congress. On September 25, 1980, the S enate minority leader
moved t o p roceed to consider S . Con.Res . 1 19, revising the congressional budget
resolution. The m otion was offered pursuant t o a unanimous consent agreement
previously secured by t he Senate majority leader, which al so limited t he time for debat e
on t h e m ot i on. The S enat e t abl ed t he m o t i o n t o p roceed, 5 5 t o 36. (Congressional
Record, vol. 126, pp. 27211-27216; Senate Journal , p . 642.) The S enate l ater considered
the resolution, ultimately adopting t he House companion measure, H.Con.R es . 448, whi ch
then went on to final congressional adoption.
H.R. 5829, 96^th Congress. Also on September 25, 1980, the S enate minority leader
moved t o p roceed to consider H.R. 5829, a t ax -related m easure t hat h a d been reported
fro m t h e Senate Committee on Finance with an am endment reducing i ncome t ax rates .
The minority leader did s o immediat el y after the action j ust des cribed, and pursuant t o t he
same unanimous consent agreem ent, w hich also limited t he time for debat e on t his
m o t i on. The S enat e t abl ed t he m o t i o n t o p roceed, 5 4 t o 38, and t he m easure recei ved n o
subsequent floor action. (Congressional Rec o r d , vol. 126, pp. 27216-27221; Senate
Journal,p.642.)
H.R. 4331, 97^th Congress. On J u ly 31, 1981, a minority party S enator moved t o
proceed to consider H.R. 4331, to restore m i n i m um social security benefits. The chair
held the m otion t o p roceed out of order o n grounds that the m easure was not yet o n t he
C al endar. The S enat or who h ad offered t he m o t i o n t o p roceed appeal ed t h e rul i n g, but
the Senate sustained the chair, 57 to 30. (Congressional Record, vol. 127, p. 19148;
Senate Journal , p . 426.) S ubsequently, after the m easure reached the C alendar, th e S enate
took it up by unanimous consent and passed it, and i t b ecame P .L. 97-123.
H.R. 1460, 99^th Congress. On September 10, 1 9 85, the S enate minority leader
moved t o p roceed to consider the conference report o n H.R. 1460, for s anctions against
apartheid. The minority leader withdrew the m otion t o p roceed after filing a motion for
cloture t hereon. (Congressional Record, vol. 131, p. 23226; Senate Journal , p . 421.) At
the time these p roceedings occurred, the conference report h ad al r e a d y b een called u p
pursuant t o action by t he Senate majority leader; t wo cloture m otions had b een offered o n
it; and t he first cloture motion had been reject ed. S ubsequently, t he Senate reject ed the
second cloture m otion o n t he conference re port and the cloture motion on t he motion t o
proceed t o consi d er i t . Thereaft er, t h e S enat e d i d not furt her consi d er ei t h er t h e
conference report o r a m o t i o n t o p roceed t o consi d er i t .

S. 2944, 101^st Congress. On October 27, 1990, a m ajority party S enator moved t o
proceed to consider S . 2944, for aid to democratiz ation i n Eastern Europe. T h e S e nate
agreed to the motion by voice vote, but immediately thereafter vitiated its action by
unanimous consent, “i n a ccordance with the customs of the S enate, and comity,” upon
request of the chair of the committee of j urisdiction, who was al so t h e s p onsor of the
m easure. ( Congress i o n a l Record, vol. 136, p. 36335; Senate Journal , p . 867.) The
Senate did not subsequently consider the m easure.
H.R. 4250, 105^th Congress. On October 9 , 1998, the S enate minority leader moved
to proceed to consider H.R. 4250, on righ ts of medical patients under group health plans.
The S enat e t abl ed t he m o t i o n t o p roceed, 5 0 t o 47, and t ook no subsequent act i o n o n t he
m easure. ( Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 144, p. S12100; Senate Journal , p. 807.)
S.Res. 44, 106^th Congress. On February 12, 1999, a minority party S enator moved
t o proceed t o consi d er S . R es. 44, t o censure P resi d ent C l i n t on. The chai r hel d t h e m ot i o n
to proceed out of order o n grounds that the m easure was not on the C alendar. P u rsuant
t o t h e requi red p ri or not i ce, t h e s am e S enat or then moved t o s uspend the rules to permit
consideration o f t he motion t o p roceed. Adoption o f a motion t o s u s p e n d the rules
requires a two-thirds’ vote. The S enate d efeated a m o t i o n t o postpone indefinitely
consideration of t he motion t o s uspend the rules, 4 3 t o 56. Pursuant to a p revious
unanimous consent agreement, the m otion t o s uspend the rules was d eemed withdrawn
because the m otion t o postpone had b een defeated by less than a t wo-thirds’ vote.
(Co ngressional Record, daily ed., vol. 145, p. S1462; Senate Journal , p . 151.) The
resolution was subsequently referred t o committee, and t he Senate took no further action
thereon.
S.J.Res. 34, 107^th Congress. On J uly 9, 2002, the ranking minority member of the
Committee o n Energy and Natural R esources m oved t o p roceed to consider S.J . Res. 34,
which p rovided for approval o f p ermanent nuclear waste repository site. S .J .Res. 3 4 h ad
been reported from t hat C ommittee s everal weeks earlier. This joint res olution of
approval was subject to ex pedited considera tion under s ection 115 of the Nuclear W aste
Policy Act of 1982 (P .L. 97-425; 42 U. S .C . 10135), and the m otion t o proceed was
offered as p rivi l e ged under t hat Act. Alt hough t he Act ex p licitly provides t hat “any
Member of the S enate” may m ove to proceed to consider a resolution o f repository siting
approval, opponents o f t he measure h ad argu ed that the s ame d eference should b e granted
to the m ajority leader in making this motion as i n m aking m otions to proceed under t he
S t anding Rules. Although t he Act p rovides t hat t his m otion t o p roceed be privileged and
non-debatable, a unanimous consent agr eement was reached that ( 1 ) t h e motion b e
debatable for four hours and t h i r t y minutes, and (2) i f t he motion were agreed to, t he
Senate would immediately vote, without furt her d ebate o r amendment, on the companion
measure already p assed b y t he House, H.J . Res. 87.⁶ Following the debat e on t he motion
to proceed, t he S enate agreed to it, 60 to 39, then adopted H.J . Res. 87 by voice vote,
t h ereby cl eari n g t he m easure for present at i o n t o t he P resi d ent . (Congressional Record,
daily ed., vol. 148, pp. S6444-S6491.)

⁶ T his unusual modificatio n o f a s t atutory procedure was apparently intended t o preclude a
possible attempt by opponents t o disrupt the s tatutory timetable by amending the j oint resolution.