Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
Congressional research reportOct 3, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in
the Senate: Who Offers Them?
Updated October 3, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS21255
SUMMARY
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in
the Senate: Who Offers Them?
The Senate generally cedes to its majority leader the prerogative of calling up items of business
for floor consideration. Most measures are brought to the floor by unanimous consent, but when
this consent cannot be obtained, a motion to proceed to consider can be used to accomplish the
same purpose. Sometimes a Senator other than the majority leader offers this motion, but usually
this occurs in coordination with the majority leader. Any Senator may be recognized to offer the
motion to proceed, but in practice—perhaps on account of the wide range of procedural
prerogatives they all enjoy during floor consideration—Senators generally defer to the majority
leader in scheduling the business of the Senate.
RS21255
October 3, 2024
Mark J. Oleszek
Analyst on Congress and
the Legislative Process
Sarah B. Solomon
Analyst on Congress
and the Legislative Process
The motion to proceed in the Senate may be applied to executive business (nominations or
treaties) or to items of legislative business, the latter of which are the focus here. Motions to proceed to legislative business
are normally debatable unless the underlying measure is “privileged,” which includes conference reports and measures
subject to statutory expedited procedures. In some cases, more than one motion to proceed may be offered on the same
measure.
Of the 866 motions to proceed to consider measures offered in the Senate from 1979 to the present, all but 52 were offered
either by the majority leader or apparently at his direction. In the eight most recent Congresses (2007-2024), the number of
motions to proceed offered per Congress has been significantly greater than before. Reasons for this increase may relate to
changes in (1) the use of daily adjournments rather than recesses, (2) the way cloture is used in relation to these motions, or
(3) the degree of deference paid to the majority leader in the exercise of his scheduling function.
Few motions to proceed are defeated outright, because those unlikely to command majority support are seldom offered, and
those that are not adopted usually reach no final vote (for example, because they are withdrawn). Of the 52 motions not
offered by direction of the majority leader, by contrast, the Senate adopted 18, defeated 21, and laid 6 on the table. Five were
abandoned after the Senate rejected cloture and two were ruled out of order.
Of these 52 motions, 37 were nondebatable because they addressed privileged matters (nearly all of them subject to expedited
procedures under budgetary statutes or for congressional disapproval of executive action). Of the 52 motions, 42 occurred in
the eight most recent Congresses (2009-2024), including 34 of the 42 that were nondebatable under expedited procedure
statutes. These 42 motions also include 17 of the 23 offered by the minority leader and 20 of the 21 that the Senate defeated
outright.
Congressional Research Service
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
Contents
Bringing Measures to the Floor in the Senate ................................................................................. 1
Senators Who Offered Motions to Proceed ..................................................................................... 1
Method and Sources of Data ........................................................................................................... 2
Frequency of Motions to Proceed.................................................................................................... 3
Motions Not Offered by Direction of the Majority Leader ............................................................. 5
Summary of Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 5
Instances .................................................................................................................................... 6
Tables
Table 1. Senators Offering Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures, 96th-118th
Congresses.................................................................................................................................... 3
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 17
Congressional Research Service
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
Bringing Measures to the Floor in the Senate
In contemporary practice, bills and resolutions (collectively, “measures”) normally reach the floor
of the Senate for consideration either by unanimous consent or through agreement on a motion to
proceed to consider (often called simply a “motion to proceed” or “MTP”).1 Most measures
considered today reach the floor by unanimous consent; the motion to proceed is normally
reserved for situations when unanimous consent cannot be obtained. In consequence, measures
called up by motion are more likely to be controversial or highly contested than those considered
by unanimous consent.
Unanimous consent to consider a measure may be granted in the form of either (1) a simple
request for unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the measure, or (2) a broader
unanimous consent agreement that typically also prescribes terms for consideration, such as limits
on debate and amendments. If any Senator objects to such a request, in either form, a motion to
proceed may then be offered. Usually, the leadership is aware that objection would be raised to
such a unanimous consent request, and therefore the majority leader (or a designee) offers the
motion to proceed without first seeking unanimous consent. In these instances, because the
motion is debatable under Senate rules in most circumstances, the majority leader often files a
cloture petition at the time the motion to proceed is made.2 It requires three-fifths of the Senate to
invoke cloture in order to bring the motion to a vote.
Senate Rule VIII, paragraph 2, which provides for the motion to proceed, places no restrictions on
who may offer the motion.3 The Senate typically cedes to the majority leader the prerogative of
calling up measures, either by motion or by unanimous consent. Absent this deference, it would
be difficult for any majority leader to carry out his function of managing the schedule, and in
recent decades a substantial majority of motions to proceed have been offered by the majority
leader. Nevertheless, other Senators have made that motion as well, sometimes without direction
from the majority leader. This report presents data on the total number of motions to proceed
offered in each recent Congress, with particular attention to the small number of these motions
not made at the direction of the majority leader.
Senators Who Offered Motions to Proceed
In contemporary Senate practice, both unanimous consent requests and motions to proceed to
consider a measure are most often offered by the majority leader. Sometimes, they are offered by
the majority whip, or by another Senator acting in coordination with and as the designee of the
majority leader (for instance, the chair of the committee that reported the measure). Such actions
also may be taken by a Senator not acting in coordination with the majority leader, most often by
the minority leader. In such cases a Senator acting for the majority leader will typically take
action to protect majority party control of the floor agenda. In the case of unanimous consent
1 Senate Rules also provide that measures may be brought to the floor on a call of the Calendar, but in recent decades
this proceeding has fallen out of use.
2 Cloture is a procedure the Senate uses to limit debate on a measure or matter. Motions to proceed to consider most
measures are debatable and therefore require cloture to guarantee that a vote on the motion will occur. For a brief
summary of the cloture process, see CRS Report 98-425, Invoking Cloture in the Senate, by Christopher M. Davis.
Additional details are contained in CRS Report RL30360, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, by Valerie Heitshusen.
3 U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate Manual, Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the
Business of the United States Senate, S.Doc. 117-1, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., prepared under the direction of Elizabeth
Peluso, Staff Director, Committee on Rules and Administration (Washington: GPO, 2023), §8.2.
Congressional Research Service
1
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
requests, this action will ordinarily consist of an objection to the request. In the case of motions to
proceed, the Senate has often agreed to table the motion or defeat it outright.
Table 1 below displays the number of motions to proceed to consider offered by the majority
leader, the majority whip, other designees of the majority leader, and other Senators, from the 96th
Congress (1979-1980) to the present. For purposes of this report, motions to proceed offered by
the majority whip were presumed to have been made in coordination with the majority leader.
Other majority party Senators offering motions were also presumed to be acting as designees of
the majority leader, unless the record of proceedings afforded positive evidence to the contrary.
For most motions not offered by the majority leader or whip, the proceedings contained positive
evidence that the motion was indeed offered by direction of the majority leader. Sometimes, for
example, Senators offering these motions stated explicitly that they were doing so on the majority
leader’s behalf. In other cases, the Senator offering the motion also submitted a petition for
cloture on that motion that included the majority leader among its signers. On other occasions, the
Senator offering the motion did so during a course of actions normally carried out by the majority
leader or his designee.
Method and Sources of Data
Table 1 identifies the number of motions to proceed to consider items of legislative business
offered in each Congress. From the 97th Congress onward, motions to proceed were identified
through an electronic search of legislative status information in the Legislative Information
System (LIS) or, for more recent years, Congress.gov. For earlier Congresses, these databases
contain only limited legislative status information; for this reason, motions to proceed in the 96th
Congress were identified instead through examination of the Journal of the Senate. For all
Congresses, information about who offered the motions was obtained from the Congressional
Record and the Journal of the Senate.
The data displayed in Table 1 reflect motions to proceed to the consideration of all forms of
legislation. Items of executive business, which include nominations and treaties, are also brought
to the floor by unanimous consent or a motion to proceed to consider, but this report does not
address motions to proceed to executive business, and the figures in Table 1 do not include them.
Table 1 includes both debatable and nondebatable motions to proceed. Under Senate Rules,
motions to proceed generally are debatable, but a motion to proceed to consider a conference
report is not debatable, and the same is true of a motion to proceed to a measure under a statutory
expedited procedure.4 Finally, on any measure, a motion to proceed is nondebatable if offered
during the “morning hour.”5 This proceeding, however, has seldom been used since the 1980s.
Sometimes more than one motion to proceed was offered on a single measure. This may occur if
the Senate rejects the first motion. It may also occur if the Senate adopts the first motion, but lays
the measure aside before a decision, and later proposes to take it up again. A third possibility is
that the Senate adjourns while a motion to proceed is pending, for the adjournment causes the
4 An “expedited procedure” is a statutory provision that establishes procedures to facilitate timely consideration of a
specific class of measure, such as a congressional budget resolution, under the Congressional Budget Act (2 U.S.C.
601-688), or a resolution to disapprove a regulatory rule proposed by an executive branch agency, under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). Most statutory expedited procedures, which are also known as “fast
track” procedures, include provision for motions to proceed to consider measures of the specified class and, like the
general Senate Rules, place no formal restriction on who may offer these motions. For additional information, see CRS
Report RS20234, Expedited or “Fast-Track” Legislative Procedures, by Christopher M. Davis.
5 On morning hour proceedings, see “Motions to Proceed” in CRS Report RS20668, How Measures Are Brought to the
Senate Floor: A Brief Introduction, by Christopher M. Davis
Congressional Research Service
2
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
motion to “fall,” meaning that it is no longer pending. On a subsequent day, accordingly, the
Senate could decide to take up the measure only if a new motion to proceed is offered. In these
and similar cases, the table treats each motion to proceed separately; in other words, it shows the
number of motions to proceed actually offered on bills and resolutions, not the number of bills
and resolutions on which motions to proceed were offered.
Frequency of Motions to Proceed
As Table 1 shows, since the 96th Congress (1979-1980), a total of 866 motions to proceed to
consider measures have been offered, 86% of them by the majority leader personally and an
additional 8% of them by another Senator at his direction. On average, 38 motions to proceed per
Congress were made during this period. Nine Congresses exceeded this average, including seven
of the nine most recent ones. The 113th Congress reached a high-water mark with 124 motions to
proceed offered during that two-year period.
Table 1. Senators Offering Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures,
96th-118th Congresses
Offered By
Total
Majority
Leader
Majority
Whip
Majority
Leadership
Designeea
Other
Senator
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
108 (2003-2004)
22
18
1
2
1
109 (2005-2006)
22
17
3
2
0
110 (2007-2008)
64
61
0
2
1
111 (2009-2010)
35
31
0
0
4
112 (2011-2012)
100
83
0
5
12
113 (2013-2014)
124
121
1
0
2
114 (2015-2016)
61
56
1
4
1
115 (2017-2018)
54
47
0
2
5
116 (2019-2020)
49
40
0
1
8
Congress (Years)
Congressional Research Service
3
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
Offered By
Majority
Whip
Majority
Leadership
Designeea
Other
Senator
Congress (Years)
Total
Majority
Leader
117 (2021-2022)
49
42
0
3
4
118 (2023-2024)
24
18
0
0
6
Total
866
745
29
40
52
Percentage of total
100%
86%
3%
5%
6%
Sources: Legislative Information System (LIS); Congress.gov; Congressional Record; Journal of the Senate.
a. Senators were presumed to be acting as designees of the majority leader unless the record of proceedings
afforded positive evidence to the contrary.
Several features of contemporary Senate practice might account for the increase. One possible
explanation may lie in the Senate’s practice of not permitting a motion to proceed to be offered
while another such motion is already pending.6 As suggested in the next section, recent Senates
may have shown less deference to the majority leader in offering motions to proceed. It is
possible that the majority leader has responded by offering motions to proceed more frequently as
a means of precluding others from offering their own motions to proceed to other measures. By
Senate precedent, only one motion to proceed to a measure may be pending before the chamber at
any given time.7
Another potential explanation might involve the procedural distinction between recessing and
adjourning at the end of the day. In the earlier years of the period covered, it was common for the
Senate to recess at the end of most daily sessions, whereas in more recent years the Senate usually
adjourns at the end of each day. Accordingly, in previous decades it was often possible for the
Senate to continue considering a single motion to proceed to a specific measure on several
successive days, while today the Senate would need to renew the motion to proceed by offering it
a second time. The Senate’s shift toward daily adjournments, however, seems to predate the rise
in motions to proceed by many years, making it less likely that this shift in practice accounts for
the rise.8 Nevertheless, the use of daily adjournments creates conditions in which renewing
motions to proceed may be required more often.
In recent times, perhaps reflecting the shift from recesses to adjournments as the preferred
method of concluding business for the day, the Senate rarely considers motions to take up a
specific measure over a period of several days. Instead, after offering a motion to proceed, the
majority leader often immediately files for cloture on the motion and then withdraws it. Even if
the Senate then adjourns at the end of the day, this proceeding makes it unnecessary to renew the
motion to proceed on a following day, for the Senate instead pursues other business until the
cloture vote occurs, and if the Senate invokes cloture, the original motion to proceed
automatically returns as pending.
This report provides no overall data on how the Senate disposes of motions to proceed. Few such
motions, however, are defeated outright, because a motion to proceed that was unlikely to
6 See U.S. Congress, Senate, Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, by Floyd M. Riddick,
Parliamentarian Emeritus, and Alan S. Frumin, Parliamentarian, 101 st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 101-28 (Washington:
GPO, 1992), p. 672-673.
7 Ibid., p. 658.
8 In the 112th Congress, for instance, during which 100 motions to proceed were offered, 92% of the Senate’s daily
sessions ended with an adjournment, but in the 111 th Congress, during which 35 motions to proceed were offered, 98%
of the daily sessions ended with an adjournment.
Congressional Research Service
4
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
command majority support usually would not be offered in the first place. Instead, most motions
to proceed that are not adopted simply do not reach a final vote. Some, for example, fail to reach
a vote because the Senate ultimately agrees to take up the measure by unanimous consent. In
other cases, a filibuster prevents a vote from occurring, or the motion is either displaced by
subsequent action or withdrawn. By contrast, as noted in the next section, many of the motions to
proceed not offered by direction of the majority leader are defeated outright.
Motions Not Offered by Direction of the
Majority Leader
Summary of Characteristics
During the 23 Congresses studied, 52 motions to proceed to consider could be identified as being
offered other than by direction of the majority leader. Of these, 23 were offered by the minority
leader, 26 by other minority party Senators, and the remaining 3 by a majority party Senator.
Relevant details surrounding the consideration of each motion are provided in the next section.
Eighteen of these 52 motions to proceed were adopted by the Senate. Of the remaining 34
motions, the Senate defeated 21 outright and tabled 6 more. In five cases, the Senate turned to
other business after rejecting cloture on the motion to proceed. The final two were ruled out of
order.
Of the 18 motions adopted, 10 led to final passage of the measure in question. Two of the 10
measures passed were enacted into law: a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 34) adopted in 2002 to
approve a site for a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, and a joint
resolution (H.J.Res. 26) agreed to in 2023 to disapprove a revision of the District of Columbia
criminal code offered by the D.C. Council. Five were never acted on by the House, and two failed
to pass over a presidential veto. Agreement to the other motion to proceed was vitiated by
unanimous consent immediately after it was adopted. In addition, however, one of the measures
on which the Senate tabled a motion to proceed, and one on which the motion to proceed was
ruled out of order, were taken up by the Senate and agreed to at a later date.
Fifteen of these 52 motions were offered under the general rules of the Senate, allowing for full
debate. The remaining 37 addressed matters that, under Senate practice, are considered
privileged, meaning that motions to proceed to their consideration are not debatable. One of these
37 motions proposed to bring up a conference report; the remaining 36 were offered pursuant to
statutory expedited procedures. Of those 36 motions:
•
•
•
•
9 addressed congressional budget resolutions under the Congressional Budget
Act (“CBA”; P.L. 93-344, codified as amended at 2 U.S.C. 601-688) or other
measures governed by statutory procedures for budgetary measures;
22 concerned joint resolutions to disapprove proposed regulations under the
Congressional Review Act (“CRA”; Title II of P.L. 104-121, codified at 5 U.S.C.
801-808);
2 concerned legislation directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces under the
War Powers Resolution (“WPR”; P.L. 93-148, codified at 50 U.S.C. 1541-1550);
1 concerned a disapproval resolution under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(P.L. 97-425, codified at 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.);
Congressional Research Service
5
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
•
•
1 involved a disapproval resolution under the District of Columbia SelfGovernment Reorganization Act of 1973 (“Home Rule Act”; P.L. 93-198); and
1 concerned a disapproval resolution under the Countering America’s
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (P.L. 115-44).
Both the number and percentage of motions offered other than by direction of the majority leader
exhibited a distinct increase in recent Congresses in comparison to previous periods. Of the 52
motions falling in this group, 42 were offered during the eight most recent Congresses, suggesting
a possible change in the degree of deference the Senate accords to leadership scheduling efforts.
The 42 motions offered during the eight most recent Congresses include 17 of the 23 motions that
were offered by the minority leader, to whom (at least in principle) the prerogative of making
motions to proceed may be accorded.
The recent increase in motions to proceed not offered by direction of the majority leader is
partially accounted for by the rising number of motions to proceed that were nondebatable under
expedited procedure statutes; 34 of the 42 such motions in the 111th to 118th Congresses fell into
this group, compared with 2 of the 10 such motions in the earlier Congresses examined. Of the 18
motions to proceed that the Senate adopted, 16 occurred in the four most recent Congresses, all of
which were considered pursuant to statutory expedited procedures. To the degree that the purpose
of expedited procedures is to protect the Senate’s opportunity to consider the measures they
govern, the presumption that only the majority leader will make the motion to proceed in these
situations may be less strongly established.
A common pattern distinguishes 10 of the 42 motions to proceed offered without direction from
the majority leader in the eight most recent Congresses. In these 10 cases, a privileged motion to
consider a disapproval resolution under the CRA was defeated outright by the Senate following a
period of debate under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement. This pattern was not
observed in any of the first six Congresses following enactment of the CRA: the 105th-110th
Congresses (1997-2008).
Finally, the increase in motions to proceed not offered by direction of the majority leader was
accompanied by shifts in the ways the Senate disposed of these motions. The 42 motions of this
kind in the eight recent Congresses include 20 of the 21 motions to proceed that the Senate
defeated outright. By contrast, 4 of the 6 motions that the Senate tabled occurred during the
previous 15 Congresses (1979-2008). This shift, too, is accounted for at least in part by the
number of motions to proceed offered under expedited procedure statutes. When a motion to
proceed is nondebatable, no motion to table is necessary in order to bring the Senate quickly to a
vote on it. Perhaps for this reason, the 21 motions to proceed that were defeated outright include
17 of those offered pursuant to expedited procedure statutes in the eight most recent Congresses.
Instances
The following paragraphs describe the 52 motions to proceed to consider that were offered other
than by direction of the majority leader during the period under study. Each description identifies
the measure number and subject, the Congress and date of action, and the disposition of the
motion to proceed, with a citation to the Congressional Record and (where available) Senate
Journal. Each description also notes any special circumstances surrounding the motion to proceed
and any subsequent action on the measure. This additional information was drawn principally
from the Record, LIS, Congress.gov, and Congressional Quarterly (CQ).
S.Con.Res. 119, 96th Congress. On September 25, 1980, the Senate minority leader moved to
proceed to consider S.Con.Res. 119, revising the congressional budget resolution, which was
Congressional Research Service
6
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
subject to the expedited procedures of title III of the Congressional Budget Act (“CBA”; P.L. 93344, codified as amended at 2 U.S.C. 631-644). The motion was offered pursuant to a unanimous
consent agreement previously secured by the Senate majority leader, which also provided limited
time for debate on the motion. The Senate tabled the motion to proceed (55-36). (Congressional
Record, vol. 126, pp. 27211-27216; Senate Journal, p. 642.) The Senate later considered the
resolution, ultimately adopting the House companion measure, H.Con.Res. 448, which then went
on to final congressional adoption.
H.R. 5829, 96th Congress. Also on September 25, 1980, the Senate minority leader moved to
proceed to consider H.R. 5829, a tax-related measure that had been reported from the Senate
Committee on Finance with an amendment reducing income tax rates. The minority leader did so
immediately after consideration of S.Con.Res. 119 described above, and pursuant to the same
unanimous consent agreement, which also limited the time for debate on this motion. The Senate
tabled the motion to proceed, 54-38, and the measure received no subsequent floor action.
(Congressional Record, vol. 126, pp. 27216-27221; Senate Journal, p. 642.)
H.R. 4331, 97th Congress. On July 31, 1981, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider H.R. 4331, to restore minimum benefits under the Social Security Act. The chair held
the motion to proceed out of order on grounds that the measure was not yet on the Calendar. The
Senator who had offered the motion to proceed appealed the ruling, but the Senate sustained the
chair, 57-30. (Congressional Record, vol. 127, p. 19148; Senate Journal, p. 426.) Subsequently,
after the measure reached the Calendar, the Senate took it up by unanimous consent and passed
it, and it became P.L. 97-123.
H.R. 1460, 99th Congress. On September 10, 1985, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed
to consider the conference report on H.R. 1460, for sanctions against apartheid in South Africa.
The minority leader withdrew the motion to proceed after filing a motion for cloture on it.
(Congressional Record, vol. 131, p. 23226; Senate Journal, p. 421.) At the time these proceedings
occurred, the conference report had already been called up pursuant to action by the Senate
majority leader; two cloture motions had been offered on it; and the first cloture motion had been
rejected. Subsequently, the Senate rejected the second cloture motion on the conference report
and the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to consider it. Thereafter, the Senate did not
further consider either the conference report or a motion to proceed to consider it.
S. 2944, 101st Congress. On October 27, 1990, a majority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider S. 2944, for assistance to promote political and economic transition in Eastern Europe.
The Senate agreed to the motion by voice vote, but immediately thereafter vitiated its action by
unanimous consent, “in accordance with the customs of the Senate, and comity,” upon request of
the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, who was also the sponsor of the measure.
(Congressional Record, vol. 136, p. 36335; Senate Journal, p. 867.) The Senate did not
subsequently consider the measure.
H.R. 4250, 105th Congress. On October 9, 1998, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to
consider H.R. 4250, on rights of medical patients under group health plans. The Senate tabled the
motion to proceed, 50-47, and took no subsequent action on the measure. (Congressional Record,
vol. 144, p. 25070; Senate Journal, p. 807.)
S.Res. 44, 106th Congress. On February 12, 1999, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider S.Res. 44, to censure President Clinton. The chair held the motion to proceed out of
order on grounds that the measure was not on the Calendar. Pursuant to the required prior notice,
the same Senator then moved to suspend the rules to permit consideration of the motion to
proceed. Adoption of a motion to suspend the rules requires a two-thirds vote. The Senate
defeated a motion to postpone indefinitely consideration of the motion to suspend the rules, 43-
Congressional Research Service
7
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
56. Pursuant to a previous unanimous consent agreement, the motion to suspend the rules was
deemed withdrawn because the motion to postpone had been defeated by less than a two-thirds
vote. (Congressional Record, vol. 145, p. 2380; Senate Journal, p. 151.) The resolution was
subsequently referred to committee, and the Senate took no further action on it.
S.J.Res. 34, 107th Congress. On July 9, 2002, the ranking minority Member of the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 34, to approve a site for a
permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. S.J.Res. 34 had been reported
from that committee several weeks earlier. This joint resolution of approval was subject to
expedited consideration under Section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-425;
42 U.S.C. 10135), and the motion to proceed was offered as privileged under that act. Although
the act explicitly provides that “any Member of the Senate” may move to proceed to consider a
resolution of repository siting approval, opponents of the measure had argued that the same
deference should be granted to the majority leader in making this motion as in making motions to
proceed under the Standing Rules. Although the act provides that this motion to proceed be
privileged and nondebatable, a unanimous consent agreement was reached that (1) the motion be
debatable for 4 hours and 30 minutes, and (2) if the motion were agreed to, the Senate would
immediately vote, without further debate or amendment, on the companion measure already
passed by the House, H.J.Res. 87.9 Following the debate on the motion to proceed, the Senate
agreed to it, 60-39, then adopted H.J.Res. 87 by voice vote, thereby clearing the measure for
presentation to the President. (Congressional Record, vol. 148, pp. 12323-12372; Senate Journal,
p. 523.) It ultimately became P.L. 107-200.
S. 1162, 108th Congress. On July 9, 2003, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to
consider S. 1162, to accelerate an increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, which had
been introduced and placed directly on the Calendar early in the previous month. Shortly
thereafter, the majority leader moved to lay on the table the motion to proceed, and the Senate
agreed to this motion, 51-45. (Congressional Record, vol. 149, pp. 17255-17261; Senate Journal,
p. 643.) No further action occurred in relation to the measure.
S. 2340, 110th Congress. On November 15, 2007, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to
consider S. 2340, a supplemental appropriations bill for ongoing military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and filed cloture on the motion to proceed (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol.
153, p. 31547; Senate Journal, p. 1159-1160). After debate, the majority leader obtained
unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the cloture motion on the following day, and later also
that the motion to proceed be withdrawn. Cloture was not agreed to, 45-53, on the following day,
and the Senate took no further action on S. 2340. (Congressional Record, vol. 153, p. 31855;
Senate Journal, p. 1162.)
S. 3153, 111th Congress. On March 25, 2010, the minority leader moved to proceed to consider S.
3153 and immediately moved for cloture on the motion to proceed. The bill contained short-term
extensions of temporary, federal unemployment benefits and several other programs, with offsets
to maintain deficit neutrality. It had been introduced by another minority party Senator two days
previously and placed directly on the Calendar, as an alternative to H.R. 4851, which contained
similar program extensions without offsets. After remarks by a third minority party Senator, the
Senate adopted, 59-40, a motion by the majority leader to table the motion to proceed.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 156, p. S2091-S2094; Senate Journal, p. 220.) No further
action occurred on S. 3153; instead, later on the same day, the majority leader moved that the
Senate proceed to consider H.R. 4851. After subsequently invoking cloture both on this motion
9 This unusual modification of a statutory procedure was apparently intended to preclude a possible attempt by
opponents to disrupt the statutory timetable by amending the joint resolution.
Congressional Research Service
8
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
and on a Senate substitute for the House bill, the Senate passed its version of this bill; the
measure ultimately became P.L. 111-157.
S.J.Res. 26, 111th Congress. On June 10, 2010, pursuant to a May 25 unanimous consent
agreement, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 26, to disapprove an
Environmental Protection Agency finding that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are
hazardous. The measure was a resolution of disapproval subject to the expedited procedure of the
Congressional Review Act (“CRA”; Title II of P.L. 104-121, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808) for
disapproving regulations. Under the CRA, the motion to proceed was not debatable, but the
consent agreement under which the motion was made provided for 5½ hours of debate. After this
debate, the Senate defeated the motion to proceed, 47-53. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol.
156, pp. S4789-S4836; Senate Journal, p. 450.) Thereafter, in further pursuance of the consent
agreement, the Senate took no further action on the disapproval resolution.
S.J.Res. 30, 111th Congress. On September 23, 2010, under the terms of a September 21
unanimous consent agreement, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res.
30, to disapprove a National Mediation Board rule under which votes in union representation
elections in the rail and air industries would be counted in a way more favorable to unions. As in
the previous case, the measure was a disapproval resolution under the CRA. Under the act, the
motion to proceed was nondebatable, but the consent agreement provided for two hours of debate,
after which the Senate rejected the motion to proceed, 43-56. (Congressional Record, daily ed.,
vol. 156, pp. S7370-S7383; Senate Journal, p. 709.) Pursuant to the consent agreement, the
Senate subsequently took no further action on the disapproval resolution.
S.J.Res. 39, 111th Congress. On September 29, 2010, pursuant to a unanimous consent order of
the previous day, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 39, to
disapprove a rule of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “relating to status as a
grandfathered health plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (P.L. 111-148,
124 Stat. 119, as amended). This measure, again, was a disapproval resolution under the CRA.
Under the act, the motion to proceed was nondebatable, but again, the consent agreement
provided for two hours of debate. After debate, the Senate defeated the motion to proceed, 40-59.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 156, pp. S7673-S7693; Senate Journal, p. 747.) Pursuant
to the consent agreement, the Senate subsequently took no further action on the disapproval
resolution.
S. 1726, 112th Congress. On October 19, 2011, the minority leader moved to proceed to consider
S. 1726, to repeal a requirement for tax withholding on payments to government contractors. The
minority leader had introduced the bill two days earlier and had it placed directly on the Calendar.
After immediately moving for cloture on his motion to proceed, the minority leader withdrew the
motion to proceed. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 157, p. S6753; Senate Journal, p. 748.)
On the following day, the Senate rejected cloture on the motion to proceed, 57-43. (Congressional
Record, daily ed., vol. 157, p. S6840; Senate Journal, p. 753.) Thereafter, no further action
occurred on the measure.
S. 1786, 112th Congress. On November 3, 2011, pursuant to a unanimous consent order of the
previous day, the minority leader moved to proceed to consider S. 1786, a surface transportation
program funding bill. The consent agreement provided for concurrent consideration of this
motion to proceed and one by the majority leader to consider S. 1769, addressing similar subjects,
and required 60 votes to approve either motion. Both bills had been introduced within the
previous few days and placed directly on the Calendar, S. 1769 by a majority party Senator and S.
1786 by a minority party Senator. After the Senate rejected the motion to consider S. 1769, the
motion to consider S. 1786 also failed when the Senate rejected it, 47-53. (Congressional Record,
Congressional Research Service
9
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
daily ed., vol. 157, p. S7095-S7113; Senate Journal, p. 782-783.) No further action occurred on
either bill.
S.J.Res. 6, 112th Congress. On November 9, 2011, under the terms of a November 3 unanimous
consent agreement, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 6, to
disapprove “net neutrality” rules from the Federal Communications Commission barring internet
service providers from discriminating against competing content. (Congressional Record, daily
ed., vol. 157, p. S7239; Senate Journal, p. 806.) The joint resolution was a disapproval resolution
under the CRA. Under the expedited procedures of the act, the motion to proceed was not
debatable, but the consent agreement under which the motion was made provided for four hours
of debate. After this debate, the Senate defeated the motion to proceed, 46-52, and took no further
action on the disapproval resolution.
S.J.Res. 27, 112th Congress. On November 10, 2011, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement
reached on November 3, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 27, to
disapprove an Environmental Protection Agency rule designed to reduce interstate air pollution
caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol.
157, p. S7310; Senate Journal, p. 811.) This measure was a disapproval resolution under the
CRA. Under the act, the motion to proceed was not debatable, but the consent agreement under
which the motion was made provided for two hours of debate. Following this period of debate,
the Senate defeated the motion to proceed, 41-56, and took no subsequent action on the
disapproval resolution.
S. 1931, 112th Congress (two motions to proceed). On December 1, 2011, in accordance with a
unanimous consent agreement reached earlier in the day, the minority leader was deemed to have
moved to proceed to consider S. 1931, to extend payroll tax cuts for one year, offset with
reductions in and a pay freeze for the federal workforce. The consent agreement provided that a
vote occur first on a motion (made on the previous day and withdrawn after a cloture motion was
filed) to proceed to consider S. 1917, which would have extended the payroll tax cuts without full
offsets. S. 1917, sponsored by Senators from the majority party, had been introduced on
November 29, and S. 1931 had been introduced by a minority party Senator on November 30;
each had been placed directly on the Calendar. The consent agreement provided that a cloture
motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1917 be withdrawn, permitted brief debate on each motion
to proceed, and required 60 votes to approve either motion. The Senate rejected both motions to
proceed; on S. 1931, the vote was 20-78. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 158, pp. S81388139; Senate Journal, pp. 870-871.) On December 8, pursuant to a consent agreement with
similar terms, but covering S. 1931 alone, the minority leader offered another motion to proceed
to the bill, which the Senate again rejected, 22-76. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 158, p.
S8445; Senate Journal, pp. 884-885.) Thereafter, no further action occurred on either bill.
S.Con.Res. 18, 112th Congress. On May 25, 2011, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed
to consider S.Con.Res. 18, a congressional budget resolution for FY2012 that reflected the
President’s budget request. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 157, p. S3332; Senate Journal,
p. 370.) Pursuant to the expedited procedures of the CBA, the committee with jurisdiction over
the resolution had previously been discharged from its consideration, and the motion to proceed
was not debatable. The Senate rejected the motion to proceed the same day it was made, 0-97,
and took no further action on this budget resolution.
S.Con.Res. 21, 112th Congress. On May 25, 2011, shortly after the Senate defeated S.Con.Res.
18, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to consider S.Con.Res. 21, a resolution
sponsored by another minority party Senator, setting forth a congressional budget for FY2012.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 157, p. S3332; Senate Journal, p. 370.) As in the previous
case, this resolution was subject to the expedited procedures of the CBA; the resolution had been
Congressional Research Service
10
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
discharged from the Senate Budget Committee and the motion to proceed to its consideration was
not debatable. The Senate defeated the motion to proceed, 42-55, and no further action on the
resolution was taken.
S.Con.Res. 20, 112th Congress. On May 25, 2011, following Senate action on the previous two
concurrent resolutions, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to consider S.Con.Res. 20, a
resolution sponsored by a third minority party Senator, providing a congressional budget for
FY2012. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 157, p. S3332; Senate Journal, p. 370.) As
before, this resolution came to the floor under expedited procedures of the CBA; the resolution
had been discharged from the Senate Budget Committee and the motion to proceed to its
consideration was not debatable. The motion to proceed was rejected, 7-90, and the Senate took
no subsequent action on this resolution.
H.J.Res. 98, 112th Congress. On January 26, 2012, the minority leader moved to proceed to
consider H.J.Res. 98, to disapprove presidential action to raise the debt limit pursuant to the
Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25). This resolution of disapproval was subject to expedited
procedures under Section 301(a)(2) of the act (codified at 31 U.S.C. 3101A), pursuant to which it
had been placed directly on the Calendar when received from the House, and under which the
motion to proceed was not debatable. The Senate rejected the motion, 44-52, and no further
action occurred on the joint resolution. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 158, pp. S83-S95.)
S.J.Res. 36, 112th Congress. On April 23, 2012, under the terms of a unanimous consent
agreement reached on April 19, a minority party Senator designated by the minority leader moved
to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 36, to disapprove a rule submitted by the National Labor Relations
Board relating to representation election procedures. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 158,
p. S2568.) Similar to several previous cases, this measure was a resolution of disapproval
considered under the expedited procedures of the CRA. Under the act, the motion to proceed was
not debatable, but the consent agreement under which the motion to proceed was offered
provided for four hours of debate, after which the Senate defeated the motion, 45-54, and took no
additional action on the disapproval resolution.
S.J.Res. 37, 112th Congress. On June 20, 2012, in accordance with a unanimous consent
agreement reached on June 18, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res.
37, to disapprove an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring coal-fired power plants to
use “maximum available control technology” on mercury and other air toxins. (Congressional
Record, daily ed., vol. 158, p. S4314.) This disapproval resolution was again subject to the
expedited procedures of the CRA. Under the act, the motion to proceed was not debatable, but the
consent agreement under which the motion to proceed was made provided for four hours of
debate. After time expired, the Senate defeated the motion, 46-53, and took no further action on
the disapproval resolution.
S. 16, 113th Congress. On February 27, 2013, on the basis of a February 14 consent agreement,
the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to consider S. 16, a proposal to replace the
sequestration of federal funding specified in the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25, 125 Stat. 240)
with spending reductions in other areas of the budget. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 159,
p. S790.) The minority leader immediately filed cloture on the motion to proceed, and the cloture
vote was held the following day by unanimous consent. On a 38-62 vote, cloture was not invoked
and the motion to proceed was subsequently withdrawn. No further action was taken on S. 16.
S.J.Res. 26, 113th Congress. On October 29, 2013, in accordance with a unanimous consent
agreement reached the previous day, the Senate minority leader offered a motion to proceed to
consider S.J.Res. 26, to disapprove of the President exercising his authority to raise the debt limit.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 159, p. S7580.) This disapproval resolution was subject to
Congressional Research Service
11
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
expedited procedures established in the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-46, 127
Stat. 558). Under that act, the motion to proceed was not debatable, but the consent agreement
reached on October 28 provided three hours of debate prior to the vote. Following this period of
debate, the Senate defeated the motion on a 45-54 vote and took no additional action on the
disapproval resolution.
S.J.Res. 28, 114th Congress. On May 24, 2016, a majority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider S.J.Res. 28, to disapprove a rule submitted by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding
inspections of catfish. This measure was a disapproval resolution under the CRA. The motion to
proceed to S.J.Res. 28 was not debatable under the terms of the act, and it was adopted 57-40. Ten
hours of debate on S.J.Res. 28 would have been provided for under the CRA, but following
limited debate the Senate reached a consent agreement later that day for a vote to occur the
following morning, at which point the Senate adopted the joint resolution, 55-43. (Congressional
Record, daily ed., vol. 162, p. S3082.) No further action was taken on the joint resolution after it
was received by the House.
S.J.Res. 52, 115th Congress. On May 16, 2018, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider S.J.Res. 52, to disapprove a Federal Communications Commission “net neutrality” rule
concerning internet service providers. The joint resolution was subject to the expedited
procedures of the CRA. Pursuant to the CRA, the motion to proceed was not debatable and was
adopted by the Senate, 52-47. Following debate, the Senate on the same day agreed to the joint
resolution by the same margin, 52-47. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 164, p. S2698;
Senate Journal, p. 334.) The House did not take action on the joint resolution.
S.Con.Res. 36, 115th Congress. On May 17, 2018, under the terms of a unanimous consent
agreement arrived at the previous day, a majority party Senator offered a motion to proceed to
consider S.Con.Res. 36, a concurrent budget resolution for FY2019. The committee of
jurisdiction had been discharged of its consideration of the resolution under the expedited
procedures of the CBA. The motion to proceed to the resolution was not debatable under the act,
but the May 16 consent agreement provided 1.5 hours of debate on the motion to proceed, after
which it was defeated 21-76. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 164, p. S2736; Senate
Journal, p. 341.) No additional action was taken on the concurrent resolution.
S.J.Res. 63, 115th Congress. On October 10, 2018, under the terms of a unanimous consent
agreement from the previous day, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res.
63, to disapprove a rule on the definition and marketing of “short term, limited duration” health
insurance issued by the Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services.
Pursuant to the CRA, the motion to proceed to the joint resolution was not debatable. The
October 9 consent agreement provided 1.5 hours of debate on the motion to proceed, divided
equally between the motion to proceed to S.J.Res. 63 and an unrelated motion to concur to a
House amendment to a Senate-passed bill. Once this period concluded, the motion to proceed was
adopted by voice vote, but the joint resolution was defeated on a tie vote of 50-50.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 164, p. S6738; Senate Journal, p. 729.) No subsequent
action was taken by the Senate on the measure.
S.J.Res. 64, 115th Congress. On December 11, 2018, a minority party Senator moved to proceed
to consider S.J.Res. 64, to disapprove a Department of the Treasury rule modifying a requirement
that certain tax-exempt organizations report their major donors when filing tax returns. Several
months prior, the committee of jurisdiction had been discharged of its consideration under the
CRA, which also made the motion to proceed to the joint resolution not debatable. The motion to
proceed to consider S.J.Res. 64 was agreed to by voice vote, allowing for up to 10 hours of debate
on the joint resolution. Some debate occurred on the joint resolution, and the Senate agreed by
unanimous consent to schedule the vote on the joint resolution the following day. On December
Congressional Research Service
12
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
12, the Senate adopted the joint resolution, 50-49. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 164, p.
S7412; Senate Journal, p. 840.) The House took no action on the measure.
S.J.Res. 54, 115th Congress. On December 12, 2018, a minority party Senator moved to proceed
to consider S.J.Res. 54, to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting
the Republic of Yemen, with the exception of otherwise authorized operations against Al Qaeda
or associated forces. The motion to proceed was offered in accordance with expedited procedures
contained in the International Security Assistance and Arms Control Export Act of 1976 (P.L. 94329; 90 Stat. 765) and the War Powers Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-148; 50 U.S.C. 1546). Under these
statutes, the motion to proceed was not debatable. The Senate adopted the motion to proceed to
the joint resolution, 60-39. The majority leader made a series of parliamentary inquiries to
ascertain whether the expedited procedures used to call up the removal resolution imposed any
limitations on the kinds of amendments that could be offered. The presiding officer advised that
no such limitations exist, after which the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee made a point
of order that amendments to a joint resolution directing the removal of U.S. military personnel
offered pursuant to the War Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1546a) must be germane. The presiding
officer submitted the question to the Senate for its determination, and the point of order was
sustained, requiring amendments be germane during consideration of S.J.Res. 54. The Senate
considered several (germane) amendments to the removal resolution and adopted it, 56-41, the
following day. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 164, p. S7482; Senate Journal, p. 848.) The
House did not take action on the joint resolution.
S.J.Res. 2, 116th Congress. On January 15, 2019, under the terms of a unanimous consent
agreement reached earlier in the day, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to consider
S.J.Res. 2, to disapprove a proposed presidential action relating to the application of certain
sanctions with respect to Russia. The joint resolution qualified for expedited consideration on the
basis of Section 216 of the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” (P.L. 11544), enacted the previous Congress. The consent agreement provided for the minority leader to
offer the motion to proceed followed by limited debate on the otherwise nondebatable motion,
after which the majority leader would be recognized to offer a motion to table the motion to
proceed. After it was offered by the minority leader per the agreement, the majority leader moved
to table the motion to proceed, but the tabling motion was defeated, 42-57. Subsequently, the
motion to proceed was adopted, 57-42. The expedited procedures cited above provide for no
debate limits on or amendment restrictions to the joint resolution itself. In recognition of this, the
majority leader moved to invoke cloture on S.J.Res. 2 and thereafter obtained unanimous consent
to hold the cloture vote the following day. On January 16, cloture was not invoked (57-42) on
S.J.Res. 2 and the measure was returned to the Calendar under the terms of the January 15
consent agreement. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 165, p. S201; Senate Journal, p. 30.)
No additional action on this measure was taken.
S.J.Res. 53, 116th Congress. On October 17, 2019, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement
from the previous day, a minority party Senator offered a motion to proceed to consider S.J.Res.
53, to disapprove an Environmental Protection Agency rule reversing the “clean power plan” on
greenhouse gas emissions promulgated during the previous Administration. The joint resolution
was subject to the expedited procedures of the CRA. The consent agreement of October 16
provided that if the motion to proceed to S.J.Res. 53 was offered and agreed to, then a period of
debate followed by a vote on the joint resolution would occur that same day. The motion to
proceed was agreed to by voice vote, and the Senate defeated the joint resolution, 41-53.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 165, p. S5858; Senate Journal, p. 793.) No further action
on the measure was taken.
Congressional Research Service
13
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
S.J.Res. 50, 116th Congress. On October 22, 2019, the Senate minority whip offered a motion to
proceed to consider S.J.Res. 50, to disapprove a rule from the Department of the Treasury and the
Internal Revenue Service affecting how individual charitable contributions are treated for federal
tax purposes. Pursuant to the CRA, the motion to proceed to the joint resolution nondebatable. As
in the previous case, the Senate adopted the motion to proceed by voice vote, and later in the day
reached a unanimous consent agreement to vote on the joint resolution the following afternoon.
On October 23, under the terms of the October 22 consent agreement, the Senate rejected the joint
resolution, 43-52. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 165, p. S5952; Senate Journal, p. 816.)
No additional proceedings occurred on the measure.
S.J.Res. 52, 116th Congress. On October 29, 2019, a minority party Senator offered a motion to
proceed to consider S.J.Res. 52, to disapprove a rule from the Departments of the Treasury and
Health and Human Services relating to the Section 1332 waiver process, which is a process that
allows states to waive certain requirements established under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act if certain conditions are met. The joint resolution was subject to the
expedited procedures of the CRA, so the motion to proceed to the joint resolution was not
debatable. Like the previous two cases, the Senate adopted the motion to proceed by voice vote
and shortly thereafter agreed by unanimous consent to hold the vote on the joint resolution. On
October 30, on the basis of the consent agreement from the previous day, the Senate voted to
reject the joint resolution, 43-52. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 165, p. S6220; Senate
Journal, p. 844.) No further action occurred on the measure.
S.J.Res. 68, 116th Congress. On February 12, 2020, a minority party Senator moved to proceed
to consider S.J.Res. 68, to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Iran.
The joint resolution qualified for expedited consideration under the International Security
Assistance and Arms Control Export Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-329; 90 Stat. 765) and the War Powers
Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-148; 50 U.S.C. 1546), which made the motion to proceed nondebatable. The
Senate adopted the motion to proceed to the joint resolution, 51-45. Based on precedent
established the previous Congress during consideration of S.J.Res. 54 (115th Congress)—a joint
resolution directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from Yemen (described above)—germane
amendments could be offered to the removal resolution. A unanimous consent agreement was
reached to consider six amendments prior to a final vote, three of which were adopted (the other
three were tabled). The Senate adopted the joint resolution, 55-45, and the House adopted it
March 11 by a 227-186 vote, but the measure was vetoed. The Senate attempted to override the
President’s veto but fell short of the two-thirds supermajority required for override votes, 49-44.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 166, p. S1006; Senate Journal, p. 99.) No additional action
on the measure was taken.
S.J.Res. 56, 116th Congress. On March 10, 2020, the Senate minority whip offered a motion to
proceed to consider S.J.Res. 56, to disapprove a rule from the Department of Education
addressing the topic of borrower defense to repayment discharge of student loan debt. Pursuant to
the CRA, the motion to proceed to the joint resolution was not debatable. The Senate adopted the
motion to proceed, 55-41, and later in the day reached a unanimous consent agreement to vote on
the joint resolution the following afternoon. On March 11, in accordance with the consent
agreement from the previous day, the Senate voted to defeat the joint resolution, 43-52.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 166, p. S1659; Senate Journal, p. 164.) Thereafter, the
Senate agreed by unanimous consent to postpone indefinitely any further action on the measure.
S. 4653, 116th Congress. On September 29, 2020, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed to
consider S. 4653, intended to “prevent efforts of the Department of Justice to advocate courts to
strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” according to its title. The minority
leader had introduced the bill the previous week and it was placed directly on the Calendar.
Congressional Research Service
14
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
Immediately after making the motion to proceed, the minority leader filed cloture on it. Two
session days later, on October 1, the Senate voted not to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed,
51-43. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 166, p. S5890; Senate Journal, p. 541.) No
additional action was taken on the measure.
H.J.Res. 90, 116th Congress. On October 19, 2020, the Senate minority leader moved to proceed
to consider H.J.Res. 90, to disapprove a rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency relating to the Community Reinvestment Act and its requirements on banks to serve the
credit needs of low-income communities. The joint resolution was subject to expedited
procedures under the CRA, through which a motion to proceed to it would not be debatable.
Immediately after offering the motion to proceed, the minority leader obtained unanimous
consent for debate to occur on the motion prior to a vote being held later in the day. The Senate
debated the motion and then defeated it, 43-48. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 166, p.
S6052; Senate Journal, p. 567.) No further proceedings occurred on this measure.
S.J.Res. 29, 117th Congress. On December 8, 2021, a minority party Senator moved to proceed
to consider S.J.Res. 29, to disapprove a rule of the Department of Labor promulgating an
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard
requiring employers with 100 or more employees to implement a mandatory COVID-19
vaccination and testing policy. Under the CRA, the motion to proceed to consider the disapproval
resolution was nondebatable. The Senate adopted the motion to proceed by voice vote, and later
reached a consent agreement to hold the vote that evening, wherein the joint resolution was
adopted, 52-48. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 168, p. S2960; Senate Journal, p. 880.)
The House took no action on the joint resolution.
S.J.Res. 41, 117th Congress. On April 27, 2022, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider S.J.Res. 41, to disapprove of a rule of the Department of Health and Human Services
concerning requirements for Title X family planning programs. The joint resolution of
disapproval was eligible for expedited consideration under the CRA. The nondebatable motion to
proceed to the measure was defeated on a tie vote of 49-49. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol.
168, p. S2185.) No further action occurred on the resolution.
S.Con.Res. 41, 117th Congress. On June 15, 2022, pursuant to a unanimous consent order of the
previous day, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to consider S.Con.Res. 41, setting forth
a congressional budget for FY2023. On the basis of expedited procedures established by the
CBA, the Senate Budget Committee had been discharged of its consideration, and the motion to
proceed to the concurrent budget resolution was not debatable. The Senate defeated the motion to
proceed, 29-67. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 168, p. S2960.) No further action was
taken on the concurrent resolution.
S.Con.Res. 43, 117th Congress. On July 20, 2022, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider S.Con.Res. 43, a concurrent budget resolution for FY2023. Under the CBA, the Senate
Budget Committee had been discharged of its consideration, making the motion to proceed to the
concurrent resolution not debatable. The motion to proceed was rejected by the Senate, 34-63.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 168, p. S3527.) No additional action occurred on the
concurrent resolution.
H.J.Res. 26, 118th Congress. On March 8, 2023, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider H.J.Res. 26, disapproving a District of Columbia Council measure—the “Revised
Criminal Code Act of 2022” according to its title—to amend the District’s criminal laws. The
joint resolution was subject to expedited consideration under the District of Columbia “Home
Rule Act” (P.L. 93-198), so the motion to proceed to its consideration was not debatable. The
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed by voice vote and later adopted the joint resolution, 81-14,
Congressional Research Service
15
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
clearing the measure for presentation to the President. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 168,
p. S3527.) The joint resolution was signed into law and became P.L. 118-1.
S.J.Res. 10, 118th Congress. On April 19, 2023, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to
consider S.J.Res. 10, to disapprove of a rule of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs relating to
“Reproduction Health Services.” Pursuant to the CRA, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs had
been discharged of its consideration, and limited debate on the motion to proceed was provided
for under the terms of an April 18 consent agreement. Following debate, the motion to proceed to
the joint resolution was rejected, 48-51. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 169, p. S680.) No
further action occurred in relation to the measure.
S.J.Res. 43, 118th Congress. On November 15, 2023, a minority party Senator moved to proceed
to consider S.J.Res. 43, to disapprove a Department of Education rule to establish a new federal
student loan repayment plan and to revise the terms of existing federal student loan repayment
plans. A unanimous consent order arrived at the previous day provided that the motion to proceed
would be adopted if offered, with debate and a final vote on the joint resolution to occur later in
the day. As in the previous instance, the measure was a disapproval resolution under the CRA
from which the committee of jurisdiction had been discharged. The Senate defeated the joint
resolution on a vote of 49-50. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 169, p. S5527.) No further
action on the measure was taken.
H.J.Res. 45, 118th Congress. On May 31, 2023, under the terms of a unanimous consent
agreement arrived at the previous day, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to consider
H.J.Res. 45, to disapprove of a rule of the Department of Education temporarily suspending
federal student loan payments and interest accrual and discharging certain student loan debt. This
measure was eligible for expedited consideration under the CRA; therefore, the motion to proceed
to its consideration was not debatable. Under the terms of a May 30 consent agreement, if the
motion to proceed was adopted, then the Senate would vote on the joint resolution the following
day. The Senate adopted the motion to proceed, 51-46, and on June 1 approved the joint
resolution, 52-46. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 169, p. S1817.) The measure was vetoed
by the President, and the Senate took no subsequent action on it.
H.R. 6126, 118th Congress. On November 14, 2023, a minority party Senator moved to proceed
to consider H.R. 6126, the “Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act,” and subsequently
filed cloture on the motion to proceed. Shortly thereafter, the chair of the Senate Appropriations
Committee moved to lay on the table the motion to proceed, and the Senate agreed to table the
motion to proceed, 51-48. (Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 169, p. S5500.) The Senate did
not subsequently consider the measure.
S.J.Res. 58, 118th Congress. On May 21, 2024, under the terms of unanimous consent agreement
reached earlier in the day, a minority party Senator moved to proceed to consider S.J.Res. 58, to
disapprove a Department of Energy rule on energy conservation standards for consumer furnaces.
This measure was eligible for expedited consideration under the CRA. The motion to proceed
was considered adopted at the time it was offered per the unanimous consent agreement, which
also provided for no debate on the joint resolution and for an immediate vote to take place.
(Congressional Record, daily ed., vol. 169, p. S. 3800.) The Senate adopted the joint resolution,
50-45, and it was sent to the House.
Congressional Research Service
16
Motions to Proceed to Consider Measures in the Senate: Who Offers Them?
Author Information
Mark J. Oleszek
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
Sarah B. Solomon
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by Dr. Richard S. Beth, formerly a Specialist in the Legislative Process at
CRS.
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
RS21255 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
17
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.