In Washington, the process begins when one house approved amendments to a bill that the other house had already passed. For a simple explanation, let us assume that the House of Representatives passes a bill and that the Senate then amends that bill before passing it. The Senate then sends the bill back to the House of Representatives, along with the amendments it has passed, and asks the House of Representatives to approve those amendments. If Parliament does, the two Assemblies have agreed and the legislative process is over. But if the House of Representatives does not do so – if the House of Representatives does not simply agree with the Senate`s amendments or approves its own amendments to the Senate amendments – the bill and amendments will be sent back to the Senate, which should take further action. This process of exchanging amendments and positions can continue in several other cycles and become very complicated. Fourth, does the same sense of legislative autonomy prevail in every home? Even if the two houses are controlled by the same party or cohesive coalition, it is also important to know whether the legislative agendas of the two houses and the concrete legislative proposals they are considering are decided elsewhere, namely the executive government. If this is the case, the differences in the legislation each adopts are probably less important than if each Assembly exercises greater control over its legislative agenda and when each Assembly acts more autonomously in the drafting of the legislation which it will adopt and then send to the other Assembly for approval. In Washington, on the other hand, the collective approach to the agreement (i.e., the use of a conference committee) was not an alternative that arises when the individual approach has failed. Instead, the collective approach of the U.S.
Congress was essentially an alternative to the exchange of positions and proposals between the two houses. As a result, a temporary or permanent amendment could be possible in the way the U.S. Congress is now trying to secure bicameral agreements on bills that would almost certainly have been committed in conference committees before. The change was much more a change in practice than a change in the formal procedures of the two houses; Indeed, one of the reasons for this change in practice was the newly acquired willingness of senators to use procedures that had previously been ignored. QUORUM: When a legislative body is composed, the minimum number of members required for the activity. So there are good reasons for the Senate to go back to its practice of sending important and controversial bills to conference committees, unless the time constraints are simply too great to make it possible.  But that would not mean a return to the political status quo. The homogeneity within the party and the bipartisan polarization that now characterizes the two houses of Congress create a different context for bicameral negotiations, as if supporters and opponents of a law instead found a significant number of allies on the other side of the gang. To what extent opponents of the conference of both parties once considered themselves negotiators for the version of a bill of their own home – and this expectation has often been denounced in the breach – today, the opponents of the conference are much more members of the other party than members of the other Assembly.
That is why the policy of concluding bicameral legislative agreements in Washington will be different from what they were a few decades ago, even if the procedures for concluding these agreements repeat their previous model. LEGISLATIVE SERVICE: a bipartisan legislative branch that provides services such as draft laws and laws, unbiased research and information or technical services.