On January 25, 2013, the Senate approved two resolutions affecting the process for considering legislation and nominations. S.Res. 15 established two orders of the Senate that will apply only in the 113 th Congress. The first aims to allow a majority to more quickly begin consideration of a bill while encouraging an increase in amending opportunities. The second accelerates the consideration of some nominations supported by at least three-fifths of the Senate. The other resolution, S.Res. 16 , made two changes to the standing rules of the Senate, establishing a bipartisan method to bring a bill before the Senate more quickly and altering the procedures that had effectively required the consent of all Senators to send a measure to a conference committee with the House. The changes, discussed in detail below, seek to expedite proceedings while also preserving the long-standing Senate principle that a numerical majority should decide only after accounting for the intensity of individual and minority preferences. Most questions in the Senate, such as whether to pass a bill or approve a nomination, are decided by majority vote. But the Senate does not have a rule that allows a majority of Senators to end debate on a question when it is ready to vote on it. As a result of this and other features of the Senate, individual or minority groups of Senators can influence decisions by filibustering—debating or taking other actions to prevent a question from coming to a vote—or even by threatening to do so. The possibility of a filibuster allows a minority of Senators to delay or prevent a vote that they fear they would lose. If proponents of a matter want to end debate when faced with a determined coalition in opposition, they must use the cloture process, which typically requires three-fifths of the Senate (60 votes, if no more than one vacancy) as well as approximately a week, in practice, to implement. For example, to end debate on a bill, a cloture motion can be presented as soon as the bill is taken up by the Senate, but the vote on the question of ending debate on the bill would not occur until two days of session later. Furthermore, if a sufficient number of Senators vote to invoke cloture, then consideration of the bill could still continue for a maximum of 30 additional hours. Only time in which the bill is actually being considered by the Senate counts toward the 30 hours, and after cloture is invoked on a matter, it takes unanimous consent to consider any other matter. In this way, three-fifths of the Senate can reach a vote on passage of a bill, but it requires unanimity to do so swiftly. The new rules and standing orders do not eliminate the ability of Senators to filibuster and do not reduce the incentives of proponents of a matter to build a coalition larger than a simple majority. Instead, they reduce the time it might take to get to a final vote on certain matters, without eliminating the need for three-fifths of the Senate to agree to do so. They achieve this largely by altering the timing of the cloture process, or, in one instance, by reducing the number of successful cloture processes required to reach a vote on passage of a bill that would consequently be subject to an alternative amending process. The time required for a cloture process has generally been understood to give individual Senators influence over the Senate agenda, as the sheer number of items of business before the Senate likely makes processing each under the terms of the cloture rule impossible, and unanimous consent effectively required. This report explains the provisions of each new standing order and rule. The impact of the changes, however, might be felt largely in negotiations about how or when to set aside the rules and standing orders with the consent of all Senators. The Senate usually does not find it efficient to conduct business by following its rules as they are written. Instead, the Senate typically operates under unanimous consent agreements that reflect the rights Senators have under the rules, but that fix the terms of consideration to the benefit of all Senators. For example, after cloture is invoked on a question, the Senate often agrees by unanimous consent to allow overnight hours to count against the 30 hours of post-cloture time. Senators who wish to delay a vote benefit from this arrangement, because the vote is delayed without requiring them to take floor actions to consume as much of the 30 hours as they can. Senators who would like to vote as soon as possible also benefit because they do not need to dedicate floor time to post-cloture consideration or remain near the floor to make a quorum if required. In this way, the unanimous consent agreement reflects the rights of Senators under the rules, even as provisions of the rule are being waived. Senators decide whether or not to enter into unanimous consent agreements, or essentially to waive their right to delay proceedings, based in part on what they think they could achieve using the regular rules and procedures. To the extent the January 2013 changes have altered procedural opportunities or constraints, they can be expected to affect unanimous consent negotiations. The recent procedural changes might also affect unanimous consent negotiations by altering expectations about the manner in which legislation and nominations are to be processed. When unanimous consent practices recur so commonly as to become standard, they foster expectations of their continued routine use, which may in turn affect Senators' decisions about whether to object to proposed unanimous consent agreements. To continue the previous example, the Senate often agrees to hold a vote on a question one day after cloture was invoked on it because that is expected and widely accepted, not because each Senator has explicitly weighed whether or not to attempt to cause the vote to be held sooner (or later), operating under the rules. Senators decide whether or not to accept a consent agreement based in part on the potential costs their objection might bring to their colleagues and to their own future efforts to build coalitions. The cost of objecting is generally considered to be higher when doing so would be extraordinary, or contrary to the normal method of conducting business. Senate agreement to these resolutions in January, and the statements made regarding their intended operation, could both indicate and initiate changes in what most Senators believe the proper processes should be. To assist Senators and staff in understanding the changes and their potential impact on Senate operations, this report describes each of the four changes below, in turn. Each section opens with a brief description of the change, identifying its key features and its general purpose. The overview is followed by a more detailed discussion of Senate practices related to the changes as well as the precise procedural mechanisms established by the new rules and orders. The procedural mechanisms are examined in detail not because there is an expectation that they will operate in the exact manner described, but to clarify the range of procedural options these mechanisms may open up in the Senate. While this report attempts to explain the new procedures, and in some cases it indicates where their precise operation is unclear, consultation with the Senate Parliamentarian is strongly advised as specific procedural circumstances arise. No written rule or order could account for all courses of procedural action that could arise in the future. The Senate interprets its rules by establishing precedent through rulings of the chair, usually with the guidance of the Senate Parliamentarian, and occasionally through votes on appeals of such rulings. The Senate also interprets its rules to some degree through repeated practice, but again, even informal decisions regarding the specific implementation of procedures are usually made in consultation with the Parliamentarian. This report focuses on the procedural changes themselves and their potential consequences. For background information on the changes and other related proposals, including possible motivations for changing Senate procedures, see CRS Report R41342, Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. For an explanation of the process for changing Senate procedures, see CRS Report R42929, Procedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules , by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report R42928, "First Day" Proceedings and Procedural Change in the Senate , by [author name scrubbed], for a discussion of the specific processes and proposals in this Congress and the last. Through the approval of S.Res. 15 , the Senate made two procedural changes that, under the terms of the resolution, will expire at the end of the Congress. These two changes are considered "standing orders" of the Senate because they did not amend the Standing Rules of the Senate themselves. For the 113 th Congress, however, these changes will have the same force and effect as rules. The form of a standing order might have been chosen because it was considered to be more appropriate for a temporary procedural change. In addition, agreeing to a procedural change in the form of a standing order can require a smaller coalition for approval than a change in the standing rules. To invoke cloture on a proposal to directly amend the Standing Rules requires a two-thirds vote of Senators voting, a quorum being present (which can be as many as 67 Senators). To invoke cloture on a resolution affecting procedures but not directly amending the standing rules, such as S.Res. 15 , would require only three-fifths of the Senate, typically 60. In current practice, the Senate begins consideration of legislation either by unanimous consent, or by approving a motion to proceed to consider a bill or resolution (referred to simply as a "motion to proceed"). Most motions to proceed are not subject to any time limit on debate, and therefore a cloture process and three-fifths support may be required to reach a vote. S.Res. 15 , Section 1, creates a special motion to proceed that could be approved by majority vote after four hours of debate. A bill brought before the Senate using this new motion would be subject to an alternative amendment process intended to encourage the consideration of at least four amendments, two from each party. These four amendments (here called "priority amendments") would be considered sequentially (not simultaneously), alternating by party, beginning with the minority and ending with the majority.