One of the reasons the collective approach fits more well into the legislative process in Washington than in Canberra is that, if there are differences of law in Canberra, the real negotiators are generally representatives of the government on the one hand and representatives of the non-state majority in the Senate on the other. Negotiations at a conference between members and senators in Canberra would largely obscure the role of government and exaggerate the independent role of participating members. In Washington, on the other hand, the president is an interested observer, or even a de facto participant in conference negotiations, but the members of the House of Representatives and Senate conference committee are autonomous actors who have their own interests and preferences and are willing to lobby for their satisfaction. In the weeks leading up to July 16, 1787, the Framers had made several important decisions regarding the structure of the Senate. They rejected a proposal to elect senators to the House of Representatives from the lists submitted by national parliaments and agreed that these legislators should elect their own senators. There are some special procedures in the Senate that limit the amendment process. For example, amendments to the review of draft general budgets are subject to the strict rules of Article XVI under which they propose non-German amendments or amendments, propose new or general provisions, or increase the amount of a budget allocation if this increase has not been previously approved or included in the President`s budget. Similarly, in the event of unanimous general approval, the amendments must be in the usual form of a German law or decision. The Germanity of the amendments is also necessary as soon as the Senate has invoked closure; In addition, all amendments considered under the Cloture must have been tabled in writing prior to the Senate vote on the Cloture. A bicameral system is a reference to a government with two houses of laws or chambers. Bicameral is the Latin word for a two-house legislative system. The bicameral system was created in England, and the United States introduced it after its creation.

In the United States, the historical reason is that the founders of the United States have failed to agree on whether states should have the same number of representatives or whether the number of representatives should be based on population. The founders decided to do both in an agreement known as a great compromise, which established the bicameral system that we know today. Whatever the virtues of the bi-chamber, there is no doubt that it can complicate the legislative process in each assembly and, in particular, in national assemblies that defend the divergent interests and preferences of more complex societies. According to some democratic constitutions, a new law that can enter into force with legal force can only enter into force once the two halves of a bicameral or bicameral legislation have approved it in exactly the same terms. This request for a bicameral legislative agreement can lead to delays, difficult and sometimes bitter negotiations, and even prevent the passage of a law that each Assembly has already passed, albeit with slightly different provisions. [1] It has long been established that the Senate must take three steps to send a bill to a conference committee. First, it must oppose the amendment of a Senate law by the House of Representatives or insist on its own amendment to a House of Representatives bill. The Senate thus obtains the so-called „disagreement phase,” and both houses must reach that phase before a conference committee can be established.