These requirements mean that a bill from one house must also be passed by the other: the Senate must pass a bill that the House of Representatives has already passed and sent to the Senate, or vice versa. As has already been said, the vast majority of Australian bills come from the House of Representatives, and that has been the trend in Washington, but to a lesser extent. If one of the two houses of parliament passes a bill and passes it through the Senate, and the Senate passes it without amendment, a bicameral agreement has been reached and the bill is ready to become law.  However, if the Senate amends the House of Representatives bill before approving it – by passing it (in the United States) or by agreeing to have the bill read a third time (in Australia), both institutions must agree on how to eliminate Senate amendments.  There is no reference in the U.S. Constitution on conference committees, but they are covered by the constant rules of both houses of Congress. These rules govern the creation of conference committees, the appointment of their members, their authority and meetings, the content of their reports and the procedures by which each Assembly will debate and vote its reports. But there is one issue on which the internal rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate remain silent: how conference participants should hold their meetings and conclude their agreements.  The reason is that conference committees negotiate forums so that both chambers leave it to conference participants to decide for themselves how best to proceed, while recognizing that the most effective way to reach an agreement will not be the same for all bills. In some countries, bicameralism involves the confrontation of democratic and aristocratic elements.  In the French case, well analyzed in English by Tsebelis and Money, the process is similar to that of Congress, because a bill passed by one house is then sent to the other, which can in turn propose amendments for the first house to be examined. After the National Assembly and the Senate have twice reacted to a bill (or earlier, if the bill is declared urgent) – the sending process is known in France as shuttle or shuttle – the government can request the creation of a conference committee composed equally of members of both houses. If the Conference Committee proposes a compromise that both Assemblies accept, the legislative process is over.
However, if the Conference Committee disagrees or its report is rejected, the government may ask the National Assembly for its responsibility to pass the bill in the final form proposed by the government. In other words, the government and its parliamentary partner, the National Assembly, have the final say if they wish. See George Tsebelis and Jeanette Money, “Bicameral negotiations: the shuttle system in France,” British Journal of Political Science, 25, 1995, 101-29; and Jeanette Money and George Tsebelis, “The political power of the French Senate: micromechanisms of bicameral negotiations,” The Journal of Legislative Studies (