the conference which is used to reconcile legislation which isn't exactly similar.
The Senate will get whatever the House passes out and amend it. That will put any bill that manages to pass out of the Senate into conference. Before it passes out of the Senate it may be subject to a 'point of order', a filibuster type move.
from OMB Watch:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3695/1/475The power of the purse is not unlimited. First and foremost, an appropriations bill is subject to a point of order if it "legislates." Legislating on appropriations means the appropriations bill limits, directs or conditions funding in a way that does not comport with enacted authorizations, which enable or create government policy but often do not fund them. The Congressional Research Service summarizes this restriction:
Under Senate and House rules, limitations, as well as other language in the text of appropriations legislation, cannot change existing law (paragraphs 2 and 4 of Senate Rule XVI and clause 2(b) and (c) of House Rule XXI). That is, they cannot amend or repeal existing law nor create new law (referred to as legislation or legislation on an appropriations bill). Limitations also may not extend beyond the fiscal year for which an appropriation is provided.
In other words, Congress must waive a point of order, provided one is raised, to turn on funding for policies that are not already written into law. When this happens, it is what's known as an "unauthorized appropriation." In addition, appropriations bills that change the terms of enacted authorizations are subject to points of order.
This obstacle is not as restrictive as it may appear. Points of order are not self-enforcing, as a member must raise a point of order for it to take effect. In the House, points of order can be waived by special order of the Rules Committee. In the Senate, a 3/5ths majority is necessary for a waiver. And this point of order has limited application. It does not apply to limitations that proscribe or prescribe funding certain activities, unless they amend, repeal or enact authorizing legislation, or require the enactment of a separate authorization.
What's more, there is ample evidence of unauthorized appropriations surviving year after year. The Congressional Budget Office produces a report each year itemizing unauthorized appropriations that continue to pass each year. Therefore, the point of order must be waived from time to time, or not raised at all.
Yet there are other ways this power is limited, such as through the presidential veto. Just like any other bill, appropriations bills are vulnerable to a possible veto, which can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. Further, the president could also choose to not comply with directives included in an appropriations bill. Someone must then enter litigation to force presidential compliance. If such a dispute were to enter the courts, Congress's authority would likely be affirmed. Many constitutional law experts have asserted Congress has the constitutional authority to construct rules that guide military affairs.