In 1995 and 2003, Brazilian Presidents Cardoso and Lula da Silva submitted almost identical pension reform bills to Congress. However, these bills had very different fates in terms of the outcomes of congressional deliberation and the timing of enactment. What explains timing and outcomes of legislation? Using Brazilian pension reform as a case, this article explains legislative timing and outcomes from bicameral and bargaining perspectives. It examines two hypotheses: (1) bicameral incongruence of policy preferences increases the likelihood of legislative gridlock; and (2) impatience accelerates the timing of legislation. Evidence from archival research and interviews with Brazilian legislators strongly support these hypotheses.