PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 44. Record Vote Number: 517.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 8, 2025
This resolution provides for the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of nominations for various executive officers and ambassadors. The agencies in which the executive officers shall serve include the Departments of Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Labor. The ambassadors shall represent the United States to Argentina, Greece, Liechtenstein, and Sweden.
People & committees
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] · R–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 44. Record Vote Number: 517.
Senate roll call 517 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 44. Record Vote Number: 517.
Senate roll call 517 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate. (consideration: CR S6591)
Upon reconsideration, cloture on the measure invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 43. Record Vote Number: 516. (CR S6564)
Senate roll call 516 · Individual votesRuling of the Chair that the point of order raised by Senator Thune with respect to the precedent set on November 21, 2013 regarding the threshold for cloture on an Executive resolution for en bloc consideration of nominations with a calendar number on the Executive Calendar, other than those on level 1 of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5312, or Article 3 judges not sustained by Yea-Nay Vote. 45 - 53. Record Vote Number: 515.
Senate roll call 515 · Individual votesMotion by Senator Thune to appeal the ruling of the chair that the threshold for cloture on an Executive resolution for en bloc consideration of nominations with a calendar number on the Executive Calendar, other than those on level 1 of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5312 or.
Ruling of the Chair that the point of order raised by Senator Thune with respect to the precedent set on November 21, 2013 regarding the threshold for cloture on an Executive resolution for en bloc consideration of nominations with a calendar number on the Executive Calendar, other than those on level 1 of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5312, or Article 3 judges, ruled out of order.
Point of order by Senator Thune that consistent with the precedent of the Senate on November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on an Executive resolution for en bloc consideration of nominations with a calendar number on the Executive Calendar, other than those on Level 1 of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5312, or Article 3 judges, is a simple majority raised in Senate.
Motion by Senator Thune to reconsider the vote by which cloture on S. Res. 377 was not invoked (Record Vote No. 513) agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 45. Record Vote Number: 514.
Senate roll call 513 · Individual votesMotion by Senator Thune to reconsider the vote by which cloture on S. Res. 377 was not invoked (Record Vote No. 513) made in Senate.
Cloture not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 47. Record Vote Number: 513. (CR S6564-6565)
Senate roll call 513 · Individual votesBy unanimous consent agreement, mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII waived.
Cloture motion on the measure presented in Senate. (CR S6462)
Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S6461)
Motion to proceed to executive session to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 45. Record Vote Number: 511.
Senate roll call 511 · Individual votesMotion to table the point of order made by Senator Schumer, the question being: Is a resolution for the en bloc consideration of specific nominations on the Executive Calendar required to be considered in legislative session? agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53 - 46. Record Vote Number: 510.
Senate roll call 510 · Individual votesThe Chair, under the provisions of Rule XX, submits the question to the Senate for its decision: Is a resolution for the en bloc consideration of specific nominations on the Executive Calendar required to be considered in legislative session?.
Point of order by Senator Schumer that the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider Executive Calendar No. 1, S.Res. 377, is not in order because legislation that provides for the en bloc consideration of individual nominations is legislative business and should be considered in legislative session raised in Senate.
Placed on Senate Executive Calendar under Over, Under the Rule. Calendar No. 1.
Submitted in the Senate. Placed on Senate Executive Calendar under Over, Under the Rule.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 12, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.Res.377 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.Res.377 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.Res.377 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.Res.377 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.