S.Res. 817Senate simple resolution · 119th CongressPassed Senate2 votes from flippingCongress

An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.

Sponsored byJohn ThuneR-SDIntroduced Jul 23, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 30, 2026) Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 50 - 47. Record Vote Number: 217.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jul 30, 2026

This resolution provides for the en bloc consideration of nominations for various executive officers, judges, ambassadors, and related positions.

Agencies in which the executive officers shall serve include the Departments of Defense, Energy, the Interior, State, and the Treasury. Additional nominees shall represent the United States to, among others, the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Brazil, Cambodia, Cyprus, and the Gambia. Nominees are also appointed to the National Labor Relations Board, National Transportation Safety Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and District of Columbia (DC) courts.

Face Value

as placed on the calendar
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

2 recorded
  • On the Resolutiondecisive vote

    Senate · Jul 30, 2026

    5047

    Resolution Agreed to

    Every vote →
  • On the

    Senate · Jul 29, 2026

    Whether to end debate so a final vote can happen. Needs 60 senators — this is the vote most bills die on.

    5045

    Cloture Motion Agreed to

    Every vote →

Discussion

10 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
17
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea17d ago
Support. The reporting requirements alone would be worth it. You can't fix what nobody is required to measure.
3
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay22d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
14
TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea19d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
5
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Nay21d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
2
m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Nay19d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
14
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Yea21d ago
In favour, with a caveat: the effective date is doing a lot of work here. If it slips, everything else in this bill is theoretical.
6
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea22d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
1
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea20d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
9
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea20d ago
Yes from me. The cost looks modest relative to what we already spend on the same problem indirectly.
2
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea19d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
Your position on S.Res. 81768% Yea · 19 VoteWire users