Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How many continuing resolutions have been voted on in the senate, and were any of them clean?
Executive Summary
The Senate has voted on a continuing resolution (CR) at least 13 times during the 2025 funding battle, and reporting indicates none of those Senate votes were on a “clean” continuing resolution that would simply extend existing funding without policy riders. Multiple outlets tracking the shutdown record the thirteenth failed Senate vote occurring in late October 2025, with repeated attempts to pass funding thwarted and no clean CR recorded as having been brought to a successful Senate floor vote [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, the House did pass a standalone or “clean” CR earlier in September 2025, but that House measure’s fate in the Senate remained uncertain and required a 60-vote threshold to advance [4]. Below is a focused, multi-angle analysis of the competing claims, the chronology, and where partisan incentives shaped whether a clean CR reached the Senate floor.
1. Why reporters say “thirteen votes” — the count and its political meaning
News tracking of the 2025 shutdown counted thirteen separate Senate roll-call attempts to pass funding measures before the most recent late-October failure, and outlets consistently report those attempts failed to end the shutdown [1] [2] [3]. Those counts aggregate distinct procedural and substantive motions where the Senate either voted to advance a proposal or voted on cloture/advancement; the repeated numbering reflects that majority- and minority-led options were repeatedly offered and rejected. The significance of the count is political: it underscores persistent gridlock and repeated inability to secure the 60 votes needed under Senate rules for most proposals. While the count is factual, interpretation differs — proponents of floor motions frame the attempts as responsible efforts to resolve funding, while opponents emphasize that the measures contained policy riders or partisan demands that prevented broad Senate support [2] [3].
2. The “clean CR” the House passed and why it did not translate to the Senate
The House passed what it labeled a “clean continuing resolution” to fund the government through November 21, 2025, maintaining FY2025 funding levels, but that House-passed CR did not automatically become law and required Senate consideration and 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles [4]. House Republicans presented the measure as a nonpartisan patch to prevent a shutdown, yet Senate dynamics differ: Senate Democrats and some Republicans opposed versions that included particular riders or lacked concessions, meaning the House clean CR’s passage did not guarantee a Senate vote on an identical clean measure. The distinction between a House-passed clean CR and Senate floor action is important because the constitutional bicameral process and Senate filibuster rules create a separate gatekeeping step that can thwart House-originated clean measures [4].
3. Conflicting narratives: who says what and what their agendas suggest
Republican messaging framed the House action as responsible governance and accused Democrats of forcing or preferring a shutdown by opposing the House clean CR, positioning Republicans as offering a straightforward funding fix [5]. Democratic leaders and some reporting framed the Senate votes differently, emphasizing that no clean CR had been voted on in the Senate and that Senate Democrats blocked specific bills they saw as bundled with policy riders or security provisions that made passage unacceptable [1] [3]. These opposing narratives reflect clear partisan incentives: Republicans highlight a clean House measure to claim compromise, while Democrats stress Senate voting records to argue against accepting deals they view as substantively harmful. Readers should note both sides use the “clean” label strategically to cast the other as obstructionist.
4. Procedural reality: how Senate rules shape what gets voted on
Senate procedure — including the need for 60 votes to overcome cloture on many measures — means that even if a clean CR exists in the House, the Senate may not vote on an identical clean CR unless there is sufficient bipartisan agreement to advance it [4]. The apparent absence of a Senate vote on a clean CR does not necessarily mean Senate leaders never proposed a clean measure; it means that, according to contemporary reporting, no clean CR reached a successful floor vote in the Senate counting the series of failed attempts. Procedural maneuvers, amendments, and the attachment of policy riders can convert ostensibly simple funding measures into politically contested packages, shifting votes away from a clean-or-dirty binary toward tradeoffs that reflect Senate leverage and incentives [1] [2].
5. What the timeline and sources collectively establish and what remains uncertain
Contemporary tracking by multiple outlets establishes that the Senate endured at least thirteen failed funding-related votes by late October 2025 and that no clean CR had been successfully voted on in the Senate during that sequence [1] [2] [3]. The House did pass a clean CR earlier, but the Senate’s failure to pass or take up an identical clean version left the shutdown unresolved [4]. Remaining uncertainties include the precise content of each Senate offer counted in the “thirteen” tally (some were procedural cloture votes, others substantive), and whether informal or unrecorded overtures toward a clean measure occurred behind the scenes. The public record supports the core claims: multiple failed Senate votes and no clean Senate-passed CR during the reported period.