Which bipartisan senators offered amendments to the CR and what changes did they seek?

1. Who stepped forward — competing rosters and overlapping names that matter

Reporting shows two partially overlapping lists: one names John Fetterman, Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen, Tim Kaine, Dick Durbin, and Angus King as offering amendments to the CR that focused on federal-worker protections and programmatic fixes, while another credit similar Democratic senators — including Shaheen, Hassan, King, Durbin, Kaine, Fetterman, Cortez Masto, and Rosen — with supporting a stopgap in exchange for a promised future vote on health-subsidy extensions. Both accounts converge on a core bloc of eight Democratic senators, but one narrative adds Republican involvement like Lindsey Graham on a separate amendment list, indicating multiple amendment efforts on different fronts ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

2. What the amendments sought — worker protections, program funding, and policy strings

Analyses report that the Democratic amendments sought reversals of reductions in force, guarantees of back pay for federal workers, funding for military construction, Veterans Affairs, Department of Agriculture programs, and protections for federal employees, and some proposals pushed for extensions of programmatic funding such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and HUD rental assistance. Another set of amendments, associated with Senate Republicans and at least one Democratic co-sponsor in other accounts, targeted debt-limit policy changes and broader policy priorities, and Durbin’s proposals were reported to target billionaire tax breaks, indicating a mix of appropriations fixes and policy riders across amendments ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Where the reports diverge — promises, trades, and procedural outcomes

The accounts diverge on key consequences: one narrative frames the eight Democrats as supporting a stopgap through January in exchange for a promised future vote on Affordable Care Act subsidy extensions, with Senate leadership pledging a mid-December vote; another stresses that the enacted agreement included SNAP and HUD funding but did not extend ACA tax credits or prevent rescissions of previously appropriated funds. This creates a tension between reported guarantees and what the CR actually contained, and highlights that some Democrats accepted a time-limited funding fix with a contingent promise rather than an immediate statutory extension ^{[4] [1]}.

4. Political context and motivations — bipartisan claims and partisan critiques

The sources show competing agendas: Democratic senators framed amendments as safeguarding federal employees and core social programs, while Republican-linked amendments emphasized fiscal or policy priorities such as debt-limit adjustments. Some Democrats reportedly criticized deals that deferred substantive votes on ACA subsidies, viewing conditional promises as politically risky. These tensions reflect an underlying tradeoff in the Senate between securing immediate funding to avoid shutdown and pursuing longer-term policy changes, and the sources portray both pragmatic compromise and intra-party dissatisfaction ^{[4] [2] [1]}.

5. Procedural reality — votes, rejections, and what the CR ultimately advanced

Several analyses note that the Senate rejected the House-passed CR and that an alternative short-term Democratic bill failed, after which the chamber moved to advance a bipartisan package with multiple amendments and votes. The final narrative across sources suggests that while amendments were offered by multiple senators on both sides, the procedural outcome left some requested changes unfulfilled — notably ACA tax-credit extensions — even as SNAP and HUD rental assistance funding were included. This underscores that offering amendments did not guarantee adoption, and the legislative process produced a patchwork result shaped by votes, leadership promises, and strategic tradeoffs ^{[5] [1] [3]}.