Which lawmakers support specific amendments to the 2025 CR?

1. Who officially sponsored the 2025 full-year law — and what that means politically

The primary, documented sponsor of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 is Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK-4), and the bill became Public Law No: 119-4 on March 15, 2025, signaling a legislative resolution for fiscal year 2025 appropriations after House and Senate passage in mid-March ^{[1] [4]}. The published texts and section-by-section summaries show how the law folded multiple appropriations and extensions into a single enacted measure, but these official documents and summaries do not enumerate which individual lawmakers supported or authored each discrete amendment or floor change within the final CR. Legislative sponsorship of a final enacted act denotes leadership and procedural ownership, but it does not substitute for roll-call-level attribution to every amendment offered, accepted, or withdrawn during the bill’s committee and floor progression ^{[3] [5]}.

2. Late-2025 negotiations reveal partisan amendment strategies, not a roll-call map

Coverage from November 2025 frames the forward strategy in the Senate as Republican leaders proposing to take up the House-passed CR and amend it in the Senate to insert long-term appropriations and extend government funding past November 21; that reporting highlights party strategy rather than naming specific amendment sponsors ^[2]. The public narrative centers on factions—Senate Republicans, moderate Democrats, and other blocs—couching support or opposition to amendment approaches in political terms: Republicans offering a pathway to end a shutdown through amendment votes, and Democrats weighing concessions on appropriations and health subsidy votes. Reporting therefore documents political positioning and likely bargaining chips, not a granular list of MPs who backed each proposed amendment ^[2].

3. Sources that detail the bill’s text but not individual amendment backers

Official texts and legislative summaries, such as the Passed Congress version of H.R. 1968 and the Congressional Research Service section-by-section, comprehensively describe funding, extensions, and program-level provisions in the enacted Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025, yet these formal records do not attribute specific amendments to individual lawmakers ^{[3] [5]}. Those sources are valuable for understanding what provisions entered law and when, but they operate at the level of bill language and statutory effect rather than amendment sponsorship metadata. For researchers seeking amendment-level attribution, the available analyses suggest resorting to committee reports, roll-call votes, and congressional record entries—documents not represented in the provided set ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Public statements and floor rhetoric identify some proponents of a “clean” or targeted CR

Contemporaneous statements quoted in reporting identify lawmakers advocating general positions: for example, coverage cites Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT) urging a clean, short-term CR to reopen government, while Senate Democrats are described as offering a CR with policy riders that fueled the impasse ^[6]. These public comments reveal who is framing the amendment debate and what rhetorical positions they take, but they do not equate to documented sponsorship of specific amendment language. Statements by individual lawmakers illuminate motives and likely amendment preferences but stop short of supplying a comprehensive roll-call map of amendment supporters ^[6].

5. What the gaps mean and where to look next for definitive names

Given the documentation in these analyses, the principal gap is the absence of amendment-level roll-call or sponsorship logs within the provided sources; the materials available focus on bill sponsorship, enacted text, section-by-section summaries, and high-level negotiation narratives ^{[1] [4] [5] [2]}. To obtain a definitive list of lawmakers who supported specific 2025 CR amendments, researchers must consult the Congressional Record for floor amendment sponsors and votes, House and Senate roll-call datasets, committee markup records, and official amendment texts attached to the bill—records not included in the supplied analyses. The current evidence therefore supports identification of bill sponsors and partisan strategies but not a granular ledger of individual amendment backers ^{[4] [2]}.