Which senators proposed changes to the CR and what were their amendments?

1. Who claimed to change the CR and what they filed — a quick inventory that matters

The record identifies at least three named Senate actors who proposed changes tied to the CR debate. Senator Lindsey Graham released a Senate amendment to the House budget resolution that preserves a minimum $880 billion spending cut instruction while raising the debt limit by $5 trillion and adding funding priorities described as border needs, military relief, making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, and cutting wasteful spending ^[1]. Senator Dick Durbin, as Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed amendments aimed at reversing or limiting tax cuts that benefit billionaires and framed those filings as part of pushing back against a Republican budget framework ^[2]. Senator Patty Murray is associated with S.2882, a continuing appropriations bill introduced as a comprehensive vehicle containing extensions and programmatic provisions; the bill text and procedural actions around it were recorded in September 2025 ^[3]. These filings represent distinct strategies: amendments to a budget resolution, targeted committee amendments, and a standalone CR vehicle.

2. What the Graham and Durbin amendments actually sought to change in policy terms

Graham’s amendment is described as preserving aggressive spending‑cut instructions while substantially enlarging the debt‑limit authorization and attaching priorities intended to appeal to conservative constituencies — border funding, military relief, tax‑cut permanence and so‑called wasteful spending reductions ^[1]. Durbin’s filings are portrayed as a Democratic counterweight focused on rolling back or preventing tax advantages for the very wealthy, reflecting committee priorities and a partisan effort to highlight distributional impacts of the Republican blueprint ^[2]. Those two filings therefore frame the same CR debate through competing lenses: Graham’s changes tilt toward fiscal restraint paired with tax‑cut permanence and a larger ceiling on borrowing, while Durbin’s amendments aim to blunt perceived giveaways to high earners and emphasize protections for families. The texts are cited as amendments and filings; detailed amendment language beyond these summaries is not provided in the sources.

3. The Democratic CR text and programmatic amendments — more than partisan rhetoric

Separately, a Democratic continuing resolution text circulated in mid‑September 2025 lists a suite of programmatic provisions and temporary extensions: funding for community health centers, the National Health Service Corps and teaching health centers; extensions of Medicare‑dependent hospital payments and certified community behavioral health clinic demonstrations; veterans’ nursing home care extensions; and cybersecurity authorizations including the National Cybersecurity Protection System and State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program ^[4]. Another Democratic public account frames the CR as reversing healthcare cuts, extending enhanced tax credits, protecting Congress’s power of the purse, and strengthening security for officials — language that signals both policy intent and political messaging designed to pressure Republican leaders to negotiate ^[5]. Those provisions show Democrats were using the CR to lock in program extensions that would take effect immediately if the CR passed.

4. Where the CR fight stood procedurally — votes, failures and a shutdown backdrop

Sources indicate the Senate vote on a CR or related motion failed at least once, contributing to a government shutdown scenario and underscoring the practical stakes of the amendment fights ^{[1] [6]}. The House‑introduced continuing appropriations bill H.R.5371 tracked through March 2025 passed the House but failed in the Senate, reflecting clear chamber disagreement and the practical limits of one chamber’s amendments when the other chamber rejects the package ^[7]. Reports in November 2025 framed ongoing shutdown‑era impacts — troop pay, SNAP benefits, air traffic control and Head Start programs — demonstrating that amendment fights in committee and on the floor translated into real operational disruptions when compromise did not occur ^[6]. The procedural history is therefore a mix of filed amendments, competing CR texts, and at least one failed Senate vote that preserved the shutdown status.

5. Conflicts, gaps and why public accounts vary — read the signals, not just the slogans

The available sources vary in level of detail and focus: some present headline summaries of a senator’s amendment (Graham), others emphasize political messaging and committee filings (Durbin), and still others catalog the Democratic CR’s line‑item extensions and authorizations ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The public record captured in these summaries does not always reproduce full amendment texts or sponsor lists for every change, so gaps remain about exact statutory edits, offsets, and legislative mechanics. Reporting timelines and the overlapping jurisdiction of House and Senate leaders mean that multiple competing packages circulated; that dynamic explains why one source frames the fight as partisan messaging while another enumerates concrete program extensions. Users should expect further divergences in floor action versus filed amendment language as the process continued.

6. Bottom line — what this means going forward and what to watch next

The core fact pattern is clear: senators on both sides actively filed amendments to shape a CR that would either enshrine program extensions (Democrats) or lock in fiscal priorities and tax changes (Republicans and allies like Graham), while opponents like Durbin used amendments to blunt perceived billionaire tax giveaways ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Procedural outcomes — failed Senate votes and a stalled H.R.5371 — demonstrate that filed amendments did not guarantee enactment, and the standoff had tangible operational consequences ^{[7] [6]}. Watch for published amendment texts on the Congressional Record, subsequent roll‑call votes, and any conference offers; those items will clarify which specific statutory changes survive negotiation and which