Northwest Indiana congressmen reacted along party lines to the government shutdown stretching into the longest one in U.S. history.
Republican senators are trying to end the government shutdown by preparing a bipartisan package of spending bills that they hope will win new Democratic votes. It is unclear whether their plan will work.
Democrats have voted 14 times not to reopen the government as they demand an extension of expiring health care subsidies, which are not expected to be part of the legislation. Many said Thursday they would continue to hold out until President Donald Trump and Republican leaders negotiate with them on an extension.
When the new spending package is proposed, Democrats will have a crucial choice to make: Do they keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or do they vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual health care vote, but not a guaranteed outcome?
Indiana Republican Senator Todd Young has voted 14 times “for a clean bill that would fund and reopen the federal government,” while Senate Democrats have voted against the bill, said Leah Selk, a Young spokesperson.
U.S. Sen. Todd Young, center, pictured Feb. 15, 2024, is encouraging his Democrat colleagues to vote to reopen the government, according to a spokesperson. (Kyle Telechan for the Post-Tribune)
“Senator Young is encouraging his Democrat colleagues to vote to reopen the government so that our troops get paid and federal workers can resume providing critical services to the American people,” Selk said.
Indiana Republican Senator Jim Banks said Democrats have voted against the continuing resolution to hurt Trump.
“This needs to end. Republicans are ready to get back to work for the American people,” Banks said.
The lead-up to the shutdown started with the discussion and ultimately approval of Trump’s tax bill, said Aaron Dusso, associate professor of political science at Indiana University Indianapolis.
At its core, the tax bill’s priority is $4.5 trillion in tax breaks enacted in 2017 during Trump’s first term that would expire if Congress failed to act, along with new ones. This includes allowing workers to deduct tips and overtime pay, and a $6,000 deduction for most older adults earning less than $75,000 a year.
There’s also a hefty investment, some $350 billion, in national security and Trump’s deportation agenda and to help develop the “Golden Dome” defensive system over the U.S.
To help offset the lost tax revenue, the package includes $1.2 trillion in cutbacks to Medicaid health care and food stamps, largely by imposing new work requirements, including for some parents and older people, and a major rollback of green energy tax credits.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the decade, and 11.8 million more people will go without health coverage.
As Congress members negotiated the tax bill earlier this year, Dusso said a government shutdown was avoided then because Republicans told Democrats that they could negotiate elements of the bill in future legislation. Democrats don’t feel that negotiations happened, Dusso said, which led to “a lack of trust” in Congress.
When the continuing resolution was proposed over a month ago, Dusso said Senate Democrats decided to filibuster for expiring health care subsidies since the tax bill made major cuts to Medicaid. The continuing resolution passed in the House, but has been stalled in the Senate, which has led to the shutdown.
“We had this impasse. If you’re a Republican, what you say is, ‘What I want is a continuing resolution that’s going to fund the government for x number of weeks and then we can negotiate that,’” Dusso said. “The response from Democrats is that ‘We don’t trust you. Even this year, you made that same promise, we went along with it, and we never got that negotiation.’ They want something more concrete that would, at a minimum, extend Affordable Care Act subsidies.”
Earlier this week, the government shutdown became the longest shutdown in U.S. history after beating the 35-day record set in 2018-2019 under Trump’s first presidency, Dusso said.
Historically, government shutdowns lasted anywhere from one day to two weeks, Dusso said. In some cases, Dusso said, the government was shut down for only a few hours before a deal was reached.
“Where we’re going to go, who knows. The president hasn’t seemed to be willing to negotiate. He wants to essentially force the issue by having the Senate change the interpretation of the rules,” Dusso said.
U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan, pictured Saturday, Nov.1, 2025, said
the Republican majority is solely responsible for the extended government shutdown. (John Smierciak/for the Post-Tribune)
The House of Representatives hasn’t been in session during the shutdown, which is uncommon, Dusso said. Typically, the House is still in session to pass or work on other legislation, he said.
U.S. Rep Frank Mrvan, D-Highland, said it “is appalling” that House Speaker Mike Johnson hasn’t called the House into session during the shutdown.
“The Republican majority is solely responsible for this shutdown,” Mrvan said. “The pain being inflicted on the most vulnerable, working families, and the damage being done to our economy is entirely unnecessary.”
The end date for the House-passed continuing resolution is less than two weeks away, Mrvan said. He called on Johnson to call the House back into session, “and end this needless suffering.”
“The American people have made it clear that they want bipartisan solutions that address the high cost of living, rising energy bills, affordable health care, and for their government to reopen,” Mrvan said.
Trump wants the Senate to change its interpretation of Senate rules to end the filibuster and pass the continuing resolution, Dusso said. The Senate has chipped away at the filibuster for judicial appointments by stating that a three-fifths vote means a simple majority, he said.
But, an interpretation like that for a funding bill would be a fundamental change in Senate procedure, Dusso said, because it would give the majority party the ability to approve spending without negotiations.
“What they have yet to do, though, is move beyond the nomination. They’ve kind of limited it to just these nominees, not the substance stuff. This move would be substance,” Dusso said. “That would change our history.”
Historically, both parties have opposed ending the filibuster because it offers the minority party leverage in negotiations, Dusso said.
“(Ending the filibuster) would allow the majority party to rule with an iron fist, just like the House, where the minority party has no say,” Dusso said.
One way to end the shutdown would be to end the filibuster, which would end it unilaterally, and “President Trump likes unilateral power,” Dusso said. The other option is for Congress to reach a compromise, he said.
“I don’t know which one is more likely,” Dusso said. “Historically, the far more likely thing would be to have some type of compromise. Usually, the president would be involved in these discussions, and it doesn’t seem that President Trump is involved or wants to be involved in these negotiations.”
The Associated Press contributed.
akukulka@post-trib.com
