What spending levels and appropriations bills do House and Senate Democrats support to resolve the shutdown?

Executive Summary — What House and Senate Democrats Say They Want to End the Shutdown

House Democrats have publicly pushed for a short-term continuing resolution that holds funding at fiscal year 2023 levels and rejects deep cuts or “extreme” policy riders, while urging completion of the standard 12 appropriations bills consistent with bipartisan fiscal frameworks (November 14, 2023) ^[1]. Senate Democrats have advanced a package that pairs a clean stopgap short-term funding bill with a small set of bipartisan appropriations bills and a one-year extension of Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, a demand framed as protecting health coverage stability (November 7–8, 2025) ^{[2] [3]}. Opponents portray Democratic proposals as a large $1.5 trillion partisan package or “ransom,” while Democrats and allied groups argue their demands are targeted steps to prevent harm to health programs and essential services ^{[4] [5]}.

1. The House Democrats’ clear line: fund at FY2023 levels, no extreme riders — and finish 12 bills

House Democratic leadership has repeatedly endorsed a continuing resolution that preserves FY2023 spending levels and rejects cuts and ideological policy riders that would alter existing programs, framing their demand as the least disruptive way to reopen government and protect the economy and national security ^[1]. That November 2023 statement ties Democratic urgency to completing the full appropriations process and advancing supplemental national security and domestic funding sought by the president, which frames their position as both procedural — return to regular order — and substantive — safeguard programs and requested increases ^[1]. Critics say this stance may be dated or politically calibrated for prior negotiations, and the public record shows subsequent tensions and shifting offers in 2025 discussions, so the House stance should be read as a core Democratic baseline rather than an immutable final offer ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Senate Democrats’ current negotiating package: clean CR plus a targeted set of bills and ACA extension

Senate Democratic leaders proposed what they describe as a two-part deal: reopen the government with a clean continuing resolution while simultaneously moving a small bundle of three bipartisan appropriations bills and enacting a one-year extension of ACA premium tax credits to prevent a midyear spike in costs for millions ^[2]. Senate leadership framed the ACA extension as certainty for enrollees and a narrow, time-limited measure rather than a sweeping expansion, and moderate Democrats reportedly explored compromises to phase or pay for elements of funding through short-term offsets ^{[2] [3]}. Senate Republicans have publicly rejected pairing the ACA extension with reopening votes, calling it a nonstarter and insisting the government must reopen before negotiating policy — a procedural blockade that turned the ACA extension into both a substantive demand and a tactical lever ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Opposing narratives: “clean CR now” vs. “raise certainty for health programs” — labels and accusations fly

Republican backers of a “clean CR” argue Democrats are holding the government hostage with partisan policy additions and inflated spending asks, with some characterizing Democratic offers as a $1.5 trillion package stuffed with unrelated priorities like immigration benefits, EV incentives, and welfare rule changes ^[4]. Democratic defenders counter that the party’s proposals focus on protecting healthcare subsidies and preventing real-world harm to veterans, federal workers, and beneficiaries, and that outside groups across business and veteran communities have called for passage of short-term funding to avoid damage ^[5]. Both sides use charged labels — “ransom note” versus “necessary protection” — signaling political agendas: Republicans emphasizing fiscal restraint and process, Democrats prioritizing programmatic certainty and specific social policy protections ^{[4] [5]}.

4. The real-world stakes Democrats cite — payments, services, and economic disruption

Democratic statements emphasize tangible harms from a prolonged shutdown: furloughed or unpaid federal workers, delays in food and benefits programs, national security friction, and macroeconomic costs from disrupted services — messaging intended to shift public pressure onto Republican resistance to Democratic conditions for reopening ^[5]. Reports in early November 2025 show airlines cutting routes, air traffic and customs pressures, and food aid interruptions as immediate consequences cited to argue urgency for a deal that includes health subsidy certainty ^{[3] [5]}. Opponents argue those harms are better addressed by reopening government immediately via a clean CR and settling policy fights afterward, maintaining that attaching substantive policy to an emergency funding vote sets a dangerous precedent ^{[7] [4]}.

5. Where this leaves negotiations — narrow paths and hinge votes

Analyses from November 5–8, 2025 indicate senators on both sides signaled movement but also deep distance: Senate GOP leaders called ACA extension talks a nonstarter until reopening, while some moderate Democrats sought compromise packages to bridge gaps, suggesting an ultimate resolution could be a narrowly tailored CR plus a limited set of bills or a time-bound ACA fix if bipartisan votes are found ^{[6] [2] [3]}. The arithmetic in the Senate is decisive: a handful of moderates could determine whether Democrats extract policy concessions in exchange for reopen votes, or whether Republicans pass a clean CR with Democratic dissent — a strategic choice shaped by public pressure, interest group lobbying, and the political calendar ^{[6] [7]}.