华盛顿——这花了半年时间，但民主党人已经推动乔·拜登总统的2万亿美元社会和气候倡议在众议院获得通过。在参议院，这并不容易，痛苦的共和党修正案、限制性规则和乔·曼钦潜伏在那里。

面对共和党的不断反对，民主党人最终在他们之间达成了一致，并于11月19日在众议院通过了妥协。一名民主党人在他们控制的议院中以三票之差投了反对票。

他们正在就最终版本的进一步修改进行谈判，他们希望最终版本能在圣诞节前获得参议院50-50的批准，他们需要民主党的每一张选票。众议院仍然需要通过修改后的法案。

他们面临的挑战:

民主党人的光明面

是的，就在几周前，该法案的价格标签是10年3.5万亿美元。它以大约2万亿美元的价格在众议院获得通过，并可能在参议院进一步下跌。

是的，弗吉尼亚州民主党参议员乔·曼钦和亚利桑那州民主党参议员基尔斯顿·西内马已经迫使他们的政党限制该措施的规模和野心。至少曼钦想进一步削减开支。

但是，尽管他们激怒了要求更强有力措施的进步人士，但这两位温和派参议员都没有表现出想要炸毁该党首要立法目标的意愿。两人都与党内领导人进行了数月的会谈，暗示双方都希望达成协议，尽管其中一方反映了他们的观点。

参议院仍有可能发生内爆，辩论最早将于12月6日开始。但民主党人仍有很大机会实施他们的支出增加和减税计划，使儿童保健、医疗保险、教育和住房更加负担得起，并减缓全球变暖，这些计划主要是通过向富人和大公司征收更高的税来融资的。

共和党修正案

在这里，共和党人可能会给民主党人带来真正的问题。

在对立法进行长达20个小时的辩论后，参议员可以提出无限数量的修正案，并在几乎没有辩论的情况下强制投票。所谓的拉玛投票可以拖到晚上。

共和党的目标将是双重的。他们可以通过只赢得一名民主党人的支持来迫使修改法案。他们还可以通过让民主党人公开反对听起来很受欢迎的想法，为明年的中期选举提供虽输但有优势的修正案。

这份2100页的法案提供了大量目标。

想指责民主党抬高汽油和家庭取暖价格吗?他们敢反对一项修正案，阻止对排放过量甲烷的石油和天然气设施征收新的费用吗?甲烷是温室气体的一种来源。

共和党取消该措施对州税和地方税的更高税收减免的举动可能会让他们指责民主党保护富人，富人是这些减免的主要受益者。过去共和党的减税政策显著帮助了高端人群。

修正案可能旨在将民主党描绘成在没有法律授权的情况下向美国移民提供联邦福利，这些移民中很少有人有资格获得这种帮助。或者共和党人可以提议在学校课程上给予家长更多的权力，这个问题帮助共和党人格伦·扬金在本月的弗吉尼亚州州长竞选中当选。

参议院规则，讨厌但危险

民主党人正在使用一种特殊的程序，让他们以简单多数通过法案，而不是通常的60票，否则共和党人会扼杀这项立法。

但这是有代价的:其条款必须主要由预算考虑驱动，而不是全面的政策变化。反对者可以要求众议院的无党派议员伊丽莎白·麦克多诺决定某一部分是否违反了这一要求，如果违反了，几乎总是会从法案中删除。

民主党最危险的优先事项可能是移民。

众议院的法案将让自2011年之前在美国没有永久合法身份的数百万移民获得在美国生活和工作长达10年的许可。麦克唐纳最近表示，民主党此前的两项移民提案违反了参议院的规定。

共和党人可能还会挑战一些让政府抑制处方药价格的条款。

曼钦因素

参议院对该法案的修改似乎是不可避免的，这在很大程度上要归功于国会中较为保守的民主党人之一曼钦。

他已经帮助迫使拜登放弃创建免费社区大学的初步计划，提供新的牙科和视力医疗保险福利，并对没有摆脱对碳重燃料依赖的能源生产商进行罚款。这是拜登应对气候变化蓝图的支柱。

现在，曼钦似乎准备强行取消该法案每年四周的带薪休假，这是出于家庭和医疗原因。这2000亿美元的项目受到进步人士的珍视。

曼钦的州是最大的煤炭生产地，它不赞成一些旨在刺激向绿色能源转变的剩余条款。他被质疑在不限制收入的情况下提供一些新的福利。随着他一再表达对通货膨胀的担忧，一些人说该措施的支出注入将加剧通货膨胀，价格标签似乎正在下降。

西内玛之谜

Sinema帮助削减了包装成本。她阻止民主党提高美国富人和公司的税率，许多人认为这是强有力的税收增长和阶级平等的象征。民主党人找到了其他方法来提高对这些群体的征税。

但这位亚利桑那州人很少公开详述她的要求，这让她很难读懂自己前进的目标。她最近告诉政治，她反对可能损害经济的增税，但与曼钦不同，她认为该法案的环境条款是“最重要的部分”

参议院的其他变动

众议院将目前每年1万美元的州和地方税收减免上限提高到8万美元，这有助于在高税收、主要是蓝色州赢得民主党人的选票。

但无党派的外部团体认为，这一变化将极大地有利于最富有的美国人。参议院预算委员会主席伯尼·桑德斯。，和新泽西州参议员鲍勃·梅嫩德斯讨论了拒绝给最高收入人群减税的问题。

虽然众议院的法案加强了政府抑制药品价格的能力，但参议院财政委员会主席罗恩·怀登·多雷。，已经谈到了更进一步。众议院的语言是一种妥协，比许多民主党人更倾向于温和。

与曼钦在意识形态上截然相反的进步派桑德斯说，他仍在努力“强化”气候变化、医疗保险、药品价格和对富人征税的法案。

随着民主党人希望最终通过该法案，怀登和桑德斯的影响力似乎有限。

Beyond Manchin: Dems' $2T bill faces Senate gauntlet

WASHINGTON -- It took half a year but Democrats have driven President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion package of social and climate initiatives through the House. It gets no easier in the Senate, where painful Republican amendments, restrictive rules and Joe Manchin lurk.

Facing unbroken GOP opposition, Democrats finally reached agreement among themselves and eased the compromise through the House on Nov. 19. One Democrat voted no in a chamber they control by just three votes.

They're negotiating further changes for a final version they hope will win approval by Christmas in the 50-50 Senate, where they'll need every Democratic vote. House passage of the altered bill would still be needed.

The gauntlet they face:

BRIGHT SIDE FOR DEMOCRATS

Yes, just weeks ago the bill's price tag was $3.5 trillion over 10 years. It passed the House at around $2 trillion and will likely fall further in the Senate.

And yes, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., have already forced their party to constrain the measure's size and ambition. Manchin, at least, wants to cut still further.

But while they've enraged progressives wanting a more robust measure, neither moderate senator has signaled a desire to blow up the party's top legislative priority. Both have held months of talks with party leaders, suggesting each wants an agreement, though one reflecting their views.

Things can still implode in the Senate, where debate will begin no earlier than the week of Dec. 6. But Democrats retain a strong chance of enacting their plans for spending increases and tax cuts making child care, health coverage, education and housing more affordable and slowing global warming, largely financed with higher levies on the rich and big companies.

GOP AMENDMENTS

Here's one place where Republicans could cause real problems for Democrats.

After debating the legislation for up to 20 hours, senators can introduce limitless numbers of amendments and force votes with little debate. The so-called vote-a-rama can drag through the night.

GOP goals will be twofold. They can force changes weakening the bill by winning over just one Democrat. And they can offer amendments that lose but gain ammunition for next year's midterm elections by putting Democrats on record against popular-sounding ideas.

The 2,100-page bill offers plenty of targets.

Want to accuse Democrats of driving up gasoline and home-heating prices? Dare them to oppose an amendment blocking new fees on petroleum and natural gas facilities with excessive emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas contributor.

A GOP move to erase the measure's higher tax deductions for state and local taxes could let them accuse Democrats of protecting the rich, the chief beneficiaries of those deductions. Past Republican tax cuts have prominently helped high-end earners.

Amendments could be designed to portray Democrats as offering federal benefits to immigrants in the U.S. without legal authorization, few of whom qualify for such help. Or Republicans could propose giving parents more authority on school curricula, an issue that helped elect Republican Glenn Youngkin in this month's Virginia gubernatorial race.

SENATE RULES, PESKY BUT DANGEROUS

Democrats are using a special process that would let them approve the bill by simple majority, not the usual 60 votes that would otherwise let Republicans kill the legislation.

But there’s a price: Its provisions must be driven chiefly by budgetary considerations, not sweeping policy changes. Opponents can ask the chamber's nonpartisan parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, to decide if a section violates that requirement, and if it does it nearly always falls from the bill.

Democrats’ most imperiled priority may be immigration.

The House bill would let millions of migrants in the U.S. since before 2011 without permanent legal status get permits to live and work in the U.S. for up to 10 years. MacDonough has recently said two previous Democratic immigration proposals violated Senate rules.

Republicans might also challenge some provisions letting the government curb prescription drug prices.

THE MANCHIN FACTOR

Senate changes to the bill seem inevitable, largely thanks to Manchin, one of Congress’ more conservative Democrats.

He's already helped force Biden to drop initial plans to create free community college, provide new dental and vision Medicare benefits and to fine energy producers that don't wean themselves off carbon-heavy fuels. That was the pillar of Biden's blueprint for combating climate change.

Now Manchin seems poised to force removal of the bill's four weeks annually of paid, required leave for family and medical reasons. That $200 billion item is prized by progressives.

Manchin, whose state is a top coal producer, frowns on some remaining provisions aimed at spurring a switch to green energy. He's questioned providing some new benefits without imposing income limits. Along with his repeated expressions of concern about inflation, which some say the measure's infusion of spending would aggravate, the price tag seems headed downward.

THE SINEMA ENIGMA

Sinema helped whittle the package's costs. She's blocked Democrats from raising tax rates on wealthy Americans and corporations, proposals many like as potent revenue raisers and symbols of class equity. Democrats found other ways to boost levies on those groups.

But the Arizonan seldom details her demands publicly, making it hard to read her goals moving forward. She recently told Politico that she opposes tax increases that can hurt the economy, but unlike Manchin considers the bill's environment provisions “its most important part."

OTHER SENATE CHANGES

The House raised the current $10,000 yearly cap on allowable state and local tax deductions to $80,000, helping win votes from Democrats in high-tax, mostly blue states.

But nonpartisan outside groups calculate that the change would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., have discussed denying the tax break to the very highest earners.

While the House bill strengthens the government's ability to curb pharmaceutical prices, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has talked about going further. The House language is a compromise that's more modest than many Democrats preferred.

The progressive Sanders, Manchin's ideological opposite, says he's still trying to “strengthen” the bill on climate change, Medicare, drug prices and taxing the rich.

With Democrats hoping to finally pass the bill, Wyden's and Sanders' leverage seems limited.