President Joe Biden is hoping for a few legislative wins before the midterms. Three bills in particular seem to have a better-than-average chance of success. They're a far cry from the agenda Biden attempted to achieve last year, but having to deal with two corporatist Democratic senators derailed almost all of these lofty ambitions. So Americans will not be getting tuition-free community college, subsidized child care, free preschool, student loan forgiveness, action on climate change, and a whole host of other ideas that would have dramatically improved the lives of hundreds of millions of American citizens. Thanks, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, for nothing.

But while the failure of the broader agenda contained within Biden's proposed "Build Back Better Act" has been a massive disappointment to many, Biden did manage to chalk up a few legislative achievements -- although you wouldn't know it, because Democrats haven't bothered to toot their own horn very effectively. Only about one-quarter of the public is even aware that Biden got a massive infrastructure bill through Congress last year. This is a failure of communication, from Biden on down to each congressional Democrat. Democrats need to inform voters not just what they want to do in the future, but what they've already done.

Perhaps that's all water under the bridge at this point, but it doesn't mean the Democrats can't pass a few big bills right before the midterm election season, and perhaps when threatened with losing control of Congress they will actually go out and brag about such things in public. As things stand, there are now three big bills which might soon manage to arrive on Joe Biden's desk for his signature.

CHIPS Act

The first is the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America Act, or the "CHIPS for America Act." Or maybe not, Chuck Schumer seems to have started calling it the "Chips and Science Act," so who knows what the final title will be?

This bill was drafted in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic exposing a gigantic weakness in the American supply chain: computer chips. Most computer chips are manufactured overseas (in places like Taiwan). When a global pandemic disrupted the supply chain (as factories shut down and shipping bottlenecks appeared), it affected all kinds of products downstream, most notably new automobiles. Cars today are stuffed full of computer chips, and without those chips, cars simply could not be built. This was a warning sign to not just the American economy as a whole (because cars certainly aren't the only products which now require computer chips) but to national security as well. Only the most basic military equipment isn't computerized, and it is completely impossible to build any larger war equipment (fighters, bombers, missiles, ships, tanks, etc.) without computer chips.

The CHIPS for America Act is an attempt to provide a long-term solution to this problem. It would provide $52 billion in subsidies to build computer chip factories here in America. It would also invest further billions in science and technology innovation, to boost competitiveness in the future.

This isn't as big a bill as it used to be, as Republicans objected to major parts of the initial proposal, but it would still be a historic investment in domestic production of chips. Much like the infrastructure bill, however, these things don't happen overnight -- new factories likely wouldn't actually be built and start operating for years to come. So passing the bill might be a political plus for Biden and the Democrats, but only if they get out and start bragging about it. Which, being Democrats, is never guaranteed.

Skepticism aside, though, it's a bill tailor-made for politics, especially in the populist age we seem to be living in. The ads would just write themselves: "Democrats made it possible for computer chips to be made right here in America, by American workers with good-paying jobs. Why should we offshore such things, when we can do a better job of it right here at home?" Any state or district where a new chip fabrication plant might be built should be political gold for that state's Democratic candidate for Senate and the House, as long as they point it out as many times as possible. The message is a simple one: Democrats are doing something good for the future to make our country safer.

Baby B.B.B.

The Build Back Better Act, as drafted, is dead as a dodo in the Senate, due to Joe Manchin's intransigence. But he has tentatively signed on to one minor piece of the bill, which could actually pass under the reconciliation rules. Call it the "baby B.B.B.," perhaps.

But while it was indeed only a minor part of the larger B.B.B., it will not be a minor achievement, as some Democrats have been fighting for this for decades now. It would allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices from the pharmaceutical companies for the first time. That is a big deal. It's also beyond wildly popular -- in poll after poll, public approval for lowering prescription drug prices clocks in at 90 percent or even higher. So at least when Manchin decided to pick one item from the B.B.B. list of good ideas, he had the sense to pick the one the public is screaming the loudest in support of.

It's not as good as it sounds, because it is designed to be very small-bore at the start, but it is also designed to be expanded later. In 2026, Medicare will be able to negotiate for the prices of only 10 drugs, and then in 2029, they'll add 10 more to the list. However, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of exorbitantly-priced drugs being sold. But once the concept is implemented, future congresses could expand it as much as they wish. It's getting the idea started that is important, even with the delays and restrictions.

There are other parts to the bill, however, which would give some much-more-direct relief to people who buy prescription drugs. The drug companies would not be able to raise their prices faster than inflation, which will at least stem their ability to just hike prices up through the roof on a complete whim (see: EpiPens, for instance, or insulin). Also, the bill would extend for two more years the increased subsidies for Obamacare policies -- which would fend off millions of people getting notices in the mail right before the election telling them their health insurance is going to cost them a lot more next year.

But the biggest and most direct change would be that Medicare recipients would have a cap of $2,000 a year for their costs in buying prescription drugs. Once they hit this cap, the rest of the year would be free, in essence. That is going to make a big difference in a lot of people's lives. That will be a very tangible bit of relief for millions.

Democrats will be able to campaign on this issue in a big way, for two reasons. The first is that if they do pass it through reconciliation, there will likely be few Republicans who vote for it. So it can very effectively be used against sitting Republicans ("Senator Smith voted against lowering prescription drug prices because he thinks the drug companies deserve more of your hard-earned money!").

The second reason this will be a winner for Democrats is that it's pretty easy to summarize. "Democrats passed a bill to lower drug prices for seniors, while the Republicans didn't even lift a finger to help." It's pretty easy to explain to Medicare recipients that they will only have to pay $2,000 a year for their prescriptions, too. And, as already noted, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of lowering drug prices.

Gay Marriage

While the first two bills have an excellent chance of passing soon, the gay marriage bill is on more uncertain ground. This was not anyone's priority a year or even six months ago; it is purely a reaction to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. But while an abortion rights bill would be almost impossible to get by a filibuster, the gay marriage bill may just make it.

The House already passed the Respect For Marriage Act, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as only between one man and one woman) and codify both same-sex and interracial marriage into federal law. This would prevent the Supreme Court from overturning two other important civil rights cases, Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges, which Clarence Thomas already said needed to happen, in his opinion on the Dobbs case.

This is interesting, because it probably should have happened a long time ago (especially the interracial marriage part). But up until now, politicians have been comfortable with the courts defining certain rights, even though they could have enacted these rights into law at any time. If an abortion rights bill had ever passed before this year, the court wouldn't have ever even seen the Dobbs case, to put it another way.

Republicans scoff that it's unnecessary, but that's a pretty thin reason to vote against legalizing interracial marriage. A surprising 47 Republicans in the House voted for the bill -- far more than anyone expected. Right now GOP votes in the Senate are being sought behind the scenes, in order to put together a filibuster-proof majority. As things stand, there are reportedly five Republicans now willing to vote for the bill, meaning another five are still needed.

Chuck Schumer isn't going to put the bill on the floor until he's got 60 sure votes for it. Which may or may not happen. It may happen before the Senate disappears on vacation for the month of August, and it may happen afterwards. So this is the weakest of the three bills for Democrats to use in their campaigns, because as things stand there's no guarantee it'll pass.

But if it does -- if five more Republicans can be found to agree to it, and quickly -- then Democrats will have at least one very positive message to campaign on. If the Supreme Court is going to go rogue, then Congress is going to have to be a lot more proactive in protecting people's rights. Democrats can rightfully say that protecting interracial and gay marriages is only the first step towards enacting more basic human rights into federal law, before the extremists on the high court can toss them out.

Abortion is the biggest motivator for Democratic voters right now, as people everywhere are still incensed at the Supreme Court overturning Roe. Democrats won't be able to ensure abortion rights with their razor-thin majorities in Congress right now, but they can at least send a signal that they'll keep fighting for it and can proactively defend at least some rights before the Supreme Court guts them. Meanwhile, Republicans will be left to defend a stance that is increasingly unpopular even among Republicans. Most Americans consider gay marriage to be completely acceptable now, by a 2-to-1 margin, and it's hard to even find anyone who still argues that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to wed. So defending marriage rights is a lot easier political case to make than the opposite.

Conclusion

Democrats have a chance to actually be productive, but this is really the last chance they're going to get. Even when they do return from their extended summer break, they're not going to have much time before the election to get anything done, and much of that time will be spent out on the campaign trail. Also, passing a bill a few weeks before an election doesn't have the same impact as passing one now and then campaigning on it for the next few months. To have a real political impact, things have to happen very quickly.

Democrats have been criticized for only focusing on what they haven't done yet, to the exclusion of touting what they have managed to achieve. But it'd be a lot better to have two or even all three of these bills signed into law because it will give them things to brag about that are very recent. Democrats could hit the campaign trail bragging about creating chip fabrication factories, lowering your grandma's drug costs, and protecting marriage equality for all. All three of those are potent political messages, obviously. If Democrats can pivot from "here's what we want to do someday" and start talking about "here's what we just did for you," their chances of convincing voters will go up.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant