The Senate didn’t have to break out the sleeping bags Saturday, but the 2:30 a.m. vote was late enough, staffers would say. By the wee hours of the morning, Democrats finally called it quits on their steady volley of amendments — very few of which had anything to do with the debate at hand: the framework for President Trump’s “one, big, beautiful” budget bill. In what was already a foregone conclusion before the late-night grandstanding, the blueprint passed — the first leg in a long and painful slog to fiscal change.

Only GOP Senators Rand Paul (Ky.) and Susan Collins (Maine) voted against the plan, giving Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) just enough breathing room to haul the proposal over the finish line. Although the passage itself was a victory, the real work is just beginning — and, as the House was quick to point out, it won’t be easy. The two chambers are still miles apart on spending cuts, the debt limit language, offsets for defense and border spending, the president’s tax cuts, and a slew of other friction points. But they also understand this daunting reality: the only way to move forward and unlock the magic process that lets Republicans pass Trump’s agenda on their own is to agree on the same plan for moving forward.

That’ll be tough sledding in a House dominated by hardline conservatives who see this as the first opportunity for deep and lasting change. To understand just how differently the two chambers see this, the Senate blueprint sets a measly $4 billion floor for spending cuts, while Speaker Mike Johnson’s caucus is calling for at least $2 trillion in reductions. That’s “only $4 billion with a ‘B,’” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) was quick to point out on Monday’s “Washington Watch,” “whereas the House version was $1.5 to $2 trillion with a ‘T.’” To see any sort of meaningful reforms, Harris told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, “We’d have to go with something much closer to the House version or see what the Senate intends to do with their language.”

Others were more candid. “If the Senate’s ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ budget is put on the House floor, I will vote no,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) warned on X Saturday. “Failure is not an option. And the Senate’s budget is a path to failure.” Reps. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.) and Keith Self (R-Texas) have said they “certainly can’t support it as written,” leaving Johnson in another tight spot. Despite the election of two more Republicans, the speaker can only afford to lose three votes on any sort of compromise (which probably feels like a luxury after sweating through weeks of a single-vote margin.)

That said, he’s in danger of losing dozens more until the Senate provides some real assurances that they’re willing to move in the House’s direction on cuts. If they don’t, “I worry that it’s going to hurt momentum, and you’re gonna have people over here, especially the fiscal hawks, they’re going to say, ‘This is an unserious exercise.’ And I think you’re going to see people fall off,” House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) warned. Asked whether he was a “yes” or “no” on the Senate version, Arrington replied simply, “There’s a lot that hinges on the success of the reconciliation bill, but it starts with a fiscal framework that’s responsible.”

While Johnson wants the two sides to hash out a compromise version in the next handful of days, other members think Republicans should start fleshing out the details before they agree to any of these broad strokes. In 2017, Harris explained, “We didn’t pass the unified budget resolution, which is what we’re talking about now, until we had put some meat on the bones in terms of what was going to be the final product. That’s what we should do now,” he argues, “because there are some of us in the House who just feel this is not an adequate amount of debt reduction. … And again, if the Senate stays true to their word and they do deliver a reconciliation bill that begins to [make some of these deeper cuts], that’s fine. We can pass that budget resolution at that time. But, you know, I’m a believer in trust but verify.”

In Harris’s mind, the vote should be put off until the two chambers have come to some sort of agreement. “[Let’s] put pen to paper,” he urged. “Let’s see what the Senate means when they’re talking about deficit reduction. And if it’s in line with what the House has suggested, then it will be good to go at that time. But I would advise the speaker not to do it, not to put it to a vote this week, because he doesn’t want to come up short on this, because we can continue with drafting those reconciliation bills without this budget resolution at this point.”

“Let’s start talking brass tacks,” the Maryland doctor said. “Where is the deficit going to be reduced? And we can do that right now. We don’t need this budget resolution. We will need it at some point in the future. And if the Senate is in line, if their idea of deficit reduction is in line with the House’s idea, then we can pass it at any time and then move the reconciliation bills forward. The only thing we can’t do is bring a reconciliation bill to the floor without these budget resolutions being passed by both houses. But we’re still far away from that.”

At the same time, Johnson is urging members to support the Senate plan just so the GOP can start getting to work in earnest. In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to members on Saturday, Republican leaders reminded everyone that “Adopting the Senate’s amendment to the House resolution will allow us to finally begin the most important phase of this process: drafting the reconciliation bill that will deliver on President Trump’s agenda and our promises to the American people,” leaders wrote. The Senate amendment as passed makes NO CHANGES to the House reconciliation instructions that we voted for just weeks ago,” they emphasized. “Although the Senate chose to take a different approach on its instructions, the amended resolution in NO WAY prevents us from achieving our goals in the final reconciliation bill.” They can slug that out once the committees get to work.

Meanwhile, the question on most observers’ minds is why Thune’s senators offered such a pitiful response to America’s debt spiral to begin with. “I tend to agree that the Senate’s not really grasping the urgency of the moment when it comes to the deficit,” Perkins shook his head.

“Well, look, they claim they’re going to be serious about deficit reduction,” Harris shrugged. “… Let’s see where it is. You know, show us the money. Show us where your deficit reduction plans are. And if they come near the House’s deficit reduction plans, then let’s go to town. Let’s give the president his tax cuts. Let’s put that deficit reduction in place. And we can do that in fairly rapid order. But again, it’s not on the promise of the Senate, because it’s not enforceable,” he warned. “The only thing enforceable in the Senate is $4 billion. And I think Jodey Arrington is right. It’s not serious until we see exactly what their idea of deficit reduction is.”

At the end of the day, Roy said, “Republicans who want to wiggle out of reasonable spending cuts and restraint know full well the consequences if we fail to do so. … We’ve been granted an opportunity we may never get again,” he underscored. “We must act like it.”