Debt deal expected to sail through Senate

Senate liberals and conservatives on Monday blasted a bipartisan deal to raise the debt limit, but sources say a greater number of colleagues want to pass it and avert a national default.
Lawmakers and aides say the bill will easily pass the Senate, where it is scheduled for a vote at noon on Tuessday. If there’s any drama, it will play out in the House, they say.

Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidHarry Mason ReidGOP pushes to change Senate rules for Trump Trump presses GOP to change Senate rules Only thing Defense’s UFO probe proves is power of political favors MORE (D-Nev.) said the House will vote on the deal Monday evening, and that he hopes the Senate will immediately follow with its own vote.
“There’s some enthusiasm for the legislation, some — on the other side — not so enthusiastic,” Reid said after meeting with the Democratic Caucus. “This legislation is typical for compromise legislation. Neither side got what they wanted, but it’s the essence of compromise.”
Vice President Biden attended the special caucus meeting to give what one participant called “a very sincere and direct explanation of many months of negotiations” and how the deal came about. 
Reid said he hoped to pass the bill, which would raise the debt limit by $2.1 trillion to $2.4 trillion, “very quickly.”
A Democratic aide said the House was expected, as of early afternoon, to vote on the plan at 6 p.m. Monday. Reid will attempt to lock in a unanimous consent agreement to vote Monday evening or Tuesday morning.
Senate conservatives and Tea Party members say they will oppose the legislation, but add that they have no plans to slow down floor proceedings to derail it in the upper chamber.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Tea Party Caucus, said he wanted to ensure that he and his colleagues would have enough time to carefully read the bill, but would not wage an all-out filibuster.
DeMint’s home-state colleague, Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamSenators introduced revised version of election cyber bill GOP senators push tougher sentencing for synthetic opioid Dems aim to turn ObamaCare hikes into election weapon MORE (R-S.C.), will oppose the deal because it could slate the Pentagon for $600 billion in cuts after next year.
But the concerns over defense spending are not enough to push most GOP senators to vote no.
Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainAfghanistan is our longest war ever and Congress has abandoned all responsibility Kremlin: ‘We have a long way to go’ before any breakthrough with US The GOP is Trump's party now MORE (Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned about defense spending reductions but would still support the deal.
“Am I concerned about defense cuts? Obviously. But I will strongly support this agreement,” McCain said.
Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeConservatives balk over funding bill ahead of shutdown  Overnight Defense: Senate sides with Trump on military role in Yemen | Dem vets push for new war authorization on Iraq anniversary | General says time isn't 'right' for space corps Senate sides with Trump on providing Saudi military support MORE (R-Utah), a member of the Tea Party Caucus, said he expected the deal would pass the Senate.
Sen. Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrOvernight Cybersecurity: House Intel votes to release Russia report | House lawmakers demand Zuckerberg testify | Senators unveil updated election cyber bill Senators introduced revised version of election cyber bill Overnight Cybersecurity: Zuckerberg breaks silence on Cambridge Analytica | Senators grill DHS chief on election security | Omnibus to include election cyber funds | Bill would create 'bug bounty' for State MORE (N.C.), a member of the Senate Republican whip team, predicted it would pass with ease.
“We won’t have any problem passing this,” he said.
Sen. Jim Webb (Va.), the former secretary of the Navy and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said the defense cuts would not affect his support.
“When the leadership of both parties can come together and find a way to move forward, it’s time to move forward,” Webb said.
Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinFeinstein, Harris call for probe of ICE after employee resigns Jeh Johnson: Media focused on 'Access Hollywood' tape instead of Russian meddling ahead of election What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump MORE (Calif.), an influential member of the Democratic Caucus, said her colleagues have misgivings about various elements of the package but do not want to risk economic fallout by opposing it.
“It’s a compromise and it’s hard, it’s a very hard compromise for people, but we recognize — I think, a majority of us — that the alternative is calamitous and the alternative can very well push a real recession,” said Feinstein. “I think this becomes a settlement of necessity rather than a settlement of favor.
“I will support it,” she added.
Liberals said they were disappointed that the deal would cut spending by more than $2 trillion but not raise taxes for the wealthy or corporations. 

“I think at the end of the day that there is deep disappointment among the American people that a time when the rich are becoming much richer and corporations are making billions in profits and not paying a nickel in taxes that deficit reduction is taking place on the backs of children, the elderly, the sick in the poor,” said Sen. Bernie SandersBernard (Bernie) SandersCongress to require FEC report on foreign money in elections DCCC adds first black candidates to list of top candidates Hillary Clinton’s sorry apology is why she’s no champion for women MORE (Vt.), an independent who caucuses with Democrats. “I’m certainly not going to vote for it.”
Sanders, however, did not signal any plan to object to speeding up floor proceedings to allow Congress to pass the deal by the Aug. 2 deadline.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) also said he would vote against the deal.
“These Republicans are robbing Peter and Paul, not just Peter to pay for Paul,” he said.
He said cuts to domestic discretionary spending will hurt “people who are really in a position where mercy is required,” such as poor families who rely on federal assistance for home heating in the winter and who depend on the Head Start to give their children quality early education.