Debt deal passes: Wyden votes yes, Merkley votes no.

Kari Chisholm

By a vote of 74-26, the U.S. Senate has passed the debt-ceiling compromise, sending it on to President Obama with but mere hours to spare.

Next step is President Obama's signature (which should trigger David Wu's resignation).

Senator Ron Wyden voted Yes. Senator Jeff Merkley voted No.

Speaking on the floor, Senator Merkley noted that many have called this a "hostage-taking":

Those who have threatened for the first time in the U.S. history for the U.S not to meet its obligations would result in devastating impact to those across this nation, those who carried out that threat did so in the wrong spirit. Not the spirit of America pulling together, but in the spirit of creating a situation of hostage-taking and extortion designed to protect the most powerful and wealthy at the expense of families across this nation.

Wyden has long advocated for major tax reform to close all those loopholes beloved by the special interests. So, it's not particularly surprising that he would take note of the bipartisan "super committee" that will hopefully take up tax reform:

The creation of a bipartisan Congressional Committee to tackle the deficit creates an opportunity to fix what this deal did and achieve what it didn’t. It creates an opportunity for Congress to find savings elsewhere and restore those needed investments in our economy. Reducing the deficit doesn’t have to be defined by slashing spending to achieve arbitrary goals. This Committee can look for ways to save money by thinking more strategically and finding ways for current programs to operate more efficiently. This committee can look for ways to grow the economy and put people back to work. This Committee can tackle tax reform and give Americans something to show for the debate.

This is just speculation on my part, but others have noted that Wyden may be a leading candidate to be one of the Super 12. From Chris Weigant:

There are other choices from these four committees of Democratic Senators with enough clout and seniority to sit on the new joint budget committee. Patty Murray of Washington, Ron Wyden of Oregon, or even Patrick Leahy from Vermont would all likely be strongly supported by the Democratic rank and file. Wyden, in particular, has crafted a few creative deals in the past with Republicans

Update: At 11 a.m., White House press secretary Jay Carney announced that President Obama has signed the bill. Still no word from David Wu.

Update, 11:55 a.m.: No, David Wu still hasn't resigned. National Journal's Hotline notes that he can still resign, even if the U.S. House is in recess. That's because the formal resignation comes by way of a letter to Governor Kitzhaber.

Stay tuned as this post is updated.

On the jump, the full statements from Wyden and Merkley

Wyden's statement:

Today, Members of Congress have a choice: allow the United States to default on its financial obligations or vote for the deal on the table. The full faith and credit of the United States is being held for ransom, and because I’m not willing to sacrifice the economic well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans, I will vote for the deal on the table.

This is not the deal that I would have constructed nor should it be held up as a shining example of bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans could have worked together on real reforms. They could have put the country first and come up with constructive solutions to reduce the deficit, grow the economy and put Americans back to work. They could have laid the groundwork for tax reform and made it possible for both parties to achieve long-sought victories.

Instead we are left to celebrate what this legislation doesn’t do. This bill doesn’t allow the United States to default on its financial obligations. It doesn’t hold seniors hostage or put important safety net programs like food stamps, Medicaid and veterans benefits at risk. Instead this deal protects seniors and ensures that our nation’s most vulnerable will stay protected as Congress continues to find ways to get our deficits and debt under control. But we can’t afford to rest on those assurances. We need to stay vigilant for the most vulnerable and we must find better ways to save money than cutting education, job training, infrastructure and research efforts that are essential to this country’s economic future. Arbitrary cuts to these programs will harm our nation’s ability to compete at the individual, corporate and national level, for years to come. That’s not good for the economy or the deficit.

The creation of a bipartisan Congressional Committee to tackle the deficit creates an opportunity to fix what this deal did and achieve what it didn’t. It creates an opportunity for Congress to find savings elsewhere and restore those needed investments in our economy. Reducing the deficit doesn’t have to be defined by slashing spending to achieve arbitrary goals. This Committee can look for ways to save money by thinking more strategically and finding ways for current programs to operate more efficiently. This committee can look for ways to grow the economy and put people back to work. This Committee can tackle tax reform and give Americans something to show for the debate.

I will vote for this deal because I don’t believe that allowing the country to go into default is an option. Putting an already struggling economy at even greater risk is not an acceptable choice. But I believe that Congress can and should do better. The only way we do better is to keep working for real solutions and real reforms, like tax reform. And while such reforms may be hard to achieve, they are impossible to achieve if no one fights for them. This is why I will keep putting ideas on the table and fighting for solutions that address the very real challenges facing Americans.

Merkley's statement:

I have spent the last several days immersed in the details of this budget deal, trying to understand its real-world impact on Oregon’s middle class and small businesses. I have a single, simple measure to evaluate this proposal: is it going to create greater opportunities for prosperity and success for working Americans? Unfortunately, I have concluded that it will not, and so I cannot support it.

First, this deal will contribute to the gathering storm threatening to make our current unemployment crisis even worse. Our unsustainable deficits are absolutely a long-term challenge that we must address. But millions of Oregonians and Americans are out of work right now. And with at least 5 million foreclosures looming, with the expiration of extended unemployment benefits forecast to cost half a million jobs next year, with the payroll tax holiday ending and costing another estimated 900,000 jobs in 2012, we should be relentlessly preoccupied with how to create more jobs. Instead, this package will add to the job losses, repeating the mistakes that have caused prolonged economic slumps in this country and elsewhere.

Second, this deal will do serious damage to the programs that middle class Americans depend on. The bulk of the deficit reduction is piled onto that small part of the budget that funds things like Head Start, college financial aid, research into clean energy and medical cures, and safeguards against contaminated food and polluted air and water. These sorts of programs combined are less than one-fifth of the budget. And we are spending the same amount on them today in a real dollars, per person basis, as we did in 2001. Yet these programs -- critical to helping families in tough times, to giving kids the tools they need to succeed, and to keeping our economy competitive so there are good jobs in the future – would endure as much as 15% in cuts. Mortgaging the middle class’s future and increasing their burdens now do not make America stronger.

Moreover, while all reasonable people can understand the need for belt-tightening to bring down our unsustainable deficits, this plan exempts the wealthy and well-connected. The many subsidies and entitlements that they enjoy are tucked away in the tax code, which has been put off limits. So despite the dramatic increases in income of the best off in our nation since 2000, the sweetheart deals that litter the tax code are protected.

Finally, this flawed product is the result of irresponsible threats to torpedo the economy by refusing to pay America’s bills. The editorials are full of phrases like ‘extortion,’ ‘hostage-taking,’ and ‘lunacy.’ President Reagan himself said, ‘This brinkmanship threatens the holders of bonds and those who rely on veterans benefits. Markets would skyrocket, instability would occur and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations.’ A default would be enormously damaging to every American, and I respect and value the hard work of the President and Leader Reid to avoid that calamity despite the unreasonable ransom demands they were facing. But at some point we must finally stand up for the middle class and insist that their jobs and their futures be our priority, or this ugly drama will repeat itself again and again.

I am fully committed to work towards real compromise, one that asks for sacrifice from everyone who can afford it to tackle our long-term debt challenges. I’m prepared to make hard choices when those choices are necessary to solve our nation’s challenges and make it stronger. However, I cannot endorse a process that will worsen our economy, burden middle class families, and reduce our children’s opportunities in the future, and doesn’t ask those who have so much already to contribute one thin dime.

Somewhere in the frenzy of economic anxiety, ideology, and electoral politics, Washington has lost its way. The greatness of America and the strength of our economy cannot be separated from the well-being of the American middle class. If we continue to sacrifice their prosperity to subsidize the well-off and well-connected, we sacrifice America’s future.

By Kari Chisholm Aug. 02, 2011