This afternoon Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocked a motion to disapprove the deal the U.S. and five other countries reached with Iran in July. All 54 Republicans and four Democrats voted for the disapproval measure, which needed 60 votes to proceed under Senate rules. GOP leaders plan to return to the issue next week, but they are unlikely to change the minds of the 42 Democrats who upheld today’s filibuster. The U.S. House is expected to pass a disapproval motion, but without Senate action, President Barack Obama will not be forced to veto the measure.

Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted for the bill that allowed Congress to weigh in on the Iran deal. Both were skeptical when the Obama administration announced the agreement. Yesterday and today, both delivered Senate floor speeches explaining why they oppose the deal. You can watch Grassley’s speech here and Ernst’s here. I enclose below full transcripts released by each senator’s office.

Incidentally, Ernst’s campaign committee is list-building off the issue. At the end of this post, I enclose an e-mail blast that went out minutes before the Senate voted.

UPDATE: Added below a statement Ernst’s office released after the vote.

Senator Chuck Grassley’s floor statement on September 10:

Iran Nuclear Agreement Resolution

This is a critically important debate on a nuclear deal that will have long-lasting impacts on our national security and the security of our friends and allies.  

This debate is happening because ninety-eight Senators expressed the desire to have a say on this agreement.

This process will allow the American people to speak through their elected representatives, and I can say, the American people overwhelming oppose this deal.  

New public opinion polls released in just the last few days indicate that Americans in general are opposed to this deal by a margin of 2 to 1.  Only 21 percent support this deal.  

I participated in meetings with constituents in twenty-five of Iowa’s counties during the August work period.  

The message I received was overwhelming in opposition to this deal.  

That’s the same message I’m hearing from Iowans who have written or called since the deal was announced in July.

After many weeks of studying the terms of the Iranian deal, hearing from experts, attending classified briefings and engaging in dialogue with my constituents, my initial skepticisms have been confirmed.  

I’ve come to the conclusion that the deal presented to us is a bad deal that will not increase our national security or the security of our friends and allies, and it should be rejected.

The United States began the negotiations from a position of real strength.  The international sanctions were hurting Iran and it wanted out from under them.  

The sanctions regime that Congress put in place, over the objections of President Obama, drove Iran to the negotiating table.

The Administration, leading up to negotiations and throughout the process, outlined the conditions for a good deal.  

President Obama and Secretary Kerry both made important statements about the goal of the negotiations – the goal was to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.  

Secretary Kerry himself said, in the fall of 2013, that Iran has “no right to enrich” and that a good deal with Iran would “help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.”  

Despite assurances that the deal would include “anytime, anywhere” inspections, the deal falls short.  

President Obama negotiated away from these positions over the course of the negotiations.

This deal accepts and legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state.

Iran will not dismantle many important parts of its uranium enrichment infrastructure, contrary to past U.S. policy that Iran not be allowed to enrich.

And, Iran is permitted to continue a vast research and development program.  

Many of the significant limitations expire after ten years, leaving Iran an internationally legitimate nuclear program.    

Iran could fully abide by this deal and be a nuclear threshold state.  This is all contrary to the initial goal Obama announced.

With regard to inspections, international inspectors will not have “anytime, anywhere” access – they will have “managed access.”

In fact, the deal provides Iran with a 24-day process to further delay and hide prohibited activities.  

Iran has a track record of cheating on past agreements, and this deal allows Iran to stonewall the inspectors for up to 24 days.  

The deal also includes side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that we can’t review and even the Administration has not seen.  

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which passed the Senate 98-1, requires the Administration to provide to Congress access to all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements” as part of the deal.  

It seems in this case we’re being asked to put our faith in the Iranian regime to not cheat.

Iran has not provided details on the past military dimensions of its nuclear program, even though the U.S. position was that Iran had to come clean about that history before any sanctions relief.  

It’s critical for a robust verification regime to work, that the IAEA have a full accounting of Iran’s past efforts and stockpiles.  

Yet, it appears that Iran will be allowed to supervise itself by conducting its own inspections and collect samples at the secretive military facility in Parchin, where much of the military dimensions of its nuclear program had been carried out.

I also oppose the last-minute decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles.  

General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that “we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.”  

But, under this agreement, after just five years the conventional arms embargo will be lifted.  After just eight years, the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted.  

Iran has long sought the technology to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be a direct threat to the U.S. and our allies.  

And Iran’s past arms trafficking to Hezbollah, Hamas and others has long threatened Israel, other Middle East allies and stability in the region.

Once Iran has complied with the initial restraints on its nuclear program, many sanctions will be lifted. This will release somewhere around $100 billion of frozen Iranian assets.

The lifting of sanctions and release of these funds will only exacerbate Iran’s support for terror, with Iran having access to tens of billions of frozen assets to bolster its conventional military and further support terrorism.  

Even Obama Administration officials have said that Iran is likely to use some of the funds to purchase weapons and fund terrorism that would threaten Americans and Israelis.  

The concept of “snapping back” these sanctions also appears less effective than was originally claimed.  

The complicated process to reimpose sanctions is unlikely to work even if Iran fails to comply with the agreement.  

Iran views snap-back sanctions as grounds to walk away from the agreement, so any effort to reimpose sanctions will be regarded by all parties as whether or not to dissolve the agreement and impose sanctions.

I support a robust diplomatic effort that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.  

But I strongly disagree with proponents of this agreement who argue that the only alternative to this deal is war.  That’s a false choice.  

Iran came to the negotiating table because it desperately sought sanctions relief.  

If this deal were rejected, we could impose even tougher sanctions, allowing our diplomats to negotiate a better deal that more adequately safeguards our nation’s security interests and that of our allies.    

A better deal would not legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state, it would not trade massive sanctions relief for limited temporary constraints, and it would not provide concessions that will trigger a regional nuclear arms race.  

If we reject this deal, we could push for an international agreement that would truly dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

A better deal would not ignore Iran’s past bad behavior.  Iran has for many years been the most active state sponsor of terrorism.  

Iran has an egregious record of human rights violations and the persecution of religious minorities.  It continues to imprison U.S. citizens.  

At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants.  

This agreement will free up tens of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, without addressing these issues.  

We know Iran will use some of that money to support terrorist activities throughout the Middle East.  

Iran provides support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and provides weapons, funding and support to Hamas and Hezbollah.

This deal appears to be the result of desperation on our side for a deal, any deal, and the Iranians knew that.  

This deal was negotiated from a position of weakness, when we should have been in a position of strength.  

This deal is a result of President Obama’s philosophy of leading from behind.  

As a result of this philosophy, we now have enemies who don’t fear us and friends and allies who don’t follow us because they question our credibility and leadership.  We have a more dangerous world because of it.

President Obama himself said that it is better to have no deal than a bad deal.  

This deal has far too many shortcomings and will fail to make America and our allies safer.  

It will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, while providing a windfall that will allow them to ramp up their bad behavior.  

I oppose this deal and I hope we can send a signal to the Administration and Iran that we need a deal that improves our national security and the security of our friends and allies in the region.

Senator Joni Ernst’s floor statement on September 9:

TRANSCRIPT:

As we come together and debate President Obama’s agreement on Iran, I believe it is one of the most consequential national security decisions we may ever face. I have heard my peers talk many times about the things that trouble them. The things that they fear. The “things that keep us up at night.” And I will tell you that this nuclear agreement is one of those things that keeps me up at night, as a mother, as a grandmother, and as a soldier. Having proudly worn our nation’s uniform for over twenty years, and having deployed to the region, I can tell you that protecting and defending this country is something that I take very seriously, and very personally.  

I had hoped our President would approach the American people with a deal that reflected the high ground our nation has stood on against Iran for decades.

Unfortunately, now that I have seen the available details, I believe the President has not negotiated a good deal with Iran.  The agreement before us fails to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and does not end Iran’s support of terrorism. The President has squandered his opportunity to enhance our national security, and the security of our Israeli and Arab allies by failing to live up to his own goal of ending Iran’s capability to build a nuclear weapon.

The Administration is asking the American people to accept a deal which will-at best-freeze Iran’s nuclear program for eight years.

And that’s if the Iranians actually live up to their end of the bargain. One of the major failures in this deal is the lack of anytime, anywhere inspections to ensure that they do.

In April, the President’s own Secretary of Energy-Dr. Moniz-a nuclear physicist who the President often refers to as a leading authority on nuclear programs, he said, and I quote, “we expect to have anywhere, anytime access,” end quote, when referring to what our country needed to ensure Iran was abiding by a nuclear agreement.

Well, how can we ever be certain of compliance if Iran decides to cheat and we have a weak inspection regime as part of this deal? I would argue that we can’t.

Another part of this debate that has been very troubling to me is that the President continues to tell the American people there are only two options: his agreement or war.  During one of his major speeches on this deal, he actually mentioned the word “war” 50 times in an attempt to hammer this false choice home.

Despite this misinformation campaign designed to pressure the American people into agreeing on a bad deal, our military leaders and distinguished former Administration officials clearly denied that our choice is either support the deal or go to war with Iran.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, disagreed with the President’s assessment that the American people face a choice of supporting the agreement or going to war with Iran.  

Later that same week, the President’s pick to lead the United States Navy, said war was not the only alternative and that  “we need to use the full set of capabilities that the joint force and the Navy can deliver to deter that. And the military contribution is also just a subset of a ‘whole of government’ approach along with our allies in the region.”

And it’s not just leaders within our military saying this. General Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA and NSA, said, quote, “There is no necessity to go to war if we don’t sign this agreement. There are actions in between those two extremes.” End quote.

Dr. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “I would echo that …” during the same hearing.

Ambassador Edelman, a former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, said “..I agree with you, I don’t think those are the only alternatives.”

Ambassador Nicholas Burns, a former top US negotiator with Iran on its nuclear program and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, said “I don’t believe that war would be inevitable…”

Rather than misrepresenting the facts and our country’s options, I challenge supporters of this agreement to explain to the American people why they are supporting a flawed and bad deal today when we should be putting our citizens’ interests and their security first.

I’d also note that this Administration was willing to leave the negotiating table without securing an end to Iran’s support of terrorism. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terror-and we are giving them a free pass in this deal to continue those efforts.

In addition to the billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which leaves Iran poised to double-down on its support of terrorism, the president also agreed to lift the UN arms embargo for advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missiles.

As a veteran of Kuwait and Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom-I am beside myself, as are many other Americans who served in Iraq, regarding the President’s support for sanctions relief for one terrorist in particular-the leader of Iran’s elite covert force, the Quds Force, General Qassem Soleimani.

General Soleimani is directly responsible for the deaths of several hundred of Americans and the wounding of thousands more during the Iraq War.  

Throughout the Iraq War, we lost many Americans killed in action and many more wounded by Iraqi Shia militia who were supported or controlled by General Soleimani.

In 2010, Ambassador James Jeffrey, then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said, “Up to a quarter of the American casualties and some of the more horrific incidents in which Americans were kidnapped…can be traced without doubt to these Iranian groups.”

One of the signature tools to attack American servicemembers was an Improvised Explosive Device IED known as an Explosively Formed Penetrator or EFP.

These EFPs were provided by Iran exclusively to groups they controlled in order to kill Americans.  If you ask American servicemembers who served in Iraq during the war-they will tell you these types of IEDs used by Iranian supported Shia militias were some of the most deadly and devastating types emplaced by any of the Iraqi insurgent groups-including al Qaeda in Iraq.  

While many of my colleagues share the concern regarding General Soleimani and Iran’s targeting of Americans during the Iraq War, we seldom hear from Americans who have firsthand experience in fighting these Iranian supported Iraqi Shia militias.

My staff recently spoke to a currently serving U.S. Army officer, originally from Waterloo, Iowa, who deployed with the 1st Cavalry Division on a 15-month deployment to Iraq during the Surge.  This Iowan described to us the impact Iran’s effort in Iraq had on him and his tank platoon in Baghdad, saying, “the threat of EFPs was quite real during our deployment to Iraq. And I’m quoting him. Understanding the pipeline from Iran into Iraq, the abundance of the munitions and the lethality on US Forces, the sense of peril never left [our] psyche. While I was never fearful of losing a limb, I knew if I was struck, I would follow certain death, one that I welcomed ten months into a fifteen month deployment.” End quote.

Removing sanctions on Soleimani is an embarrassment for this Administration and in the words of some of our Iraq veterans, “a slap in the face.”

And then there’s Luke, a retired Army servicemember with the storied 101st Airborne Division. While on patrol during the division’s second tour to Iraq, Luke lost his leg in combat after his vehicle was hit with an Iranian made EFP.  He told us that, quote, “We come home blown up and try to put our lives back together, only to hear that our country is going to be lifting sanctions that will free up billions for Iran to kill more innocents. We may not be at war with them, but they’re at war with us. I’m a wounded veteran and I spend a great deal of time helping other guys like me. I can assure you that this deal directly affects us. It’s a slap in the face to all veterans. All those who served…” End quote.

We owe it to veterans and our current servicemembers who have sacrificed to stop Iran’s support of terror. I urge the President and my colleagues to consider Iran’s true intent, and not to underestimate Iran’s will to enhance its capability to destabilize the Middle East, threaten American security, and the security of our allies in the region and around the globe.

Mr. President, in closing, the decision we make on this agreement will have lasting results for our nation, the world, and future generations of Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to reject the President’s bad deal and put the security of the American people, our allies, and the global community first. Thank you Mr. President, I yield back the floor.

E-mail from Joni Ernst for U.S. Senate, appearing to be sent from Senator Joni Ernst, with subject heading “No Nukes for Iran,” received at 3:23 pm on September 10:

Dear Friend,

As we begin voting on the President’s deal with Iran, I stand firmly opposed to this deeply flawed deal.

For starters, the deal does almost nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Moreover, the money from lifting the sanctions will provide a financial lifeline for Iran’s support of terrorism.  It’s for all of these reasons that I’m standing strong in my opposition – and need you to join me.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN ME IN STANDING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT’S DEAL WITH IRAN

Our friend and closest ally in the region, Israel, knows a nuclear Iran would destabilize the Middle East. I agree, which is why we must stop this deal.

Will you please join me in opposing the President’s deal with Iran? It’s simply too important of an issue.

Sincerely,

UPDATE: Ernst’s office released this statement after the vote.

“Earlier this year, 98 Senators voted for congressional review of the nuclear agreement with Iran and today our Democratic colleagues are going back on their word and denying the Senate – and the American people – a straight up or down vote on the President’s deal with Iran.

“This deal falls dangerously short of its intended goal to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, instead it provides a pathway for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon. In addition, there are no anytime, anywhere inspections that were promised by this Administration and are critical to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I am also deeply troubled that the administration was willing to leave the negotiating table before securing an end to Iran’s proven support of terrorism. They are the world’s leading sponsor of terror and we are giving them a free pass in this deal to continue those efforts.

“Contrary to the President’s claim that the deal will make the Middle East a safer place, Israel has made clear that they believe the agreement will make the region more dangerous.

“I have heard from a great number of concerned Iowans that do not trust or support a deal with Iran and therefore remain committed to rejecting the President’s nuclear deal with Iran.”