WASHINGTON — U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28) issued the following statement today in support of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, between the U.S., Germany, France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, the European Union and Iran:

"Since the Iran nuclear deal was officially released in July 2015, I have been carefully reviewing it, discussing it with experts and constituents back home and poring over classified materials available to members of Congress. I have decided to support the deal because it will be in the best interest of the United States, Israel and our allies.

"Fundamentally, the world is faced with two issues regarding Iran: Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, and Iran’s destabilizing activities in the Middle East and other parts of the world. To be clear, I am not naïve and know that Iran is not to be trusted.

"This agreement deals only with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Congress and the administration will continue to address the other issue with laws and appropriations to stop Iran’s destabilizing activities.

"I am a friend of Israel; I always have been and I always will be. I have visited Israel, attended Bonds for Israel dinners, and I support this agreement as a strong ally. Furthermore, I have paid close attention to the thoughts of my Jewish colleagues such as Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, nuclear experts such as Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and sanctions experts such as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and when they tell me that this agreement is in the best interest of Israel, the U.S. and our allies, I cannot ignore it.

"Much of the debate has centered on the agreement’s impact on Israel. As a member of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, I have supported appropriations to bolster this key American ally.

"Since 2009, Congress has provided $20.5 billion in foreign military financing (FMF) to Israel, which adds up to more than half of the total U.S.-provided FMF we provide to the entire world. Furthermore, we have provided Israel an additional $3 billion in Iron Dome systems and missile defense programs. We supply Israel with some of the most advanced military equipment in the world, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will be delivered next year. In addition, Israel has been authorized an unprecedented $1.9 billion munitions resupply package that provides Israel with state-of-the-art precision-guided munitions. In addition, we provide intelligence and other assistance to Israel. This agreement does not tie our hands when it comes to our military efforts or intelligence powers. With this in mind, I believe America can come to Israel’s aid should potential harm ever come its way.

"I can compare much of the debate on this issue to the debate about the U.S.-Mexico border. I frequently hear people from around the country talking about what is best for the region, but they often pay no attention to the experts who really know what is happening there. Similarly, I cannot brush aside the fact that experts on Israel, including retired generals and admirals, 29 of our country’s top scientists, former nuclear weapons inspectors, and 440 rabbis, have backed it. Additionally, more than 60 former Israeli security experts have urged the Israeli prime minister to support the agreement. I have been in classified meetings on the agreement. I have also met with leaders from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Union. My meetings have given me a broad sense of stakeholder concerns, so I am making a decision based on a wide array of information. This decision is based on a fact-driven analysis of the agreement and not party politics nor emotion.

"There are many influential supporters of this agreement.

"Recently, three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter in which they argued, “There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.” Among the signers of this letter were Marine Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the Air Force.

"Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently wrote in a USA Today op-ed: “Nothing in the Iran deal constrains the U.S. Defense Department in any way or its ability to carry out such a mission. Indeed, the reality is that any prospective military option, if called for, will be more effective under this deal — not less. Iran will have a smaller and more concentrated civil nuclear program, and the deal’s verification provisions will give us more information with which to plan.”

"Some people have argued that the agreement was based on the expectation that Iran will reform its ways. The truth of the matter is that none of this agreement is based on trust. Rather, it implements the most expansive monitoring and transparency regime ever negotiated. When former President Ronald Reagan inherited the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the former Soviet Union in the early ‘80s and proposed the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, he based the terms of those talks not on trust, but on verification. Reagan was not soft when it came to the Soviet Union – all important diplomatic deals to lessen weapons threats exist because of a lack of trust, not in spite of it. These talks led to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) signed by President George H.W. Bush.

"I have read this agreement page by page. I have heard from Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary Lew and Secretary Moniz. I have talked to the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Ronald Dermer, about this issue. I have attended classified and unclassified briefings on the pros and cons of this agreement. I have met in person with constituents, some of them dear friends of mine, and talked to them on the phone to sound out their thoughts. I have heard from people in my district reflecting a wide spectrum of opinions on this agreement. I have paid very close attention to what they have said.

"With that in mind, we need to tackle the Iran problem by starting with where the country is at the moment:

• Iran is a nuclear threshold state, with about two months needed to develop a nuclear weapon — not in 10 to 15 years, but in a mere two months. This agreement will push back the breakout period for Iran to at least a year, a level at which it will remain for a decade or more.
• Currently, Iran can continue to rapidly develop advanced centrifuges. This agreement will reduce Iran’s centrifuges by two-thirds for 10 years.
• Iran can also currently expand its stockpile of enriched uranium, which currently stands at more than 12,000 kilograms. With the agreement, that amount could be reduced to no more than 300 kilograms for 15 years.
• Iran can currently produce enough weapons-grade plutonium each year for one to two nuclear weapons. With the agreement, Iran cannot produce any weapons-grade plutonium.
• Iran’s undeclared locations are currently not accessible to investigators from the IAEA. With this agreement, the IAEA can go wherever the evidence suggests suspicious activity. No facility will be off-limits.
• Despite all these facts, some people have misunderstood the basis of the agreement, its mechanisms and its purported loopholes.

"There are critics who oppose this deal because it lifts sanctions. The sanctions that will be lifted are only those that we imposed on the regime due to their nuclear activities. These sanctions were put in place specifically for the purpose of bringing Iran to the negotiating table. The U.S. and E.U. will continue to maintain non-nuclear sanctions on Iran including those that were put in place as a result of Iran’s human rights abuses and support for terrorism.  We must further remember that much of the sanctioned funds (which is a smaller amount than what critics claim) are not held by the U.S. but are held by China, India, Turkey, Japan and South Korea. It is unrealistic to think that these sanctions will hold should the U.S. reject this deal, one the rest of the world supports.

"I have also heard people argue that Iran could conduct covert activities because the agreement allows it up to 24 days to grant access to sites deemed suspicious. First, the IAEA can request access with just 24 hours’ notice under the Additional Protocol of the Nonproliferation Treaty. The accord goes further than any other nonproliferation agreement by allowing the IAEA to resolve all access issues within 24 days. There is no way to destroy all evidence of nuclear material from a site in 24 days or even over a much longer time horizon, and we still have access to our surveillance technology and intelligence as well as other countries’.

"Should the U.S. turn down this agreement no better deal will be possible and our sanctions regime will collapse. This deal came through high-level diplomatic engagement and has broad international backing.  I have spoken to European ambassadors, and should the U.S. turn down this deal, one that was unanimously approved by the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council and supported by the Gulf Cooperation Council nations, all of whom are greatly concerned by Iran, our credibility with the world community will be hampered in the future and no better deal will be reached.

"There are two options before us: do nothing and allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons power, or pass this deal and protect Israel, our friends in the region and partners around the globe. To tackle the Iran problem, a reasonable solution stands before us: the JCPOA. The JCPOA is not a perfect deal, but after nearly two months of careful reflection, consultation and review of the confidential materials available to members of Congress, it deserves my support.

"One last point: There will be other congressional actions to protect Israel after today’s vote, and I will continue to support Israel.

"I encourage my constituents to read the JCPOA and related documents, available here, and I thank them for sharing their thoughts with me personally and with my staff in the district and in Washington, D.C."