Teach For America Act of 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators Grassley, Durbin and Collins in re-introducing the Restitution for Victims of Crime Act. This legislation will give Justice Department officials the tools they say are needed to help them do a better job of collecting court-ordered Federal restitution and fines. It is virtually identical to the bill we introduced in June of last year.

Recent information from the Justice Department suggests the many victims of crime and their families continue to face a significant challenge in trying to recover a sense of emotional and financial security after a crime has been perpetrated against them.

By law, victims of Federal crimes are generally entitled to ``full and timely restitution'' for losses from a convicted offender. Unfortunately new Justice Department data show that the amount of uncollected Federal criminal debt is still spiraling upward--jumping from some $41 billion in fiscal year 2005 to nearly $46 billion at the end of fiscal year 2006. This is a hike of some $5 billion in uncollected Federal

criminal debt int he past fiscal year alone. Criminal debt ordered by Federal courts in North Dakota that remained uncollected at the end of fiscal year 2006 totaled $18.7 million, up almost $4 million from the preceding year.

Crime victims should not have to worry if those in charge of collecting court-ordered restitution on their behalf are making every possible effort to do so. We believe that passing the Restitution for Victimis of Crime Act would greatly help Federal criminal justice officials in this task.

Our bill includes provisions that will remove many existing impediments to increased collections. It will also provide new tools to help Federal criminal justice officials prevent criminal defendants from spending or hiding their ill-gotten gains and other financial assets by setting up pre-conviction procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution.

I hope that my Senate colleagues will help us get the legislation enacted at the first available opportunity. This will send a clear and much-needed message to white collar and other criminals: if you commit a crime you will be held accountable and will not be allowed to benefit in any way from your criminal activity and ill-gotten gains. I also believe this bill will reassure many innocent victims of Federal crime that the justice system is working hard to recover court-ordered restitution that is owed to such victims.

I understand that criminal debt collection can be a tough job. It may be impossible to collect the full amount of restitution owed to victims in some cases. Clearly criminal debt collections may be more difficult in cases where convicted criminals are in prison, ill-gotten gains are already gone or these criminals are without any other financial means to pay their full restitution.

However, victims of crime in this country should expect Federal law enforcement officials tasked with collecting outstanding restitution to do a better job. At the very least, crime victims should not be concerned that their prospects for financial restitution are being diminished because criminal offenders are frittering away their ill- gotten gains on lavish lifestyles and the like. But, as I have mentioned before, past Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations rightly give many crime victims real reason to worry. GAO's work made clear that more financial assets could be recovered but for a failure of some criminal justice officials to make criminal debt collection a top priority.

At my request, the GAO reviewed five white-collar financial fraud cases and concluded that the Justice Department's prospects were ``not good for collecting additional restitution from offenders'' owed to the victims--even though one or more of the criminal offenders involved had reported earning millions of dollars in income, having millions in net worth and/or were spending thousands of dollars monthly on entertainment and clothing prior to the judgments entered against them. In addition, the GAO found that certain offenders had taken expensive trips overseas, had fraudulently obtained millions of dollars in assets and converted those assets for personal use, had established businesses for their children, or held homes worth millions of dollars that were located in upscale neighborhoods. Despite all of this reported wealth, GAO found that only a small fraction of court-ordered restitution owed to victims had been collected.

The legislation that Senator Grassley and I are re-introducing today is based on a comprehensive package of recommendations by the Justice Department that stem in large part from the work of the Task Force on Improving the Collection of Criminal Debt. Justice Department officials believe these changes will remove many of the current impediments to better debt collection.

For example, Justice Department officials described a circumstance where they were prevented by a court from accessing $400,000 held in a criminal offender's 401(k) plan to pay a $4 million restitution debt to a victim because that court said the defendant was complying with a $250 minimum monthly payment plan and that payment schedule precluded any other enforcement actions. Our bill would remove impediments like this in the future.

This legislation will address another major problem identified by the GAO for officials in charge of criminal debt collection; that is, many years can pass between the date a crime occurs and the date a court orders restitution. This gives criminal defendants ample opportunity to spend or hide their ill-gotten gains. Our bill sets up pre-conviction procedures for preserving assets for victims' restitution. These tools will help ensure that financial assets traceable to a crime are available when a court imposes a final restitution order on behalf of a victim. These tools are similar to those already used successfully in some States and by Federal officials in certain asset forfeiture cases.

Key provisions of the bill would do the following:

Clarify that court-ordered Federal criminal restitution is due immediately in full upon imposition, just like in civil cases and that any payment schedule ordered by a court is only a minimum obligation of a convicted offender.

Allow Federal prosecutors to access financial information about a defendant in the possession of the U.S. Probation Office--without the need for a court order.

Clarify that final restitution orders can be enforced by criminal justice officials through the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.

Ensure that if a court restricts the ability of criminal justice officials to enforce a financial judgment, the court must do so expressly for good cause on the record. Absent exceptional circumstances, the court must require a deposit, the posting of a bond or impose additional restraints upon the defendant from transferring or dissipating assets.

Help ensure better recovery of restitution by requiring a court to enter a pre-conviction restraining order or injunction, require a satisfactory performance bond, or take other action necessary to preserve property that is traceable to the commission of a charged offense or to preserve other nonexempt assets if the court determines that it is in the interest of justice to do so.

Under the bill, a criminal defendant is allowed to challenge a court's pre-judgment asset preservation order. For example, a defendant may challenge a post-indictment restraining order if he or she can show that there is no probable cause to justify the restraint or the order does not provide the accused with adequate resources for attorney fees or reasonable living expenses.

Permit the Attorney General to commence a civil action under the Anti-Fraud Injunction Statute to enjoin a person who is committing or about to commit a Federal offense that may result in a restitution order; and permit a court to restrain the dissipation of assets in any case where it has power to enjoin the commission of a crime, not just banking or health care fraud as permitted under current law.

Allow the United States under the Federal Debt Collections Procedure Act to use prejudgment remedies to preserve assets in criminal cases that are similar to those used in civil cases when it is needed to preserve a defendant's assets for restitution. Such remedies, including attachment, garnishment, and receivership, are not currently available in criminal cases because there is no enforceable debt prior to an offender's conviction and judgment.

Clarify that a victim's attorney fees may be included in restitution orders, including cases where such fees are a foreseeable result from the commission of the crime, are incurred to help recover lost property or expended by a victim to defend against third-party lawsuits resulting from the defendant's crime.

Allow courts at their discretion to order immediate restitution to those that have suffered economic losses or serious bodily injury or death as the result of environmental felonies. Under current law, courts can impose restitution in such cases as a condition of probation or supervised release but this means that many victims of environment crimes must wait for years to be compensated for their losses, if at all.

The Restitution for Victims of Crime Act has previously been endorsed by a number of organizations concerned about the well-being of crime victims, including: The National Center for Victims of Crime, Mothers Against Drunk

Driving, the National Organization for Victims Assistance (NOVA), the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Parents of Murdered Children, Inc., Justice Solutions, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators (NAVAA). Most recently, the National Crime Victim Law Institute shared its support for our bill.

Last year, United States Attorney Drew Wrigley in Fargo, North Dakota said this legislation ``represents important progress toward ensuring that victims of crime are one step closer to being made whole.''

Senator Grassley and I look forward to working with these groups and others to move this bill forward in the legislative process. With the Justice Department's help, we can make criminal debt collection a top priority for all Federal criminal justice officials once again.

Mr. President, today Senator SESSIONS and I are pleased to introduce the Striving Readers Act. This bipartisan bill will help America's middle and high school students gain the literacy skills they need to succeed in school and graduate ready for college and the workplace.

I want to thank Senator Sessions for his work on this issue and for shining a light on his State's success in raising literacy achievement. I also want to thank our original cosponsors Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Dodd, Kerry, Lincoln, Burr, Cochran, Domenici, and Lott for partnering with us. Finally, I offer thanks to our staff, Kathryn Young and Liz Stillwell, who have worked on this bill, and the Alliance for Excellent Education, the International Reading Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals for their work.

Our bill addresses a serious problem. Today 8 million middle and high school

students across the Nation cannot read well enough to succeed in school. This contributes to their likelihood to disengage and drop out. Those that do graduate too often falter when they begin college or work and then need remediation.

All around the country educators and stakeholders are working to improve literacy, and this bill gives us a way to support their efforts. We know that literacy is at the base of every academic subject, and it is crucial to student academic success.

Our bill will engage and reinvigorate those students on the brink of failure. The Striving Readers Act constitutes a comprehensive effort to give States, districts, and schools the resources they need to ensure every student reads and writes well enough to succeed. It would provide grants to every State to develop State literacy initiatives that guide and support districts and schools to improve reading and writing. It would provide grants to districts and schools to assist students who are below grade level and to train teachers in core subjects in literacy strategies for all students. It would also provide new information on what works for struggling readers by conducting evaluations of programs.

This bill could not come at a more important time. In Washington State, 66 percent of 8th graders read below ``Proficient'' on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. These students, who are at the bottom in terms of achievement, are more likely to drop out than those at the top. Among this group, minority students' scores are of particular concern. Seventy-three percent of Washington State's African-American students and 85 percent of Hispanic students read below the ``Proficient'' level. These students are falling behind, and they need our support.

I'm pleased to report that my State has made great efforts to remedy the problem of low literacy levels. My State launched the Washington State Reading Initiative in 2003 to provide support to struggling readers in every grade, including middle and high school. Since then, our K-12 Reading Model has attracted national attention as a systematic reform model. Our program includes statewide training for teachers to identify and provide intervention for students at all grade levels. My State trains teachers in all subjects to teach reading strategies to students. And my State provides guidance to teachers and administrators for applying best practices in classrooms. But they should not have to continue these efforts alone.

The challenges we face in Washington are not unique; every State struggles with adolescent literacy. Nationally 71 percent of 8th graders and 65 percent of 12th graders read below grade level. It should not surprise us, then, that only 34 percent of American teenagers graduate with the skills they need to do well in college or in the workforce.

If we are to remain globally competitive, Congress must authorize and fund a significant adolescent literacy investment for every State. The Striving Readers Act would fulfill this need. As a country, we currently only substantially support reading initiatives through the third grade. International comparisons of reading performance placed American 11th graders close to the bottom, behind students from the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other developing nations. The Striving Readers Act will help support these middle and high schoolers and help our Nation raise its literacy levels to compete in a global market.

Students are not the only ones who pay the price for low literacy achievement. With every student who falls behind, our economy suffers. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 53 percent of undergraduates require remediation. One-half of these students required a remedial writing course, and 35 percent took remedial reading. That means community colleges spend $1.4 billion every year catching kids up to where they should have been when they graduated. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports that America's businesses and colleges are spending $16.6 billion each year to teach graduates what they should have learned in middle and high school. This is a costly consequence of failing to intervene in a timely manner. We must not continue to make this mistake at the expense of students' futures.

The good news is that research shows we can help struggling students make progress. For example, research shows that adolescents with lagging literacy skills can master college material if they receive high quality literacy instruction in school. In fact, a recent study by ACT found that students with better literacy skills in high school do better in their math, science, and social studies courses--both in high school and in college. Better literacy is the foundation for improving student achievement in all subjects, lowering dropout rates, and ensuring students do well when they go on to college or the workforce. The Striving Readers bill provides a path for this.

Specifically, the Striving Readers bill would: Help States create statewide literacy initiatives, share data on student progress to parents and the public, and improve teacher training and professional development in literacy so that all students receive high quality instruction.

Help districts and schools create plans to improve literacy, including targeted interventions for students way below grade level, top notch assessments for all students, training for teachers in every subject to incorporate literacy strategies, and regular data to improve teaching and learning.

Allow districts and schools to hire and place literacy coaches, train parents to support the literacy development of their child, or connect learning inside the classroom with learning that takes place outside the classroom.

Ensure States, districts, and schools participate in a rigorous evaluation that demonstrates student progress.

Require the Federal Government to complete an overall evaluation of the program to determine its impact on the Nation's middle and high schools.

The Striving Readers Act comprises a necessary and urgent investment in adolescent students. We created the Reading First program to strengthen students' reading skills in the elementary grades. While I do have major concerns with the implementation of this program, the intent of the law and the commitment to elementary reading skills is undoubtedly positive. But with reading proficiency stagnating after 4th grade, it is clear that we need a significant investment in the higher grades as well. In crafting the Striving Readers bill, we took steps to correct and guard against implementation concerns, and I believe that this bill will provide the critical resources, training, and evaluation to implement high quality adolescent literacy initiatives around the country.

I introduced the PASS Act, first in 2003, and in subsequent legislation, to take a comprehensive approach to improving student achievement in our Nation's high schools, including use of literacy and math coaches, as well as research-based support for high schools with the most need. The Striving Readers Act will complement this and allow States and schools to effectively address the literacy needs of adolescents in 4th grade and up.

Now is the time to invest in literacy for older students and make their success a reality. This issue cannot wait any longer. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Sessions and me in supporting the Striving Readers Act. And I hope we will authorize Striving Readers as part of No Child Left Behind so that children in every State have the reading skills they need to succeed in school, college, and the workplace.

Mr. President, today Senator Murray and I are pleased to introduce the Striving Readers Act, for the eight million middle and high school students across this country who are not reading well enough to

succeed in school. I thank Senator Murray for her longstanding leadership on this issue, as well as the Alliance for Excellent Education, the International Reading Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. I also thank my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, who have agreed to cosponsor the bill Senator Cochran, Senator Kerry, Senator Lott, Senator Akaka, Senator Burr, Senator Dodd, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Lincoln. I thank them for their support and for demonstrating that improving reading and writing in every grade is something we all can get behind.

This important bill will help schools in every State ensure our adolescents read and write well enough to learn in school, graduate on time, and succeed in college and the workplace. Better literacy is the cornerstone to improving student achievement in all subjects, lowering dropout rates, and ensuring students do well when they go on to college or the workforce. A recent study by the American College Testing Program (ACT) found that students with better literacy skills in high school do better in their math, science, and social studies courses both in high school and in college.

The Striving Readers Act marks an important effort to improve reading for the older student. Last year, Congress appropriated $1 billion for the Reading First program available for every State to ensure children read by the third grade. That was an important step, and we have seen 4th grade reading scores rise nationally because of it. However, research shows that many readers who test well in 4th grade do not carry that knowledge into upper grades. We must not risk squandering the investment Congress has already made for younger students.

Seventy percent of our middle and high school students read below grade level. That means we must continue our support for ongoing programs that reflect the needs of the older student for more advanced vocabulary and comprehension skills. All students, throughout their K- 12 educational experience, deserve adequate support to ensure they graduate on time with appropriate skills and knowledge that meet the demands of the 21st century.

To be sure, some problems with the Reading First program have surfaced. Let me assure you that the Striving Readers bill addresses those problems to ensure the law and its implementation are fair, transparent, and driven by research, not special interests. Interestingly, many in my State have told me that the law is good and showing results; the problems have come with poor implementation.

Low literacy skills don't just cost the student; they cost our economy because students don't learn what they should in school. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 53 percent of undergraduates require remediation. One-half of these students required a remedial writing course, and 35 percent took remedial reading. That means community colleges spend $1.4 billion every year catching kids up to where they should have been when they graduated. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports an estimated $16.6 billion in remediation costs to the U.S. economy each year. This means that America's businesses and colleges are spending $16.6 billion teaching high school graduates skills they should have learned in high school.

America's declining competitiveness in the global economy is due in part to sub-par literacy skills. International comparisons of reading performance placed American 11th graders close to the bottom, behind students from the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other developing nations. Our high school graduates continue to lag, as employers move jobs overseas, not for the low-cost labor alone, but also to tap into the highly literate, motivated, and technologically skilled workers that other nations can offer them.

The Striving Readers Act will help our Nation raise its literacy levels and compete in a global arena. We can do this. Research shows that adolescents with lagging literacy skills can master college material if they receive good literacy instruction in school.

Specifically, the Striving Readers bill would do the following:

Help States create statewide literacy initiatives, share data on student progress with parents and the public, and improve teacher training and professional development in literacy so that all students receive high quality instruction.

Help districts and schools create plans to improve literacy, including targeted interventions for students far below grade level, top notch assessments for all students, training for teachers in every subject to incorporate literacy strategies, and regular data to improve teaching and learning.

Allow districts and schools to hire and place literacy coaches, train parents to support the literacy development of their child, and connect learning inside the classroom with learning that takes place outside the classroom.

Ensure States, districts, and schools participate in a rigorous evaluation that demonstrates student progress.

Require the Federal Government to complete an overall evaluation of the program to determine its impact on the Nation's middle and high schools.

I am proud to say that my State has been working on this issue for a long time. In 1998 Alabama launched the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), a statewide program designed to ensure every student in grades K to 12 is proficient in reading. We provide ongoing, research-based training to teachers in all subjects so that every educator can help students struggling to read. Fortunately, the Alabama Reading Initiative is now in every elementary school in the State. Unfortunately, fewer middle and high schools have been able to take part, due to limited funding. This is true in other States as well.

For those schools in the program we have seen great gains. ARI schools have made great progress, and those that have had the benefit of additional funding from the Federal Reading First program have shown even more rapid, dramatic gains. Many of you have heard of the outstanding impact of the Alabama Reading Initiative, primarily for younger children. It is time for us to develop new methods to meet the needs of students in the upper grades who are reading and writing below grade level. I applaud Alabama's leadership on this important issue as they work to expand the Alabama Reading Initiative into middle and high schools, and I am honored to offer legislation to promote this effort on the national level. I would like to thank Governor Riley for his commitment to the Alabama Reading Initiative, and Dr. Katherine Mitchell, whose enthusiasm and hard work has made the success of ARI a reality for Alabama's children. Alabama has become a model for the Nation, and I am so proud of the progress they have made.

The Federal Government cannot and should assume the responsibility for education from the States. But we can develop research, supply seed money, and provide leadership to help States make advancements, without unnecessary mandates. We can leverage success in places like Alabama to shine a light for others.

We know that, given the right instruction and opportunity, children can learn to read and write well and use that knowledge to achieve at higher levels of education. I hope that our colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Murray and me in supporting the Striving Readers Act. And I hope we will authorize Striving Readers as part of No Child Left Behind so that children in every State have the reading skills they need to succeed in school, college, and the workplace.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy in introducing the Re-empowerment of Skilled Professional Employees and Construction Tradesworkers Act, also known as the RESPECT Act.

This legislation will amend the National Labor Relations Act to modify the definition of ``supervisor.'' It is necessary because of recent rulings by the National Labor Relations Board, which has determined that millions of workers do not fall within the definition of ``supervisor.'' An employee who is deemed a ``supervisor'' under the National Labor Relations Act does not have collective bargaining rights or other labor protections.

The NLRB rulings in these so-called Kentucky River cases have an enormous impact on nurses. According to the amicus brief filed by the American Nurses Association and United American Nurses, AFL-CIO, in these cases, ``[o]f the more than 2.1 million people working as registered nurses in the United States in the year 2002, 15.6 per cent were union members. Registered nurses covered by a collective bargaining agreement can earn approximately 11 per cent more per week than non-unionized nurses. . . .''

There are 800,000 nurses in this country--40,000 nurses in my home State of Illinois alone. We owe it to these nurses to find a workable definition of the term ``supervisor'' so that they and other professional employees and construction tradesworkers receive the labor protections that Congress intended.

The supervisor exclusion was created in 1947 when Congress adopted the Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. The Act defines ``supervisor'' as:

[A]ny individual having authority, in the interest of the

employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,

promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other

employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their

grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in

connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority

is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires

the use of independent judgment.

The interpretation and application of this definition has resulted in years of litigation before the NLRB and courts of appeals. The United States Supreme Court last spoke on the issue in 2001. In NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001), it reviewed the Board's test for determining supervisory status and rejected the Board's interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision left open the interpretation of the term ``supervisor'' and three cases were filed before the National Labor Relations Board to address this issue: Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., Case 7-CA-22141, Golden Crest Healthcare Center, Cases 18-RC-16415 and 18-RC-16416, and Croft Metals, Inc., Case 15-RC-8393.

The NLRB refused to hear oral argument in these cases despite the fact that its attempt to define supervisory status had been reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Court and it has been more than 5 years since the Court's decision in Kentucky River. In July, I joined Senator Kennedy and other Democrats in a letter to the Chairman of the NLRB to urge that the Board reconsider its decision not to allow oral arguments in these cases. The NLRB refused.

In October 2006, the Board issued its rulings and expanded the meaning of the definition of ``supervisor'' by expanding the meaning of the terms ``assign'' and ``responsibly to direct.'' The NLRB rulings override the intent of Congress not to exclude minor supervisory officials, professionals, skilled craftpersons, and nurses from labor protections.

Last December, I noted that several States are suffering from nursing shortages. This legislation is necessary to alleviate the nursing crisis. More than 72 percent of hospitals experience nursing shortages, and 1.2 million nursing positions need to be filled within the next decade. By denying nurses the right to collectively bargain, pay will surely decrease and the working environment of these nurses will deteriorate, thereby driving even more nurses out of the profession and discouraging individuals from entering the field.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and I in supporting the RESPECT Act--an important effort to help American nurses, other skilled professional employees, and construction tradesworkers.

Mr. President, today, my colleagues, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and I join together to introduce bipartisan legislation to use economic and diplomatic measures to help convince the Iranian Government to turn away from its path toward the development of nuclear weapons.

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 would strengthen our economic sanctions regime against Iran until Iran completely, verifiably, and irreversibly dismantles all nuclear enrichment and reprocessing programs.

The bill, for example, would penalize foreign oil companies with U.S. subsidiaries doing business in Iran and would forbid the awarding of U.S. Government contracts to those who have violated our existing sanctions against Iran.

The bill reiterates the requirement to produce a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran mandated in last year's Defense Authorization bill.

In addition to these measures, the bill addresses Russia's role in exporting nuclear and military technology to Iran.

Nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia would be prohibited if that country continues to assist Iran in developing nuclear weapons. The United States could not enter into such an agreement with Moscow, absent a Presidential certification that Russia's assistance to Iran has ceased.

This week has brought some promising news. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns testified before the Senate Banking Committee that Russia has begun applying pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. That is most welcome, and if the President provides the verification that Russia's nuclear assistance to Iran has ceased--and that this is a sea change and not merely a contract dispute--then our other negotiations with Russia can proceed unimpeded.

I firmly believe that we should offer positive incentives if Iran does change course and abandon its programs to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has energy needs, and we hope that they will join us and the community of nations in the peaceful acquisition of those resources.

This legislation authorizes $50 million to the International Atomic Energy Agency to support the establishment of an international nuclear fuel bank, a concept originally proposed by Congressman Tom Lantos. This bank would maintain a reserve of low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel and make it available to countries in full compliance with IAEA safeguards which do not operate uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing facilities. It is our hope that Iran will become one of these nations.

Because members of the American public are our best ambassadors and America itself is the strongest evidence of the benefits of freedom and prosperity, this bill increases the authorization for funding for young Iranians to come to the United States as part of exchange programs.

I support efforts to engage with Tehran's leaders regarding Iraq. They should recognize that they, too, have a vested interest in regional peace and security. This bill is aimed at an issue which we cannot compromise: the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Iran's leaders face a choice of whether to pursue a legitimate goal of peaceful nuclear power for their citizens or a dangerous strategy to develop nuclear weapons. We must provide the economic and political pressure as well as incentives to help Iran choose the path to legitimacy and nuclear nonproliferation. This legislation will help achieve that goal.

Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious concern more than 20 years in the making. In large part because of the secrecy over its nuclear program, America's National Security Strategy for 2006 identifies Iran as one of the greatest challenges to the United States. The Senate recognized this threat in January 2006 by unanimously condemning Iran's refusal to comply with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. Last September, this body unanimously passed mandatory sanctions on persons who knowingly helped Iran acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction. And all the while, Tehran continued its pursuit of a nuclear program that, unchecked, will lead to a nuclear- armed Iran.

I cannot overestimate the threat that this poses to the security of the United States and our allies. Since the revolution that brought it to power, the theocracy that rules over Iran has demonstrated its contempt for the democratic ideals on which our country is based. It has held its own people hostage in an effort to maintain absolute control over their destiny. And it has spewed forth hate-filled rhetoric at regular intervals about the very existence of the state of Israel--a valued American ally in the Middle East.

After years of vigorous diplomacy by Britain, France, and Germany failed to

persuade the Iranians to give up their nuclear program, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in December 2006 calling for the suspension of all enrichment-related activities. Iran ignored that demand, and instead, responded by stepping up their nuclear program. Inaction in the face of such an egregious challenge is a mockery of the international institutions where diplomatic solutions are tried and tested. Now is the time to use every tool in our arsenal short of military force to stop the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons, and to send the message that the international community will not tolerate flagrant violations of our combined will.

I have heard the calls of my colleagues that all efforts should be made to avoid military intervention in Iran. I agree with them entirely. But Mr. President, I will not stand idle while up to 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz enrich uranium that one day soon could tip a warhead aimed at the U.S. or our allies around the world.

Today I am introducing legislation designed to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions. The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 will significantly strengthen our economic sanctions against Iran and any entities that choose to support the regime. I am pleased that Senator Durbin has joined me in this effort, as well as Senators Coleman, Lautenberg, Brownback, Lieberman, Kyl, Bayh, and Thune.

This legislation urges the Administration to pursue measures in the international financial sector to restrict financing in Iran and encourages foreign state-owned entities to cease investment in Iran's energy sector. It prohibits all imports from and exports to Iran. It forbids any action that would extend preferential trade treatment to Iran or that would lead to Iranian accession to the WTO. And it freezes assets of senior Iranian officials and their families. By cutting off Iran's access to the hard currency it needs, we can increase the cost of their decision to pursue its nuclear program.

The legislation also singles out Russia--a country that has contributed significantly to the development of Iran's nuclear program and has significant financial ties with Tehran. Among other restrictions, the bill prevents the United States from moving forward with a multi-billion dollar nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow until the President certifies that Russia has suspended its nuclear assistance and the transfers of any conventional weapons and missiles to Iran. The Russians may feel this is unfair, particularly in light of their recent announcement they would suspend the delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor. I am pleased with this decision and hope that it is the beginning of a new view in Moscow of Iran's nuclear program. But we must remember that over the past decade, Russia has periodically suspended its nuclear assistance to Iran only to resume this assistance at a later date.

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act also seeks to bring to light the names of companies that continue to feel it is appropriate to do business with the mullahs in Tehran. It requires the Administration to submit an annual report to Congress listing any foreign investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year and a determination on whether such investment is sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act. And it requires a report listing companies with American operations, whether or not they are incorporated in the United States, which invest in Iran.

In a further effort to highlight the cost to Iran of ignoring the demands of the international community, this legislation will reduce our contributions to the World Bank by the percentage of total money the World Bank loans to entities in Iran. The United States does not support these loans, and I urge those countries contributing the most to the World Bank to oppose such loans in the future.

Finally, Mr. President, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act calls on the Administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and to add it to the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Funding is increased for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to strengthen the Treasury's efforts to combat unlawful or terrorist financing.

It is critical for us to realize that our problems with Iran are not with the Iranian people, whose legitimate aspirations to live freely in a normal, prosperous country should be recognized. As such, this legislation designates $10 million in funding to enhance our friendship with the people of Iran by identifying young Iranians to visit the United States under U.S. exchange programs.

The time for action is now. I hope my colleagues agree with me that we must use every available tool short of military force to compel the Iranian regime to abandon completely, verifiably, and irreversibly their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. I recognize that sanctions are not always popular, but we need to give them a chance to work. By doing nothing, we limit our future options in addressing this significant threat to the United States.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to support the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.