Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent the pending Kyl amendment be recalled.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as has been ordered, after the Hollings amendment, there are three more. I am not sure any votes are needed on the three amendments the chairman just mentioned, by Senators Kyl, Landrieu, and Levin. We have times, but we are trying to work with the Senators. For example, it is my understanding that the Kyl amendment will be offered and withdrawn. We may be able to work out the others as well. Nevertheless, that is the order.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very proud of the Senate. The Senate worked its will through a very involved and complex tax bill. I might add--I don't have the final figures here, but in the case of first impression, this probably is one of the largest tax bills the Senate has taken up and passed, outside of reconciliation--we don't know yet-- in maybe a decade, or maybe close to two decades. I say that because of the importance of protecting Senators' rights. I know this sounds like a little inside baseball, but when I say ``outside reconciliation,'' all of us in the Senate know this means the bill was taken up under the usual Senate process, which means Senators have the right to offer amendments, have the right to speak as long as they can stand on their own two feet, and have the rights Senators usually have in taking up bills. Whereas, if this were to be taken up under the process we call ``reconciliation,'' then amendments would have to be passed very easily; that is, there is no right for extended debate. Germaneness rules do not apply; that is, unless cloture is invoked. So the main point I want to make is that the Senate has done a good job. The Senate has taken up a very complicated, very large tax bill, and done it the way the Senate should ordinarily do business; that is, outside of reconciliation. We are responsible. We can do it. We did it. I very much thank my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who led us in a way to help make that happen. He basically did it by being so gracious, by being so fair. He has a reputation, we all know, of being one of the most honest and fair persons you would ever have the privilege to meet, not only in the Senate but in life. His credibility is unquestioned. That is a substantial reason why we were able to pass such a messy bill outside reconciliation. I thank my friend for his leadership, for his friendship, and for all he has done. I also especially thank Senator Reid of Nevada. We all know Senator Reid is probably one of the masters of the floor. He knows procedure, and his main goal is to get things done. He, too, is a man whose word is his bond. He is invaluable here. If not for the efforts of not only the chairman but Senator Reid, I am not so sure we would be here today. He has done a super job. It is also very appropriate to thank a lot of my staff, and Senator Grassley's staff, and many others, which I will do. But before I do that, I would like to do something a little bit differently and thank some people who helped me with this bill; that is, the people I talked with back home who provided ideas on how to structure the FSC/ETI replacement bill in a way that made the most sense for our manufacturers, not only throughout the country but in my home State of Montana. This was a great chance for me to learn even more about manufacturing in my State, by going to manufacturers in my State and saying: What do we need? What can we do to help make this happen? Let me give you a few examples. The timber industry, for example, has faced very tough economic times during the last several years. In the years 2000 and before, many of these businesses paid very high taxes on solid profits. So a provision in this bill will permit businesses in industries with cyclical profits to smooth out their tax rates. This is accomplished by permitting a loss to be carried back for up to 5 years. That will help a lot. I thank Jim Hurst at Owens & Hurst, a small timber company located in Eureka, MT, for helping us better understand the economics of the timber business. The JOBS bill will help this company and many other companies that have very cyclical incomes. I might add, too, that the people at Mountain Harvest Pizza Crust Company, from Billings--that does not sound like a huge American manufacturing company but they are extremely important to Montana, to Billings, and to me--helped educate me about the challenges of rising costs facing small businesses, and about how the cost of health care was getting to be too much to handle. I might say, too, not all exporters are large corporations. We learned this from Sun Mountain Sports in Missoula. They are an S corporation. They export golf bags and other sports equipment. They are just the kind of company we want to stay strong so they can keep those manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. and so they can continue to export overseas. Because of discussions with many small businesses such as Mountain Harvest Pizza Crust and Sun Mountain Sports, I made sure that every manufacturer would get this deduction. So we in the Finance Committee produced a bill that gives a deduction not only to C corporations but to S corporations, to partnerships, and to sole proprietorships so they all could have help and not be left behind by this legislation. The tax relief they are getting in this bill will help defray those and other rising costs. Again, by consulting with the people at home, we were able to realize what the FSC/ETI replacement bill should be. It should not be just for big C corporations--those are large, publicly held corporations--but, rather, for any organization that manufactures, including proprietorships, small businesses, et cetera. I also thank the people at CHS--that is Central Harvest--who showed us the role that cooperatives play in rural America and helped us better understand the importance of making this tax deduction pass through to the members of cooperatives. Agricultural cooperatives are a crucial part of the economy of my State and a lot of the West, and, I might add, a lot of other rural parts of America. CHS helped to make sure their important contributions were not overlooked in this bill. I wanted, as I said, the bill to include all American manufacturers, and I have made sure the bill includes the agricultural cooperatives that are so important to so many States. Also, I thank Elvie Miller at Mountain Meadow Log Homes, who talked to us about how integral good research and design is to their business. Frankly, with the addition of the amendment by the Senator from Texas, we were able to add that provision. I also want to thank Leland Griffin and the good folks at Montana Refining Company in Great Falls. They pointed out that under the export credit this bill will repeal, oil refining operations are not eligible for tax benefits. But Montana Refining pointed out that if we are converting the laws to a manufacturing deduction, then it should cover oil and gas refining operations. Those operations are manufacturing. They take raw material, crude oil, and convert it to a usable product-- gasoline and other petroleum products. I offered an amendment in committee to include refining operations in the definition of manufacturing. All of these companies, and many more, were invaluable in passing such a strong bill in the Senate. I thank them. I thank them very much for adding their part to this bill. Were it not for their very valuable contributions, this legislation would not be as good. I also thank a lot of people from my office. I don't have the whole list. There are so many of them. If we turned the camera over, we could see them lined up against the wall over there. Starting with Brian Pomper on the far right, he does a very good job, handles a lot of trade work. We have Pat Heck over there; Russ Sullivan; Matt Genasci; Liz Liebschutz, Matt Stokes, Jon Selib. We have Scott Landes there in the corner, Simon Chabel, many others. Wendy Carrey is there; Mac Campbell. They are our folks. They do the work. My guess is that if I talk much longer, they are going to fall asleep, they are so tired. We all very much appreciate, deeply appreciate what they do. I have often said that the most noble human endeavor is service-- service to church, to community, to mankind, service to whatever makes the most sense to us as human beings. A lot of us who run for public office get some of the psychic rewards of service. We see our names in newspapers and on TV. Usually that is good, not always but usually. However, the folks who work in the Senate, on Joint Tax and elsewhere, work harder. And they don't get public recognition for what they do. They are the real servants. They are the ones who really provide the most noble kind of service. I know I speak for everyone listening, for everyone else who stops and thinks about these things if only for a nanosecond, when I say how true that last statement is. They are the most wonderful folks. I take my hat off to all of them. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have looked at this amendment on this side, and we are agreeable that this amendment should be adopted.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I will not use all that time. I compliment Senator Cantwell. She has been dogged in her effort to bring up this amendment. I remember it was not too long ago when we were working, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and others in the leadership, to try to sequence amendments, to figure out how we would process this bill. The Senator from Washington said she wanted to offer her amendment and we told her, absolutely she could. We were trying to work out some other amendments and asked if she could delay in pressing her amendment even though she had the right to offer it, and she said she would. She has been very good in, first, pushing to get her amendment passed and, second, working with Senators to try to figure out the very best circumstances under which her amendment could be brought up and passed. It has been somewhat difficult because Senators on this side of the aisle have been standing up for her rights. This Senator, certainly, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, are standing up very strongly for her rights. Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts also assisted her and worked with her to help get this amendment up. There have been some Senators on the other side of the aisle who did not want to vote at all on Senator Cantwell's amendment, but she has persevered. She has done a great job representing people who are out of work and unemployed, especially for her State of Washington. That is why we are here today. Were it not for the perseverance of the Senator from Washington, it is problematic whether we would be at this point. We will have a vote first on cloture and then a vote on her amendment. I thank the Senator for that. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 of my minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and use such time as I might consume.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Albert Einstein once advised, everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. In other words, know when you have done enough. On the JOBS bill that will soon be before the Senate today, we are near time when we have done enough. The Senate has returned to the JOBS bill now for the 14th separate day over the course of 5 separate weeks. The Senate has considered 28 separate amendments. It adopted 17 separate amendments. Many of the amendments the Senate considered, such as Senator Harkin's amendment on overtime regulations and Senator Wyden's amendment on trade adjustment assistance, have not been strictly germane to the bill at hand. The modern Senate does not regularly devote such time and freedom of amendment to major bills. It is really not that normal for the Senate to consider every amendment until no other Senator seeks to offer amendments. My colleagues will remember the Senator from Louisiana, Russell Long. Senator Long served as chairman of the Finance Committee from 1965 to 1981. When Russell Long would bring a major tax bill to the Senate floor, he would frequently file cloture early, just to require that amendments be germane. With the advent of the budget reconciliation process in 1981, the Senate began considering major tax increases in Senate reconciliation bills. The reconciliation process, as we know, limits debate to a maximum of 20 hours, pretty much 2 or 3 days, and reconciliation restricts Senators to only germane amendments. In 1996, the Senate began considering tax cuts under the tight rules of the reconciliation process. Since then, almost every major tax bill has been a reconciliation bill. This year, a number of Senators sought to have this JOBS bill considered in reconciliation. To his credit, the chairman of the committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, fought these efforts. He and I talked about this several times. He frankly prevailed on many on his side of the aisle in arguing that this tax bill, the FSC/ETI bill, should not be under reconciliation under those very tight conditions but should be a regularly considered bill, and he prevailed. I commend him for that. Let us now look at this bill. This bill began as a venture of both Democrats and Republicans working together in the Finance Committee. I might add the vote was 19 to 2. Only two members in the committee voted against this bill, and they were on the other side of the aisle. This bill's major provision, tax cuts for American manufacturing, is really a Democratic priority. Democrats have sought all along to create and keep good manufacturing jobs in America. We advanced this priority when many House Republicans sought to maximize tax breaks for international businesses or, to put this another way, the Finance Committee decided after consulting with Members on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, that it made more sense for the FSC/ETI placement bill to have a deduction for manufacturing produced in the United States rather than the approach taken by the majority party in the other body, which wanted a corporate tax reduction, international tax reduction bill, not a domestic manufacturing jobs bill. So it is a very different approach. Again, to his credit, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, agreed with Members on both sides of the aisle that the best solution is the Republican and Democratic approach, the bipartisan approach, to help create more jobs in America by providing for the 9- percent manufacturing deduction. Contrast that with the House majority approach, which is much different, and I am quite certain a majority of our Members, certainly on this side of the aisle, are against it. When it comes to the question of how much and how long we need to fight for amendments on the Senate floor, I think it matters whether we are talking about a partisan bill where the majority has closed the minority out of the process or are we talking about a bipartisan bill where Senators have worked together across the aisle. This clearly has been a bipartisan bill. Our bill advanced the Finance Committee as a cooperative venture. The chairman of the Finance Committee and I working together included many of the provisions in the bill in response to requests from Senators on this side of the aisle. I daresay many provisions in this bill are in response to a request by Senators on this side of the aisle, although a good number are in response to Members on the other side of the aisle. So therefore this bill reflects a very open and democratic process. Once we came to the Senate floor, this Senator tried to ensure that the Senate consider the maximum number of amendments, as many as we possibly can. Twice before on this bill, I have fought cloture, worked against cloture, to ensure that the Senate could address, for example, Senator Harkin's overtime amendment and others. The Senate did consider that amendment. The Senate adopted that amendment. Over the course of last week's Senate consideration, the chairman of the Finance Committee and I have attempted to maximize the number of amendments the Senate could consider, and now the Senate has considered 28 amendments. It adopted 17 of those. That, I believe, is a very respectable record. Now, when the Senate appears to be stymied over whether to vote on the amendment of the Senator from Washington on unemployment insurance, I continue to work for a vote on that amendment. So here is where we stand: If the majority can see that there is a prospect that the Senate will invoke cloture on this bill, then I believe the majority will allow a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment; but if the majority sees that Senators on this side of the aisle are united against cloture, regardless of whether they allow a vote on the unemployment issue, then I believe the majority will not allow a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment. That is where we are. It is that simple. If Democrats want the Senate to vote on unemployment insurance, then we need to show some prospect of bringing this bill to a close. I believe we should accept that offer to get a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment. To do so, we should support cloture. We should acknowledge that we are near the time when we have done enough. I say ``near time'' because even after the Senate invokes cloture, the Senate may still consider germane amendments. There are several amendments I believe the Senate will be able to consider postcloture. For example, there is the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, to strike the international provisions. There is the amendment by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, on tax shelters. There is the amendment by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, to provide tax benefits to reservists. There are amendments by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, to strike energy tax provisions. There may be other germane amendments. Based on my understanding of the intention of the two leaders and the two managers, I believe that if the Senate invokes cloture, the Senate will work through these and other germane amendments postcloture. In fact, the majority leader has publicly indicated so. Thus, I do believe we are near time when we have done enough. I support efforts to get a vote on the unemployment insurance amendment, and I support invoking cloture thereafter. So let us make this bill as good as possible but not better. Let us advance this bill to create and keep good manufacturing jobs, especially in America. Let us invoke cloture on this bill tomorrow. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I very much commend and thank my colleagues, the majority leader and assistant minority leader, in trying to work through this bill as we are approaching the endgame. We are about there. We are very close to being there. I might recall, a few weeks ago many observers had written off this bill and said the bill was deadlocked--for example, over the overtime provision. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, his comment to the New York Journal years ago: The report of this bill's death was an exaggeration. Instead, we are now back to doing what the Senate does best; that is, working through amendments, doing our work, doing our business, doing what we should do. We have considered 28 amendments. We have already adopted 17 amendments to this bill. I will not read them all, but they are very important amendments. We have been on the bill 13 separate days over the course of 4 separate weeks. It has been the desire of this Senator to have the Senate consider as many relevant amendments as possible. Since we have already adopted 17, I think we are virtually there. Regrettably, we are at a point where several Senators are not agreeing to the setting aside of pending amendments so other Senators may offer amendments, which is making it a little difficult to move forward. But nevertheless, I believe that the resolution that has been worked out by the majority leader and the assistant minority leader and others of us who have been working on this, by having a vote on the pending Cantwell amendment on unemployment insurance, is a real key. It is very important to the successful conclusion of this bill. It is something we sought all along on our side, and I think it is also something that would be presumptively in the best interests of the majority side as well. Now that a cloture motion has been filed, we still expect to proceed to additional amendments--there are not many--that will be germane: the Hollings amendment, the Levin amendment, the McCain amendment, also Senator Landrieu's amendment, and maybe one or two others. We will continue to seek agreement on the amendments and, therefore, we will be doing what the Senate should be doing--simply facing the issues and voting. That is when the Senate is at its best. Let me also make it clear that this Senator believes it is entirely reasonable to bring this debate to a close. We have worked hard on the bill. We have done a great deal of work, much more than many expected. This is an important bill. It is important to creating jobs in America. It is important to ending the European tariffs that mount on American businesses, growing higher. The coming cloture vote will be a true test on this bill, a test of whether we do address the jobs problem, whether we address the European tariffs. It is our duty to do so. Thus, when the roll is called, I will vote for cloture. I will also urge my colleagues to do so as well. If we do so, we may best hope to conclude action on this bill by next Tuesday or perhaps on Wednesday. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. BAUCUS. It is very important that the Cantwell amendment be brought up.

Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my good friend, it puts me in a very awkward position, frankly. I say awkward because it is a hypothetical which I hope does not occur. It is very important.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Chair state the current parliamentary situation.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota on both subjects he just addressed. First, the American policy toward Cuba. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the U.S. Treasury Department, as the Senator so clearly explained, devotes 80 percent of its financing resources--that is, investigating financing--to tracking down American tourists who travel to Cuba, rather than Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. It is amazing. I have gone to Cuba a couple times with Montana businessmen. We signed a contract to sell agricultural products to Cuba. If more Americans could travel to Cuba, it would be more likely that we would be able to have a much better relationship with that country than we now have. Frankly, I also believe very strongly that the current U.S. position with respect to Cuba--namely, prohibiting most Americans from traveling to Cuba--and the export embargo the U.S. Government has against Cuba helps Fidel Castro. It is something he uses to rail against Americans. Ironically, if the embargo was lifted and the travel ban was lifted, if we were not investigating Americans going to Cuba, it would hasten the day for democracy in Cuba. It is clear to me that is what would happen. You might ask, Why is the American Government taking such an inane view, with most of its resources tracking down good, law-abiding Americans visiting Cuba, rather than trying to track down Osama bin Laden and his network? The answer is simple. It is basically politics. This administration is being ruled by a community in the U.S. that wants to get back at Cuba. I think it is regrettable that the Government would not adopt a policy that is good for all America, but rather one that just helps the interests of a very small group in southern Florida. It is an outrage. I, frankly, think the administration should be serving all of America and the Treasury Department should be devoting its resources to finding terrorists rather than checking up on American tourists traveling in Cuba. The second subject the Senator talked about needs to be addressed over and over again; it is the abominable plight and economic conditions on America's Indian reservations. The Senator from North Dakota mentioned poverty in many reservations in North Dakota. The same can be said for many reservations throughout the country. In Montana, we have several reservations and the conditions are, in some cases, just as bad. In other areas, it is getting a lot better. Fifty percent of all the welfare cases, TANF cases, are on Indian reservations. We have an obligation to address that in a solid and constructive way. I wish to explain a few of the positions in the bill that will be before us. It is not before the Senate at the immediate time, but we have considered the bill over the last week, the JOBS bill. Some of the provisions in that bill relate to helping people who live on Indian reservations to live a much better life. These are provisions to help build schools, provisions to help create good jobs on the reservations, and provisions to keep businesses investing on reservations. Let me explain a couple of them. First, the JOBS bill includes the extension of two provisions which allow tribes to issue tax-exempt bonds to build facilities just like the authority that State and local governments have. We believe, those of us who wrote the JOBS bill, treating tribes like State governments makes good economic sense; that it is just plain fair and it is the right thing to do. If State and local governments can issue tax-exempt bonds to construct facilities, so should reservations. I am glad we have that provision in the JOBS bill. It also includes a special allocation of what is called new markets tax credits for reservations. This provision allocates $50 million in new markets tax credits where poverty rates exceed 40 percent. The new markets tax credits are designed to spur investment in economically depressed areas. They are not going to solve all the problems that exist on reservations but they are certainly going to help, help bring jobs, help businesses, help spirit entrepreneurship that is so needed around our country. This allocation will apply to only the poorest reservations. Lifting these reservations out of the grip of poverty is a moral obligation that all of us in the Senate have. Finally, the JOBS bill addresses school construction on reservations. Education is the key to success in many areas of the country. Many of the jobs we hear about going overseas would probably not go overseas if there were more than high school diplomas and better education in America. We have good education but it has to be much better. Without properly educated citizens, we cannot compete in the 21st century. Many of the schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are woefully dilapidated and often dangerous, literally dangerous for students and teachers. The Bureau of Indian Affairs schools are in generally poorer physical condition and have a much more unsatisfactory environment, and more often lack key facilities requirements for education reform, and are less able to support computer and communications technology. The Bureau of Indian Affairs schools are that bad. The JOBS bill includes a provision that will allow tribes to issue tax credit bonds to raise funds for construction, rehabilitation, or repair of tribal school facilities funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This provision gives hope to children stuck in third-rate schools. Every child deserves a decent place to go to school. This provision, again in the JOBS bill, will help tribes to raise the funds necessary to provide them. This bill will also bring opportunity to all Americans, an opportunity for jobs training, and entrepreneurship, and I am proud the JOBS bill also includes provisions aimed at bringing opportunity to reservations and tribal communities across the country. A provision I did not really explain in sufficient detail has to do with an employment credit that gives employers a payroll tax offset for hiring people on reservations, that would allow jobs to stay on reservations. In addition, the JOBS bill includes an extension of accelerated depreciation for equipment purchased by businesses that are located on reservations. This is a huge benefit for small businesses on reservations and gives these businesses the incentives they need to expand. The JOBS bill also includes several new provisions to give an economic lift to tribes. Many tribes have difficulty raising capital in order to attract convention centers which work attract tourists to reservations. Unlike State and local governments, as I mentioned earlier, tribes do not issue bonds for many infrastructure investments. I spoke earlier about that provision and wanted to restate that the basic provisions allow tribes to issue tax exempt bonds to build facilities just as State and local governments now have the authority to do. I believe treating tribes as we do State governments makes good economic sense; it gives them an even greater sense of responsibility and destiny in controlling their own future. They should have that same ability just as State and local governments. So for all those reasons I think those Indian reservation provisions in the JOBS bill, which are designated to help Indians, will help. It is not going to solve all the problems on reservations, but it will certainly give a little more help, a hope, a future to some very depressed parts of our country, and if we fulfill our obligations to help out, I think we will have done a lot through the provisions of the JOBS bill directed at reservations. There are many other provisions in the JOBS bill, obviously, but those directed toward Indian reservations will certainly help those folks. I thank all members of the committee and the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, for including them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to express my great admiration of our brave Montana servicemen and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. These brave men and women have put their lives on hold and on the line. Their families and their communities--our communities--support them. These Montanans and all American soldiers are in our thoughts and prayers. We want them to come home quickly and safely. We need a plan to bring their mission in Iraq to conclusion. And we need the administration to communicate that strategy clearly to the world, and to our brave troops. I am deeply troubled by the allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners. I was horrified by the images we have seen over the last week. Our nation, which our men and women are serving with such honor, must lead by example if we want to win the global ``war of ideas''. Although we know the vast majority of our men and women in uniform are serving honorably, these allegations of abuse demonstrate that we are not giving our troops all of the support that they need. These images of prisoner abuse are not at all consistent with the principles I know our men and women in the Armed Forces hold clear. Our men and women went to Iraq to protect this Nation, to make the world a safer place. They have performed admirably under harsh conditions, sometimes with insufficient equipment, because they believe in their mission. I believe in them and I will continue to make sure that they get the support they need. What our troops need now more than ever is visionary leadership. They Need to know what their mission is and when that mission has changed. They must be trained for that mission and given all of the resources they need for it, be it body armor or bottled water. In order to win the war of ideas and make the world safer, we must share our vision of how to win the global war on terrorism. Sharing the vision to win means building effective, lasting partnerships with not just other countries and governments, but international institutions. The whole world benefits from a stable Iraq. The U.S. needs to work together with other nations to share the risk and responsibility U.S. forces face today. Sharing our vision of how to win the war on terrorism also means ensuring exemplary leadership for every private first class in the United States armed services. We want to ensure that the unconscionable actions of a few misguided soldiers do not endanger the mission of the thousands who work day in and day out to fulfill that vision. This is why I supported the President's nomination of Ambassador Negroponte to be Ambassador to Iraq. This administration must demonstrate that it has not only the determination but also the vision to win the war on ideas that the war on terror truly has become. Now is the time when we must share our vision with the troops who serve with dignity and honor, with the American people and with the world.