Mike Levin: “I intend to vote for the Warner amendment because it represents change, not as much change as we would have liked, and…”

“I intend to vote for the Warner amendment because it represents change, not as much change as we would have liked, and we have debated that and argued that. But there are significant changes that are being proposed in this amendment which we have worked very hard to put in our amendment and we think would represent an improvement. We need to have 2006 be a year of transition. We need to have the administration lay out a strategy. We need to state what our military states, which is that the Iraqis have to solve their political problems and come together and unify if that insurgency is going to be defeated. This amendment continues to say to the administration they need to tell that to the Iraqis. This amendment also sets up a schedule for conditions that are goals we hope to be achieved on the ground. That ``schedule,'' which is the word that remains in this amendment, is an important schedule that needs to be retained, and it is retained. It needs to be met, and if it is not met, we need to be told what has changed so that it can be met. I support the Warner amendment as the second-best approach, but it continues to keep the purpose, to clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq. Keeping that purpose is critical. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has expired for debate. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.…”