WASHINGTON – Congressman Tom Cole voted today for a resolution that declares our nation's commitment to completing the mission to create a sovereign, free and united Iraq. The resolution passed in the House today with a bipartisan majority.

      Congressman Tom Cole led the debate on the rule for H. Res. 861, Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. A rule, which sets the terms of debate on the floor, must be passed before the actual piece of legislation is debatable.

    Following is Congressman Cole's opening statement during the debate on the rule:

     "Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the context of today's debate, I believe there are four relevant questions we must consider. First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? Second, with Saddam Hussein gone, what's at stake in terms of our involvement in Iraq? Third, what are the chances for success in Iraq? And, finally, where will the battle be won or lost? I'd like to consider each of those questions in turn.

First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? I remind the Members of this House it was the official policy of the United States government beginning in 1998 agreed to by both houses of Congress to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We had good reason to do so. This is a person who had twice launched regional wars that took over a million lives, who had pursued and nearly acquired nuclear weapons on two different occasions, who had developed weapons of mass destruction and had used them against his own people, who was a state sponsor of terrorism who had systematically worked his way out from under the restrictions applied to him by the United Nations, who had expelled weapons inspectors from his own country, who was a continuing threat, and frankly, who had terrorized and brutalized and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

Second, with him gone, what's at stake in Iraq? For that I think we should turn to the enemies that we fight today--al Qaeda. They've designated this and other terrorist groups as the central battle field in the War on Terror. I quote the chief theoretician of al Qaeda, quote: 'Iraq is the greatest battlefield against the infidels and its native allies. It is not the American war machine that should be of utmost concern. What threatens the future is American democracy. To allow Iraq to build a democracy would represent our biggest defeat.' So the stakes are certainly worth the effort.

Next, what are our chances of success in Iraq? Frankly, I think they're very good for two reasons. First, obviously, the skill, the bravery, the professionalism of our own people, which was demonstrated only last week when they cornered and killed al-Zarqawi, one of the world's worst terrorists. But second, and we ought to note this, the Iraqi people themselves. It's they who stepped up under the most difficult of circumstances and turned out in successively greater numbers in three different elections. It's they who in the great civil turmoil they are going through have fashioned a constitution and created a permanent government. It's their leaders who run the risk of being killed every single day. And it's their people who are standing up literally by the thousands and fighting back to defend their own country and to move it forward to a hopeful and democratic future. So I think our chances of success are good.

Finally, though, where will the battle be won or lost? Obviously Iraq itself is a crucial theater. What happens there with our military, what happens with the Iraqis is determinative of the outcome. But I would also suggest that the United States is itself a battlefield, a political battlefield. The real question is whether or not we will sustain the will that it takes to ultimately be successful, and that decision will be made not in Iraq, but in Congress and in the United States itself. So what we're about today is a fight I think that involves us on the most critical battlefield of all, the battlefield of American public opinion.

Mr. Speaker, today we may hear about the, quote, unfairness of this resolution. We may hear charges of a rigged process. Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. The minority was asked to provide their own party substitute to this resolution, and they did not choose to do so. We were ready to make this in order in the Rules Committee, but they did not do so, and we moved forward with our resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if the other side of the aisle would like to argue process rather than substance, that's certainly appropriate and that's their privilege. They should vote against this resolution. If they disagree with the resolution in substance, they should vote against it. If they disagree with the resolution because they consider it ramrodded, they should vote against it. That's their right. Frankly, I believe their real challenge is that they have no common unified position on Iraq as a party. Whether we are right or wrong on our side of the aisle, we do have a common position and it's expressed in this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge those on both sides of the aisle who believe that winning the campaign in Iraq is of the utmost of importance in achieving success in the wider global War on Terror to vote for this resolution. I believe that many members of both parties will.

Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time."

###