The following is Congresswoman Capps’ Floor Statement on the vote to authorize going to war in Iraq:

I rise in opposition to the resolution. There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a villain and a menace to his own people and to the rest of the world. He is a terrible dictator who has used chemical weapons in his own country and on other nations. He likely has biological weapons and is certainly seeking nuclear weapons. He has invaded his neighbors and defied the international community. He has worked to destabilize the Middle East in support of terrorism. We can all agree he is a threat to international peace and security. His own people and the rest of the world would be better off if he were not in power.
It appears that the United States is going to use military force to reduce or eliminate this threat. It seems likely that the brave men and women of our Armed Forces will be sent to the region to disarm his regime and possibly remove Hussein from power. If that happens, I will support our country men as they do their duty and obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. But tomorrow, I will vote against the resolution authorizing the use of force now.
This is a hard decision. It is one of the most important votes that I cast. It is a vote of conscience for me, as I trust it is for all Members. And my conscience leads me to vote “no.'' After careful consideration, I have determined that the resolution before us does not advance our national security. The bottom line is that it authorizes the President to launch a unilateral preemptive attack if he so chooses. Our national security is not served by such an attack.
I do not oppose the use of force in all circumstances. I voted to support military operations in Kosovo, and I stood on this floor and supported the President in the operations in Afghanistan. But I think an authorization to use force against Iraq before we have explored all of our options is premature and potentially dangerous.
First of all, international support, especially from the U.N., is critical. It allows us to share the risks and costs of our operations. It lends our efforts legitimacy. Recently, the United Nations has regained its focus on Iraq. It is on the verge of restarting inspections and international support for a stricter inspection regime is growing. The return of the inspectors should be our top priority. They can determine the extent of the threat Iraq represents, and their findings can help us build international support to check the Iraqi regime.
I will be supporting an alternative that continues those efforts. This alternative will only authorize force as a part of U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq. A unilateral preemptive attack on Iraq without U.N. support may undermine
the multilateral war against global terror. It could drive a wedge between us and those allies whose support we need.
In addition, with or without international support, we will have to be committed to rebuilding Iraq or we may be left with a state that is just as dangerous as the current one or worse we could be dealing with a chaotic civil war where we are not sure who has what kind of weapons. Unfortunately, the administration has shown little interest in addressing this important issue. This is consistent with its lack of attention to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Both are troubling.
And a preemptive, unilateral strike on Iraq may lead to uprisings in the Middle East. Friendly regimes could be threatened by extremists who will openly support terrorism. And key moderate Islamic nations, like Egypt, Jordan, and the nuclear-armed Pakistan, could be destabilized.
 A U.S. attack would certainly further inflame the cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians. And I cannot imagine the consequences if Iraq were to attack Israel and Israel were to respond as Prime Minister Sharon has declared it would.
An attack on Iraq could lead to the use of the very weapons we want to destroy. In an attempt to survive, Saddam Hussein may use all the weapons at his disposal against our servicemen and women.
Finally, a preemptive attack on Iraq turns 50 years of national security policy on its head. We have struggled for 5 decades to help build a world in which nations do not attack one another without specific provocation. In the face of an imminent threat to the U.S., with an obvious provocation, a preemptive attack might be justified. But I have not seen convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat.
There is still time to try to resolve the situation using other tools of statecraft, such as diplomacy. The United States would win a war against Iraq. But that does not necessarily mean it is a war that should be waged at this time. At some point it may be necessary to use force. We may have to place our men and women in our Armed Forces in harm's way, but that should be the last resort, only after we have explored all other means and after other measures have failed.
For now I do not think the case has been made that force is the only option left to us. It is premature to launch a unilateral preemptive attack, and it would be premature for us to authorize one. I oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Pictured above: (center) Congresswoman Capps meets with Central Coast firefighters to discuss emergency preparedness.