The House and Senate recently gave strong support to a bipartisan resolution, authored by Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, and Bayh, to authorize the use of force against Iraq if it fails to comply with United Nations' Security Council resolutions calling for the removal and disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. This was the most difficult vote I have ever cast. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that this resolution gives diplomacy the best — and perhaps only — chance to succeed. Secretary of State Colin Powell played a critical role in my decision, as we discussed at length the most effective approach to the Iraqi threat. He convinced me that the prospects for effective action by the United Nations to disarm Iraq peacefully depend on the credible threat of the use of force. He told me that his ability to secure a strong resolution from the United Nations Security Council would be strengthened enormously by bipartisan congressional approval of the authorization. The CIA, the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and private sector analysts have concluded that all key aspects of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons program — including research and development, production, and weaponization — are active and in some cases more advanced than before the Gulf War. In defiance of his international obligations, Saddam Hussein has continued to develop a stockpile of the deadliest weapons known to mankind; rebuilt and enlarged manufacturing sites, including mobile biological production facilities; developed more effective delivery systems, such as unmanned drones; and sought to procure materials for a nuclear bomb. One of the chemical weapons manufactured by Saddam is the deadly nerve agent VX. Saddam has at least 1.5 tons of VX; just under 10 milligrams can cause a quick and painful death. The reports demonstrating Iraq's continued violation of United Nations' resolutions prohibiting its possession of weapons of mass destruction are numerous, compelling, and indisputable. They are based on findings of the United Nations weapons inspectors, credible reports of Iraqi defectors, sophisticated surveillance equipment, and other strong evidence. The most difficult question is whether the growing and serious threat posed by Saddam Hussein is sufficiently imminent to warrant the authorization of a military strike should diplomatic means of disarming Iraq fail. In addressing this critical issue, President Bush noted in a recent speech that the passage of the resolution does not mean that war is imminent and unavoidable. In fact, I opposed the initial resolution proposed by the Administration because it lacked sufficient emphasis on first pursuing a diplomatic solution and working through the United Nations Security Council. The bipartisan resolution, by contrast, specifically requires a presidential determination that further reliance on diplomatic or other peaceful means alone would not adequately protect our national security nor lead to the enforcement of relevant United Nations resolutions. The evidence of Saddam Hussein's massive build-up of the world's most dangerous weapons cannot be ignored. But, as former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger told the Armed Services Committee, on which I serve, the threat is not defined by capability alone. We have to probe Saddam Hussein's intentions, as well as his capability, to determine the threat. In that regard, if as Shakespeare tells us, the past is prologue, the history of Saddam Hussein's regime gives great cause for concern. He has used chemical weapons repeatedly to kill his own people as well as Iranians, and he invaded two nations. As the assessment of the British Government concludes, the evidence "shows that [Saddam Hussein] does not regard [weapons of mass destruction] only as weapons of last resort. He is ready to use them . . . and determined to retain them, in breach of United Nations Security Council Resolutions." British intelligence reports assert that "some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them." Only if Saddam Hussein understands that we are prepared to use military force will a peaceful means for disarming him have a chance to succeed. In my view, there are times in dealing with a tyrant when the best — indeed, perhaps the only — chance to avoid war is to express in unmistakable terms our willingness to wage it. And this is one of those times. As difficult as it is to confront Iraq now, one need only consider how much more difficult it will be when Saddam has a nuclear bomb. From the beginning of this debate, I have emphasized that military force should be the last resort, and I still hold out hope that military action will not be necessary to disarm this dangerous regime. I also believe that the United States should act in concert with its allies as it pursues a new United Nations Security Council resolution, or in the event that we must resort to military action. While the United States must always retain the right to defend itself, our prospects for dealing effectively with the Iraqi threat, our standing in the community of nations, and our ability to continue to wage an effective global effort against terrorism depend on our forging a multilateral coalition. President Bush deserves great credit for putting together a coalition of some 90 nations to combat terrorism. That same kind of effort must be devoted to building a coalition to confront and disarm the Iraqi regime.