Casting a vote over whether to authorize military action may be the most difficult decision a member of Congress is asked to make. It certainly is for me. No matter who the opponent or what the circumstances, the consequence of a collective "yes" vote likely will be the loss of life. But failure to act holds the potential of even more terrible outcomes. Such a vote presents an excruciating moral dilemma.

For the past year, our nation has been engaged in a great civic debate. How do we protect our nation from those who would do us harm? How can we ensure the safety of our children and grandchildren here and around the world? Should we take action against potentially hostile nations? These are questions without simple answers.

President George W. Bush asked Congress to grant him the authority to take military action against Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as part of our war on terrorism. No member of Congress takes such a request lightly. We may have different views and concerns, but each of us deals with this issue very seriously and solemnly.

On such issues, persons are often characterized as hawks or doves. I am neither. Instead, I seek to be wise as an owl. I listened to the concerns voiced by many of my constituents. I wrote President Bush informing him of their concerns and seeking answers to their questions and mine. I studied Saddam Hussein and his past actions. I sought and received extensive briefings from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Central Intelligence Agency and others. And, because of my scientific background, I also received a detailed scientific briefing from civilian officials at the Pentagon about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities.

This information has convinced me of several things. Saddam Hussein continues to have dangerous, warlike ambitions. He is Hitler-like in his methods of repression, especially in gassing his own people. He has thumbed his nose at the United Nations by evicting inspectors and using the UN's "oil-for-food" program to fund weapons rather than feed his impoverished people.

Saddam Hussein continues, in violation of the UN's sanctions and the peace agreement he signed, to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons for war and terror. Most troubling, he continues to develop nuclear weapons and may be as little as a year or two away from success. As a nuclear physicist, I know the destructive force of nuclear weapons. If a weapon of the type he is developing was detonated over Calder Plaza, the blast would devastate all of Grand Rapids and the near suburbs, a firestorm would consume the rest of the suburbs and a lethal dose of radiation would envelop much of the downwind area. All told, upwards of 300,000 people would be killed. Saddam Hussein's regime poses a very real threat to the safety of the United States, the safety of his own people and, indeed, the safety of the rest of the world.

Early in this debate, I thought President Bush and his advisers were seeking to strike Iraq preemptively. But I found they view that as a final alternative, not a first step. The Bush Administration continues to work with the UN and our allies to build a coalition and seek a peaceful end to this situation through inspections and disarmament. However, we must grant the president the power to take action against Iraq because Hussein will not acquiesce until he faces a superior force. We may have to put troops on Iraq's border before he will comply, but I hope, along with many others in Congress and the Administration, that military action ultimately will not be necessary.

I abhor the idea of the U.S. making a preemptive strike. Our philosophy has always been to take the first punch before we act. But when the first punch can destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people, we must consider ways to stop that first punch.

I commend President Bush for his recent speeches in which he more clearly stated his intentions and reasons for requesting this resolution. I also commend him for working with Congress to craft a resolution that is not as broad as his original proposal and meets many of the concerns raised by Congress and our constituents. The legislative process has worked in structuring the approach and limiting action to only Iraq.

And so, after many days and weeks of thoughtful and prayerful consideration, I've decided to support this resolution. In this case, I've concluded not acting is more dangerous than acting.