[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H3478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE ALL-AMERICAN RESOLUTION

  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the All-
American Resolution expressing the sense of Congress that any missile 
defense system deployed to protect the U.S. from missile attacks would 
include protection for Alaska, Hawaii and territories.
  As we can see on this diagram right now, Alaska comes into direct 
threat by India, China, et cetera, and now the administration sought to 
avoid protecting Alaska, avoid protecting Hawaii, and I think it is 
reprehensible to have that occur.
  It is time for us to recognize that Alaska and Hawaii are part of the 
United States and ought to be protected. In fact, we ought to set up 
our own missile system in Alaska so that we can counterattack in this 
uncertain time. I urge the passage of this legislation.
  Today I rise to introduce ``The All-American Resolution'' expressing 
the sense of the Congress that any missile defense system deployed to 
protect U.S. from missile attack should include protection for Alaska, 
Hawaii, territories and commonwealths of the United States.
  The U.S. Constitution provides that it is an essential responsibility 
of the federal government to protect to all United States citizens 
against foreign attack. However, the Administration's development plan 
is based on a policy of observing the restrictions of the 1972 Anti-
Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which prohibits the deployment of a 
missile defense system capable of defending all U.S. territory. As 
such, the plan excludes Alaska, Hawaii, and territories. While this 
legislation does not attempt to abrogate or amend the ABM Treaty, it 
does express the sense of Congress that space, sea, or land-based 
systems are required to include them and the commonwealths, when a 
system is deployed in the future.
  A year ago the Alaska State Legislature passed a resolution 
expressing the view of the people of Alaska that they, along with other 
Americans, should be defended against a missile attack. Why are 
Alaskans concerned about their vulnerability to missile attack? In 
1995, the Administration adopted a national intelligence estimate (NIE) 
asserting that the U.S. did not face a threat of missile attack for at 
least 15 years. To arrive at this conclusion, the Administration 
excluded from the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) an assessment of 
the threat of missile attack to Alaska and Hawaii. Excluding Alaska and 
Hawaii from the NIE served to bypass an earlier assessment by then-
Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch that territories in these two 
states could be subject to attack by a North Korean missile, the Taepo 
Dong 2, by the end of this decade. In fact, the Secretary of Defense 
issued a report titled Proliferation: Threat and Response (November 
1997) which exemplifies the possible threat to Alaska from both North 
Korea and China.
  I believe it is reprehensible to prepare the NIE while leaving some 
Americans undefended in its pursuit of the most minimal missile defense 
capability possible. My resolution also provides that Alaska and 
Hawaii, territories and commonwealths must be included in any NIE 
prepared by the Administration.
  While Alaska and Hawaii were the only two states excluded from 
consideration under the NIE, most states and territories will be 
vulnerable as well. The Administration's missile defense plan calls for 
the development of a system in which a deployment decision may be made 
in 2000 and deployment completed by 2003. This could leave the vast 
majority of U.S. territory vulnerable to missile strikes. The 
Administration's policy views the ABM Treaty as ``the cornerstone of 
strategic stability.''
  I will give a quick history of the ABM Treaty. Article I of the ABM 
Treaty barred the deployment of a national missile defense system 
capable of defending all the nations' territory. In fact, Article III 
of the Treaty, as amended by a 1974 Protocol, permitted the deployment 
of a single missile defense site that is capable of protecting only the 
region in which it is deployed. The U.S. designated Grand Forks, North 
Dakota as this site, although the system located there is mothballed. 
Taking the Grand Forks system out of mothballs and upgrading its 
capabilities may allow it to provide protection to all of America. 
Whether you agree with the ABM Treaty, or not, I believe we would all 
agree on the necessity to defend all of America, including Alaska, 
Hawaii, the territories and commonwealths from the threat of ballistic 
missile attacks.
  I call on all my colleagues who wish to see their constituents 
protected, to look seriously at the resolution introduced today. My 
friends, this act will improve the interests of all Americans, now and 
into the future.

                          ____________________