Month: February 2019

The U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday passed the most significant gun control bill in years, expanding background checks to include gun shows and internet sales.

The vote was 240 to 190, with Congressman Mike Thompson of California calling it a “new day” in Congress, with Democrats in control and making a “commitment to address the issue of gun violence.”

Maryland Democrat Stenny Hoyer said a background check bill was never allowed to come to a vote when Republicans controlled the House.

“The carnage that we’ve seen perpetrated by gun violence over the last decade has heightened the American people’s concern,” adding that he believes 90 percent of Americans support the bill.

Loopholes would be closed

Wednesday’s bill would close the loopholes that allow people in most states to buy guns from other gun owners at shows and over the internet without the usual backgrounds checks licensed gun stores are required to carry out.

The House plans to vote on a second bill Thursday to expand the time allowed to conduct a background check from just a few minutes, in some cases, to at least 10 days.

The two bills are likely to face stronger opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate, where opponents say it will do nothing from stopping a criminal from getting a weapon.

President Donald Trump has said he supports expanding background checks for gun buyers. But the White House says his advisors would recommend a veto, claiming the bills would infringe on Second Amendment rights and place a burden on legitimate buyers.
…

Members of a U.S. House Armed Services subcommittee on Wednesday heard testimony from five transgender members of the U.S. military, just over a month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can ban future transgender members of the military. 

The ruling made Jan. 22, 2019, said transgender men and women already serving in the military can stay, but any further applicants who have already undergone a gender transition could be barred from the service. 

Members of the service with gender dysphoria, or a feeling that their physical gender does not match the gender they feel themselves to be, would be required to serve as their physical gender. 

The Trump administration said the restrictions were necessary because of “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of having transgender military personnel serve.    

But the five transgender witnesses Wednesday testified that their openness about their gender identity has helped other service members to be transparent as well.  

U.S. Army Capt. Alivia Stehlik, a physical therapist, said her patients have told her they could be more honest with her because of her own authenticity about her identity. She said that has made her more effective at her work.  

Army Capt. Jennifer Peace said, “I consider myself to be a prime example of what a transgender service member can do.” She said she fears that the new ban would keep transgender service members already on the force from taking opportunities that would require leaving the military, because they would be banned from returning.  

Staff Sgt. Patricia King said the people under her command were readier for combat because her transgender status made for a more open atmosphere. “There were no secrets, no false bravado, no hiding,” she said. “We built cohesion in a way that I have never seen in my 19 years of service. That’s the value of openness.” 

And Jesse Ehrenfeld, a U.S. Navy veteran who now studies gay and lesbian health at Vanderbilt University, said there is “no medically valid reason to exclude gender-transitioned individuals from military service.”  

He added, “There is nothing about being transgender that diminishes an individual’s ability to serve. … Banning transgender troops harms readiness through forced dishonesty.” 

The Trump administration introduced the transgender ban in July 2017 via a tweet by the president. Civil rights groups have sued to overturn the restrictions.
…

As Walmart moves to phase out its familiar blue-vested “greeters” at 1,000 stores nationwide, disabled workers who fill many of those jobs say they’re being ill-treated by a chain that styles itself as community-minded and inclusive. 

Walmart told greeters around the country last week that their positions would be eliminated on April 26 in favor of an expanded, more physically demanding “customer host” role. To qualify, they will need to be able to lift 25-pound (11-kilogram) packages, climb ladders and stand for long periods. 

That came as a heavy blow to greeters with cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other physical disabilities. For them, a job at Walmart has provided needed income, served as a source of pride and offered a connection to the community.  

Customer backlash

Now Walmart, America’s largest private employer, is facing a backlash as customers rally around some of the chain’s most highly visible employees. 

Walmart says it is striving to place greeters in other jobs at the company, but workers with disabilities are worried.  

Donny Fagnano, 56, who has worked at Walmart for more than 21 years, said he cried when a manager at the store in Lewisburg, Pa., called him into the office last week and told him his job was going away.  

“I like working,” he said. “It’s better than sitting at home.” 

Fagnano, who has spina bifida, said he was offered a severance package. He hopes to stay on at Walmart and clean bathrooms instead. 

Walmart greeters have been around for decades, allowing the retail giant to put a friendly face at the front of its stores. Then, in 2016, Walmart began replacing greeters with hosts, adding responsibilities that include helping with returns, checking receipts to deter shoplifters and keeping the front of the store clean. Walmart and other chains have been redefining roles at stores as they compete with Amazon.  

The effect of the greeter phase-out on disabled and elderly employees — who have traditionally gravitated toward the role as one they were well-suited to doing — largely escaped public notice until last week, when Walmart launched a second round of cuts. 

As word spread, first on social media and then in local and national news outlets, outraged customers began calling Walmart to complain. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions. Facebook groups sprang up with names like “Team Adam” and “Save Lesley.” A second-grade class in California wrote letters to Walmart’s CEO on behalf of Adam Catlin, a disabled greeter in Pennsylvania whose mother had written an impassioned Facebook post about his plight. Walmart said it has offered another job to Catlin. 

In Galena, Ill., hundreds of customers plan to attend an “appreciation parade” for Ashley Powell on her last day of work as a greeter. 

“I love it, and I think I’ve touched a lot of people,” said Powell, 34, who has an intellectual disability. 

‘What am I going to do?’

In Vancouver, Wash., John Combs, 42, who has cerebral palsy, was devastated and then angered by his impending job loss. It had taken his family five years to find him a job he could do, and he loved the work, coming up with nicknames for all his co-workers. 

“What am I going to do — just sit here on my butt all day in this house? That’s all I’m going to do?” Combs asked his sister and guardian, Rachel Wasser. “I do my job. I didn’t do anything wrong.” 

Wasser urged the retailer to “give these people a fair shake. … If you want to make your actions match your words, do it. Don’t be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” 

With the U.S. unemployment rate for disabled people more than twice that for workers without disabilities, Walmart has long been seen as a destination for people like Combs. Advocacy groups worry the company is backsliding.  

“It’s the messaging that concerns me,” said Gabrielle Sedor, chief operations officer at ANCOR, a trade group representing service providers. “Given that Walmart is such an international leader in the retail space, I’m concerned this decision might suggest to some people that the bottom line of the company is more important to the company than inclusive communities. We don’t think those two are mutually exclusive.” 

The greeter issue has already prompted at least three complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as a federal lawsuit in Utah alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the federal law, employers must provide “reasonable” accommodations to workers with disabilities. 

Walmart did not disclose how many disabled greeters could lose their jobs. The company said that after it made the change at more than 1,000 stores in 2016, 80 percent to 85 percent of all affected greeters found other roles at Walmart. It did not reveal how many of them were disabled. 

This time, Walmart initially told greeters they would have 60 days to land other jobs at the company. Amid the uproar, the company has extended the deadline indefinitely for greeters with disabilities. 

“We recognize that our associates with physical disabilities face a unique situation,” Walmart spokesman Justin Rushing said in a statement. The extra time, he said, will give Walmart a chance to explore how to accommodate such employees. 

Offers made

Walmart said it has already made offers to some greeters, including those with physical disabilities, and expects to continue doing so in the coming weeks.  

But some workers say they have been tacitly discouraged from applying for other jobs. 

Mitchell Hartzell, 31, a full-time Walmart greeter in Hazel Green, Ala., said his manager told him “they pretty much didn’t have anything in that store for me to do” after his job winds down in April. He said he persisted, approaching several assistant managers to ask about openings, and found out about a vacant position at self-checkout. But it had already been promised to a greeter who doesn’t use a wheelchair, he said. 

“It seems like they don’t want us anymore,” said Hartzell, who has cerebral palsy. 

Jay Melton, 40, who has worked as a greeter in Marion, N.C., for nearly 17 years, loves church, Tar Heels basketball and Walmart. His sister-in-law, Jamie Melton, said the job is what gets him out of bed. 

“He doesn’t have a lot of things he does himself that bring him joy,” she said. Addressing Walmart, Melton added: “When you cut a huge population of people out, and you have written a policy that declares they are no longer capable of doing what they have been doing, that is discrimination.”  
…

President Donald Trump is threatening to veto two Democratic bills expanding federal background checks on gun purchases, saying they do not sufficiently protect gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.

The House is expected to vote this week on separate bills requiring background checks for all sales and transfers of firearms and extending the background-check review from three to 10 days.

The bills are the first in a series of steps planned by majority House Democrats to tighten gun laws after eight years of Republican control.

The White House says in a veto message that the bill expanding background checks would impose unreasonable requirements on gun owners. It says the bill could block someone from borrowing a firearm for self-defense or allowing a neighbor to take care of a gun while traveling.

The other bill, extending the review period for a background check, “would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm,” the White House said.

The bill would close the so-called Charleston loophole used by the shooter in a 2015 massacre at a historic black church to buy a gun. But the White House said allowing the federal government to “restrict firearms purchases through bureaucratic delay would undermine the Second Amendment’s guarantee that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Earlier Trump pledge

Democrats accused Trump of hypocrisy, noting that Trump advocated for strengthening background checks after 17 people were shot and killed at a Florida high school a year ago.

At a meeting with survivors and family members of the shooting in Parkland, Florida, Trump promised to be “very strong on background checks.” And he suggested he supported allowing some teachers and other school employees to carry concealed weapons to be ready for intruders.

A week later, during a televised meeting with lawmakers at the White House, Trump wagged his finger at a Republican senator and scolded him for being “afraid of the NRA.” The president declared that he would stand up to the gun lobby and finally get results in quelling gun violence.

Trump’s words rattled some Republicans in Congress and sparked hope among gun-control advocates that, unlike after previous mass shootings, tougher regulations would be enacted. But Trump later retreated on those words, expressing support for modest changes to the federal background check system, as well as for arming teachers.

‘Empty words’

The Democratic National Committee said in a statement Tuesday that Trump’s initial pledge to take on the National Rifle Association and address gun violence “were just empty words.”

Trump “had the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is, and instead said he would veto bipartisan legislation” to expand background checks, the DNC said.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump was ignoring the threat of gun violence even as he declared a national emergency so he could siphon billions of dollars from the military to fund his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The gun violence epidemic in the United States of America is an actual national emergency. The days of this House burying its head in the sand are now over,” Jeffries said Tuesday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said the two gun bills to be voted on this week are “something that the overwhelming majority of the American people will want us to support.”
…

The Federal Reserve is in “no rush to make a judgment” about further changes to interest rates, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday as he spelled out the central bank’s approach to an economy that is likely slowing.

In two hours of testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, Powell elaborated on the “conflicting signals” the Fed has tried to decipher in recent weeks, including disappointing data on retail sales and other aspects of the economy that contrast with steady hiring, wage growth, and ongoing low unemployment.

“The baseline outlook is a good one,” Powell said, but slower growth overseas is a drag on the U.S. economy that “we may feel more of” in the coming months.

“We have the makings of a good outlook and our (rate-setting) committee is really monitoring the crosscurrents, the risks, and for now we are going to be patient with our policy and allow things to take time to clarify.”

If anything, Powell’s comments solidified a Fed policy shift last month in which it indicated it would pause a three-year cycle of rate hikes, which had been projected to run well into 2020, until the inflation or growth dynamics change.

The flow of new workers into the labor force, for example, has surprised the central bank and means “there is more room to grow,” Powell said.

Powell, who has led the Fed for just over a year, faced virtually no pushback from Republicans on the Senate panel, as former Fed chief Janet Yellen had in the past, that the central bank was courting inflation or financial risks by leaving rates too low.

After raising rates four times in 2018, and anticipating further hikes in 2019, the Fed in January switched to a “patient” stance as concerns about the global economy took root, and markets voiced doubts about the U.S. economic recovery.

The Fed’s benchmark overnight lending rate currently is within a range of 2.25 percent to 2.50 percent.

There was also little said by lawmakers about the Fed’s evolving plan to maintain a balance sheet of perhaps $3.5 trillion, which would be lower than the current $4 trillion but still massive by historical standards. Republican lawmakers generally have pushed the central bank to reduce a financial footprint inflated by crisis-era programs many in the party considered risky.

Financial markets were largely unmoved by Powell’s testimony, which was the first of his two hearings this week in Congress. He is due to appear before the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee on Wednesday.

U.S. Treasury yields were lower in afternoon trading while major U.S. stock indexes were slightly higher. The dollar was weaker against a basket of currencies.

Political Shift

Powell told lawmakers that the Fed expected the U.S. economy to grow solidly but at a slower pace this year than the estimated 3 percent growth for 2018, an outlook that was built into the central bank’s policy statement in January.

The “patient” approach to rate hikes has been a staple of Fed commentary since early last month.

“As long as we have steady growth with no inflation, that should keep the Fed at bay,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Cresset Wealth Advisors in Chicago.

But Tuesday’s hearing did offer a preview of issues the central bank may confront as the 2020 presidential campaign takes shape, and Democrats use their recently-won control of the House to press new economic and political ideas.

Amid a growing debate over whether the U.S. government may have far more room to expand its debt than conventional economics might recommend, or whether the Fed’s own balance sheet might help finance a “Green New Deal” of economic and environmental programs, Powell made clear he was among the traditionalists.

“The idea that deficits don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong. I think that U.S. debt is fairly high as a level of (gross domestic product) and, much more importantly than that, it’s growing faster than GDP,” Powell said. “To the extent that people are talking about the Fed – our role is not to provide support for particular policies” on environmental, social or other related issues.

Indeed, asked about the upcoming need to boost the U.S. debt ceiling, he said he considered the prospect of a U.S. government default on its obligations “a bright line, and I hope we never do pass it.”

Powell’s appearances on Capitol Hill this week, part of his semi-annual testimony to Congress, are his first since Democrats won control of the House in the November elections. They also follow the kickoff of a number of 2020 presidential campaigns.

Along with questions that ranged from the sources of rural poverty to the impact of climate change on banks, Senate committee members pressed points likely to figure into the Democratic primary battle.

“The Fed works for big rich banks that want to get bigger and richer,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat running for president. She questioned whether Powell would be adequately aggressive in reviewing a proposed megamerger between U.S. regional lender BB&T and rival SunTrust Banks.

Powell pledged an “open and transparent” review of the deal.

When asked whether there had been any “direct or indirect” communication from the White House about interest rates, Powell deferred, saying he would not comment on private conversations with other officials.

President Donald Trump has castigated the Fed for raising rates, arguing that the monetary tightening was undercutting his administration’s efforts to boost economic growth.

On Tuesday, Powell repeated his oft-heard pledge that the Fed will make policy decisions “in a way that is not political.”
…

The Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement chief on Tuesday defended the Trump administration’s work, despite a report by her own agency showing that civil and criminal crackdowns on polluters have dropped sharply in the past two years.

Assistant administrator Susan Bodine, who heads the office of enforcement, said the idea that EPA is soft on enforcement is “absolutely not true,” adding that the agency is giving states a greater role in regulation and enforcement and stressing education and voluntary compliance by companies.

Bodine told a House subcommittee that a media “narrative” about lax enforcement “discredits the tremendous work of the compliance and assurance staff” at EPA.

“A strong environment program doesn’t mean we have to collect a particular dollar amount or pick up a number of penalties,” Bodine said.

But Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said EPA’s own statistics show an agency that’s “sitting on its hands” and “giving polluters a free pass. And it’s putting our health and environment at risk.”

When EPA enforcement activities go down, “pollution goes up. That’s a fact,” said DeGette, who chairs an Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.

The EPA has been one of the most active agencies in carrying out President Donald Trump’s deregulatory goals. Environmental and public health groups say the business-friendly rollbacks place public health and the environment at greater risk, a claim Democrats repeatedly made at Tuesday’s hearing.

The hearing was the first oversight hearing on EPA since Democrats reclaimed the House majority last month.

Congress has enacted a series of laws to protect health and the environment, “and this panel will not sit back and allow this administration to simply ignore those laws,” DeGette said. “We expect the EPA to do its job.”

Historically low levels

The latest numbers from EPA show its overall enforcement activities for 2018 were at historically low levels, according to an agency report earlier this month.

The EPA assessed polluters a total of $69 million in civil penalties in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the lowest dollar amount since EPA created the enforcement office in 1994, the report showed.

Inspections and evaluations dropped to about 10,600, half the number EPA conducted at its peak in 2010.

Civil investigations carried out by the agency declined to 22 last year, down from 40 in 2017 and 125 in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration.

Criminal fines and restitution tumbled, from $207 million in 2016 and $3 billion in 2017, which includes a $2.8 billion fine against Volkswagen over emissions-rigging in a case initiated under the Obama administration — to $86 million last year.

Rep. Frank Pallone, who chairs the full energy panel, told Bodine there was “no way to sugarcoat these numbers.”

Pallone, D-N.J., said it appears that under Trump, the EPA “is relying on industry to voluntarily come forward and disclose when they are not in compliance” with federal laws.

Pallone scoffed at that idea and said EPA must have a robust enforcement presence, with active inspections and investigations and, where appropriate, referrals to the Justice Department.

Pallone and other Democrats questioned Bodine about reports that EPA has lost 17 percent of its enforcement staff since 2017. Bodine disputed that, saying the agency has 607 enforcement employees of 649 authorized by Congress. More inspectors are being hired, including eight in March, she said.

‘Carrot and stick’ approach

Bodine challenged Democrats’ contention that higher penalties lead to improved compliance.

“Enforcement is a critical tool but it’s not an end to itself,” she said, adding that EPA uses a “carrot and stick” approach that ranges from helping companies better understand their obligations to supporting state enforcement actions “all the way to putting people in jail for knowing and egregious violations that endanger public health or the environment.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., said Bodine appeared to be making excuses.

“I think it’s fairly clear EPA is not doing its job as it should,” said Castor, who chairs a special House committee on climate change.

“I’m sorry you feel that way,” Bodine replied.
…

The head of Mexico’s immigration agency says the country has received 112 Central American migrants from the United States, including 25 minors in a policy reversal

Mexico has accepted 112 Central American migrants from the United States, and they include 25 minors in a policy reversal, the head of Mexico’s immigration agency said Monday.  

Late last month, the U.S. launched the so-called “remain in Mexico” program negotiated with Mexico to make some asylum applicants wait in Mexico during the months and even years that it can take to resolve such cases.

17 families from 3 countries

National Immigration Institute Commissioner Tonatiuh Guillen had said last month that Mexico wouldn’t accept migrants younger than 18 while they await the resolution of their U.S. asylum claims. But Guillen said Monday that Mexico is accepting children who are accompanied by their parents, saying the numbers remain small.

Guillen said the 112 migrants sent back through Feb. 21 included 17 families from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The migrants return to Mexico through the El Chaparral crossing in Tijuana.

So far, there has been capacity to handle the returnees in Tijuana’s shelters, but Guillen said that “there’s a limit.”

Concerns with program

The U.S. has expressed interest in expanding the program to other ports of entry along the border, but so far it remains limited to Tijuana. Guillen believes the program’s expansion would draw more legal challenges in the U.S. alleging that it violates the due process of the asylum seekers or puts them in danger.

“The paradox is that by the same amount that the returns grow, so does the possibility that this program, which is the United States’, is unsuccessful — (that) the lawsuits that are already in their courts increase,” he said.

Guillen said Mexico is also taking steps to restrict the passage of large caravans of Central American migrants that drew U.S. attention last year. Central American migrants will now have to apply for Mexican humanitarian visas in their countries’ capitals rather than applying once they arrive in Mexico, he said.

Since late last year, Mexico has issued more than 15,000 “visitor cards for humanitarian reasons.” Giving them to a migrant who has already entered Mexico would be a rare exception now, Guillen said.

‘Regional visitor’

Those arriving at Mexico’s southern border now are more likely to be eligible for “regional visitor” permits or “border worker” permits that would require the migrants to stay in southern Mexico.

“Yes, we are trying to take more control,” Guillen said. “It’s not convenient for anyone to have these kinds of movements … We’re going to try to review closely the situation of each person. There are those who need humanitarian support, but there is also another group that has been very aggressive and doesn’t have the expected profile of those who are asking for help.” 

 
…

The man who long oversaw special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation said Monday that it is not always appropriate for the government to be transparent about its work as he argued that prosecutors should not level public allegations against people they do not prosecute.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s comments at an event come as Mueller’s Russia probe winds down and as there is debate about what information should be made public at the end, particularly about individuals who were investigated but not charged.

Rosenstein did not discuss Mueller’s work in detail and did not suggest his comments about transparency were specifically about the investigation. But he made several remarks that could be interpreted as setting the stage for the Justice Department to not disclose as much about the investigation, and about the actions of President Donald Trump, as Democrats in Congress and many in the public might want.

“There’s a knee-jerk reaction to suggest that we should be transparent about what we do in government,” Rosenstein said. “But there are a lot of reasons not to be transparent about what we do in government.”

He added: “There may be legitimate reasons for making exceptions, but as a general principle, in my view, the Department of Justice is best served when people are confident that … when we’re investigating American citizens in particular, we’re going to do it with appropriate sensitivity to the rights of uncharged people.”

Rosenstein was responsible for Mueller’s appointment in May 2017 and has overseen much of his day-to-day work since then. He is expected to step down next month, and his speech Monday on the rule of law at the Center for Strategic and International Studies is likely one of his final public appearances before his departure.

The decision on what to do with Mueller’s findings will ultimately fall to new Attorney General William Barr, who has said he wants to make public as much as he can. He has said he plans to produce his own report after receiving a confidential one from Mueller.

At other points in his speech, and in a question-and-answer session that followed, Rosenstein appeared to allude to the Justice Department’s protocol of not disclosing negative information about people it does not have enough evidence to charge or that, for other reasons, it decides against prosecuting.

Justice Department legal opinions argue that a sitting president cannot be indicted, suggesting prosecutors would not be able to pursue charges against Trump even if they uncover wrongdoing. That could mean investigators do not make public information they collected on Trump.

“The guidance I always gave my prosecutors and the agents I worked with during my tenure on the front lines of law enforcement were if we aren’t prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court,” Rosenstein said, “then we have no business making allegations against American citizens.”

Rosenstein’s comments stand in contrast to congressional Democrats who are aggressively pushing the idea that Mueller’s full report, plus the underlying documents, should be made public.

The Democrats are pointing to documents Justice Department officials made public following the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, as well as information Republicans demanded last year during inquiries into the early stages of the FBI’s Russia investigation.

The documents given to Congress included sensitive, sometimes classified, information that had traditionally been kept under wraps after closed investigations or during ongoing investigations.

The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Adam Schiff, tweeted Monday that “this double standard won’t cut it.”

“For two years, I sounded the alarm about DOJ’s deviation from just that principle as it turned over hundreds of thousands of pages in closed or ongoing investigations,” he said. “I warned that DOJ would need to live by this precedent. And it will.”
…

Russian state television has listed U.S. military facilities that Moscow would target in the event of a nuclear strike, and said that a hypersonic missile Russia is developing would be able to hit them in less than five minutes.

The targets included the Pentagon and the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland.

The report, unusual even by the sometimes bellicose standards of Russian state TV, was broadcast on Sunday evening, days after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was militarily ready for a “Cuban Missile”-style crisis if the United States wanted one.

With tensions rising over Russian fears that the United States might deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe as a Cold War-era arms-control treaty unravels, Putin has said Russia would be forced to respond by placing hypersonic nuclear missiles on submarines near U.S. waters.

The United States says it has no immediate plans to deploy such missiles in Europe and has dismissed Putin’s warnings as disingenuous propaganda. It does not currently have ground-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles that it could place in Europe.

However, its decision to quit the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty over an alleged Russian violation, something Moscow denies, has freed it to start developing and deploying such missiles.

Putin has said Russia does not want a new arms race, but has also dialed up his military rhetoric.

The Pentagon said that Putin’s threats only helped unite NATO.

“Every time Putin issues these bombastic threats and touts his new doomsday devices, he should know he only deepens NATO’s resolve to work together to ensure our collective security,” Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

Some analysts have seen his approach as a tactic to try to re-engage the United States in talks about the strategic balance between the two powers, something Moscow has long pushed for, with mixed results.

In the Sunday evening broadcast, Dmitry Kiselyov, presenter of Russia’s main weekly TV news show ‘Vesti Nedeli,’ showed a map of the United States and identified several targets he said Moscow would want to hit in the event of a nuclear war.

The targets, which Kiselyov described as U.S. presidential or military command centers, also included Fort Ritchie, a military training center in Maryland closed in 1998, McClellan, a U.S. Air Force base in California closed in 2001, and Jim Creek, a naval communications base in Washington state.

Kiselyov, who is close to the Kremlin, said the “Tsirkon” (‘Zircon’) hypersonic missile that Russia is developing could hit the targets in less than five minutes if launched from Russian submarines.

Hypersonic flight is generally taken to mean traveling through the atmosphere at more than five times the speed of sound.

“For now, we’re not threatening anyone, but if such a deployment takes place, our response will be instant,” he said.

Kiselyov is one of the main conduits of state television’s strongly anti-American tone, once saying Moscow could turn the United States into radioactive ash.

Asked to comment on Kiselyov’s report, the Kremlin said on Monday it did not interfere in state TV’s editorial policy.
…