Ryan proposes penalties
Move follows Democrats’ sit-in over gun control
Washington –– House Speaker Paul Ryan and his Republican lieutenants want to hit fellow lawmakers with fines and potential ethics violations if they engage in livestreaming or other disruptions on the House floor.
The move is a belated response to the 25-hour sit-in in June by Democrats protesting Republican inaction on gun-control legislation after the mass shooting at an Orlando, Fla., nightclub.
Under the proposed new rules, members could be fined $500 for a first offense of using electronic photography or audio or visual recording, and for broadcasting from the House floor. A $2,500 fine would be levied for the next such offense and each subsequent violation.
The new rules also would clarify what conduct is deemed disorderly or disruptive during floor proceedings, including blocking access by other members to microphones or the “well” –– the front of the House chamber.
Such action could lead to potential referral to the Committee on Ethics and sanctions against members, according to an accompanying section-bysection analysis of the new rules package.
There was no comment on the Republican crackdown from a spokesman for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
House members from both parties can offer amendments to the proposed rules before a final version is to be voted on Jan. 3 when the new Congress convenes.
Washington — President Barack Obama has signed legislation that, by striking a single word from longstanding U.S. nuclear defense policy, could heighten tensions with Russia and China and launch the country on an expensive effort to build space-based defense systems.
The National Defense Authorization Act, a yearend policy bill encompassing virtually every aspect of the U.S. military, contained two provisions with potentially momentous consequences.
One struck the word “limited” from language describing the mission of the country’s homeland missile defense system. The system is designed to thwart a small-scale atCongress. tack by a non-superpower such as North Korea or Iran.
A related provision calls for the Pentagon to start “research, development, test and evaluation” of space-based systems for missile defense.
Together, the provisions signal that the United states will seek to use advanced technology to defeat both small-scale and large-scale nuclear attacks. That could unsettle the decades-old balance of power among the major nuclear states.
Huge bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress approved the policy changes over the past month, with virtually no public debate.
Although the White House had earlier criticized the changes, it stopped short of threatening a veto. On Friday, Obama signed the legislation.
In a four-page signing statement, the president criticized various aspects of the bill, including the structure of a cybersecurity command and limits on administrative leave for employees, but said nothing about the changes in nuclear defense policy.
Before Obama’s action, proponents and opponents of the policy changes agreed that they could have dramatic effects.
Leading defense scientists said the idea that a space-based system could provide security against nuclear attack is a fantasy.
“It defies the laws of physics and is not based on science of any kind,” said L. David Montague, a retired president of missile systems for Lockheed Corp. and co-chair of a National Academy of Sciences panel that studied missile defense technologies at the request of “Even if we darken the sky with hundreds or thousands of satellites and interceptors, there’s no way to ensure against a dedicated attack,” Montague said. “So it’s an opportunity to waste a prodigious amount of money.”
He called the provisions passed by Congress “insanity, pure and simple.”
Rep. Trent Franks (RAriz.), who introduced and shepherded the policy changes in the House, said he drew inspiration from President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, which was intended to use lasers and other space-based weaponry to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” Known as “Star Wars,” the initiative cost taxpayers $30 billion, but no system was ever deployed.
Franks said striking the word “limited” from the homeland defense system’s mission, and at the same time pursuing a space-based system, would put the U.S. on a path to better safeguard its security. He said the new approach would protect both U.S. territory and surveillance satellites.
“I hope that the day will come when we could have solid-state lasers in space that can defeat any missile attack,” said Franks, who represents suburbs north and west of Phoenix. “That day is a long ways off. But fortunately, it’s a little closer, and a little more certain, with the passage of these amendments.”
The new policy Franks championed says America “should maintain and improve a robust layered missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States and its allies against the developing and increasingly complex ballistic missile threat.”
A space-based defense system would hinge on annual congressional appropriations and decisions by the incoming Trump administration.
The National Academy study, released in 2012, concluded that even a bare-bones space-based system would cost about $200 billion to put in place, and hundreds of billions to operate in subsequent years.
Franks, asked whether the country could afford it, replied: “What is national security worth? It’s priceless.”
Philip E. Coyle III, a former assistant secretary of defense who headed the Pentagon office responsible for testing and evaluating weapon systems, described the idea of a space-based nuclear shield as “a sham.”
He added: “Both Russia and China will use it as an excuse to do something that they want to do.”
The word “limited” has guided U.S. policy since the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. The qualifier reflects, in part, the reality that intercepting and destroying incoming warheads is supremely difficult, and that it would be impractical to field enough interceptors to counter a large-scale attack.
The current homeland anti-missile system — the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system — relies on interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Fort Greely, Alaska. In flight tests, the system, which has cost taxpayers more than $40 billion, has managed to destroy mock enemy warheads only about half the time.