Openers Rohit Sharma and Gautam Gambhir put on 140 runs to help India pummel Pakistan by nine wickets in an ICC Twenty20 warmup tie that resembled a final in its festive look at the Oval cricket ground on Wednesday.
Sharma, opening in place of Virender Sehwag, hit a brilliant and confident 80 off only 53 balls (9x4, 2x6) as defending world champions India took only 17 overs to score 159 for one, easily overhauling Pakistan's 158 for six.
Gambir remained not out on 53 (47 balls, 5X4) to see India through to victory in the company of his skipper M.S. Dhoni, (nine runs, 2X4).
Playing before a stadium packed with delirious Indian and Pakistani supporters, India gave a masterly display of Twenty20 cricket - first restricting what looked like a rampaging Pakistan side to 158 and then knocking up the winning runs with remarkable ease.
Earlier, captain Younis Khan and Misbah-ul-Haq helped Pakistan put on 158 for six in a batting performance that began in marauding fashion but failed to live up to expectations.
Electing to bat before a nearly exclusively South Asian crowd, Pakistan began disastrously, losing opener Shahzaid Hasan for a duck to Praveen Kumar in the first over.
Spinner Harbhajan Singh dropped teenage batting sensation Ahmed Shehzad in the very next over off R.P. Singh before Shehzad (25 off 19 balls, 5 fours) and Kamran Akmal (19 off nine, 4 fours) began wreaking carnage on Kumar and Singh, hammering them to all corners of the Oval.
The men in blue then bounced back, to the delight of tens of thousands of supporters, and grabbed four quick wickets to leave Pakistan tottering on 63 for five before Younis Khan (32 off 32 balls) came up with a captain's innings in the company of Misbah (37 off 30).
Kumar, Irfan Pathan, Ishant Sharma, Harbhajan Singh and P.P. Ojha took one wicket each for India, while Suresh Raina ran out Akmal.
India left out Virender Sehwag and Zaheer Khan, and Pakistan were without Salman Butt and Ifthikar Anjum in a 13-a-side game, where only 11 could field at any given time.
Brief scores:
Pakistan: 158 for six (Misbah-ul-Haq 37, Y. Khan 32, S. Ahmed 25, Y. Arafat 25, I. Sharma one for 11)
India: 159 for one (R. Sharma 80, G. Gambhir 53, M.S. Dhoni 9, Mohammad Aamer one for 18).
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Senators grill GM, Chrysler executives on dealer cuts
Executives from bailed-out General Motors Corp. and Chrysler faced intense congressional heat Wednesday for plans to close about 2,000 dealers as part of their bankruptcies, demonstrating the potential complications of the government's direct involvement in the auto industry.
"I honestly don't believe that companies should be allowed to take taxpayer funds for a bailout and then leave it to local dealers and their customers to fend for themselves with no real plan, no real notice, no real help," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who convened a hearing on the issue.
The standing-room-only crowd -- which included about 30 dealers and more senators than Rockefeller said he had seen at a hearing in 24 years -- gave weight to suggestions that the Obama administration's decision to take ownership stakes in the companies made members of Congress a rump board of directors.
Lawmakers acknowledged they probably could do little more than make life uncomfortable for the companies. But they also could spread that same discomfort to the Obama administration, which must balance congressional concerns with a vow not to get involved in daily operations of Chrylser or GM.
"If there were any more impetus to try to get back to profitability and try to get the government out of your business . . . today's session ought to be that impetus," Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) told GM Chief Executive Fritz Henderson and Chrysler President James Press.
Several senators said they were uncomfortable with probing the inner workings of manufacturing companies. But they all agreed the pain and job loss the dealer cuts would impose on communities was a tragedy. Two dealers explained the heartbreak they were facing as their franchise agreements with Chrysler and GM were being terminated.
"To be arbitrarily closed with no compensation is wasteful and devastating," said Russell Aubrey Whatley III, owner of a Chrysler dealership in Mineral Wells, Texas, that has been in his family for decades. "A 90-year investment is just gone and neither my family or my employees have nothing to say about it."
Like nearly every other senator, Rockefeller told of calls and e-mails from dealers in his state complaining about the cuts being enacted by GM and particularly Chrysler, which last month gave 789 dealers less than three weeks to liquidate their vehicles, parts and specialized tools before their franchises are terminated Tuesday.
GM was taking a slower approach, but its cuts affect many more dealers. The company last month notified 1,100 of its 6,000 dealers that it was terminating their franchise agreements by October 2010, with a goal of reducing its dealer network by as much as 42% during that period. As part of its bankruptcy filing, GM notified most of its dealers this week that they will have to operate under strict new rules or the court could end their franchise agreements.
Dealer groups have estimated the cuts could cost 100,000 jobs, as well as billions of dollars in lost state and local tax revenue.
Henderson and Press defended their decisions, saying they were painful ones made so the companies could become leaner and profitable.
"They were gut-wrenching [decisions] but absolutely necessary for Chrysler' survival," Press said.
Obama administration officials pushed them to be more aggressive about their restructuring, but did not dictate the numbers or review a list of dealers whose franchise agreements would be eliminated, the executives said in response to inquiries from Republicans about White House involvement.
Although Chrysler had released a list of dealers it is cutting, GM has not, saying the dealers themselves did not want to be named while they try to wind down their businesses through next year. But the committee flexed some power on that point, as Rockefeller agreed to a request by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) that GM provide a list. Henderson said he would do so, but it was unclear whether the list would be made public.
But senators did not agree to a request by the National Automobile Dealers Assn. that the government provide more money to Chrysler so it could purchase any leftover vehicles at the dealers it was terminating.
Press said the company had offered help and 97% of the 42,000 vehicles at the dealerships have either been sold or Chrysler has commitments to redistribute them to dealerships that are staying in business.
Chrysler, however, was not guaranteeing it would reimburse dealers for those cars, which after Tuesday they cannot sell.
"Every dealers' biggest fear is on June 9 we lose all options on these cars," Whatley said. "They're just planter boxes on June 9."
On Tuesday, all of GM's dealers received a fresh round of letters, copies of which were reviewed by The Times. One letter, sent to dealers singled out for termination, offered cash payments to help them unwind their businesses, with a goal of selling off their inventories and closing between January 1 and October 31 of next year. Those dealers will still be allowed to provide warranty service, but will not be able to purchase more new vehicles, and must provide their customer lists to GM. In addition, they waive their right to sue the automaker.
"This is a difficult step, but one that is part of GM's court-supervised restructuring efforts," the letter said.
The other letter, sent to dealers that GM intends to maintain, laid out strict new operating rules for dealers, including obligations to purchase more cars and trucks than in the past and boost performance. Each dealer "must substantially increase its sales of new motor vehicles" or face possible elimination. They also must waive their right to sue.
Both letters asked that dealers agree to the new terms in writing by June 12. If not, GM said, it would move to terminate their contracts in U.S Bankruptcy Court.
"If we sign that letter, we sign our life away," said Pete Lopez, whose Chrysler and GM dealerships in Spencer, W. Va., are being terminated.
Henderson said that 647 dealers had already signed and returned the new agreements, while only 10 had declined to sign.
Senators said they normally would not be involved in the business decisions of private companies. But with the government funneling billions of dollars to the two automakers -- and in GM's case taking a majority ownership stake -- they had an obligation to probe complaints from dealers.
"You find yourself with a board of directors of essentially 535 members," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) , who acknowledged he was uncomfortable delving into the inner workings of the companies. "We are now partners and as partners these are the type of questions you get to answer."
"I honestly don't believe that companies should be allowed to take taxpayer funds for a bailout and then leave it to local dealers and their customers to fend for themselves with no real plan, no real notice, no real help," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who convened a hearing on the issue.
The standing-room-only crowd -- which included about 30 dealers and more senators than Rockefeller said he had seen at a hearing in 24 years -- gave weight to suggestions that the Obama administration's decision to take ownership stakes in the companies made members of Congress a rump board of directors.
Lawmakers acknowledged they probably could do little more than make life uncomfortable for the companies. But they also could spread that same discomfort to the Obama administration, which must balance congressional concerns with a vow not to get involved in daily operations of Chrylser or GM.
"If there were any more impetus to try to get back to profitability and try to get the government out of your business . . . today's session ought to be that impetus," Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) told GM Chief Executive Fritz Henderson and Chrysler President James Press.
Several senators said they were uncomfortable with probing the inner workings of manufacturing companies. But they all agreed the pain and job loss the dealer cuts would impose on communities was a tragedy. Two dealers explained the heartbreak they were facing as their franchise agreements with Chrysler and GM were being terminated.
"To be arbitrarily closed with no compensation is wasteful and devastating," said Russell Aubrey Whatley III, owner of a Chrysler dealership in Mineral Wells, Texas, that has been in his family for decades. "A 90-year investment is just gone and neither my family or my employees have nothing to say about it."
Like nearly every other senator, Rockefeller told of calls and e-mails from dealers in his state complaining about the cuts being enacted by GM and particularly Chrysler, which last month gave 789 dealers less than three weeks to liquidate their vehicles, parts and specialized tools before their franchises are terminated Tuesday.
GM was taking a slower approach, but its cuts affect many more dealers. The company last month notified 1,100 of its 6,000 dealers that it was terminating their franchise agreements by October 2010, with a goal of reducing its dealer network by as much as 42% during that period. As part of its bankruptcy filing, GM notified most of its dealers this week that they will have to operate under strict new rules or the court could end their franchise agreements.
Dealer groups have estimated the cuts could cost 100,000 jobs, as well as billions of dollars in lost state and local tax revenue.
Henderson and Press defended their decisions, saying they were painful ones made so the companies could become leaner and profitable.
"They were gut-wrenching [decisions] but absolutely necessary for Chrysler' survival," Press said.
Obama administration officials pushed them to be more aggressive about their restructuring, but did not dictate the numbers or review a list of dealers whose franchise agreements would be eliminated, the executives said in response to inquiries from Republicans about White House involvement.
Although Chrysler had released a list of dealers it is cutting, GM has not, saying the dealers themselves did not want to be named while they try to wind down their businesses through next year. But the committee flexed some power on that point, as Rockefeller agreed to a request by Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) that GM provide a list. Henderson said he would do so, but it was unclear whether the list would be made public.
But senators did not agree to a request by the National Automobile Dealers Assn. that the government provide more money to Chrysler so it could purchase any leftover vehicles at the dealers it was terminating.
Press said the company had offered help and 97% of the 42,000 vehicles at the dealerships have either been sold or Chrysler has commitments to redistribute them to dealerships that are staying in business.
Chrysler, however, was not guaranteeing it would reimburse dealers for those cars, which after Tuesday they cannot sell.
"Every dealers' biggest fear is on June 9 we lose all options on these cars," Whatley said. "They're just planter boxes on June 9."
On Tuesday, all of GM's dealers received a fresh round of letters, copies of which were reviewed by The Times. One letter, sent to dealers singled out for termination, offered cash payments to help them unwind their businesses, with a goal of selling off their inventories and closing between January 1 and October 31 of next year. Those dealers will still be allowed to provide warranty service, but will not be able to purchase more new vehicles, and must provide their customer lists to GM. In addition, they waive their right to sue the automaker.
"This is a difficult step, but one that is part of GM's court-supervised restructuring efforts," the letter said.
The other letter, sent to dealers that GM intends to maintain, laid out strict new operating rules for dealers, including obligations to purchase more cars and trucks than in the past and boost performance. Each dealer "must substantially increase its sales of new motor vehicles" or face possible elimination. They also must waive their right to sue.
Both letters asked that dealers agree to the new terms in writing by June 12. If not, GM said, it would move to terminate their contracts in U.S Bankruptcy Court.
"If we sign that letter, we sign our life away," said Pete Lopez, whose Chrysler and GM dealerships in Spencer, W. Va., are being terminated.
Henderson said that 647 dealers had already signed and returned the new agreements, while only 10 had declined to sign.
Senators said they normally would not be involved in the business decisions of private companies. But with the government funneling billions of dollars to the two automakers -- and in GM's case taking a majority ownership stake -- they had an obligation to probe complaints from dealers.
"You find yourself with a board of directors of essentially 535 members," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) , who acknowledged he was uncomfortable delving into the inner workings of the companies. "We are now partners and as partners these are the type of questions you get to answer."
47 police officers questioned in disappearance of Mexican customs official
Nearly 50 police officers were questioned in the disappearance of a top Mexican customs official in the port city of Veracruz, authorities said Wednesday.
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
47 police officers questioned in disappearance of Mexican customs official
Nearly 50 police officers were questioned in the disappearance of a top Mexican customs official in the port city of Veracruz, authorities said Wednesday.
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
The probe targeted traffic police in Veracruz, where customs administrator Francisco Serrano disappeared Monday night from the scene of an apparent traffic collision. Forty-seven police officers were heldfor questioning by federal authorities.Salvador Mikel Rivera, attorney general for the state of Veracruz, said authorities decided to question all officers on duty that night after viewing security camera footage of a crash involving Serrano's vehicle. The footage showed several police cars arriving. Serrano has not been seen since.
Veracruz is the nation's main cargo port on the Gulf of Mexico and watched by customs officials for smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband.
The action came as federal authorities this week detained 58 police officers in the northern state of Nuevo Leon for suspected ties with drug traffickers. Among those taken into custody were the public safety chiefs in two towns.
for questioning by federal authoritiesPolice corruption remains a major obstacle for Mexican President Felipe Calderon's 30-month-old crackdown on drug cartels and other organized-crime groups.
Though the administration has sought to clean up and reorganize the roughly 25,000-strong federal police, graft is entrenched in cities and small towns, where officers sometimes moonlight as gunmen for drug-smuggling groups.
Calderon has responded by sending the Mexican military to patrol drug-trafficking hot spots. In a growing number of places, retired Mexican army generals and colonels have been put in charge of police.
More than 10,000 people have died in drug-related violence since Calderon launched the nationwide anti-crime offensive in December 2006. Traffickers have fought government forces and feuded with one another over prized smuggling routes
U.S. Accidentally Releases List of Nuclear Sites
The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.
The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.
On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.
Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.
“These screw-ups happen,” said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s going further than I would have gone but doesn’t look like a serious breach.”
But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored “can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.”
The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.
President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for Congressional review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its Web site.
As of Tuesday evening, the reasons for that action remained a mystery. On its cover, the document seems to attribute its publication to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman, said the committee had “neither published it nor had control over its publication.”
Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had “produced” the document “under normal operating procedures” but had now removed it from its Web site pending further review.
The document contains no military information about the nation’s stockpile of nuclear arms, or about the facilities and programs that guard such weapons. Rather, it presents what appears to be an exhaustive listing of the sites that make up the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, which stretches coast to coast and includes nuclear reactors and highly confidential sites at weapon laboratories.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, revealed the existence of the document on Monday in Secrecy News, an electronic newsletter he publishes on the Web.
Mr. Aftergood expressed bafflement at its disclosure, calling it “a one-stop shop for information on U.S. nuclear programs.”
In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report details the locations of hundreds of nuclear sites and activities. Each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Obama said the cautionary language was a classification category of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors.
The agency, in Vienna, is a unit of the United Nations whose mandate is to enforce a global treaty that tries to keep civilian nuclear programs from engaging in secret military work.
In recent years, it has sought to gain wide adherence to a set of strict inspection rules, known formally as the additional protocol. The rules give the agency powerful new rights to poke its nose beyond known nuclear sites into factories, storage areas, laboratories and anywhere else that a nation might be preparing to flex its nuclear muscle. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but only recently moved forward with carrying it out.
The report lists many particulars about nuclear programs and facilities at the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratories — Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia — as well as dozens of other federal and private nuclear sites.
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, a sprawling site ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. It calls itself the nation’s Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium, a main fuel of nuclear arms.
The report lists “Tube Vault 16, East Storage Array,” as a prospective site for nuclear inspection. It said the site, in Building 9720-5, contains highly enriched uranium for “long-term storage.”
An attached map shows the exact location of Tube Vault 16 along a hallway and its orientation in relation to geographic north, although not its location in the Y-12 complex.
Tube vaults are typically cylinders embedded in concrete that prevent the accidental formation of critical masses of highly enriched uranium that could undergo bursts of nuclear fission, known as a criticality incident. According to federal reports, a typical tube vault can hold up to 44 tons of highly enriched uranium in 200 tubes. Motion detectors and television cameras typically monitor each vault.
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, called the document harmless. “It’s a better listing than anything I’ve seen” of the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, Mr. Cochran said. “But it’s no national-security breach. It confirms what’s already out there and adds a bit more information.”
The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.
On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.
Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.
“These screw-ups happen,” said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It’s going further than I would have gone but doesn’t look like a serious breach.”
But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored “can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.”
The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.
President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for Congressional review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its Web site.
As of Tuesday evening, the reasons for that action remained a mystery. On its cover, the document seems to attribute its publication to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman, said the committee had “neither published it nor had control over its publication.”
Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had “produced” the document “under normal operating procedures” but had now removed it from its Web site pending further review.
The document contains no military information about the nation’s stockpile of nuclear arms, or about the facilities and programs that guard such weapons. Rather, it presents what appears to be an exhaustive listing of the sites that make up the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, which stretches coast to coast and includes nuclear reactors and highly confidential sites at weapon laboratories.
Steven Aftergood, a security expert at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, revealed the existence of the document on Monday in Secrecy News, an electronic newsletter he publishes on the Web.
Mr. Aftergood expressed bafflement at its disclosure, calling it “a one-stop shop for information on U.S. nuclear programs.”
In his letter of transmittal to Congress, Mr. Obama characterized the information as “sensitive but unclassified” and said all the information that the United States gathered to comply with the advanced protocol “shall be exempt from disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report details the locations of hundreds of nuclear sites and activities. Each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Obama said the cautionary language was a classification category of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors.
The agency, in Vienna, is a unit of the United Nations whose mandate is to enforce a global treaty that tries to keep civilian nuclear programs from engaging in secret military work.
In recent years, it has sought to gain wide adherence to a set of strict inspection rules, known formally as the additional protocol. The rules give the agency powerful new rights to poke its nose beyond known nuclear sites into factories, storage areas, laboratories and anywhere else that a nation might be preparing to flex its nuclear muscle. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but only recently moved forward with carrying it out.
The report lists many particulars about nuclear programs and facilities at the nation’s three nuclear weapons laboratories — Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia — as well as dozens of other federal and private nuclear sites.
One of the most serious disclosures appears to center on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which houses the Y-12 National Security Complex, a sprawling site ringed by barbed wire and armed guards. It calls itself the nation’s Fort Knox for highly enriched uranium, a main fuel of nuclear arms.
The report lists “Tube Vault 16, East Storage Array,” as a prospective site for nuclear inspection. It said the site, in Building 9720-5, contains highly enriched uranium for “long-term storage.”
An attached map shows the exact location of Tube Vault 16 along a hallway and its orientation in relation to geographic north, although not its location in the Y-12 complex.
Tube vaults are typically cylinders embedded in concrete that prevent the accidental formation of critical masses of highly enriched uranium that could undergo bursts of nuclear fission, known as a criticality incident. According to federal reports, a typical tube vault can hold up to 44 tons of highly enriched uranium in 200 tubes. Motion detectors and television cameras typically monitor each vault.
Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, called the document harmless. “It’s a better listing than anything I’ve seen” of the nation’s civilian nuclear complex, Mr. Cochran said. “But it’s no national-security breach. It confirms what’s already out there and adds a bit more information.”
New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
The New Hampshire legislature approved revisions to a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday, and Gov. John Lynch promptly signed the legislation, making the state the sixth in the nation to let gay couples wed.The bill had been through several permutations in an effort to satisfy Mr. Lynch and certain legislators that it would not force members of religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage to participate in ceremonies celebrating it.
Mr. Lynch, who previously supported civil unions but not marriage for same-sex couples, said in a statement that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.”
“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”
The law will take effect on Jan. 1. As originally cast, the legislation exempted members of the clergy from having to perform same-sex weddings. Then Mr. Lynch, a centrist Democrat, said he would veto the bill unless the legislature added language also exempting religious groups and their employees from having to participate in such ceremonies.
Mr. Lynch also ordered that the bill protect members of religious groups from having to provide same-sex couples with religious counseling, housing designated for married people and other services relating to “the promotion of marriage.”
But the House rejected that language last month by a two-vote margin, and legislative leaders appointed a committee to negotiate a compromise.
The committee last week recommended small changes further emphasizing the rights of religious groups not to participate in same-sex weddings. They include a preamble to the bill that states, “Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.”
Republicans have called the committee’s work tainted because the Senate president, Sylvia B. Larsen, a Democrat, replaced one of its Republican members when that legislator would not sign off on last week’s compromise. Under legislative rules, the committee’s decision needed to be unanimous.
As more states have legalized same-sex marriage in recent months, opponents have increasingly lobbied for “conscience protections,” language that exempts religious organizations from having to participate if they object to same-sex unions.
But many of the bill’s opponents believe the language adopted by New Hampshire and several other states does not go far enough because it protects only religious groups and their employees. New Hampshire’s bill does not exempt photographers or florists, for example, from having to provide services.
But groups that advocate for gay rights, some of whom poured money into the state in recent months, said the law was yet another step toward mainstream America accepting same-sex marriage. “As people get to know the loving and committed couples at the heart of marriage equality,” said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, “our culture is moving to equality.”
Kevin Smith, director of the Cornerstone Policy Research, a group opposing the bill, said lawmakers “rammed this legislation through” in a way that “reeks of backroom deals and a subversion of the legislative process.”
Mr. Lynch, who previously supported civil unions but not marriage for same-sex couples, said in a statement that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.”
“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”
The law will take effect on Jan. 1. As originally cast, the legislation exempted members of the clergy from having to perform same-sex weddings. Then Mr. Lynch, a centrist Democrat, said he would veto the bill unless the legislature added language also exempting religious groups and their employees from having to participate in such ceremonies.
Mr. Lynch also ordered that the bill protect members of religious groups from having to provide same-sex couples with religious counseling, housing designated for married people and other services relating to “the promotion of marriage.”
But the House rejected that language last month by a two-vote margin, and legislative leaders appointed a committee to negotiate a compromise.
The committee last week recommended small changes further emphasizing the rights of religious groups not to participate in same-sex weddings. They include a preamble to the bill that states, “Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.”
Republicans have called the committee’s work tainted because the Senate president, Sylvia B. Larsen, a Democrat, replaced one of its Republican members when that legislator would not sign off on last week’s compromise. Under legislative rules, the committee’s decision needed to be unanimous.
As more states have legalized same-sex marriage in recent months, opponents have increasingly lobbied for “conscience protections,” language that exempts religious organizations from having to participate if they object to same-sex unions.
But many of the bill’s opponents believe the language adopted by New Hampshire and several other states does not go far enough because it protects only religious groups and their employees. New Hampshire’s bill does not exempt photographers or florists, for example, from having to provide services.
But groups that advocate for gay rights, some of whom poured money into the state in recent months, said the law was yet another step toward mainstream America accepting same-sex marriage. “As people get to know the loving and committed couples at the heart of marriage equality,” said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, “our culture is moving to equality.”
Kevin Smith, director of the Cornerstone Policy Research, a group opposing the bill, said lawmakers “rammed this legislation through” in a way that “reeks of backroom deals and a subversion of the legislative process.”
Obama Open to Plan Requiring Everyone to Get Insurance
President Obama said Wednesday that he was receptive to Congressional proposals that would require every American to have health insurance and that would force employers to offer health insurance to their employees. But he said there should be exemptions for people who cannot afford coverage and for small businesses in general.
Mr. Obama set forth his views in a letter to the chairmen of the two Senate committees writing health legislation, Max Baucus of Montana and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.
He did not use the terms “individual mandate” or “employer mandate,” which suggest a degree of coercion that Democrats try to avoid. Still, the letter is the first time that Mr. Obama, as president, has opened the door to an individual mandate or amplified his views on health care overhaul.
In the presidential primaries last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton called for an individual mandate, while Mr. Obama said the requirement for coverage should at first apply only to children. But that proposal has not found any significant support in Congress, where Democrats favor an individual mandate, with federal subsidies or tax credits to help defray the cost of insurance for people with low or moderate income.
In the letter made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama wrote, “If we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable.”
He added, “If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.”
Moreover, the president said, “while I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.”
Mr. Obama also confirmed his strong support for a public health insurance option as part of any reform package “to keep insurance companies honest.”
To help pay for coverage of the uninsured, Mr. Obama called for additional cutbacks in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, beyond the savings he proposed in February as “a down payment on health care reform.”
In his earlier request, Mr. Obama proposed savings of $316 billion in the two programs over 10 years. On Wednesday he said he wanted to work with Congress to reduce projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid by an additional $200 billion to $300 billion over the next 10 years.
Such proposals are sure to face stiff resistance from health care providers, who were already alarmed at the president’s initial proposals to cut payments to hospitals, drug companies, H.M.O.’s and home care agencies, among others.
Mr. Obama said he was “committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of health care reform,” by curbing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and “by enacting appropriate proposals to generate additional revenues.”
The president did not comment on proposals to tax some employer-provided health benefits, an idea favored by Senator Baucus but strongly opposed by labor unions and many employers.
Mr. Obama set forth his views in a letter to the chairmen of the two Senate committees writing health legislation, Max Baucus of Montana and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.
He did not use the terms “individual mandate” or “employer mandate,” which suggest a degree of coercion that Democrats try to avoid. Still, the letter is the first time that Mr. Obama, as president, has opened the door to an individual mandate or amplified his views on health care overhaul.
In the presidential primaries last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton called for an individual mandate, while Mr. Obama said the requirement for coverage should at first apply only to children. But that proposal has not found any significant support in Congress, where Democrats favor an individual mandate, with federal subsidies or tax credits to help defray the cost of insurance for people with low or moderate income.
In the letter made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama wrote, “If we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable.”
He added, “If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.”
Moreover, the president said, “while I believe that employers have a responsibility to support health insurance for their employees, small businesses face a number of special challenges in affording health benefits and should be exempted.”
Mr. Obama also confirmed his strong support for a public health insurance option as part of any reform package “to keep insurance companies honest.”
To help pay for coverage of the uninsured, Mr. Obama called for additional cutbacks in the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, beyond the savings he proposed in February as “a down payment on health care reform.”
In his earlier request, Mr. Obama proposed savings of $316 billion in the two programs over 10 years. On Wednesday he said he wanted to work with Congress to reduce projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid by an additional $200 billion to $300 billion over the next 10 years.
Such proposals are sure to face stiff resistance from health care providers, who were already alarmed at the president’s initial proposals to cut payments to hospitals, drug companies, H.M.O.’s and home care agencies, among others.
Mr. Obama said he was “committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of health care reform,” by curbing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid and “by enacting appropriate proposals to generate additional revenues.”
The president did not comment on proposals to tax some employer-provided health benefits, an idea favored by Senator Baucus but strongly opposed by labor unions and many employers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)