Tussle Over Nuclear Plant Documents May Sink N.R.C. Appointment

The botched repair job that doomed a California nuclear plant has created a political whirlpool that may be close to claiming another victim: the chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The issue is no longer the plant itself, San Onofre, which the majority owner, Southern California Edison, announced on June 7 it would permanently close. The problem now is that Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who is chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a longtime critic of nuclear power, has been seeking documents from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the work the utility did and how the commission oversaw that work.

The chairwoman of the commission, Allison M. Macfarlane, agreed during her confirmation hearing to a blanket request to provide documents. Opponnts of nuclear power say that some of the San Onofre documents could raise safety issues about plants that are still running. Ms. Boxer’s office said they could also influence California regulators as they decide who should pay the nearly $1 billion cost of addressing the failed repair.

The Senate committee and the nuclear commission are locked in a dispute over the documents, and Dr. Macfarlane’s term ends on June 30. President Obama â€" who appointed her to fill out the term of the previous chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, who resigned under pressure last year â€" has nominated Dr. Macfarlane for a full five-year term, but Ms. Boxer is refusing to have the committee vote on the nomination until the argument over the documents is settled.

The Senate has only three meeting days left before June 30. Dr. Macfarlane, a geologist, has told fr! iends that she has been offered a university teaching position and will accept it if she is not confirmed for a full term.

According to both sides, negotiations between the nuclear commission and the committee are continuing. The commission has been tight-lipped about the nature of the requests and the dispute. Eliot Brenner, a spokesman for the agency, said that Senator Boxer had asked for a variety of documents and that the commission had been “working diligently to provide her what we can.”

According to a spokeswoman for the Senate committee, some of the documents would come from investigations by the nuclear commission’s Office of Investigations and its inspector general, both of which could result in criminal charges. The commission is particularly circumspect about releasing such documents, but Congressional aides maintain that oversight committees have full access to them.

The commission says that some of its members have not approved the release of the documents, according toSenate committee staff members. Collegiality has been a particular goal of Dr. Macfarlane as she attempts to show a deliberate contrast to her predecessor, Dr. Jaczko, who was accused of acting unilaterally. But the extent to which she, as chairwoman of the commission, needs the concurrence of the other commissioners is also disputed.

One of the issues in the demise of San Onofre is the system that the nuclear commission uses to supervise major repair projects. If the new equipment has the same form and function as the old equipment, the review is far less deep than if it is a new type of equipment. In the San Onofre case, giant heat exchangers called steam generators were replaced, and the new generators differed enough from the original ones that they developed vibrations and one of them leaked.

Dozens of reactors have replaced their steam generators, and many more will probably do so in the future. Some nuclear advocates fear that if the documents cast doubt on the oversight process at! San Onof! re, they will also raise questions about safety at other reactors.

The prospect of losing Dr. Macfarlane has created an odd dynamic, and some experts with a long history of criticizing nuclear power are alarmed by the prospect. “I think that Macfarlane is the best thing to happen to the N.R.C. in a long time,” said Peter G. Crane, a former official in the commission’s legal office who has pressed the commission on several emergency preparedness and radiation safety issues. He praised Dr. Macfarlane’s openness and said, “The dispute over the San Onofre documents is of too little importance in the greater scheme of things for the chairmanship to stand or fall because of it.”

Of the other four members of the commission, two are Democrats and thus probably in line to be appointed chairman if necessary. The senior member is George E. Apostolakis, a risk assessment expert and nuclear engineer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Supporters of Immigration Bill Offer Amendment Focused on Women

Saying the immigration overhaul bill now before the Senate would discriminate against future immigrants who are women, 13 female senators have introduced an amendment that would make it easier for foreign women to come to the United States under a new merit system in the legislation.

The amendment is part of a new effort by supporters of the bill to attract votes by framing immigration as a women’s issue. Its lead sponsors are two Democrats, Senator Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, and sponsors also include a Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

On Tuesday, dozens of women from local and national organizations waged a lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill. Pramila Jayapal, a leader of a coalition that organized the women’s campaign, said some of them visited senators who are leading the effort to pass the bill â€" including Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont â€" wearing colored fedoras that they tipped to show their support. Other women tured up with feather dusters in the offices of a dozen senators who earlier this month voted against allowing the Senate to debate the bill, to encourage those lawmakers to “clean up their act,” Ms. Jayapal said.

National groups that signed an open letter to women in the Senate that urged them to vote for the overhaul include the National Organization for Women, the Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A. and the National Council of Jewish Women. Women’s organizations were generally not engaged in 2006 and 2007, when comprehensive immigration bills were considered by Congress and failed to pass.

Polling by strategists for the coalition, Mr. Jayapal said, showed that an immigration overhaul could pick up significant new support from voters in Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Maine and North Carolina, among other states, if women’s organizations became involved. Supporters of the bill are hoping to win the votes of Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, and Senator Kay! Hagan of North Carolina, a Democrat.

The amendment the senators introduced late Wednesday would make a major change to the bill now on the Senate floor. It would create a separate tier for professions typically held by women, under a new merit-based point system for future immigration that would place more emphasis on job qualifications and less on family ties, which are the priority in the current system.

The senators said women in foreign countries often do not have the same educational and career opportunities as men. “We should not cement those inequalities into our immigration laws,” Ms. Hirono said.

Ms. Murkowski said the amendment would open up more visas for women in health care professions, to alleviate chronic shortages in this country.

It was not clear on Thursday how Senate leaders would handle a vote on such an ambitious addition to the bill, when they were grappling with other amendments on border security that were more crucial to the bill’s prospects for passag..

Supporters of Immigration Bill Offer Amendment Focused on Women

Saying the immigration overhaul bill now before the Senate would discriminate against future immigrants who are women, 13 female senators have introduced an amendment that would make it easier for foreign women to come to the United States under a new merit system in the legislation.

The amendment is part of a new effort by supporters of the bill to attract votes by framing immigration as a women’s issue. Its lead sponsors are two Democrats, Senator Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, and sponsors also include a Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

On Tuesday, dozens of women from local and national organizations waged a lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill. Pramila Jayapal, a leader of a coalition that organized the women’s campaign, said some of them visited senators who are leading the effort to pass the bill â€" including Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont â€" wearing colored fedoras that they tipped to show their support. Other women tured up with feather dusters in the offices of a dozen senators who earlier this month voted against allowing the Senate to debate the bill, to encourage those lawmakers to “clean up their act,” Ms. Jayapal said.

National groups that signed an open letter to women in the Senate that urged them to vote for the overhaul include the National Organization for Women, the Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A. and the National Council of Jewish Women. Women’s organizations were generally not engaged in 2006 and 2007, when comprehensive immigration bills were considered by Congress and failed to pass.

Polling by strategists for the coalition, Mr. Jayapal said, showed that an immigration overhaul could pick up significant new support from voters in Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Maine and North Carolina, among other states, if women’s organizations became involved. Supporters of the bill are hoping to win the votes of Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, and Senator Kay! Hagan of North Carolina, a Democrat.

The amendment the senators introduced late Wednesday would make a major change to the bill now on the Senate floor. It would create a separate tier for professions typically held by women, under a new merit-based point system for future immigration that would place more emphasis on job qualifications and less on family ties, which are the priority in the current system.

The senators said women in foreign countries often do not have the same educational and career opportunities as men. “We should not cement those inequalities into our immigration laws,” Ms. Hirono said.

Ms. Murkowski said the amendment would open up more visas for women in health care professions, to alleviate chronic shortages in this country.

It was not clear on Thursday how Senate leaders would handle a vote on such an ambitious addition to the bill, when they were grappling with other amendments on border security that were more crucial to the bill’s prospects for passag..

Manchin Pushes Back Against N.R.A. in New Ad

Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, an A-rated National Rifle Association member who has angered gun rights groups by pushing for stronger background checks, is back on television with a rifle in his hands.

But Mr. Manchin, a Democrat who appeared in a 2010 campaign commercial that showed him firing a bullet through a piece of environmental legislation, is taking aim at the N.R.A. this time, at least in the figurative sense.

In a new commercial, the senator, who is not up for re-election until 2018, tries to turn the tables on the N.R.A., which has accused him of walking away from his commitment to honor the Second Amendment.

“West Virginia, you know me. I haven’t changed,” said Mr. Manchin, who was governor of the state before he was elected senator. “Now I believe that we can protect the Second Amendment and make our community safer. I think most law-abiding gun owners agree with me.â€

He says defiantly that he does not march in lock step with the N.R.A.’s Washington leadership.

The ad is rich with imagery that is meant to resonate in West Virginia’s sports-shooting culture. Mr. Manchin is shown strolling through a field, aiming the rifle and polishing it as he sits in the back of a pickup truck.

The ad is a direct response to an N.R.A. television campaign against Mr. Manchin. The gun group has been running an ad in West Virginia accusing Mr. Manchin of siding with President Obama and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, an ardent proponent of gun control who has been waging his own campaign against senators who do not support gun control.

A Manchin campaign aide said that the ad buy was about $100,000, enough to rival the N.R.A.’s campaign.

Explaining The Times’s Coverage of Key Supreme Court Decisions

The Supreme Court will issue rulings sometime after 10 a.m. Eastern on Thursday on a few of the 14 remaining cases on its 2012-13 schedule. The court may â€" or may not â€" release decisions on one or more of its four most-watched decisions remaining, concerning affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act and same-sex marriage (the subject of two cases). We want to give readers an overview of The Times’s coverage if one of the major rulings does come down on Thursday.

We realize that people will be eager to know what a ruling means as soon as it comes out (and you can read the decision yourself when it is posted on the court’s Web site). But we also want to point out that the immediate descriptions of any ruling may not be very meaningful.

For one thing, a ruling could be complicated, as were last year’s health-care ruling and the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, and not amenable to instant summarizing. The court could even announce one portion of a deciion â€" especially on same-sex marriage, given the two different cases â€" before it releases another portion.

Dozens of Times journalists, in Washington, New York and around the country, are covering the ruling and the reaction to it by the public and those affected by it. At the center of the coverage is Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter (and a lawyer) of The Times, who will be in court to hear the ruling.

We plan to explain the ruling the moment we feel comfortable with its basic meaning â€" which could be almost immediately. We promise not to bombard you with guesswork or unintelligible legal technicalities. The Times will also run blog posts from the legal experts at SCOTUSblog on our own site, as well as ask other outside experts to help readers understand the decision. Once the fundamentals of the ruling are clear, Times reporters and editors will be analyzing it in real time, on our live blog dedicated to the ruling and on stories ap! pearing across our digital platforms. We will also post updates to Twitter on @thecaucus and @nytimes, and post selected reactions from readers.

We expect to have Mr. Liptak’s initial story about any ruling by late morning or shortly after noon, not long after the court’s session has ended. Whatever happens Thursday, we also expect at least one major ruling to come next week.

Thanks for being with us.

The Early Word: Climactic

In Today’s Times:
President Obama’s decision to sidestep Congress on climate change in the coming weeks by announcing new limits on carbon dioxide emissions for existing power plants will probably ignite a legal battle with Republicans and some industries, even though the plants are the “largest single source of global warming pollution in the country,” John M. Broder writes.

Clarifying plans that seemed to confuse the financial markets, the Federal Reserve said that it would scale back its economic stimulus programs over the next year but only if unemployment continues to fall at or better than the rate the central bank hopes, Binyamin Appelbaum writes.

Sheryl Stolberg profiles Ken Mehlman, the once-closeted gay Republican perative who helped President George W. Bush win re-election on a platform that included opposition to same-sex marriage, as he tries to persuade his fellow Republicans to reverse course and support same-sex marriage.

James Risen and Nick Wingfield mine the “complex reality” created by the deepening bond between the technology firms of Silicon Valley and the national intelligence community, a relationship that was highlighted when the top security official at Facebook left to work at the National Security Agency.

On a tastier topic, Jennifer Steinhauer looks at how Michelle Obama is using a culinary contest to encou! rage healthy cooking at home, the third prong of her childhood fitness agenda, which includes more exercise and better school lunches.

John Harwood explains how Mr. Obama’s near-complete absence from a quarter of the 50 states reflects “routine cost-benefit calculations of the modern presidency” that may have consequences “in a country splintered by partisanship and race.”

Around the Web:

The inspector general of the Office of Personnel Management will tell Congress on Thursday that some federal contractors and workers faked thousands of background checks used to gain security clearance as their work went without oversight, Bloomberg News reports. That process will be the focus of a joint hearing of panels under the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at 2:30 p.m.

By a vote of 93-4, the Senate confirmed Michael Froman as the next United States trade representative, despite opposition mainly from Democrats who said he needed to make negotiations over a major trade agreement more transparent, according to The Hill.

Happening in Washington:
Economic reports expected Thursday include weekly jobless claims at 8:30 a.m., followed at 10 a.m. by weekly mortgage rates and May’s leading indicators and existing home sales.

The House will continue debate on the farm bill after it convenes at 9 a.m.

The Supreme Court issues its latest orders and decisions at 10 a.m.

At noon, House Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, will deliver the keynote address at the annual summit of the National Association of Manufacturers.

At 2:45 p.m., members of the Senate Armed Services Committee will get a confidential briefing on the National Security Agency’s electronic surveillance programs.

Karen Mills, the administrator of the Small Business Administration, and Jack Dorsey, a founding executive of Twitter and Square, take part in events for National Small Business Week.

On Nuclear Cuts, a Split Over Whether Senate Backing Is Needed

WASHINGTON â€" Secretary of State John Kerry called Senator Bob Corker on Tuesday to discuss President Obama’s renewed drive for arms control. On that much, at least, the two agree. Exactly what was said, however, has quickly become a point of contention.

Mr. Corker, a Tennessee Republican and the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement Wednesday warning against “unilateral disarmament” just minutes after Mr. Obama’s speech in Berlin proposing new nuclear arms cuts by the United States and Russia.

Any future cuts in the nuclear arsenal, Mr. Corker added, should be made only in the form of a treaty thatwould require Senate approval for ratification. The senator added that Mr. Kerry had already called “and assured him that any further reductions would occur in bilateral treaty negotiations subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.”

Not so, according to Kerry.

“The secretary told Senator Corker that the SFRC,” the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “would be consulted as we moved forward into discussions with the Russian Federation, but did not indicate that the administration had decided to codify any results in a treaty,” a State Department official said by e-mail.

The differing accounts of their conversation point to a potential rupture at home before any agreement with Russia has even been reached. Mr. Obama said in his speech that he would seek “negotiated cuts” with Moscow paring their mutual nuclear arsenals by one third, down to about 1,000 deployed strategic warheads each, but he did not say whether he would enshrine suc! h cuts in a treaty. Wary of Republican resistance to a new treaty, administration officials are holding out the possibility of each country committing to reciprocal cuts without a binding treaty.

The New Start treaty signed by Mr. Obama and Russia and approved by the Senate in 2010 set a ceiling of 1,550 deployed warheads for each country but administration officials now argue that nothing prevents the president from cutting further on his own authority as commander in chief. Assuming Russia goes along, these additional cuts could still be verified by the mutual inspection regime put in place by the New Start treaty, officials note.

There is precedent of sorts for such a move. In 1991, the first President George Bush announced he would unilaterally withdraw almost all U.S. tactcal nuclear weapons from Europe and Asia, halt development of two new strategic weapons and take off alert status Minuteman II ballistic missiles already scheduled to be dismantled. Mikhail Gorbachev, president of the dying Soviet Union, responded soon afterward with a comparable commitment to withdraw tactical weapons from Eastern Europe.

Still, in the nuclear age, most arms cuts have been made with the force of a treaty and the consent of the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required for approval. President George W. Bush tried following his father’s example in 2001 by announcing that he would reduce the American strategic arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed warheads. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia responded with a similar pledge. But Mr. Putin later insisted on a treaty and Mr. Bush agreed, signing the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2002.

Republicans wasted little time Wednesday asserting the prerogatives of the Senate and pressing Mr. Obama to seek their permission before making any arms reductions. “Important decisions such as this should only be made after consultation with the Senate,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.

Some Republicans made clear they wanted a role because they oppose further cuts. A group of 10 “missile state” Republicans, representing Midwestern and Western states where intercontinental ballistic missiles are based, issued statements warning against cuts, as much out of home-state interests as national security concerns.

Another group of two dozen Republican senators, led by Marco Rubio of Florida and including many of the missile-state lawmakers, sent a letter to Mr. Kerry insisting on a treaty for them to consider.

“It is our view that any further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal should only be conducted through a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the Senate,” they wrote. “This view is consistent with past practice and has broad! bipartis! an support, as you know from your service in the Senate.”

The Republicans cited some key allies for their view. Among them was Leon E. Panetta, Mr. Obama’s second defense secretary, who testified in 2012 that nuclear arms reductions “at least in this administration have only been made as part of the Start process and not outside of that process, and I would expect that that would be the same in the future.”

And they noted that in 2002 a Democratic senator named Joseph R. Biden Jr. co-authored a letter to the younger Mr. Bush’s secretary of state pointing out that with rare exception arms control agreements had been submitted t the Senate for consideration.

“We see no reason whatsoever to alter this practice,” the letter said.