• NSA director: 'Dozens' of terrorist plots foiled by surveillance programs

    J. Scott Applewhite / AP

    Gen. Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and head of the U.S. Cyber Command, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, on June 12, to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Alexander made his first public appearance since revelations that the electronic surveillance agency is sweeping up Americans' phone and Internet records in its quest to investigate terrorist threats.

    By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News

    The expansive government surveillance programs made public last week have helped prevent "dozens" of terrorist attacks, National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander told a Senate committee Wednesday.

    It is unclear, however, what specific surveillance practices helped thwart the alleged plots.

    And Alexander, an Army general, was quick to clarify that in most cases multiple programs have successfully been used together to stop attacks both in the United States and abroad.  

    As Edward Snowden appealed to Hong Kong through its English language newspaper, half a world away the National Security Agency strongly defended its surveillance programs. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

    "When I say 'dozens,' what I'm talking about here is that these authorities complement each other in helping us identify different terrorist actions and help disrupt them," Alexander said. "They complement each other." 

    The NSA hopes to publicly release the exact number of foiled attack within the next week, he said.

    Alexander's comments came during a previously scheduled cybersecurity hearing, but marked his first appearance before lawmakers since media reports that unveiled sweeping NSA surveillance of electronic communications that has sparked a debate over the balance between personal liberties and national security. 

    At the heart of the controversy are two intelligence collection programs that were brought to light in recent days, one revealing that  the government has been collecting phone records and another, called PRISM, that gathers large amounts of data from Internet content of users primarily outside the United States. 


    In an effort to rebuke critics and show the necessity of such programs, the Obama administration made public on Tuesday new details that credited the PRISM Internet spying program with successfully preventing Najibullah Zazi's 2009 plot to bomb New York City subways.

    Alexander told lawmakers Wednesday that the wide ranging government monitoring "developed the lead" on the potential attack and ultimately "allowed us to know it was happening."

    Also in his testimony, the NSA chief  cited data mining as the tool that helped nab Pakistani-American David Headley, who scouted locations ahead of a 2008 attack in Mumbai, India that killed 160 people. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told NBC News last week that these intelligence gathering techniques prevented Headley from carrying out a similar attack planned on a Danish newspaper.

    The controversial programs have made strange bedfellows in Washington, with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and  Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers defending the program and citing the cases of Zazi and Headley as proof the government oversight is necessary. In past days, both have reiterated Alexander's claim that multiple terror plots have been prevented.

    But Alexander's appearance on Capitol Hill was also an opportunity for some senators to express the outrage that many in the public feel about the top secret programs being hidden from the public eye. Tensions have risen in recent days between lawmakers who say they did not know the extent of the surveillance programs and intelligence officials and the Obama administration who contest every member of Congress had the opportunity to be fully briefed. 

     "The intelligence community has told us that really we obviously don't have the ability as simple senators to know anything as well as you do and so they do not need changes," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., quipped in his opening statement.

    Though committee chair Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., urged members to refrain from questions about the phone record and Internet data collection efforts, saying there would be future opportunities for that, it took little time for lawmakers to ask about the news that has dominated recent headlines.

     Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine., asked Alexander about the bold claim self-professed NSA leaker Edward Snowden made in an interview that he could instantaneously tap into any American's private phone or email records, even the President of the United States.

    "I know of no way to do that," said Alexander.

    In addition to his public testimony, the NSA director also delivered a classified briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday and is scheduled to hold a classified meeting with all senators on Thursday.

    Aware of the criticisms recently leveled against his agency, Alexander used his opening statement to defend his employees:

    "They do this lawfully," he said. "They take compliance oversight, protecting civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day. I could not be more proud of the men and women of NSA and Cyber Command." 

  • Ex-Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi convicted in federal corruption case

    Sabah Arar / AP file

    Former Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., during a visit to Baghdad in 2007. Renzi was convicted of 17 of 32 federal corruption charges Tuesday, June 11, in Tucson, Ariz.

    Former Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., was convicted Tuesday of federal corruption charges involving land deals and his family insurance business.

    Renzi, 55, was convicted of 17 of 32 counts in U.S. District Court in Tucson.  His defense team said in a statement that while Renzi was acquitted of 15 counts, "we are disappointed by every guilty verdict."

    Renzi, who served on the House Intelligence Committee during his three terms in Congress from 2003 to 2009, was released pending sentencing, which was scheduled for Aug. 19, and had no comment, according to the Arizona Republic.

    "Former Congressman Renzi's streak of criminal activity was a betrayal of the public trust and abuse of the political process," Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department's Criminal Division said in a statement. "After years of misconduct as a businessman, political candidate and member of Congress, Mr. Renzi now faces the consequences for breaking the laws that he took an oath to support and defend."

    Most of the counts carry maximum sentences of 20 years in prison.

    Renzi  was indicted in February 2008 on federal charges of racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering, extortion, making criminal transactions and making illegal campaign contributions  — insurance fraud was added to the list in 2009.


    According to a superseding indictment, Renzi concealed his involvement in land deals involving two companies and exploited his position on the House Natural Resources Committee to speed things along.

    He was also accused of stealing clients' premiums from his insurance business to help pay for his 2002 congressional campaign.

    James W. Sandlin, a real estate investor and business associate of Renzi's, was also convicted. The indictment said he repaid loans to Renzi using proceeds from the illegal deals, some of which Renzi didn't report and used in his 2002 campaign.

    Watch US News crime videos on NBCNews.com

  • Obama: 'Nobody is listening to your telephone calls'

    President Obama explains the NSA's secret surveillance program at an event in California, reassuring the public, "When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program's about."

    By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News

    President Obama defended what he called long-standing Internet and phone monitoring programs as valuable tools to fight terrorism, saying that congressional lawmakers have been repeatedly briefed on the program and that federal judges oversee the program “throughout.”

    “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” Obama said. “That’s not what this program is about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at the numbers and durations of calls. They’re not looking at names and they’re not looking at content, but sifting through this so-called meta data, they may identify potential leads with respect to people that might engage in terrorism.”

    He said the programs have been subject to congressional and judicial review and approval.

    “I think on balance we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about,” Obama said.

    The president’s remarks came one day after the revelation of two secret programs that allow government intelligence agencies to gather information on domestic phone and Internet usage by American citizens.

    “I don’t welcome leaks, because there’s a reason why these programs are classified,” Obama said, regarding the unauthorized release of confidential documents such as the one that led to the initial Guardian report on the phone records program.

    The president made the comments following a statement on the Affordable Care Act in San Jose, Calif. The president is scheduled to begin a two-day summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in California later on Friday.

    According to the Washington Post, Internet companies including Google and Facebook are denying involvement in National Security Agency programs, named PRISM and BLARNEY, which allow the government to look at archived data and information as it is being transmitted. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.

    On Thursday, the United States’ top intelligence official declassified details of the top secret phone records program after it was revealed, while also blasting the leak. 

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper took the step in a statement issued on Thursday night, after media reports revealed the programs that have been used to collect the phone records of Americans and monitor Internet use.

    Referencing a report that first appeared in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Clapper said that the “unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation.”

    Clapper said in the statement that he was declassifying some details of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to “provide a more thorough understanding of the program.”

    “Although this program has been properly classified, the leak of one order, without any context, has created a misleading impression of how it operates. Accordingly, we have determined to declassify certain limited information about this program,” Clapper said.

    The program does not allow the government to surveil the contents of phone calls made by Americans, but what is referenced in the order published by the Guardian as “telephony metadata” includes the sending and receiving telephone numbers and the length of the call, according to Clapper.

    “The collection is broad in scope because more narrow collection would limit our ability to screen for and identify terrorism-related communications,” Clapper said. “Acquiring this information allows us to make connections related to terrorist activities over time. The FISA court specifically approved this method of collection as lawful, subject to stringent restrictions.”

    White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Thursday that government powers under the Patriot Act are reviewed by a “robust legal regime.”

    Clapper also said that members of Congress, some of whom reacted with indignation to media reports about the program on Thursday, had been “fully and repeatedly briefed” on the program described in the Guardian article. Similar statements about Congressmembers’ knowledge of the program were made by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Thursday.

    “It began in 2009 – what appeared in the Guardian today, as I understand it, is simply a court reauthorization of a program. The court is required to look at it every three months,” Feinstein said.

    Related:

    This story was originally published on Fri Jun 7, 2013 8:09 AM EDT

  • U.S. military faces historic tipping point on rape epidemic

    The Army is investigating a sergeant first class whose job is to prevent sexual assault at Fort Hood for allegedly forcing a subordinate into prostitution and allegedly assaulting two others. Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., is co-chair of the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, and she joins Chris Jansing to discuss.

    By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

    The U.S. military seems increasingly incapable of policing itself or ridding its ranks of sexual predators, watchdogs charge, but the latest litany of accusations — leveled Tuesday at Fort Hood — has thrust the Pentagon to the brink of wholesale reform long sought by victims of sexual assault. 

    With the second member of the military's campaign to stem sexual misconduct falling under investigation — for alleged sexual misconduct — critics were quick to lambast Pentagon brass for "gross negligence" and for maintaining an internal system of investigation and discipline that appears to be in desperate need of being ripped down and rebuilt with fresh independence and transparency. 

    "It is abundantly clear that the military cannot adequately handle its sexual violence crisis from within," said Anu Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women's Action Network and former Marine captain.

    "If military culture is to transform in any meaningful way, we need to break down the doors of silence and make sure our troops who are harmed have access to the same legal remedies as all civilians whom they protect and defend," she added. "We can start by ensuring that military crimes are no longer handled by commanding officers, but rather by impartial attorneys and judges."

    Investigators in Fort Hood, Texas, are looking into allegations that an Army sergeant sexually assaulted three female soldiers and forced one into prostitution. This is only the latest in a string of military sexual assault scandals that has lawmakers demanding answers. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.

    Nancy Parrish, president of the victims advocacy group Protect Our Defenders, agreed that "the Pentagon is responsible for failing to effectively govern its personnel," following news that a Fort Hood Army sergeant first class allegedly forced at least one subordinate soldier into prostitution and sexually assaulted two others. 

    "The problems are so long standing and pervasive that, at a minimum, it constitutes gross negligence on the part of the leadership," Parrish said. 

    Late Tuesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel directed all branches to "re-train, re-credential, and re-screen all sexual assault prevention and response personnel and military recruiters," according to the Pentagon. 

    'Open to any and all options'
    The Fort Hood scandal, coming just nine days after the sexual battery arrest of an Air Force officer tasked with preventing rape, cranked the volumed on long-standing cries "to get to work reforming the military justice system that clearly isn’t working," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "I believe strongly that to create the kind of real reform that will make a difference we must remove the chain of command from the decision making process for these types of serious offenses.”

    Ironically, hours before the Fort Hood allegations surfaced, Gillibrand was prepping a final draft of her bill — set to be introduced Thursday — that seeks to accomplish precisely that goal: transferring sex crimes from the watch and authority of military brass and instead funneling such cases to independent military prosecutors, said a spokesman for Gillibrand. 

    Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York plans to introduce legislation to change the way the military handles allegations of sexual assault. In an exclusive interview on The Last Word, she explained why it should be "more parallel to the civilian system."

    Her proposal was further hastened by the Pentagon's May 7 revelation that 26,000 troops last year claimed anonymously to be sex-assault victims (up from 19,000 in FY11), and a May 9 White House meeting with lawmakers pitching various ideas to stem the military’s rape crisis.

    “Sexual violence in the military is not new. And it has been allowed to go on in the shadows for far too long," Gillibrand said Tuesday. "Congress would be derelict in its duty of oversight if we just shrugged our shoulders at these 26,000 sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and did nothing. We simply have to do better by them."

    The appetite for a dramatic military shift on the issue seems to have reached a tipping point, lawmakers and advocates agree, especially after the Department of Defense signaled Monday that Hagel is "open to any and all options." That marked a clear pivot from Hagel's position as recently as May 7 when he said decisions on sex cases must stay inside the command structure. 

    "Make no mistake," Pentagon press secretary George Little wrote Sunday in a letter to the New York Times, "Mr. Hagel believes sexual assault is one of the urgent matters facing the Defense Department today and will work very closely with the White House and members of Congress to confront this urgent challenge." 

    'Debilitating' crisis
    Gillibrand began writing her bill — working with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. — just two days after her impassioned critique of the military's desire to retain "convening authority" in sex crimes went viral last March. She chose to include in her bill all military crimes punishable by one year or longer in the brig because she felt sending only rape cases to the Judge Advocate General's Corps would further stigmatize sex-assault victims and create "a two-class system," her spokesman said.  


    Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., plans to introduce a companion bill in the House, his office confirmed.

    The first embers of true Capitol Hill fury were stoked in February when Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin reversed the aggravated sexual assault conviction of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, a fighter pilot. A jury of five military officers found Wilkerson guilty of assaulting a civilian contractor as she slept at his home on the Aviano Air Base In Italy. Franklin also dismissed Wilkerson's sentence: one year in the brig and dismissal from the Air Force.

    Gillibrand's bill seeks bar military commanders from setting aside guilty findings.

    "Hopefully, we have reached the tipping point," Parrish said. "It is ultimately up to the military leadership. If they decide that this epidemic and all of the recent scandals is a problem that should be solved, reform can happen and happen relatively quickly.

    "At least until now, the military has treated the issue of sexual assault and rape in the military as a public relations problem," she added. "There are some recent signs that some in the leadership realize that it is a real crisis: a crisis that, for the military, is debilitating."

    Related:

  • FAA suspends employee furloughs, bill held up by typos

    David Goldman / AP

    A passenger sits at right in the international terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson airport, Friday, April 26, 2013, in Atlanta.

    NBC's Kristen Welker spotlights Congress' ability to pass a bill, allowing the FAA to use other money in its budget to end sequester-related furloughs, after pressure from the public

    By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News

    The Federal Aviation Administration will suspend all employee furloughs and return air traffic facilities to their regular staffing levels by Sunday evening, according to a statement released on Saturday.

    Travelers across the nation faced delays while the FAA grappled with cuts to air traffic controllers this week forced by the sequester, the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts that took effect on March 1.

    The FAA was forced to furlough 13,000 air traffic controllers among its 47,000 employees.

    A bill to give the FAA flexibility in defraying its spending cuts was passed by the House of Representatives on Friday. White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Friday that President Obama would sign the legislation when it arrives on his desk.

    A few typos have delayed the delivery of the bill to the president for a day or two, however, NBC News’ Chuck Todd reported on Saturday. The president may not sign the bill until Monday.

    Related:

  • Boston bombing spurs Senate debate on tighter immigration screening

    By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

    Jason Reed / Reuters

    Senator Chuck Schumer, part of the U.S. Senate's "Gang on Eight", speaks during a news briefing on Capitol Hill, April 18, 2013.

    The Boston Marathon bombing and subsequent manhunt for suspects has already become part of the debate over immigration reform in Washington, with one high ranking Republican questioning the screening process that allows immigrants into the United States.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear testimony from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on the bipartisan immigration overhaul introduced by a group of eight senators, but she had to postpone due to ongoing developments in the search.

    A ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said at the outset of the committee’s hearing, “Given the events of this week, it’s important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system. While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.” 

    Grassley asked, “How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

    But a few minutes later, Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y. the chief sponsor of the bipartisan immigration overhaul, in an apparent response to Grassley, said one shouldn’t jump to conclusions about the events in Boston “or try to conflate those events with this legislation. In general, we’re a safer country when law enforcement knows who is here – has their fingerprints, photos, et cetera – has conducted background checks and no longer needs to look at needles in haystacks. In addition, both the refugee program and the asylum program have been significantly strengthened in the past five years such that we are much more careful about screening people and determining who should and should not be coming into the country. If there are any changes our homeland security experts tell us need to be made (in his bill), I’m committed to making them….”

    In a statement Friday, Frank Sharry, head of America’s Voice Education Fund and a veteran campaigner for an immigration overhaul which would allow a path to legal residence for some of those in the country illegally, said, "It’s premature to jump to final conclusions about the attackers. And it’s shameful that some on the far right are politicizing and demagoguing this issue.” Sharry said some -- whom he did not identify -- are "exploiting this tragedy in hopes of derailing immigration reform."

    The Senate will likely debate the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration overhaul next month, but Grassley stressed that the bill ought to be fully debated in committee and open to amendments on the Senate floor.

    Referring to the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration overhaul which was supposed to end illegal immigration and prevent any future amnesty, Grassley said, “We screwed up – and we can’t afford to screw up again.”

    The committee was hearing Friday from two witnesses, conservative attorney Peter Kirsanow – who indicated his opposition to the bipartisan bill because he said it would lower wages for U.S. low-skill workers -- and former director of Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who supported the bill.

     

    Related links:

    Suspects to carjack victim: We are the bombers 

     

    Who are the brothers accused of the Boston Marathon bombing? 

    An empty metropolis: Photos show deserted streets of Boston  

    What we know: Timeline of terror hunt

    ‘Dedicated officer’ gunned down by Boston Marathon suspects at MIT

    Slideshow: Bombings at Boston Marathon

    Boston bombing spurs Senate debate on tighter immigration screening 

    Photos from Bostonians locked down amid terror hunt 

    Tweeting police chatter creates confusion over Boston suspect

     

    This story was originally published on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:47 AM EDT

  • NBC/WSJ poll: Strong majority backs citizenship for undocumented immigrants

    By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News

    With a bipartisan group of senators expected to unveil immigration-reform legislation in the next few days, a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans – including eight-in-10 Latinos – support giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

    A slight majority of Republican respondents oppose this path, possibly foreshadowing the resistance which any comprehensive immigration reform bill might receive, especially in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

    But when Republicans hear that a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants includes paying fines and back taxes, almost three-quarters of them support the idea.

    What’s more, a majority of the public – for the first time in the poll – agrees with the statement that immigration strengthens the nation, reflecting a shift in attitude on this issue. 

    Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates, says that this change in sentiment on immigration “speaks to something potent,” particularly given the economic struggles of the past five years.

    "These more positive attitudes provide more leeway for lawmakers to build support for change on this issue," McInturff adds.

    View the poll results here

    On other matters, the poll shows a majority of the public favors stricter gun laws, President Barack Obama’s approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time since Oct. 2012, and fewer than two-in-10 Americans saying the automatic budget cuts known as “the sequester” have significantly affected them.

    Immigration – a strength or weakness?
    A majority (54 percent) agrees with the statement that immigration adds to the nation’s character and strengthens it by bringing diversity and talent to the country.

    Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

    Tens of thousands of immigration reform supporters march in the "Rally for Citizenship" on the West Lawn of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2013.

    In a 2010 NBC/WSJ survey, fewer than half of respondents agreed with that statement, and in 2005, a plurality said that immigration weakened the nation.

    Additionally, the Democratic Party holds a 7-point advantage over the Republican Party on the question of which party does a better job in dealing with immigration.

    Among an oversample of Latino respondents, the Democratic edge increases to 26 points.

    Regarding the current legislative debate over immigration, 64 percent of respondents say they favor allowing undocumented immigrants to have the opportunity to become legal American citizens.

    That includes 82 percent of Latinos, 80 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of political independents supporting a path to citizenship.

    But 51 percent of Republicans oppose it, versus 47 percent who back it.

    Yet when told that the pathway to citizenship would require paying fines and back taxes, as well as passing a security-background check, support grows – with 76 percent of total respondents, and 73 percent of Republicans backing the path.

    Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., a member of the Gang of Eight immigration reform group, joins The Daily Rundown to talk about immigration reform talks, the budget battle taking place on The Hill, North Korea and touches on the investigation regarding Dr. Salomon Melgen.

    That pathway to citizenship is the heart of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators – including Democrats Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio – are drafting and plan to introduce in the next few days.

    The proposal also calls for strengthening the U.S.-Mexico border, tying that security to establishing the path to citizenship and expanding legal immigration.

    A majority of all respondents (51 percent) believe undocumented immigrants should be eligible for citizenship five years after application. Just 12 percent say the eligibility should occur after 10 years, and only 18 percent believe citizenship should be immediate.

    On border security, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) think the U.S.-Mexico border is “mostly” or “totally” not secure, compared with a smaller percentage of Latino respondents (49 percent) who believe that.

    55 percent favor stricter gun laws
    In addition to immigration, Congress is grappling with the issue of gun control, with the Senate expected to vote on Thursday whether to begin debate on a Democratic-backed measure requiring background checks for most gun sales.

    NBC's Luke Russert breaks down the key components of the bipartisan gun control bill.

    According to the poll, 55 percent favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms.

    That’s down 6 points from the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll – conducted after Obama’s State of the Union address that contained a call to action on gun control – but it’s essentially unchanged from the Jan. 2013 poll.

    Yet there’s a wide political divide to these numbers: 82 percent of Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while just 27 percent of Republicans do.

    Obama’s approval rating drops to 47 percent
    Despite majorities backing the broad outlines of his legislative priorities on immigration and guns, President Obama confronts a pessimistic public and declining poll numbers.

    Only 31 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction – a decline of 10 points since Dec. 2012.

    His overall job-approval rating stands at 47 percent, which is down 3 points since February and which represents the first time he’s been below 50 percent since just before the 2012 election.

    In addition, 47 percent approve of the president’s economic handling (up three points from February), and 46 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy (down six from Dec. 2012).

    Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research says that the public’s sour attitude, particularly on the economy, has “dragged down” Obama’s numbers.

    Sequester’s limited impact (so far)
    Lastly, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that only a combined 16 percent of Americans say the automatic across-the-board budget cuts that went into effect earlier in the year have impacted them either “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

    By comparison, a whopping 75 percent say the cuts to military and non-military programs have affected them “just some” or “not much.”

    But a plurality of respondents – 47 percent – believe the cuts will mostly harm the economy, versus 30 percent who say they won’t have an impact.

    The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

  • In Illinois, Robin Kelly easily wins congressional seat vacated by Jackson Jr.

    View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.

    By NBCChicago.com

    Robin Kelly will head to Washington, D.C. this week to become the next congresswoman from Illinois.

    With 76 percent of precincts reporting as of 8:30 p.m., Kelly, a Democrat, had earned 74 percent of the vote, trumping ballots cast for her closest challenger, Republican Paul McKinley.

    The 56-year-old congresswoman-elect, who replaces convicted former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., said she'll head to Congress with a priority list.

    "Legislatively, gun safety and gun control, of course. Immigration reform. I'm stepping into all of it, it seems, like at the right time," she said earlier in the day.

    Kelly will have big shoes to fill: Jackson was a 17-year incumbent who served on the powerful House Appropriations Committee and brought home nearly $1 billion to the district. He also had strong relationships with mayors, activists and voters across the district that includes city neighborhoods, suburbs and some rural areas.

    Jackson resigned in November. He pleaded guilty in February in federal court to lavishly misspending $750,000 in campaign funds.

    Kelly received big name endorsements including from President Barack Obama and received a huge boost from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's super PAC, which supported her gun control stance. Also, the district is solidly Democratic and has been for about six decades. McKinley is an ex-con-turned-community activist who barely won his primary.

    Early estimates showed low voter turnout in parts of the district, especially the city. Tuesday's special election coincided with municipal contests in other parts of the state; Chicago held its municipal contests in 2011.

    Only 8 percent of city voters showed up at the polls, according to early estimates, with an expected turnout of roughly 12 percent by day's end. In the suburbs, the number was higher.

    Independents Elizabeth Pahlke, Marcus Lewis and Curtis Bay, as well as Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones, were also on Tuesday's ballot.

    With the Associated Press

  • Epic waits, 'gaming' the books at some VA hospitals, testimony reveals

    By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

    Some veterans are waiting six months to see VA doctors to fix their broken dentures or artificial knees and at least two veterans died last year from diseases “due to delay in care” at their local VA hospitals, according congressional testimony delivered Thursday.


    Meanwhile, staffers at several Veterans Affairs medical centers were found to have rigged computer records to make it appear as though there are little or no wait times for ex-service members when, in reality, backlogs for veterans needing exams and treatment can span six to eight weeks, additional testimony revealed.

    “Delayed care is denied care,” said Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., during a House oversight hearing held to investigate why most veterans must wait 50 days on average to schedule initial exams with VA doctors. Kirkpatrick spoke of one Iraq veteran in her district who required more than six months to book his initial consultation with a VA mental health provider.

    “Veterans should not have yet another hoop to jump though. Access to health care should be easy to schedule,” Kirkpatrick said.

    With the Department of Veterans Affairs already nine months behind in meeting disability claims, the fresh anecdotal evidence of long veteran-patient waits prompted Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., to chastise the VA Deputy Under Secretary William Schoenhard: “You’ve been here, in this position since 2009. You came in (and) the system was in chaos and not serving the veterans community. You’ve been there. You haven’t made a difference. And I have no reason to think that under your leadership, unfortunately, this job is going to get done.”

    Coffman also waved a handful of VA records documenting the deaths in May of 2012 of two veterans, one in Georgia and one in South Carolina — both of whom were ill and awaiting consultations with VA doctors. “So by your own internal documents there are issues concerning the quality of care related to timeliness and, unfortunately, the loss of life unnecessarily of veterans. That’s particularly alarming,” Coffman said.

    Earlier in the hearing, Schoenhard expressed his regret over any reported “breakdown in care,” adding that “any veteran who goes without timely care is one veteran too many in terms of our commitment to serve those who served us.” He testified that the VA is working to tighten its appointment system by better meshing its administrative and clinical functions and ensuring “more robust training of our staff who schedule these patients.”

    But equally troubling to members of the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee: reports of VA employees who — as Coffman described — “game the numbers” to deceptively make VA patient-wait times appear shorter. The Government Accountability Office discovered such altered computer records during recent inspections at four VA medical centers, a GAO official testified Thursday.

    “Some staff told us they changed medical-appointment desired dates so that the wait times aligned with VA’s related performance goals ... We heard this across several facilities,” testified Debra A. Draper, director of health care at the GAO.

    Draper testified that at one primary VA clinic, GAO investigators learned that a scheduler had changed dates (in a computer) “to show there were no long wait times. At another specialty care clinic, we heard providers were changing (appointment) dates to make sure their data showed they were within the (desired) 14-day timeline of the VA. We also went to one specialty clinic (where) it showed a zero-day wait time (when) ... in reality there was a six-to-eight week backlog, at least.”  

    Asked by Kirkpatrick whether those VA schedulers “were unduly influenced” by VA brass to purposely tweak the appointment records, Draper replied: “We weren’t specifically told they were directed by management. The current (software) situation provides ample opportunity to change dates, whether intentional or not, to reflect the results you want to achieve.

    “(However), these measures are included in VA’s budget submissions and in VA’s annual performance and accountability report,” Draper added. “So there’s a lot of incentive around these measures.”

    Related: 


  • As VA backlog grows, Congress, veterans grow weary of excuses

    By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

    With most veterans waiting nine months for the Department of Veterans Affairs to process disability claims, a congressional panel Wednesday chastised the VA and the Department of Defense for each breaking four years of vows to merge all troops’ medical records into a single electronic system to help crack that backlog. 

    A senior defense official admitted to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that while “looking down the barrel” of Friday’s sequestration-mandated budget cuts, DOD recently opted not to simply link with the VA’s existing electronic health-record system but to instead seek a more cost-effective computerized tool to catalog and track its service members' medical files.


    That explanation, however, sparked committee members to slam both agencies for protecting their individual turfs rather than fixing the lengthening wait for troops' claims to be seen and for disability checks to be cut. Further complicating that human math: Another 34,000 service members will return from Afghanistan during the next 12 months. 

    “Dammit, it’s time to get over the excuses and get this fixed!” said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. “We have brave men and women that are coming home in huge numbers right now. We don’t want to see these backlogs of benefits continue to escalate. What we need is you guys (VA and DOD) to work together.

    “You’ve been given a directive by your President to get this done. My belief is you don’t have the will to do it,” Denham said. “Those who have volunteered at a time of war ... if they come home tomorrow, they ought to be in the (electronic-record) system tomorrow, knowing what benefits they will receive ... and that it doesn’t take a 5-day or a 50-day system. Get it right or we’re going to force you to get it right.” 

    On Tuesday, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki acknowledged in a speech to the American Legion that effectively slashing its ballooning benefits backlog hinges, in part, on the full installation of an electronic record system. As of December, that backlog had reached more than 270 days, according to a VA website. 

    In a separate but related move, Rep. Jeff Miller, R.-Fla., chair of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, urged VA leaders to fire “problematic employees” rather than to continually transfer them from one regional VA office to another — a bureaucratic shell game that “has contributed to major benefits backlogs at a number of VA regional offices across the country.” 

    “It’s time to end that culture of complacency that has developed among some VA employees and replace it with a culture of accountability,” Miller told Shinseki and others Tuesday at the same American Legion gathering in Washington, D.C. “If a VA employee doesn’t want to do their job, the answer isn’t to move them to another VA office. The answer is to remove them from VA altogether.”

    The committee hearing Wednesday was held to ask the two largest federal agencies to explain why they are — according to Miller, "doing a U-turn" — failing to honor a promise made to Congress as recently as last July to build a single, universal, electronic health-record system.

    VA leaders testified they prefer their current electronic system, called VistA — on which, according to Congress, the VA already has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to install, and potentially billions more to improve. VA has been using VistA for decades. Miller said military “doctors in theater” have told him they prefer using the VA’s electronic-health-record system. In addition, more than 100 non-VA hospitals have implemented that technology.

    Following the hearing, VA officials emailed a statement to NBC News reaffirming that the Department of Veterans Affairs and DOD remain “committed to a single, joint, electronic health record.” They also revealed that Shinseki on Tuesday called new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to congratulate him on his Senate confirmation and that during the phone chat “both leaders emphasized their desire to meet soon and build on the strong partnership between the two departments on common priorities for troops, veterans, and military families.”

    “In short, VA and DoD are seeking to achieve the same program goals: common data, common applications, and a common user interface, but we look to achieve them with less cost and less risk and accelerate the availability of needed functionality,” read the VA’s emailed statement. 

    DOD chiefs, meanwhile, testified they are exploring several electronic health-record options — including "commercial" systems — to replace its current set-up, called Ahlta. And while the Defense Department said it is considering VistA as one option, its assessment found that system may be too clunky and costly to build across the entire armed services. 

    "There is no infrastructure really right now for us to bring VistaA into 56 hospitals and 700 clinics and be able to configure it," testified Jonathan A. Woodson, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs and director of TRICARE Management Activity. "The good news about VistA is it was ahead of its time ...

    "(But) it's important for this program to skate to where the puck will be. What I mean by that is: The current VistA system is a generation 1-plus-2, in terms of how we look at electronic health records. Industry is already at a generation 3 and moving to a generation 4," Woodson said. "We would need to assess what's required for us to bring VistA over, modernize it, and (calculate) what the total cost of ownership would be over time." 

    One veteran, who listened Wednesday to the techno-speak and budget explanations offered by the VA and DOD, urged the two agencies to find common ground fast.  

    "Veterans are not getting the single system they were promised. As long as VA and DOD remain in separate camps, pursuing their own individual systems, it's the veterans that will be short-changed," said Jacob Gadd, deputy director for health care at the American Legion. 

    "Getting all the information into one place can be the key to finally breaking the back of the backlog. But we don't have it," added Gadd, a former Navy hospital corpsman. "VA and DOD have spent four years and close to a billion dollars to develop this and we're in the same place we were in four years ago ... Until they fulfill the promise made to veterans of a single, seamless, unified record, the veterans of this country will remain skeptical of their government's ability to deliver on all of the promises made to them."  

    Related: 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Obama deploys drones, US military personnel to Niger

    By Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube, NBC News

    President Barack Obama has deployed American military personnel and drone aircraft to the African country of Niger, where they could be used to support a French counterterrorism mission in neighboring Mali.


    Defense Department officials told NBC News that a first wave will include two Raptor surveillance drones and 250 to 300 military personnel, including remote pilots and security and maintenance crews. They are expected to arrive soon.

    The officials stressed that the drones are meant for surveillance only. The White House has faced criticism for a legal memo concluding that the U.S. government can use drones to kill American citizens overseas in certain cases.

    Besides helping the French in Mali, the drones could be used to provide intelligence on a growing Islamic militant threat throughout North and East Africa.

    The president notified Congress on Friday under the War Powers Act, which requires him to tell Congress when heavily armed U.S. military personnel are newly deployed to a region or nation.

    Obama told Congress that the U.S. military presence was under the consent of the government of Niger, and that they would “facilitate intelligence-sharing” with the French. He said that the American military personnel were armed for their own protection and security.

    Next door in Mali, Tuareg rebels overthrew the government last year. Islamists then pushed the rebels aside, taking control of important towns and pushing toward the capital.

    France intervened last month — initially with airstrikes and later with about 4,000 ground troops. The United States has flown French troops and equipment into Mali and refueled French fighter jets there, the Pentagon has said. France plans to begin withdrawing troops from Mali next month, once African forces are in place to take over.

    On Friday, five people were killed in a remote Malian town in car bomb attacks by Islamists on Tuareg fighters, a spokesman for the Tuareg fighters said.

    Reuters contributed to this report.

    This story was originally published on Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:19 AM EST

  • Sequester madness: What it is, why it matters

    The automatic spending cuts, just days away, would cut $85 billion a year, having an impact on federal food inspectors, TSA officers, Department of Defense and civilian workers. NBC's John Yang reports.

    By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News

    The automatic spending cuts known as the sequester have ignited a political firestorm in the nation's capital. But if America’s feuding politicos can’t come to an agreement soon, the $1.2 trillion in broad spending cuts will begin March 1, trimming $85 billion a year through 2021. Half of that money would come from the Pentagon and half from non-defense programs, including education and National Parks. Congress has the power to delay, reduce, or cancel the cuts at any time, either before or after they take effect, and programs like Social Security, veterans’ benefits, and student loans will be exempt.

    Here’s what you need to know about sequestration as Washington’s gridlock drags us toward spending cuts that Congress passed and Obama signed into law, but that now few lawmakers seem to want.

    1. How did we get into this mess?

    Sequestration was supposed to be a gun that Congress pointed at itself to force lawmakers to behave and pass a budget. Instead, it’s become just the latest in a seemingly endless series of self-inflicted economic crises that threaten to damage American businesses and undermine credibility with world partners. Sequestration was built into the Budget Control Act of 2011, the bill that brought an end to a bitterly partisan battle over the government’s borrowing power, and included a provision for Congress to develop legislation in time that would have warded off the cuts. The problem with that was Congress failed to pass any such legislation, despite a heated exchange of proposals that went up to the stroke of New Year’s Eve. A bill was passed on January 2 that pushed sequestration back just a little farther – to where we are now.

    2. Why call it the sequester?

    The term “sequester” is adapted from the legal meaning of the power of a court to seize property, and it came into economic parlance as part of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985. Most people are familiar with the idea of sequestering a jury during high-publicity court trials, but in this case it refers to the threat of cuts that was supposed to "force Congress to act on further deficit reduction," according to a report on the potential effects of sequestration by the White House Office of Management and Budget. 

    3. Who’s responsible?

    The key players are President Obama, Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and wonk lawmakers including Rep. Paul Ryan. They’re the same folks who walked the government into near shutdown in 2011 during the debt-ceiling debacle, squandered America’s AAA credit rating, and held hands to peer over the brink of the fiscal cliff together late last year. Earlier this week, Obama said the idea behind writing the sequester into law in the first place was to get Democrats and Republicans to “find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes.” Republicans have lately been placing all the blame for the pending cuts on the White House, but the measure passed with a majority of Republican votes, and Ryan said at the time that the bill containing the sequester represented “a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy.”

    4. Will the government shut down?

    No. The planned cuts aren't large enough to cripple the federal government. But if they do take place, it will mean that some military deployments may be cancelled, federal agencies and offices like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Agriculture will reduce services, and some federal employees may be furloughed, asked to involuntarily take off a certain amount of time per week. There may be some alternatives to furloughs, as Jeffrey Zients, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a memo last month. Those could include government hiring freezes, the release of temporary employees, and incentives for existing employees to retire early. But many Americans can lay some of their most basic concerns to rest: Grandma will not see her Social Security check reduced.

    5. When would the cuts take place?

    The cuts are scheduled to take effect March 1, but they wouldn’t come all at once. For the current fiscal year, the cuts would total $44 billion, which sounds like a ton of money but represents just 1.2 percent of planned federal outlays. Defense contractors likely would be among the individual industries hardest hit by the cuts, but even there layoffs remain “speculative and unforeseeable,” Assistant Secretary of Labor Jane Oates said. But the Pew Center on the States said cuts in discretionary defense spending could cost more than 400,000 jobs over the next 10 years in Florida, Maryland, Texas, California, and Virginia -- the top five states for defense contracting.

    6. How are government agencies preparing?

    The White House and some federal departments already have started to buckle down to prepare for the eventuality that sequestration will go through. Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon had cancelled deployment of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Harry S Truman to the Middle East. The Navy has said that it would delay repairs to the submarine U.S.S. Miami. But officials have assured defense contractors that standing deals will be honored. Future contracts, however, could be imperiled. Other federal departments may be able to shift some funds around within their department from lower priority activities where funds were not cut to higher priority activities that are hit by the sequester.

    7. What may the long-term effects be?

    This is where it starts to get really political, because it depends on who you ask. To debt hawks, a force-fed fiscal enema like sequestration may be just the purgative a bloated government needs, and they argue it would be good for the economy in the long run. But outside that circle, the economic consequences don't look so good. The Bipartisan Policy Center says that the American economy may stand to lose 1 million jobs if the full package of cuts goes ahead on schedule. And the Congressional Budget Office noted that the planned cuts will act as a drag on the country’s overall economic growth over the coming fiscal year. The long-term economic ramifications of sequestration may take years to unfold in the lives of ordinary Americans if the cuts go ahead, but for legislators who can't figure out a better way to implement the cuts, the political blowback could come much more swiftly.

    8. What can be done to stop it?

    With both chambers of Congress on what House leaders call a “District Work Period” this week – also known as a recess – Democrats have called on Republican House leaders to reconvene and strike a deal. Speaker of the House John Boehner has said he’s opposed to the cuts, and has made the case it's up to the White House to break the impasse. Republicans have said they will only agree to a deal to avert the cuts if it includes a plan to cut an equivalent amount of government spending in more orderly fashion. Senate Democrats are backing a plan that includes new revenue generated by closing tax loopholes for the richest Americans. With the clock ticking down, the debate is beginning to resemble the one that set up this manufactured crisis in the first place.

    NBC News' Tom Curry contributed to this report.

Older posts