Opinion: Obama takes it on the chin

President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney finish their debate in Denver on Wednesday, October 3. View behind-the-scene photos of debate preparations. Romney stands with his wife, Ann, and family following the first presidential debate. President Obama kisses first lady Michelle Obama after the debate Wednesday. It took place on their 20th wedding anniversary. Jim Leher of PBS moderates the 90-minute debate on Wednesday. It was the candidates' first time debating face to face. Obama defended his record and challenged his rival's proposals. Romney was more aggressive Wednesday in criticizing Obama's vision. People watch the debate at Galapagos Art Space in Brooklyn, New York. The event was expected to draw the candidates' largest nationwide audience to date. Romney answers a question from the moderator. Obama argues his view. Both candidates said the other's proposals won't work. Michelle Obama listens to the debate. Romney said Obama has failed to bring down high unemployment and get the economy surging again. Obama reacts to Romney's remarks on Wednesday. Obama listens during the debate in Denver. Romney, who has been unable to catch the president in most polls to date, sought to generate enthusiasm for a change in the White House. Romney's shadow is projected beneath text from the Declaration of Independence at the University of Denver's Magness Arena. The first of three presidential debates focused on domestic issues: the economy, health care and the role of government. Obama and Mitt Romney clashed over the economy on Wednesday. Romney speaks during Wednesday night's debate. The candidate called for a new economic path. Obama called for "economic patriotism" and said Romney's plan of tax cuts for the rich failed before. Romney and Obama wave to the crowd at the start of the presidential debate. Obama greets Romney on Wednesday. The candidates meet on stage less than five weeks before Election Day. Obama and Romney shake hands Wednesday night. The presidential race has been dominated so far by negative advertising as both camps try to frame the election to their advantage. Leher takes the stage Wednesday. It's his 12th time moderating a presidential debate. Michelle Obama points to Lehrer before the start of the debate. Ann Romney and first lady Michelle Obama hug on Wednesday. The candidates wives were in attendance for the most highly anticipated campaign event to date. Michelle Obama sits with White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, right. Rapper Will.i.am, left, speaks with Jarrett before the debate on Wednesday. View behind-the-scenes photos of debate preparations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Alan Schroeder: In Denver debate, Romney was more nimble than Obama Schroeder: Both candidates too often engaged in parallel monologues He says as sometimes happens with first debates, the entire event felt a little wobbly Schroeder: Maybe next time the candidates will no longer have opening-night jitters Editor's note: Alan Schroeder, a professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University, is the author of "Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High-Risk TV." Join him for a live Facebook discussion on Thursday Oct. 4 from noon to 1 p.m. ET on what are the best moments in the first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney. (CNN) -- Incumbent presidents often take it on the chin when they return to the debate stage after a four-year absence. Wednesday night in Denver added another such instance to the history books. It's not that Mitt Romney was particularly stellar, but rather that President Obama fell short. In an untested format for presidential debates, with two-minute opening statements followed by open-ended discussion, the candidates found themselves having to move fast and think on their feet. On this point, Romney came across as the more nimble performer. He seemed alert to his surroundings in a way that Obama was not. Still, for both candidates, the long weeks of intense coaching stood in the way of genuine dialogue. Each man appeared so intent on regurgitating his canned lines that direct interaction took a back seat. Despite the best efforts of moderator Jim Lehrer to get the candidates to talk to each other, they too often engaged in parallel monologues. For both candidates this meant passing up a huge opportunity. Consider a few specific moments from the debate. Romney: Not looking for $5 trillion cut Romney's reference to having learned about fibbing from his five boys represents a classic of debate prep: the premeditated one-liner that combines a positive statement about its speaker (in this case, I'm a family man and a wise parent) with a smackdown of the opponent (don't believe what Obama and Biden have been saying about me.) This double-pronged approach offered Romney a way to call his opponent a liar with a coating of sugar on top. Whether or not the ploy actually worked rests with the beholder, but Romney deserves credit for successfully shoehorning the line into this debate. Obama's response was to smile, which is fine. But it would have been much more effective for him to come back with a line of his own (citing his own experience as a parent, for example) as a means of reminding everyone that Romney was not the only dad on the stage. Obama should never have let himself be compared to a naughty child. Romney: I love Big Bird but ... Romney's line about Big Bird is one of those pop cultural references that politicians like to drop because they think it makes them sound in touch with average citizens. In this case, however, the attempt backfired on Romney. Why? Because he cited the Sesame Street stalwart as a symbol of excessive government spending. You can mess with a lot of things in America, but entire generations of voters have grown up with Big Bird. Other, less cherished totems of federal overspending would have better served the candidate as negative object lessons. Romney somewhat redeemed himself by explaining that he does not want to borrow money from China to pay for PBS. Nonetheless, Big Bird should be off limits. Romney has made cultural allusions in debates past, from George Costanza on Seinfeld to Al Gore inventing the Internet, with equally clunky results. It's time to drop these references from his repertoire. Romney: Banks reluctant to give loans Oversight of Wall Street was a potential arrow in Obama's quiver, yet even as he made his case, the president's heart did not seem to be into it. Strangely, for someone so practiced at the mechanics of television, Obama had difficult maneuvering the cameras. He delivered the "does anybody think?" part of the message directly to camera, but when he reached the payoff, "then Governor Romney is your candidate," Obama looked away from the lens. This was a rookie mistake and something of a surprise from someone so well versed in using the camera as a communication tool. Obama: 'Please elaborate' on health care Inevitably, the president was going to bring up Romney's health care program in Massachusetts during this face-off, so for debate-watchers it was just a question of how adequately Romney would defend himself. Thanks to his opponent, he got a little help right out of the gate. Obama's request of Romney that he "please elaborate" dripped with gratuitous sarcasm, and Obama immediately followed the crack with a smile about twice as large as it needed to be, a smile consisting mostly of gritted teeth. Romney's defense of his Massachusetts record supplied the Republican nominee with one of his stronger moments of the night. He managed to spin Romneycare not as evidence of flip-flopping, but as an example of his ability to work in a bipartisanship fashion. Aimed straight at independents, this was a signal Romney needed to send, and the look on Obama's face suggests that he knew the governor had gotten the better of him. Obama: Occasionally you have to say no For President Obama, this critique of Romney was one of his sharper lines of the night. Yet it came as the final response before the candidates' closing statements, far too late in the process to do him much good. The point Obama was making, that a president must hold true to his beliefs, is a valid one. Still, it could have been made even more forcefully had Obama raised it earlier, in a way that placed Romney into a defensive crouch. In short, this was a better debate for Romney than for Obama. But as sometimes happens with first debates, the entire event felt a little wobbly. Let's hope that by the time Round 2 rolls around, the candidates will have gotten beyond their opening-night jitters, beyond the mysteries of the format and beyond being overprogrammed by their coaches. See what users were sharing during last night's debate Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Alan Schroeder.

Health insurers give to kill Obamacare

By Reity Obrien The Center for Public Integrity The health insurance industry presented itself as a key ally of President Barack Obama's health care law while at the same time making hefty contributions to members of Congress who are trying to get rid of it, according to contribution records. Between January of 2007 and August of 2012, the political action committees of the 11 largest health insurance companies and their primary trade group gave $10.2 million to federal politicians, with nearly two-thirds of the total going to Republicans who oppose the law or support its repeal, according to the Center for Public Integrity's analysis of Federal Election Commission filings. The 11 top companies, according to the Fortune 500 list, controlled 35 percent of the industry in 2011, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The top industry trade group is America's Health Insurance Plans. Much of the money rolled in as health insurance industry leaders lauded the Democrats' reform efforts. "We are ready to be accountable to these [new] rules," Karen Ignagni, AHIP's president and CEO told the Senate Finance Committee in May 2009, roughly almost a year before Obama's landmark legislation was signed into law. And when a month after Obama's Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, Ignagni said her organization was "strongly committed" to [its] "successful implementation." Likewise, Ron Williams, then chairman and CEO of Aetna, the country's fifth-largest health insurance company, also spoke favorably about the bill — at first. Follow Open Channel from NBC News on Twitter and Facebook. "I believe that President Obama and this Congress have charted a course of change," Williams said in a June 2009 statement. "I want to make clear that we too are committed to expanding access, controlling costs and improving the quality and value of care people receive." But Williams, who left Aetna in April 2011, has since changed his mind. This past June, Williams penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed calling for health care reform at the state level and criticizing the federal law's mandate. Cantor, Ryan among top beneficiaries House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., ranks as the top recipient of PAC money from the top insurers since 2007, according to the Center's analysis. Cantor, a tea party favorite and one of the law's most vocal critics, has received about $258,000 from AHIP and the top industry PACs. In January 2011, Cantor introduced the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," the first of 33 repeal efforts that have reached the House floor. That same year, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint — which together control 28 percent of the health insurance market — maxed out to Cantor, giving $10,000 apiece to his campaign committee. That doesn't include additional sums that went into the congressman's leadership PAC. Behind Cantor, Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., ranks second in health insurance industry contributions. The chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee has pulled in more than $234,000 from these PACs since 2007. "The American people have told us they don't want to be forced to buy health insurance that they don't want and they can't afford," Camp declared in February 2010. A year later, Camp sponsored a bill that would cut $11.6 billion in funding for the law. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., now the Republican nominee for vice president Mitt Romney's running mate, is also among the top recipients of funds from health insurance companies and a leader in House's efforts to repeal the health care law. The dozen PACs studied by the Center donated $187,000 to Ryan between 2007 and 2012, placing the Wisconsin congressman fourth on the list. Just this year, Ryan, who chairs the influential House Budget Committee, has sponsored two major budget plans that have called for the law's repeal. Other top recipients of health insurance PAC money during this period include House Speaker John Boehner ($209,500), Republican House Whip Kevin McCarthy of California ($149,700), Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is the ranking GOP member of the Senate Finance Committee ($151,500), and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. ($142,400). Why back the repeal? So if the health insurance industry was in favor of key parts of the law, why is it supporting members of Congress who are so bent on killing it? Part of the reason is that the legislation's centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone sign up for health insurance or pay a penalty, is expected to benefit the health insurance industry. Democrats supported the provision; Republicans despise it — despite its origins as a conservative idea. More than a decade ago, an individual health insurance mandate was proposed by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation. During the 1993 health care debate, Republican lawmakers supported legislation that included an individual mandate. And the idea was endorsed by Republican Mitt Romney during his reforms as governor of Massachusetts. During Congress' recent debate over health care reform, the industry was "playing supporters because there is nothing the health insurance industry wanted more than an individual mandate to force people to buy their product," says Carmen Balber, who monitors health policy at the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog. At the time the reform law passed, the Democratic Party controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. By supporting the law, the industry was able to stay in the game on a very complex piece of legislation. While the industry certainly did support parts of the law — such as the individual mandate — there were plenty of provisions it did not like and would like to see repealed. AHIP and WellPoint — the industry's top PAC contributor — did not reply to the Center's telephone or email inquiries requesting comment. Representatives from Aetna, Amerigroup, Cigna and Humana declined to comment for this story. Rome said he suspects the industry views support of Republican candidates — who will undoubtedly vote for deregulation — as a long-term investment. For example, under the new law, insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on medical care for individual and small business policyholders — and 85 cents for large groups. That's a provision the industry would like to see repealed. Insurers must send policyholders or their employers rebate checks if the ratio drops below those levels. In recent statements, AHIP claims the provision, known as the "medical loss ratio requirement," could inhibit innovation and drive up administrative costs because of new reporting requirements. Indeed, AHIP has lobbied extensively for a new bill that — according to Consumer Watchdog's Balber — "would effectively gut the medical loss ratio requirement," by allowing insurance companies to include broker compensation as a medical care cost in the ratio. This legislation, introduced as H.R. 1206, is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and was forwarded to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sept. 11. Rogers ranks 19th on the Center's list of top health insurance beneficiaries, receiving $90,500 over the nearly six-year period. AHIP supports Rogers' bill, as do several trade associations representing brokers and agents, claiming broker salaries commissions are not necessarily administrative costs, but rather a "human resource" expense because independent brokers and agents help patients select plans. But to Balber, factoring insurance broker salaries as a medical cost — and thus, part of the 80 percent requirement — is "absurd." Such a shift in premium calculation would negate the cost-cutting benefits of the medical loss ratio provision — what she considers the law's strongest consumer protection. Looking forward Since the Democrats' Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the political environment has changed dramatically. Democrats no longer hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the House is controlled by Republicans and the president is in a tight race for re-election. Despite his party's unified attack on the health care law, Romney, whose own health insurance reforms in Massachusetts were a model for Obama's plan, has recently hinted at willingness to compromise on some of its politically popular elements. "Well, I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform," Romney, the GOP's presidential nominee, said in a Sept.9 interview with David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press. While the individual mandate is widely viewed as unpopular, the opposite is true for many provisions such as the prohibition on companies refusing to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, the closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug "donut hole" and the option for young adults to stay on their parent's plan until age 26. According to Bob Laszewski, an insurance industry consultant, a Romney administration would not be able to secure enough votes in the Senate to repeal the law, even if it wanted to. A more realistic legislative outcome is that congressional Republicans will attempt to defund the law through budget reconciliation rules — a scenario that would likely hurt insurance company balance sheets, he said. GOP defunding efforts would leave insurance companies subject to the law's politically popular insurance regulations — like covering patients with pre-existing conditions — but without government subsidies that are provided in some parts of the plan. "If Romney wins, I think you're going to see the insurance industry very concerned about Republicans trying to choke health care reform," Laszewski said. Andrea Fuller, Lydia Mulvaney and Michael Beckel contributed to this report. The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, non-partisan investigative news organization in Washington, DC.  For more of its stories on this topic, please go to http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/consider-source.

Libya attack victim's dad to US: Admit mistakes

Molly Riley / Pool via Getty Images, file President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hold their hands over their hearts during the Transfer of Remains Ceremony for the return of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three Americans at Joint Base Andrews on Sept. 14. By Reuters The father of an American bodyguard injured in the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Libyan city of Benghazi said Wednesday the State Department should own up to what he said were its mistakes and release more information about what occurred. David Ubben, a 31-year-old State Department employee, suffered broken bones and other injuries in the Sept. 11 attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. As David Ubben recuperates at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center outside Washington, his father, Rex Ubben, said he did not blame the State Department or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for his son's injuries. But he added, "I do find it troubling that they have not owned up to their shortcomings; in government, in the military, and in business, if something goes wrong, you admit it, correct it, and move on." "If you were in charge, it was your fault," he said in an email exchange with Reuters. His comments came after some congressional Republicans on Tuesday called for Clinton to provide more information about security at U.S. compounds in Benghazi in the days, weeks and months leading up to the attacks. The administration is under more fire from Congress over its handling of the Benghazi attack – with new questions about security and intelligence failure. Ambassador Chris Hill joins Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss. Sensitive documents left behind at US consulate in Benghazi, Libya In a letter to Clinton, Representatives Darrell Issa of California and Jason Chaffetz of Utah recounted a number of attacks in Libya this year and alleged that requests from U.S. officials in the country for heightened security went unheeded. Debate over whether President Barack Obama's administration was caught unprepared by an assault by militant groups has become U.S. election-year fodder. At the consulate where four Americans died security consisted of one U.S. regional security officer and a local militia. Ambassador Chris Stevens often had little personal security detail. NBC's Lisa Myers reports. Ubben said people understood "mistakes and lack of foresight do happen," but, "to attempt to delay or cover information up, upcoming election or no, might put other people's lives at risk and fools no one." Clinton vowed Wednesday to pursue a full accounting of the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi "wherever that leads," but cautioned it could take time for a complete picture to emerge. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., joins Morning Joe to discuss a grim milestone for U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, President Obama's relationship with U.S. military leaders, the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the upcoming presidential debates. "There are continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi on that night three weeks ago. And we will not rest until we answer those questions and until we track down the terrorists who killed our people," Clinton said in Washington. The Benghazi attack killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, information technology specialist Sean Smith and security guards Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. FBI agents keep out of Benghazi Ubben said his son was on temporary assignment in Libya and that his deployment came in July, after - and perhaps in response to - earlier security incidents. Mohammad Hannon / AP, file A Libyan man explains that bloodstains on a column are from one of the American staff members injured on Sept. 11 in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. On June 6, an improvised bomb was placed at the north gate of the Benghazi mission. It blew a hole in the fence. Rex Ubben, 60, said he was a 24-year Air Force veteran who retired in 1995 as master sergeant. He was based at various U.S. embassies. Since retiring, he has been a computer programmer for several banks. Son said it was an attack, not a riot He said David Ubben described the violence on Sept. 11 as "obviously an attack and not a riot," and sketched out what appeared to be a sophisticated mortar attack during the second wave of the assault. That took place at another compound where U.S. and Libyan personnel retreated, and resulted in the death of Doherty and Woods. "What I wanted to know was whether the second part of the attack was pre-planned. The first (mortar) dropped 50 yards short and the next two were right on target," he said, adding his son "was not conscious for any more." Libyan president to NBC: Anti-Islam film had 'nothing to do with' US Consulate attack "This indicates to me that someone was either very, very good, highly trained and skilled, or that the mortar was already set up and pointed at the safe house and only minor adjustments were needed," he said. Thousands of Libyans stormed the headquarters of an Islamist militia group in Benghazi Friday night in a deadly exchange. NBC's Ayman Mohyeldin reports. Ubben also questioned why it took so long for his son to reach a hospital after the attack, saying of his son's condition, "by my count, there were five or six broken bones (one completely smashed, thus the operations) and shrapnel damage head to toe. I was surprised at how many parts of him were injured." Libya arrests four suspected in deadly US Consulate attack in Benghazi David Ubben is having a series of surgeries and his father expects him to be hospitalized for several months. Several questions still remain as to why top U.S. officials offered the wrong initial assessment of the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans. Was there a cover-up? Or were they trying to avoid acknowledging mistakes so close to the presidential election? The Obama administration has denied any wrongdoing. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports. Rex Ubben said his son did not share many details of the attack with him, but added: "He seems to have been blown up twice, and kept going after the first one. ... I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to whoever did the first aid the first time, the second time, and maintained the tourniquets until they could get him out of there." Ubben said he was bothered that "people do not seem to realize that this was a much bigger disaster for the people of Libya than it was for us, that they were attacked just like we were." More world stories from NBC News: From war zones, photographer brings scars and searing images Images: Inside Syria with Ann Curry NBC's Lester Holt answers your questions about Afghanistan After 7 rhinos slaughtered, India looks to one from same fate Colonial sins return to haunt former world powers Death threats force Afghan actress into hiding In Iran, sanctions bite and currency collapses Stay informed: Sign up for our newsletter Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

Oil, gas

Oil and natural gas production did rise in the past four years, much of it on private land Romney: The whole rise in U.S. gas and oil production "happened on private land" Romney: Obama "cut the number of permits and licenses in half" -- which isn't quite true (CNN) -- The facts show, and President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney agree, that U.S. production of oil and gas has increased over the past four years. But is this rise because of Obama, or "in spite of his policies," as the former Massachusetts governor said at Wednesday night's debate? "All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land," Romney said. "On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half." The facts: The Republican nominee's assertions can be broken down into two parts. The first has to do whether "all of the increases in natural gas and oil" under Obama are attributable to drilling on private land, rather than federal and Indian lands and offshore areas. Romney: Banks reluctant to give loans Analyst: Election now 'a horse race' This statement raises a few questions. Firstly, has there been more oil and gas production, relatively, on private lands versus federal lands? Secondly, does the federal government, through regulations and license approvals, have any impact on oil and gas production on private land? And last, can "all" the increase in production be tied to production on private lands? There is no dispute that natural gas production on private lands has increased. Adam Sieminski, head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told a congressional subcommittee in August that it went up "by 16.4 billion cubic feet per day" from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2011, which ended September 30, 2011 -- a period that includes parts of the administrations of both President George W. Bush and Obama. Meanwhile, natural gas production on federal and Indian lands has steadily fallen, a trend that began around fall 2002. This is due to a consistent decrease in offshore gas drilling, though such gas production onshore, on federal lands, is actually higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration. Overall, the percentage of U.S.-produced natural gas from federal lands -- relative to that produced from private ones -- fell significantly over the past eight years, from 35% to 21%, reported Sieminski. Oil production is more a mixed bag. On state and private lands, oil production was actually going down in the 2000s, leveled off between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, then went up by 385,000 barrels a day in fiscal year 2011, when the most recent data are available, Sieminski said. On federal and Indian lands, as well as federally approved offshore drilling sites, oil production went up from 1.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. But it dropped to 1.8 million barrels per day for the last fiscal year available, a decrease that the U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That's an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama's term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush's last term. Now, moving onto the second part of Romney's statement -- that Obama's "administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half." The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that has been critical of Obama, asserted in a September 26 report that the rate of oil and gas leasing (or licenses, as Romney stated) "has slowed by about half." It then directs readers to a chart on the federal Bureau of Land Management's website. This chart does show that fewer leases have been granted under the first three years of Obama's administration, compared to the last few years under Bush. Fewer drilling permits have also been issued, for these lands. During the last three fiscal years totally under Bush, there were 9,661 "new leases" granted for federal lands. For the three most recent fiscal years (which includes a few months of Bush's administration), there were 5,568 such new leases. This works out to a 42.4% decrease. Take the same comparable periods for drilling permits on federal lands. There were 20,479 for the last three years under Bush, then 12,821 for the most recent three including much of Obama's first term. This is a 37.4% decrease. Complete coverage of CNN's Fact Checks Conclusion: There has been more oil and natural production on private lands than in federally controlled areas. So Romney is correct in pointing out an imbalance. But it is an overstatement to say that "all of the increase" has been on private lands -- since, by definition, new permits and licenses have been granted for federal lands (bringing in more gas and oil). Romney's claim that Obama's administration has "cut the number of permits and licenses in half" for federal lands is also not on the mark. True, there has been a significant drop -- one tied, in part, to the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Yet the actual numbers of permits and licenses haven't been "cut ... in half." As mentioned above (and including data from part of the Bush administration), there has been a 42% decrease in leases and 37% decrease in drilling permits -- not 50%, as Romney implied. Even the Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands." Fact Check: Job creation versus unemployment Fact Check: Is Donald Trump a small businessman? Fact Check: Green energy Fact Check: Seniors' drug prices CNN's Lindsey Knight and Greg Botelho contributed to this report.

Chicago teachers back 17.6 percent, 4-year pay deal

Scott Olson / Getty Images, file Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) delegates embrace after voting to end their strike on September 18, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois. By NBCChicago.com's BJ Lutz and wire reports Members of the Chicago Teachers Union have overwhelmingly ratified a new contract, union officials said late Wednesday, ending a bitter dispute with Mayor Rahm Emanuel over school reforms that prompted the first strike of city teachers in 25 years. The deal will give teachers an average pay raise of 17.6 percent over four years if the three-year contract is extended an extra year. The pay increases would cost an extra $74 million a year, the district has said. Chicago teachers make an average of about $76,000 annually, according to the school district. In addition to the pay raises, the deal establishes for the first time an evaluation system for teachers that is based in part on student performance on standardized tests. It also gives principals more authority to hire teachers for their schools and extends the length of the school day.  Scott Olson / Getty Images, file Mayor Rahm Emanuel greets students as they arrive for school at Frazier International Magnet School on September 19, 2012 in Chicago, Illinois. The union got guarantees that any teachers laid off will have preference to be rehired by the district, and Emanuel dropped a demand that teacher pay be tied to merit.  A statement from the CTU said 79.1 percent of the 20,765 votes cast by teachers, paraprofessionals and school clinicians were in favor of the contract, put before them on Tuesday. Ratification required a majority vote in favor. "This shows overwhelming recognition by our members that this contract represents a victory for students, communities and our profession," CTU President Karen Lewis said. "Our members are coming are coming out of this with an even greater appreciation for the continued fight for public education.  We thank our parents for standing with their children's teachers, paraprofessionals and clinicians." The Chicago Teachers Union agreed on Tuesday to end its strike, allowing 350,000 students to return to classes on Wednesday and ending a tense standoff. However, the contract still requires ratification by the union's 26,000 members. NBC's Rehema Ellis reports. Read more from NBCChicago.com Members of the Chicago Board of Education must also vote approve the contract before it becomes effective. That vote is expected Oct. 17, and approval seems likely. Biggest losers of Chicago's teachers strike? The students, critic says "I am pleased that the members of the CTU have ratified this contract, and we can now demonstrate to our students that even when two sides start far apart, they can find common ground and reach a resolution. It's an incredibly important message to send," Chicago Board of Education President David Vitale said in a statement. Thousands of teachers in the nation's third-largest school district walked off the job on Sept. 10 after more than a year of slow, contentious negotiations over salary, health benefits and job security. Students were kept out of classes for seven days before CTU's members voted to end the work stoppage. Chicago teachers agree to end strike, classes to resume Fitch Ratings earlier this week downgraded the Chicago Board of Education's debt rating, citing the school system's increased budget pressures in the wake of the deal. This followed a downgrade by Moody's Investors Services last week and could mean the district pays higher interest rates on any debt issues.  Reuters contributed to this report. More world stories from NBC News: From war zones, photographer brings scars and searing images Images: Inside Syria with Ann Curry NBC's Lester Holt answers your questions about Afghanistan After 7 rhinos slaughtered, India looks to one from same fate Colonial sins return to haunt former world powers Death threats force Afghan actress into hiding In Iran, sanctions bite and currency collapses Stay informed: Sign up for our newsletter Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

US: Smuggling ring sent electronics to Russian spies

David J. Phillip / AP Federal agents carry boxes out of Arc Electronics Inc. in Houston on Wednesday. The Justice Department said it had broken up a smuggling ring aimed at illegally exporting microelectronics from the United States to Russian military and intelligence agencies. By NBCNewYork.com and wire reports NEW YORK -- An elaborate network aimed at illegally acquiring U.S.-made microelectronic components for Russian military and spy agencies has been broken up, the Justice Department said on Wednesday. Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment charging 11 alleged participants in the network, as well as companies based in Houston, Texas and Moscow, with illegally exporting high-tech components from the United States to Russian security agencies. NBCNewYork.com reported that allegations involve illegally exporting approximately $50 million worth of high-tech microelectronics. Alexander Fishenko, an owner and executive of the American and Russian companies, was also charged with operating as an unregistered agent of the Russian government inside the U.S. Fishenko was born in Kazakhstan and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2003. According to the indictment unsealed in Brooklyn federal court, the procurement network began obtaining advanced, technologically cutting edge microelectronics from manufacturers and suppliers within the U.S. and exporting those goods to Russia in October 2008, while evading the government licensing system set up to control such exports. Russia warns Obama's 'reset' in relations 'cannot last forever' The microelectronics shipped to Russia have applications in a wide range of military systems, including radar and surveillance systems, missile guidance systems and detonation triggers, NBCNewYork.com reported. 'Web of lies' Court papers say the network induced manufacturers and suppliers to sell them the high-tech goods -- and to evade applicable export controls by providing false end-user information in connection with the purchase of the goods -- concealed the fact they were exporters, and falsely classified the goods they exported on export records submitted to the Department of Commerce. Prosecutors say the network's principal port of export for the goods was John F. Kennedy International Airport. "As alleged in the indictment, the defendants spun an elaborate web of lies to evade the laws that protect our national security," U.S Attorney Loretta Lynch said. "The defendants tried to take advantage of America's free markets to steal American technologies for the Russian government. But U.S law enforcement detected, disrupted and dismantled the defendants' network." Two law enforcement officials told Reuters that Fishenko and seven alleged associates were being held in custody in Houston. One of the defendants was scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday in Houston, and the others on Thursday. More news from NBCNewYork.com It was not known if they had yet entered any pleas, one of the officials said late on Wednesday. He said that prosecutors expected to ask for those arrested to be transferred to the custody of federal authorities in Brooklyn. Three other individuals charged in the indictment are currently in Russia, the official said. A court document made public by prosecutors outlined further details of the government's case against those charged. It alleged that Fishenko used a Houston company called Arc Electronics to acquire U.S.-made technology for Russian government agencies, including the Russian armed forces and Russia's principal domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service or FSB, a successor to the Soviet-era KGB. According to the document, among electronic components that the procurement network sought were microcontrollers, microprocessors, static random access memory chips and analog-to-digital converters. Prosecutors claim that such items can be used for a wide variety of sensitive military and intelligence purposes, including radar and surveillance systems, missile guidance systems and detonation triggers. Surveillance During the U.S. investigation of the alleged procurement network, which began in July 2010, the U.S. government had engaged in extensive court-approved surveillance of the email and telephone communications of those arrested, the document says. Prosecutors say that among items collected during the investigation was a letter in which an electronics production laboratory operated by the FSB allegedly complained that certain microchips -- purchased from Arc in Houston through an affiliate of Fishenko's Moscow company -- were defective and needed to be replaced. More Russia coverage from NBC News Prosecutors say that when the Russia-based affiliate received the letter from the Russian intelligence agency, it forwarded it to Arc in Houston seeking replacements for the microchips. At one point, in an effort to show their activities were innocent, Arc told Americans it had approached that it manufactured traffic lights, a U.S. official said. NBC New York's Joe Valiquette and Reuters contributed to this report. More content from NBCNews.com: Marijuana joint falls out of attorney's pocket - in court Calif.'s Department of Fish and Game gets name change -- and controversy No Halloween for sex offenders? They challenge California city's restrictions Pedestrians, bicyclists beware in New York, Los Angeles Video: Not all smoke detectors created equal Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook