text:
Home > News & Policies > Press Secretary Briefings |
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 7, 2006
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
James S. Brady Briefing Room
MR. MCCLELLAN: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Friday. I want to begin by talking about two important issues. First, the economy, and then immigration and then I'll be glad to go to your questions.
The latest employment report came out this morning; it showed the latest job numbers for the month of March. The employment report shows that our economy is strong and growing, with robust job creation. It's because of the hard work and the ingenuity of the American workers and because of the pro-growth policies that we have put in place that our economy is growing strongly.
Two hundred and eleven thousand new jobs were created in the month of March -- that's above market expectations. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, well below the averages of the '70s, '80s and '90s. About 5.2 million jobs have been created since August of 2003. Americans own -- more Americans own their home than ever before. Minority home ownership is at record levels. Consumer confidence is the highest it's been in four years -- or nearly four years. Productivity is high. Inflation is contained.
But it's important that we continue to act to keep our economy growing strong. The President talked a little bit earlier this morning about the importance of making the tax cuts that we put in place permanent. He talked about the importance of continuing to move forward on restraining spending. And he talked about tools that are available to us. We want to stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
And he also talked about the importance of Congress moving forward and acting on the initiatives he outlined in the State of the Union: his initiatives to keep our economy the most competitive in the world; his initiative to address the rising energy prices that we're seeing by moving forward on his advanced energy initiative, to really transform the way we power our homes and our cars.
And, as he talked about earlier this week, the importance of moving to a consumer-driven health care system, where consumers have more control over their health care, and that that will help lower costs, particularly by expanding health savings accounts, moving forward on electronic records for all Americans -- health records -- moving forward on medical liability reform, and associated health plans, among other things.
Secondly, I just want to talk about immigration reform. This is an issue that is being debated in the Senate this week. Yesterday we were encouraged to see that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate came together to reach a compromise. The President talked about how he appreciated the fact that many members in the Senate recognize the importance of moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform. This is a difficult and complex issue. It's important for voices to be heard as the debate moves forward.
Unfortunately, the Senate Minority Leader prevented voices from being heard and amendments from being considered. He is preventing comprehensive immigration reform from moving forward. We call on the Senate Minority Leader to stop blocking this process from moving forward so that we can get comprehensive immigration reform passed.
And with that, I will be glad to go to your questions. Deb, go ahead.
Q Back when the NIE was released on July 18, 2003, you were asked that day when that had been actually declassified. And you said in that gaggle that it had been declassified that day. And if that's the case, then when the information was passed on to the reporter 10 days earlier, then it was still classified at that time.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're referring -- a couple of things. First of all, it was publicly released that day, so that's when a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate that we were making available to the public was released. The second part of your question is referring to an ongoing legal proceeding, and referring to a filing in that legal proceeding. We have had a policy in place, going back to the October time period of 2003, that we are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation or an ongoing legal proceeding. That policy remains unchanged.
But let me point out a couple of facts, step back from this legal proceeding. The President of the United States has the authority to declassify information. I also indicated to some reporters earlier today that the President would never authorize the disclosure of information that he felt could compromise our nation's security. Now, the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified -- portions of it were declassified. We made sure that we did not -- that we continued to protect sensitive sources and methods within the National Intelligence Estimate.
But let's go back to the time period that you're talking about, because I think it's important for the public to know or recall that time period.
There was a lot of debate going on about the pre-war intelligence that was used in the lead up to the decision to go into Iraq and remove a brutal tyrant from his position of power. There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence. That was flat-out false. The National Intelligence Estimate was a document that was provided to members of Congress. It is the collective judgment of the intelligence community. And because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that's exactly what we did.
Q I understand the reason why you thought it needed to be declassified, because of the debate at the time. The question was, when was it declassified. And you were asked that day, when -- the question was, "When was it actually declassified?" And you said, "It was officially declassified today."
If it had been officially declassified on July 18, 2003, then 10 days before, when the information was given out, it was still classified at the time.
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're going back to an assertion that is made in a filing related to an ongoing legal proceeding when you talk about the second part of your question. There is no way for me to separate that question and talk about this issue without discussing an ongoing legal proceeding. And I can't do that. We have a policy that's been established, and I'm obligated to adhere to that policy.
Q But answer the question, it's a factual question.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but you can't separate that question from the legal proceeding --
Q Was it declassified that day --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- because of one of the assertions that was made in the filing.
Well, you can go back and look at comments that were made at that time. That was when it was --
Q Those were your comments.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that was when it was publicly released at the time. I haven't looked back at exactly what was said at that time.
Q Well, let's be really clear about this. It says right here on July 18th, "When was it actually declassified?" Mr. McClellan, answer, "It was officially declassified today." Is that correct?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're asking me to get into the timing. I'm not backing away from anything that was said previously -- that's when the document was released, so that's when it officially --
Q They don't say "released." They say "declassify."
MR. McCLELLAN: I know, Jim. Let me tell you. That's when it was officially released. So I think that's what I was referring to at the time. I'd have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I'm not changing anything that was said previously, so let me make that clear.
Q But if you were --
MR. McCLELLAN: Now, secondly, the question you're going to, again, relates to the timing of when certain information was declassified --
Q I'm not going to that question --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but there's no way you can separate that question out from the ongoing legal proceeding --
Q Scott, you are very careful with your words here. I think if you wanted to say "released," you would have said "released." You said, "declassified."
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.
Q Well, what does that tell --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's when the information was released publicly.
Q Scott, did you not know --
MR. McCLELLAN: But there was --
Q That's not what --
MR. McCLELLAN: Now, for the National Intelligence Estimate, Jim, it did go through a declassification process; you are correct. And the information was carefully looked at by the intelligence community before the portions of the National Intelligence Estimate were made available to the public --
Q But, Scott, you said, "declassified." If it's declassified on that day, it wasn't declassified before. And you're saying you're sticking to -- you're not taking back anything you said before, and what you said that day is it was officially declassified.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'd be glad to take a look at exactly what I said, and I'll do that.
Q You didn't say -- I mean, we've got that here --
MR. McCLELLAN: I can't do that here in this room right now, but I'll be glad to take a look at it --
Q Then why are you saying you're not backing up from anything if you --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what I'm saying is that -- I think what I was referring to is the fact that that was when it was made available to the public. So all that information is officially declassified at that point.
Q Then why are you saying you won't back off anything you said before if, in fact, we have transcripts here where you say that's when it was officially declassified? Are you still saying that's when it was officially declassified?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's when it was made available to the public. So it's officially --
Q When was it officially declassified?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- so it's officially declassified at that point. I think we're talking past each other a little bit. I'll have to go back and look at the specific transcript -- and I'll be glad to do that -- and we can talk about it further later.
Q Okay. When was it officially declassified?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of the timing of when information may have been declassified, that gets into a question relating to the legal proceeding in a filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald earlier this week.
Q What were you referring to on July 18th, then? Was that the official release, or official declassification?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's what I'll have to check. I'll have to go back and look. But my sense is, and my recollection is -- while we're sitting here talking about it is -- I was referring to the fact that was when it was officially declassified for the public.
Q Scott --
Q Can I just -- one more here. In terms of releasing information and leaks, you know the President has been highly critical of people who leak --
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- not just classified material. He has said in the fall of 2003, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Now, whether the argument from the administration is he declassified this, so it wasn't classified information -- I know you're not going the get to the legal issues here -- but he has criticized people who leak, not just classified information. And there were clearly leaks coming out of this White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: What was the context of my comments -- about leaking of classified information, I believe.
Q He was asked about leaking classified information, but the President said, "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks." Not just classified information. He says "particularly leaks."
MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter. And I think that's why it's important to draw a distinction here. Declassifying information and providing it to the public, when it is in the public interest, is one thing. But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction.
Now, there are Democrats out there that fail to recognize that distinction, or refuse to recognize that distinction. They are simply engaging in crass politics. Let's make clear what the distinction is.
Q He said, "displeasure with leaks," not just classified leaks, though, Scott.
Q Scott, can I follow on that for a second. Because in December of 2003, to follow on this, he says, "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is." Now, is there a question -- we're not talking about legality here -- while he's saying that, according to the court filing -- which I know you can't get into the specifics of -- but as he's saying it, he certainly is aware who would have allowed the information to be disseminated. So, at best, isn't the statement "If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is" -- at best, isn't that just inconsistent, if not misleading?
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. That's referring to the leaking of classified information.
Q Only the leaking of classified information. He doesn't --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in the context of what that question was responding to --
Q So what about if it's a political? And if it's in political -- if there's a political purpose to it, then it's fine?
MR. McCLELLAN: If it's in the public interest, it's another matter. And the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified because it was in the public interest to provide portions of that National Intelligence Estimate to the American people. As I said, there were people that were out there making irresponsible accusations that intelligence was manipulated or that intelligence was misused. There has been no evidence to back that up whatsoever. And if you look at the National Intelligence Estimate, Jim -- you weren't here at the time, but some others in this room were -- it shows the collective judgment of the intelligence community.
And then you go back and look at the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, and they said there is no evidence of political pressure on the intelligence analysts. You go back and look at the Butler report. The Butler report said that there was no evidence of deliberate distortion. You go back and look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report, they say they did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.
So this was part of the debate that was going on at that time in the public. And so it was in the public interest that information be declassified.
Q I understand that. My only question is --
MR. McCLELLAN: And this information, too -- and another distinction. This was pre-war intelligence we're talking about. So it was historical context that was being provided, not information that could compromise our nation's security.
Q My only question is looking ahead, when he then says, "I want to know who the leaker" was -- doesn't he know, since he authorized the disclosure of the information?
MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, go back and look at the filing that was made by Mr. Fitzgerald, because Mr. Fitzgerald talks about that very issue in his filing and contradicts what you're suggesting.
Q I'm not suggesting -- this has nothing to do with Valerie Plame, nothing to do with it.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's what the question was about.
Q My question is, though, at the same time -- at the same time he's -- even if there's nothing to do with Plame, there is some disclosure about NIE information.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let's draw the distinction here, again. There is an important distinction that people need to make when they are looking back at this issue. I just laid out what that distinction is. You're talking about information that was declassified and provided to the American people because it was in the public interest that they have that information so they could see what the facts were. And the facts were that this was the collective judgment of the intelligence community.
Now, the intelligence was wrong, and that's why we put in place a bipartisan commission, independent commission to go and look at the intelligence, and they made recommendations about how we could improve our intelligence-gathering. And we have implemented many reforms to make sure we get the best possible intelligence.
Q Scott, I've got a couple of things here. First, did you have any personal knowledge on July 18th -- when you answered the question that started off this round of questions -- did you have any personal knowledge of discussions between the President and the Vice President about declassifying portions of the NIE?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question that gets into talking about an ongoing legal proceeding, and I just can't do that because the policy of this White House is that we are not going to comment on it while it's ongoing. So I'm adhering to that policy, and I would hope that you could appreciate that.
Q You've at times at this podium told us that you had had assurances from people and that's caused you a lot of trouble, from this podium. Are you saying that that statement was true at the time that you knew it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, in terms of -- which statement are you referring to?
Q That on July 18th it was officially declassified.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, that question was asked at the beginning and I think what I was referring to is this is when it's now being made available to the public, so it's officially declassified at that point.
Q That's not what you said, though, we know that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll have to take a look at it. No, I think that's what I was referring to.
Q There is a distinction, though --
MR. McCLELLAN: Deb, hold on. I'll be glad to take a look at it, and we can talk about it. I'm around all day.
Q We're trying to give you an opportunity here, and --
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't gone back and looked at every single word that was said at the time. But, again, based on what Deb just said, my recollection is that I was referring to the fact that, yes, it's officially declassified today.
Q All right, let's talk about the politics of this.
MR. McCLELLAN: But that doesn't get into the issue of when everything was declassified.
Q The purpose of releasing portions of this clearly had a political implication for the administration. There is a debate going on, and you wanted to counter that debate. And, yet, you're criticizing Democrats, saying that they are engaging in crass politics for saying that they're -- that this was leaking. How do you not see that there was a --
MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons I stated. That's a very good question. Let's talk about the distinction. There is a difference between leaking classified information that could compromise sources and methods, which could be harmful to our nation's security. The terrorist surveillance program is a prime example. There was an unauthorized disclosure of this vital program that is helping to prevent attacks and save American lives. This is a program that is aimed at intercepting international communications involving known al Qaeda members or suspected al Qaeda affiliates. And it is vital to our nation's interest.
General Hayden, the number-two man in our intelligence community, said its disclosure is harmful to our nation's security. So there is a clear distinction here. Democrats refuse to recognize that distinction. That is engaging in crass politics.
On the issue of the National Intelligence Estimate, that is something that was in the public interest that it be disclosed because there is a lot of debate going on. And we will vigorously set the record straight when people are putting out misinformation or trying to suggest things that simply are not true.
Helen, go ahead.
Q Did the President know that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA agent before Novak revealed it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this goes to -- go back and look at previous comments, but this goes to an ongoing legal proceeding, and I would encourage you --
Q Did he know? It's a simple question.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- I would encourage you to go and look at the filing that was made just the other night, because Mr. Fitzgerald touches on that subject in the filing.
Q You mean the President did not know?
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I can't get into discussing an ongoing legal proceeding, and that's a question relating to the ongoing legal proceeding.
Q I think it's a very simple, important question.
MR. McCLELLAN: Matt, did you have something?
Q Yes, your refusal to comment on this on the grounds of it being an ongoing legal proceeding --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me -- let me -- hang on, hang on --
Q -- that leads to the conclusion that --
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on.
Q All right.
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. Let me just say why and remind people why. There is an ongoing legal proceeding underway that is headed toward trial. We want to see a fair trial. We want to see due process. We don't want to do anything that could compromise this ongoing legal proceeding or compromise or jeopardize the trial. And that has been our policy with other matters, as well. And so this has been a policy that has been well established for a long time.
Now, to your question.
Q This inevitably leads to the conclusion that you are not disputing the allegation that the President was involved in the leaking -- or authorized the leaking of classified information. Are you satisfied with that? And is that really in the interests of the American people?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not getting into confirming or denying things, because I'm not commenting at all on matters relating to an ongoing legal proceeding.
Q Scott, just a --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me come back to you. Elaine, go ahead.
Q Scott, let me ask you about the issue of credibility. Isn't the fact that you're up here having to vigorously defend and make the distinction between what some people see as leaking and what you are saying, from what I understand, is the sharing of information to provide historical context -- isn't that illustrative of the fact that the President's credibility has been damaged by it?
MR. McCLELLAN: The Democrats have a credibility problem when they try to suggest that we were manipulating intelligence, or that this is about something other than what I just said. That's crass politics. And they're the ones who have an issue when it comes to what you bring up.
Go ahead.
Q I want to see if I can sort out what you described earlier as sort of "talking past" each other earlier. There's a process for declassification, and the President has declassification authority.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.
Q When the President determines that classified information can be made public without jeopardizing sources and methods, that it's an appropriate thing to do, is that -- can that supplant the declassification process? Is that, in effect, an immediate act? Is it de facto declassified by that determination --
MR. McCLELLAN: The President can declassify information if he chooses.
Q So if a declassification --
MR. McCLELLAN: It's inherent in our Constitution. He is the head of the executive branch.
Q Is it possible, then, for a declassification process to be underway, or perhaps not yet even started, but perhaps in the middle of it, the President can say, this is declassified and -- or this is something that is worthy of the American people seeing, and they can happen on separate tracks?
MR. McCLELLAN: I want to be careful here, because that is touching on something that is brought up in the legal proceedings. So --
Q Well, it's a question more about administrative policy and how the White House would handle it.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- but the President is authorized to declassify information as he chooses.
Q Right, so just one other question, if I can. You've already taken a couple of shots at Democrats, but the Minority Leader this morning has gone to the Senate floor and demanded a whole series of questions to be answered. At one point, he says that only the President can answer the question as to whether or not the buck stops in the Oval Office or the leaks start, and has suggested that what he is now seeing -- Harry Reid, the Minority Leader -- in his opinion, it speaks to a pattern of misleading America by the Bush White House. It raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with Congress and the American people.
This does seem to be yet another example of the Democrat's ability to criticize the President for not coming clean on all of this. How would --
MR. McCLELLAN: That is exactly --
Q Hold on.
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, go ahead.
Q How would you explain to the nation the President's assertion that anybody who leaks information would be prosecuted, when they are now -- the Democrats now see that the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: Leaking classified information.
Q Right.
MR. McCLELLAN: There's a distinction here. That is the kind of crass politics that I am referring to. Democrat leaders, like the one you brought up, are refusing to acknowledge an important distinction here. First of all, the national intelligence information was declassified information that was provided to the American people.
Now the other issue I brought up was the issue of the terrorist surveillance program. You bet the President has spoken out about its unauthorized disclosure, because what its disclosure has done is shown al Qaeda, our enemy, the play book. This is an enemy that watches us very closely. This is an enemy that adapts and adjusts when they learn information about our tactics. And it's important -- it's important, as we carry out this war on terrorism, that we don't do anything that could compromise our nation's security.
The terrorist surveillance program has been a vital tool that has helped to save American lives. And it's one tool, in an overall arsenal of tools, that we are using to take the fight to the enemy and stop attacks from happening on American soil.
Q But I just want to make sure I understand. In effect, your answer to the Harry Reid criticism is that the President has the authority to declassify. Therefore, the discussion of leak is inappropriate.
MR. McCLELLAN: My response to what he said is that that's just crass politics, because he is not acknowledging an important distinction. And the distinction is that, one, the information that he was referring to was declassified. And the other information he's trying to twist and put into that is a separate matter. These are two separate issues.
Go ahead.
Q Two questions. One, as far as U.S.-India --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me stay on this topic, and I'll come back. Go ahead.
Q You all talk about the court filing -- you've said that. But you seem to want to convey the idea that if what happened in the court filing happened, then it's okay, because it wasn't classified at the time --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not conveying any ideas about the court filing. What I'm talking about is the facts, at the time, and trying to put in context for people in this room and people that are listening, the time period and what was going on during that time period. But the National Intelligence Estimate was declassified in part because there was a lot of debate going on, and there was a lot of misinformation out there. It was important for the American people to have that information.
Q You seem to be trying to come up with a definition of the word "leak", which is that if it's not classified, and it's not endangering national security by revealing it, then therefore it's not a leak. Is that a --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest, and leaking classified information that involves sensitive national intelligence regarding our security.
Go ahead, Martha.
Q Can I just go back to this original statement that the President said about, "I constantly express my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information" -- leaving the impression he doesn't like any leaks. Can you give us an idea how the President feels about leaking information, since if this information --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we have to draw distinctions here, and what specifically you're referring to. I mean, if people are going out there talking about a potential policy decision-making process that is still in development and that the President hasn't come to a decision on, then that's not helpful information, and of course we'd look down on something like that.
Q But otherwise, if it's helpful to you and it's declassified, leaks are okay?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, if it's in the public interest.
Q Leaks are okay?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that the issue here is the National Intelligence Estimate --
Q No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about leaks.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and the declassifying of the National Intelligence Estimate.
Q I'm talking about a statement the President made in the fall of 2003.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to try to draw a broad conclusion, or make a broad statement. If you've got specific instances you want to refer to --
Q No, you seem to be saying it's bad to leak classified information that will hurt the country --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give you a specific instance --
Q -- but it's not bad to leak declassified.
MR. McCLELLAN: A specific instance is the leaking of classified information that could harm sources and methods, or put them at risk, or harm our nation's security. One is the terrorist surveillance program.
Q Understood, but that's not the issue here.
MR. McCLELLAN: Sure it is part of the issue, because that's --
Q It's part of the issue, but not the part of the issue I'm trying to get to.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that's exactly what the President is referring to when he's talking about leaking of classified information. That's exactly the kind of information he's talking about.
Q I know he is, but what I'm saying is the President expressed displeasure about leaks, not just classified leaks, but displeasure --
MR. McCLELLAN: Sure, he's talked about that in the past.
Q So he has displeasure about leaks, even of declassified material?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, you have to look at what specific instance are you talking about.
Q Well, you won't talk about the specific instance we want to talk about --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just gave you an example.
Q -- so, in general --
MR. McCLELLAN: I just gave you an example.
Q -- if you leak something, he has no problems as long as it's not classified?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what I said, Martha. What I said is what I said, and you ought to listen to what I said, not try to put words in my mouth.
Q No, I'm not.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I think you can go back -- if you've got a specific instance of a leak, bring it up.
Q Did he have a specific instance when he said his displeasure about leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he was being asked about classified information being disclosed.
Q "I constantly express my displeasure with leaks, particularly classified leaks."
MR. McCLELLAN: That was in the context of people leaking classified information. But, sure, this is a town -- I mean, this is a town where that happens a lot. And a lot of those are not helpful things to have happen. But you're asking me to make a broad statement, and I'm not going to do that.
Q Scott, what was the President's reaction to this story?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q What was the President's reaction to this story? What has he said?
MR. McCLELLAN: "This story"?
Q The story, as it's published.
MR. McCLELLAN: "The story as it's published"? Which story as it's published?
Q You sound like Donald Rumsfeld. (Laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: "This story" -- I'm just asking you to specify what the story is.
Q I'm talking about the filing --
MR. McCLELLAN: The filing by Mr. Fitzgerald, okay.
Q -- I'm talking about what we found out --
MR. McCLELLAN: The filing by Mr. Fitzgerald. I can't get into talking with you relating to an ongoing legal proceeding.
Q I'm not asking you to. I'm asking, did the President say anything about it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can't get into talking about an ongoing legal proceeding. That relates to an ongoing legal proceeding. I just can't do that.
Q Slightly different topic, but you, yourself, said they're linked, when the Attorney General said yesterday that the President might have authority to do wireless wiretapping --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me come back to it. I'll come back to it.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Anyone else on this subject? Kelly.
Q Is there a bit of an appearance problem for this White House when the President speaks so strongly against leaking? When the Counsel's Office orders ethics classes? And then today you're talking about effectively good leaks and bad leaks, that --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're trying to lump a lot of things in there, and I don't think I would do that, in terms of ethics classes. I mean, those are ongoing throughout the time period we're here in this administration. So let's not lump things together.
Q But there were some that were ordered specifically --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's not lump those things together.
Q There were some that were ordered specifically --
MR. McCLELLAN: You're lumping things.
Q I'm lumping only because the timing of the last public lumping was --
Q Lumper. (Laughter.)
Q -- in the fallout of (inaudible), as you may remember, that was made public. So the President is very vocal about leaking at a time when now it appears that he sees some value in releasing some --
MR. McCLELLAN: We are a nation at war. And the leaking of classified information, particularly during a time of war, is much more harmful and much more dangerous. You bet the President is going to continue to speak out about leaking classified information. It is wrong and it can have serious consequences. And what he has said about the leaking of classified information stands. He is very firm in his belief that leaking classified information, particularly information that could be harmful to our nation's security, is a serious matter and it is dangerous, and when people do it they put our nation at risk, they put lives at risk, they put sources and methods at risk.
This is a different kind of war that we are engaged in, against a deadly and dangerous enemy, an enemy that is lethal, an enemy that is sophisticated. And that is what the President often refers to when he talks about the leaking of classified information, and how serious that is.
I'll come back to you. Go ahead, Les. Are we on a different subject? Goyal is first.
Q Related.
MR. McCLELLAN: Related?
Q Yes.
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.
Q Kind of getting back to where we started. Is information declassified when the President says it is, or when the process is done --
MR. McCLELLAN: He can authorize the declassification of information.
Q And at that moment does it become declassified, or --
MR. McCLELLAN: He's authorized declassification. He has that authority to do that.
Q At that moment. He says, today, I want this declassified -- at that moment it's declassified?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying that he has or hasn't -- if there's any specific example -- but he has that authority, yes.
Q Immediately, immediate effect?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. He has that authority, yes.
Q Scott, one related.
MR. McCLELLAN: One related. You all on the front row have had multiple questions.
Q I've got one related.
Q I've got one --
MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're encouraging others to do this.
Q There's lumpers up there. (Laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad to stay here all day. This is an important subject, and I'm glad to make the distinctions.
Q I want to make sure we've got our terms right, that's all. It seems to me, from what I'm hearing, in terms of the way you're explaining this, classified information is leaked; declassified information is provided.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, declosing [sic] declassified information, like we did with the National Intelligence information, that was provided to you all. That was provided to the public through you all, through your colleagues.
Q Okay, but when Judy Miller gets it, it's being provided? Or is it being leaked, because then it's declassified?
MR. McCLELLAN: Now, see, that's something that I cannot and you cannot separate from an ongoing legal proceeding. So I can't get into responding to that specific question, because how can you separate it from the legal proceeding and the filing that Mr. Fitzgerald made. I just can't do that.
Q One more, because you --
MR. McCLELLAN: See what you encouraged?
Q Well, because this has been invited by your discussion of need to educate the American public in the throes of what you say was a lot of unfair information --
MR. McCLELLAN: To provide facts.
Q To provide facts.
MR. McCLELLAN: And Congress had those facts.
Q There have been --
MR. McCLELLAN: Way back when they made the decision to authorize the President's use of force if necessary.
Q What do you say to critics who argue that the President's decision to disclose this information, to effectively declassify it, in the context of that debate, to provide facts was, in fact -- or at least in their argument -- a political use of intelligence information?
MR. McCLELLAN: It was in the public interest that this information be provided, because there is a debate going on in the public about the use of intelligence leading up to the decision to go into Iraq. This is regarding pre-war intelligence. And there was a lot of misinformation being put out. There were accusations being leveled against the President and against this White House and this administration that intelligence was misused or manipulated.
The fact of the matter is that the intelligence was based on what is laid out in the National Intelligence Estimate, which is the collective judgment of our intelligence community. The fact is that people have looked into how the intelligence was used, and they have seen, as I pointed out, no evidence of such manipulation or misuse.
Q Scott, two questions. One, as far as U.S.-India nuclear agreement, civil nuclear agreement is concerned, President is also (inaudible) India, and now Dr. Rice, because she vigorously defended the deal on Capitol Hill in the House and Senate. My question is that how serious President is lobbying the U.S. Congress because (inaudible) Prime Minister of India doing same thing in the Indian parliament. So how serious is the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're seeing today that there is good bipartisan support to begin the process of ratifying this agreement. And this is an important agreement. It goes to our strategic relationship. It goes to our energy security, and India's energy security. And it also, for the first time, will bring India's civilian nuclear program under international safeguards. And that's an important development.
As the President has pointed out previously, India is not a country that was engaged in proliferation. They had a good nonproliferation record. And we had to look at the reality of the situation.
But you've had Senator Biden and, I think, Senator Obama and others that have expressed a willingness to support this agreement, because they recognize the importance of moving forward on it to both our energy and national security interests.
And so I know that Undersecretary Burns has been working very closely with members of Congress, as has Secretary Rice. And the President has discussed it with members that he's had here to the White House. It's an important agreement. And we look forward to continuing to work with Congress and hearing any issues that they might want to bring up and talking to them about the importance of this agreement, answering their questions.
Q (Inaudible) former General of the Indian television, (inaudible) -- who interviewed the President before the visit and also -- somehow he tried to meet the President in India while President was there, but after his meeting with the President, he was fired from his job. Do you have any idea of what happened, whether it was --
MR. McCLELLAN: First time I've heard about it. (Laughter.) I'll have to take a look.
Connie, go ahead. Wait, wait. Victoria, you had another question.
Q Yes. The Attorney General, yesterday, when he was testifying, would not rule out the possibility that there is a domestic warrant-less wiretapping program going on. And even the statement that was later issued by the Justice Department wouldn't really confirm or deny one way or the other. Could you give us some idea about --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think what the Justice Department said that no one should read anything into the Attorney General's testimony yesterday, that his comments and quotes shouldn't be interpreted to suggest the existence or nonexistence of a domestic program or whether any such program would be lawful under the existing legal analysis.
What the Attorney General was talking about was the terrorist surveillance program. And this is a very limited program that is focused on intercepting international communications involving al Qaeda or affiliated terrorists.
And so that's the focus, and it's narrowly tailored. It was something that was carefully looked at by those at the NSA as they move forward on putting it in place. And they've made sure that there are important safeguards in place. They made sure that it's something that's reviewed on a regular basis. But it is a vital tool in our efforts to prevent attacks and to prevail in the broader war on terrorism.
Q Is there a domestic version of the terrorist surveillance program?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the Attorney General talked about this yesterday, and I'm not going to go beyond what he said yesterday in terms of the legal issues there.
Go ahead.
Q Returning to your earlier statements about immigration -- does anybody remember those? I do. What happens in the next two weeks now while the Congress is on recess? Does the White House have meetings? Do you have any attempts to reach a compromise --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've stayed in touch with the leaders. There is a compromise that has already been reached. Many Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans came together and said, let's move forward on this comprehensive piece of legislation and get it to conference committee, and then work with the House to get something done. It's an important priority. It's a priority that many share. And many in Congress recognize the importance of addressing this in a comprehensive way.
We have a broken immigration system. We need to do -- continue to do more to secure our borders, which we are. We've taken a number of steps, but we need to do more. And part of securing our borders is also moving forward on a temporary guest worker program, because that will relieve pressure off the border and allow the border patrol and law enforcement authorities to focus on those who are criminals -- terrorists, drug dealers, drug traffickers, smugglers, human traffickers -- as they should be focusing their efforts.
Q Two more on this. Since this compromise is in trouble, will the White House offer new language? And, also, what are your feelings, your sentiments about these massive demonstrations?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, this legislation is being blocked by the Minority Leader by not allowing the voices to be heard in the debate, and a reasonable number of amendments to be considered on the floor of the Senate. There was a bipartisan agreement that was reached. We appreciate the efforts of Senator Frist, of Senator Hagel, of Senator Martinez and others who came together -- Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, others, recognized the importance of finding a good compromise to move this process forward.
The reason it is not moving forward right now, before they recess, is because the Minority Leader blocked -- using blocking tactics, and blocked those efforts. And we hope that leaders will be able to come together and move forward on a compromise bill after they get back from the recess. There is a willingness to do so. I know that they are continuing to work it. I think Senator Frist has indicated his intention to continue to work it, to get it moving and get it into conference committee. That's what we want to see.
Q Follow on that, Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, go ahead.
Q I have a two-part. Chairman Peter King of the House Homeland Security Committee has scheduled a May 18th hearing to examine whether the Department of Homeland Security guidelines on screening employees and issuing security clearances are adequate. And my first part, does the President support this examination, which was brought on by former Time Magazine editor and U.S. Department of Homeland Security press officer Brian Doyle's arrest on seven counts of using a computer to try to seduce a child?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me first address the issue you brought up, the arrest. There are very serious allegations that have been made against this individual. The allegations, in our view, are repulsive and disgusting. And if they are true, we cannot express enough outrage at what occurred. That is a matter that is now being handled through the legal process.
Q Scott, you're commenting on an ongoing legal proceeding. (Laughter.)
Q Scott, a follow up --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not. I'm not getting into specifics about it. It's despicable act that is alleged.
Q Yes. This morning's Washington Post reports that three people reported --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, wait, Les, you didn't let me finish the question, someone jumped in here.
Q Oh, sure, I'm sorry.
MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of Congressman King, they have an oversight role to play when it comes to homeland security. And I think that he's simply exercising that oversight role. And I'm sure that Homeland Security will be glad to cooperate, as they are with the investigation that is proceeding.
Q This morning's Washington Post reports that three people reported that between 1999 and 2001, that Doyle was caught viewing pornography on Time Magazine's computers, for which he faced discipline. But Time bureau colleagues circulated a letter in his defense. And what is the President's reaction to this and to the Time bureau chief's refusal to reply to calls from The Post asking for some comment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, Les, I didn't hear -- you were going on for so long, and I was finishing on my question. I missed exactly what you were saying. I don't know if I can get into responding to something that I haven't seen.
Q Well, what was his reaction -- what is the President's reaction --
MR. McCLELLAN: Reaction to?
Q Reaction to the fact that this -- Time Magazine's computers for which he faced discipline, but Time bureau colleagues circulated a letter in his defense?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know the facts here, Les, about what you're referring to. I'd have to look into it.
Now, Matt --
Q It was in The Post -- you read that paper.
MR. McCLELLAN: Now, Matt brought something up. In terms of the legal proceeding that we're talking about, at the beginning of this, that involves potential administration officials and a former administration official. There's a big difference here in what we're talking about.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Scott. On immigration, I want to ask a specific question about that compromise. In it, it would require, among other things, that illegal immigrants in this country under two years would be forced to leave the country, get in line, and apply for reentry. Does the President really believe that's a workable plan? How could it be enforced?
MR. McCLELLAN: What we're focused on is moving forward on comprehensive legislation. We want to see the Senate act on comprehensive legislation that includes more resources to better secure our borders, that strengthens interior enforcement, and that includes a temporary guest worker program. And then that would go to conference committee. The House has already passed some legislation. And we look forward to an opportunity to work out the details, and iron out those details in the conference committee. The President has outlined some very clear principles.
And so what we're supporting is compromise efforts that build as broad a support as possible to move that process forward. And then we can work with the House leaders and the Senate leaders in conference committee to get a good piece of legislation that everybody can move forward on and pass.
Q I understand the process that has to play out, but does the President look at that, or did the White House look at that and see that it's truly a --
MR. McCLELLAN: What we're supportive of is moving the process forward on compromise legislation that is based on comprehensive legislation. We're not getting into discussing all the various details within that legislation or embracing all the details within specific legislation. But we are supporting the efforts of leaders to build broad support, as broad a support as possible, and move forward on a compromised piece of legislation that is comprehensive in nature.
Go ahead.
Q Thank you, Scott. On human rights issues, it is reported the Chinese government has deported North Korean defectors by force to North Korea. It's Korea violation of human rights. What --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, that who had deported? I'm sorry.
Q Chinese government deported --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we put out -- I think you're talking about a specific individual?
Q Yes.
MR. McCLELLAN: We put out a statement on that last week expressing our deep concern about that individual and her well-being. And I don't know if I have anything to add to what we said last week at this point, in terms of updates. But that is a very serious matter to us. And it is a deep concern, if that's what you're referring to.
Roger, go ahead.
Q On gasoline prices, they are, as you know, rising, and they're rising quite a bit. Wall Street forecasters are now saying that they are going to rise to at or near record, even without Katrina. Does the President think that rising gasoline prices are going to hurt Republicans in the midterms?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President, like many Americans, is concerned about rising energy prices, including the price at the pump. That does have an effect on our economy, a harmful effect on our economy, which is growing very strong. It creates a headwind for our economy, because working families and small businesses that are trying to make ends meet are having to pay more at the pump, and the price at the pump is too high.
What it should signal to all of us here in Washington, particularly members on the Hill, is that there is an urgency to move forward on the initiatives that the President outlined in his State of the Union. As the President said, we are a nation that is addicted to oil, and we need to get off of that addiction to oil by developing new technologies and transforming the way we power our cars -- making use of ethanol, making use of hybrid batteries where, for the first 40 miles, you can run on a battery in your car and then switch over to another fuel type. And that's what the President is focused on.
We passed a -- there's not a short-term solution to the issue. That's why we acted last year and passed comprehensive energy legislation to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This is about addressing the root causes of high energy prices. We didn't get into this overnight, we're not going to get out of it overnight, but it's all the more reason why Congress should move forward and act on the Advanced Energy Initiative that the President proposed in his State of the Union.
Q But is he concerned about the voters in November because of this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President is concerned about making sure that we are reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. He's looking at it in that context. We need to continue to act.
If you want to talk about the records and what we have done, then look at what we have done. We passed a comprehensive energy bill. Again, this is not something that we got into overnight. This has been a recurring issue over the years because we are addicted to oil and because we are dependent on foreign sources of energy.
The President wants to make us more energy self-sufficient. That's why he outlined the initiatives he did in his State of the Union, because it will build upon the steps we took last August when we passed a comprehensive energy strategy and helped to address the root causes of rising energy prices. You have to go and address the root causes if you're going to fix this recurring problem. And that's what we're doing.
And that's -- as I mentioned at the top when I talked about the economy -- and I'm sure all of you are going to lead the newscast with the strong economy today and the 211,000 jobs that were created -- that's why I talked about, we need to continue to act, because Americans are concerned about rising health care costs. They are concerned about rising energy prices. And the President has a plan to address those issues. And we urge Congress to move forward on those initiatives.
Elaine, go ahead.
Q You just joked about it just now, but can I ask you about that, about how this story is drowning out what the President is trying to do, and talking about --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the economic news, I know you all are going to cover it. And it's more good news, that our economy is healthy and strong and growing. And we're going to continue to talk about the importance of building upon the pro-growth policies that we have put in place to keep our economy the most competitive in the world, and to keep America the leader when it comes to growth and job creation.
Q But does it make it more difficult to get his message out? Do you acknowledge that, at least?
MR. McCLELLAN: Does it make it more difficult to --
Q Get his economic message out?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're going to continue to focus on what we have done to get our economy growing. We've been through a lot over the last few years. But because of the tax cuts we put in place, our economy is growing very strongly. Now that's something that the President has talked about repeatedly. Our economic team is out today talking about it. So Americans are hearing about this news. But what's also important is that they hear about the initiatives that we are continuing to pursue to make sure that this economic expansion that we've been in for the last 17 quarters affects everyone in a positive way.
Q Is the President satisfied that Treasury Secretary Snow has been an advocate of that to an effective level?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President said earlier today, when he was in an interview with some financial reporters, that Secretary Snow is doing a good job, and he appreciates the job he's doing.
Paula, go ahead.
Q On veto authority. Up until today, the President has been saying that he would not veto appropriations bills as long as they kept their spending cut targets.
MR. McCLELLAN: As long as they hit the targets. You're saying that's why he hasn't used the veto?
Q He has not been --
MR. McCLELLAN: Because he talks about the pie, when the pie meets your target, he doesn't feel like he can go in there, look at the individual slices. He doesn't have that authority, one. I mean, he wants to see a line-item veto act passed, and he appreciates the bipartisan support for that so that he could go in there and look at pieces within that pie.
Q But he can look at those pieces -- he can veto any appropriations bill, and today he seemed to be just making a much broader threat --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but think about it, when he doesn't have the line-item veto authority -- think about it. When the President sets out a target, and says we're going to fund our priorities, and then we're going to hold the line on spending elsewhere, and Congress meets that target, what kind of signal does that send to members of Congress next time around? Well, oh, if he's -- if we're going to meet his target, and then he's going to go and veto it, then why should we adhere to what he has called for?
So that's the reason why he hasn't used it when it comes to spending bills. But he would like to have the line-item veto authority, so that he can look at earmarks and help Congress address that issue; so that he can line-item out wasteful spending within that overall pie.
But Congress has been acting to cut non-security discretionary spending. They acted last year, or this year, I guess, to reduce growth in mandatory spending, and that's important, as well. When we're talking about spending restraint, we need to look at the long-term problems that we face. And those come from entitlement programs. And we appreciate Congress moving forward on the Deficit Reduction Act.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
Show All Answers
Canton Township purchases its water from the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA). The GLWA operates the largest water system in the State of Michigan and supplies water to roughly four million people. The primary water sources are Lake Huron and the Detroit River.
Please visit the Water and Sewer Rates Billing page for the current rates for water/sewer usage.
In an effort to protect the health and safety of the public, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has devised three public water warning notices in the event of an emergency. Boil Water Notice - If this warning is issued, residents must bring all water to a boil for at least three minutes then let it cool before using. Boiled or bottled water should be used for drinking, making ice, brushing teeth, washing dishes, and preparing food until further notice. Do Not Drink Notice - If this warning is issued, residents should not use the water for drinking, making ice, brushing teeth, washing dishes, or preparing food until further notice. Do Not Use Water Notice - This is the most severe warning issued. If issued, residents should not use the water for any reason. Bottled water should be used for all needs until further notice and resident should not, under any circumstance, run their water. That includes filling up bathtubs, flushing toilets or watering lawns. Canton will only issue these warnings in the event of an emergency. If you are notified of a water emergency but you still lose water pressure or service, simply run your tap until the water becomes clear once the pressure has been restored. By understanding the difference between these three warning you can better protect yourself and your family. For questions regarding the public water warning notices please call Canton's Public Works Division at 734/397-1011 or the MDEQ at 800/292-4706.
The water rates set by GLWA are based on an annual forecast determined by historical data for water usage and estimated costs for water production and delivery services. GLWA uses the forecast to set a rate for each of its customers. By law, GLWA can only recover the cost of service, it cannot make a profit. If more water is sold than forecasted, the extra funds received must be used for the system and offset the need to increase wholesale water rates in the future.
The water rate formula that GLWA uses has 3 primary components:
These factors vary greatly in a service area as large as GLWA's. All customers' wholesale rates (i.e., the rate Canton pays to GLWA to buy water) are set by this formula.
In addition to the cost to purchase water from GLWA, Canton has costs to operate, maintain and replace the 380 miles of local water distribution system piping. Canton also has fixed costs to cover such as administration, water billing staff, meter reading and meter replacements.
The annual revenue requirements of the water system must be sufficient to cover both our costs and GLWA costs. The annual water rate increase needs to be passed through to the end customer, the Canton Township water and sewer user, in order that the water funds remain financially stable year-to-year.
The revenue generating capacity of GLWA is somewhat dependent upon the weather. Hot, dry weather generally results in more water sales to the suburban wholesale customers that produce extra revenue to be used by GLWA in a future year. Cool, damp weather can have the opposite effect, generally resulting in an annual revenue shortfall. In addition, there are costs involved in operating and maintaining existing system facilities and capital improvement programs necessary to meet existing and future customer demands.
Residences with footing drains tied to the sanitary sewer system pay a slightly higher fixed charge to offset the increased usage of the sanitary sewer system during rain events.
A residential water meter is read every other month (bi-monthly). This reading is obtained from outside the home by one of 2 methods: touchpad or radio read unit. The touchpad and radio read devices are able to electronically transmit a meter reading outside the building identical to that of the inside water meter.
The typical useful life cycle of a water meter is 10 to 15 years. After this time, the meter may develop problems providing accurate readings. System audits are performed to monitor possible equipment failures.
Canton has an Automated Meter Reading (AMR) Program, which allow us to read all water meters in the community via radio frequency which is more accurate and more efficient.
Often when Canton residents receive their bills, they wonder why it is so high. Residents are billed bi-monthly for water and sewer usage. One thing to keep in mind is that the bill reflects usage for the previous 2 months. In other words, a bill received in the fall may have summer usage on it. By this time we find that many residents forget how frequently they may have watered over the summer, and are shocked at their bill. Reading dates are reflected on water bills.
Irrigation systems are the biggest source of high water bills. An average sprinkler head can use 2 gallons per minute. If your system has 20 heads, and runs for 20 minutes each day, the result would be 24,000 gallons in a month or 48,000 gallons in a bi-monthly bill. One thing that you can do to monitor your watering is to take a reading at the start of a water cycle and again at the end. By performing this check, you will know exactly how much water is being used by your system. Based on this information, you can adjust your watering accordingly.
For information on ways you can conserve water and reduce your costs, please contact one of our Engineering staff in the DPW at 734/394-5150.
The fixed charges vary based on the size of water meter in your home or business. For most residential customers, the fixed charge (based on a 1-inch meter or less) is $8.24 per bi-monthly billing.
The fixed charges vary based on the size of water meter in your home or business. The fixed charge for residential customers (based on a one-inch meter or less) is $6.04 per bi-monthly billing, if you have a separate sump pump system. For customers who do not have a separate sump pump system, a fixed charge of $14.90 will be assessed bi-monthly. This additional charge reflects the rainwater that enters the sanitary sewer system from the footing drain system that requires treatment at the wastewater treatment plants. If you are unsure whether you have a separate sump pump system or not, please contact the Water Billing staff in the Treasurer's Office at 734/394-5240 and schedule an appointment to have an inspection by the DPW staff.
Water and sewer bills are mailed bi-monthly. You will receive 6 per year for all Residential, Businesses, apartments and condominium complexes.
Canton Township offers many options for paying your water and sewer bill. Payments can be made by cash, check, Mastercard, Visa and or Discover (additional fees apply) at the Treasurer's Office located on the 1st floor of the Administration Building at 1150 S Canton Center Road. Office hours are 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. For your convenience, a 24-hour drop-box is located at the southeast corner of the Administration Building. Payments can also be mailed for processing. Electronic payments can be made through your checking or savings account, credit card or debit card at the Canton Township website. Canton also offers "Interactive Voice Response (IVR)" by phoning in at 1-855-789-2307.
A service fee of $4.50 will be applied to all card payments. The maximum payment allowed, per transaction, with a card is $500. If you wish to pay more than this amount, you may make multiple payments or make the entire payment via electronic check (ACH/ETF). There is NO service fee for electronic check payments.
No, the township ordinance does not allow a second meter for outdoor water use. Sewer charges are based on 100% of the water consumption, and this is how Canton Township is charged for sewage treatment in the GLWA system.
If a community chooses to remove the sewage charge component from an irrigation (outside water) meter, the cost must be made up by increasing the rate charged for domestic (internal) water use. This would result in increasing the cost to modest users while decreasing the unit cost to users that use more (irrigation) water. Theoretically, if every customer had dual meters and all the irrigation meters were not charged the sewage component, then the cost of water for every user would increase.
The following list illustrates how much water is wasted from a continuous leak over a 2 month period.
A toilet running continuously amounts to the following amount of wasted water:
Canton wanted to make paying bills easier with an improved ability to display, safely process, and store financial information. In addition to ease of use, Invoice Cloud's security is among the strongest available. All data collected is double encrypted and stored in secure servers. The data is not sold or released for any purpose other than to complete transactions.
Invoice cloud is a web-based, electronic billing and payment services. By automating these services, customers can click and pay online while helping the environment by reducing the need for paper.
Paying online with a credit/debit card or electronic checks gives you the flexibility to pay how and when you want. It saves you the trouble from writing and mailing a check or driving by our office. In addition, for a faster payment experience, you may choose to store your information for future use.
NO, registration is not required for "One Time Payments." However, registering will allow you to view prior history, set-up automatic payments and store payment information for future bills.
You can pay with credit or debit card or you may issue an electronic check from your back account (checking or savings).
Yes, an email must be entered so payment confirmation may be delivered to your inbox.
Under "How would you like to pay" click on the drop-down box and choose EFT Check.
If your bill is not showing, please double check that the correct information was entered in the search criteria.
No. Your paperless bill status has been migrated over to Invoice Cloud. You will start receiving notifications from them when you have a new water bill invoice.
Yes. You will not have to re-enter any banking information. All payment information, credit card /debit card/ bank account information, will be stored in Invoice Cloud where you will be able to manage it.
You, Invoice Cloud, and authorized Water Billing staff will have access to your Invoice Cloud account. However, financial information you enter into Invoice Cloud, such as bank accounts, credit, or debit card numbers are partially hidden for your security.
AutoPay will process automatically on your bill's due date.
AutoPay is an automated process which pays the balance owing on your account in full, in one payment, on the due date. A scheduled payment is entered by you. This can be one or more payments spread across the billing cycle, on the date(s) of your choosing.
Directions on how to sign up can be found HERE.
Yes, you will receive a confirmation email.
Select "Forgot your Password?" at the bottom of the Sign In screen. Enter your email address to retrieve your password.
After you submit your payment, you will see a payment confirmation screen. It will contain your payment a confirmation message and show an approved number for credit cards or a processed number for electronic check. You will also receive a confirmation email after your transaction is submitted. The email will include your account number, invoice number, amount paid and confirmation message. If your electronic check does not pass through the bank, you will receive an email informing you of the rejected payment.
Credit card transactions are authorized immediately and typically take 48 hours to settle. ACH transactions typically take 48-72 hours to settle.
Yes, each invoice is presented in PDF and HTML format.
Invoice Cloud uses the highest standards in internet security. Account information displayed within the payment portal is truncated to protect confidential data. Any information retained is not shared with third parties.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Tag Archives: Brantford
It's happened more than I'd like to admit. I'm scrolling through my Facebook feed when suddenly I find myself making a mental list of the improvements I'd need to make to my home in order to sell it quickly and purchase one of the new listings Adam DeGroote has posted to his real estate page. I'm not even looking to buy but the beautiful photos and creative headlines always seem to draw me in. The Brantford and Brand County Real Estate agent has been using social media for years to help showcase his listings and grow his business. "That's where people's eyes are," he told me when I asked him why he uses social media in his marketing campaigns. "Social media helps me to reach a broader audience. The younger generation is on social and if I can put my client's properties on there, it helps to get the word out — you have to go where people are paying attention and everyone is glued to social media now a days."


text:
New features and options on the product portfolio
Riello UPS enriches Multi Power offer adding new features and options on the product portfolio. Multi Powerbecomes more and more suitable to satisfy any specific need in the challenging data centre environment. Particularly Multipower global offer includes now:
- Power Module 25 kW and associate Cabinet PWC 130 (5x PM25)
PM25 comes with its dedicated power cabinet (named PWC 130) conceived to accommodate up to 5x PM 25 (125 kW). Up to four complete Power Cabinets can be connected in parallel, increasing the capacity and redundancy from 125 kW up to 500 kW. Key components as well as user interface (display and communication ports) are exactly the same used and available for existing solutions based on PM 42 and associated Power/Combo cabinets.
- Energy Saving
"Energy Saving" is now implemented as selectable system operating mode for any MPW solution (Power or Combo Cabinet with PM25 or PM42). The UPS provides the highest level of power protection keeping the system in ON-LINE operation (Inverter supplying the load) and granting the redundancy level set. Accordingly with the load level, the control will automatically activate the required number of PM's to supply the load, ensuring the highest level of efficiency.


text:
Contents [hide] |
Totems are the class-defining feature of Shamans. No other class can provide the number and variety of buffs to a party that a shaman can. That, of course, is the upside to totems. The downside is that they're stationary and they have very little health both of which make using them in PvP somewhat problematic. In PvE, however, these shortcomings can be easily managed and can bring a great deal of utility to groups and raids.
Shaman totems are tied to the four elemente: Earth, Fire, Water and Wind. In order to use the totems associated with a specific element, the shaman must have the associated totem in their bags. (for a breakdown of available totems by element, please see the Shaman_Abilities page). Shamans unlock an element's abilities and receive the totems via quests that are obrained from the shaman trainers at set levels:
Level 4 - Earth Totem Quest (Alliance/Horde)
Level 10 - Fire Totem Quest (Alliance/Horde)
Level 20 - Water Totem Quest (Alliance/Horde)
Level 30 - Wind Totem Quest (Alliance/Horde)
A note about Totemic Call: This spell returns the 25% mana cost regardless of if there's 2 seconds remaining on the totem or 75 seconds. The best time to use this is just before the totem(s) are going to self-destruct. In fact, it's often better to use Totemic Call instead of simply letting the totems expire just for the mana return. It's not a lot, but what it means is that the next drop of totems costs 25% less.
Using totems when soloing can make a big difference to survivability as well as add significant DPS. However, depending on what the Shaman is doing, it's not always necessary. This is something that's commonly unclear to newer shamans: it's not necessary or required to use totems all of the time for every fight, particularly prior to level 30 when Totemic Call has not been learned. If the shaman is highly mobile, running through an area, totems can actually be a waste of mana with very little return.
Most totems use between 5 and 8% of the shaman's total mana. Putting down 2-3 of them can thus consume between 15 and 24% of total mana for a little damage reduction/Mana or Health return if they're only used for a single mob. The best thing to do is to set up what's commonly referred to as "totem camps". Since many of the buffing totems last 2 minutes, the way to get the most use out of that two minutes is to place the totems in a strategic area that mobs can be pulled to. What totems are placed is entirely up to the Shaman and the situation. If the mobs are doing heavy melee damage then Stoneskin and Healing Spring totem may be good choices. However, if the shaman is going for more DPS than survivability then Strength of Earth and Mana Spring may be better options. These are by far not the only two options, any combination of available totems can be used to fit the player's specifc scenario.
A note about the Searing Totem: This totem should be used with caution. It's relatively cheap and can add some nice DPS to battles. However it reacts like a very stupid warlock imp. Meaning this totem is always aggressive and will attack any enemy that wanders into or is positioned within its radius - whether the Shaman would draw aggro from that mob or not. Sometimes this is desirable, a shaman can stay within the center of the totem camp and pick up the mobs that the searing totem has pulled right after a mob has been killed (but make sure to pick it up before the mob hits the totem as it only has 5 health). However this can be a drawback if the fight that just ended left the Shaman with depleted health and/or mana and isn't ready for another battle. Post level 30, a quick click on Totemic Call can pretty much eliminate this danger but prior to that, it can be a problem.
Shamans can bring a huge amount of utility to groups though it should be noted that many groups themselves don't know how to take advantage of them. They'll drag mobs out of the radius of the totems causing the shaman to have to reposition them or they'll not bother to pull the next batch back within range. It's possibly to try to talk to the group about this, but it's more likely that they'll still continue doing what they were doing so it's up to the Shaman to make sure that the correct players are in range of the correct totems, which means a lot of repositioning of totems during group play.
It's important to stay on top of this repositioning. While shamans can do some great DPS and even cover some off-healing role, the totems and their buffs are what brings the most utility to the group. Remember, too, that the untalented range of totems is only 20 yards while most ranged/caster DPS classes and healing classes have a 30 or more yard range to their spells and abilities. This means that it's possible, if all totems are dropped together, that the ranged or melee may be out of range of the totems if they're not placed carefully.
How this is accomplished is up to the shaman. All totems can be placed midway between the ranged and melee party members to ensure that all players get the effects. But beware that there is one totem that should never be placed anywhere near the tank (and this Melee DPS): the Tranquil Air Totem. Placing this totem so that the tank receives its effects is just the same as not placing the totem at all. It needs to be far away from the tank to ensure that only the DPS receives the threat reduction.
This page needs more information! If you'd like to contribute, please edit this page (free ZAM account required)! |


text: Hi Tim, Tim Cutts wrote: > >> trivial with pdsh >> >> pdsh apt-get install package > Well with dsh it's the same, but "our" way ensures that the nodes will have the exactly same set-up after a reinstallation ;) > DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive \ > /usr/bin/aptitude -R -y \ > -o Dpkg::Options::="--force-confdef" \ > -o Dpkg::Options::="--force-confold" \ > install "$@" > > This forces aptitude not to ask you what to do with the configuration > files, if they've been locally modified, but also forces it to be > conservative, always use your existing configuration file, if it's > already present. Otherwise it configures the package defaults. Combine > this little script with cfengine, dsh or whatever, and you have a winner. > Brutally you could also use "yes yes" ;) > You can even use it to remove things, because aptitude install accepts > suffixes to tell it to do other things. For example, say you wanted to > replaced lprng with cups, you can do that in one fell swoop with: > > aptitude install lprng- cupsys > > (this is another reason I switched from apt-get to aptitude, although > I'd caution against using aptitude like this in sarge - the version in > etch and later is fine, but the old sarge one can bite occasionally) yes, that's also my reason why I prefer aptitude over apt For completeness: http://www.informatik.uni-koeln.de/fai/ Cheers Carsten


text:
Home Page Chess Life Online 2007 August Googling the Grandmasters
Googling the Grandmasters |
By Dr.Dowd | |
August 17, 2007 | |
One of the great things about problem solving as a hobby is that so much free information is available these days on problem chess. We have to thank the Internet (and Al Gore??) for that. Although information on chess problems was always fairly free, since there is no copyright on a problem, but now with magazines and books posted every day to the web, you could literally learn chess problems from your PC. You can visit the Chess Problem Database server, which I have mentioned here many times; I've even typed in the name or two of a favorite composer and found all kinds of "buried information" -- like a really nice Christmas problem the German GM Baldur Kozdon did for a small German club, as just one example. The ICCF affiliate Belgische Schaakbord has had their magazine online Echquier Belge- as a pdf for years ("postal" magazines have long sponsored problem columns). It is one of my favorite places to submit my directmates as the director of the problem section there, Ignaas Vandemeulebrocke, helped me through my very first published chess problem. It wasn't something he had to do, but he did and I am forever grateful for that. This column is a sampling of the some of the problems that have appeared in this excellent magazine, and Ignaas has always been able to get some of the best composers to contribute to his magazine. So sit back, and enjoy this month's selection. Thirty eight ladder points are possible. E-mail solutions to [email protected] by September 14. 001 Herbert Ahues EB 3/2207 White to play and mate in 2 The first of our two "reversed castled" positions, this one by the German grandmaster Ahues is a nice start. Anyone wanting to learn how to make "twoers" would do well with a study of Ahues, who has been composing good ones for more years than most of us have lived. 002 Stanislav Gebura EB 12/2006 White to play and mate in 3 Gebura is a chessplayer as well as composer, and this often shows in his works. I've often admired problems that have an OTB feel if not position, if that makes sense. He has a style that I have imitated in some of my own directmate compositions, although I've never felt I've done better than this one, a pleasing work. 003 Henk LeGrand 1st prize Kurt Smulders 80 EB 12/2000 White to play and mate in 3 I like the optical position this presents; white's "castled queenside" --just on the wrong side of the board! What did the judge like about this? I hope to present it here without giving up too much of the solution. Francesco Simoni (a respected judge and composer from Italy) noted: Pseudo LeGrand -- where the threat in one phase becomes mate in the other and vice-versa, through different black defenses (what else would one expect from one of the LeGrand brothers?). There are two expected plans that fail due to double black coverage. I had to give up my usual dislike of any kind of dual (I am much too compulsive about that) to like this one's solution, but when I did, I could appreciate those composers who compose strictly thematically -- being an old chessplayer by nature I prefer effects to themes, but that is a story for another day. 004 Evgeny Bogdanov 2nd Prize Kurt Smulders 80 EB 12/2000 White to play and mate in 3 Evgeny is one of my favorite composers. He holds the IM title, wrote an excellent book on miniatures, and his magazine, Chess Leopolis, always has problems I enjoy -- and it is also available as a pdf online! Here he shows a Rukhlis theme in a very nice way. What I enjoy about Evgeny's problems is their construction - you will never see an unneeded piece in any one of them. Now those of you who take this as a challenge -- I will tell you that you can remove at least enough pieces to almost have a miniature (that would be a total of 8!) and retain the solution but lose set and try play. Anyone who wants to comment on this, feel free - it's an interesting experiment in "problem dissection." Just as OTB GMs might bemoan that their best work is "in the notes" and hidden from the public, problemists often note that those who solve by "brute force" are missing out of some of the best parts of a problem. 005 Manolis Stratikis EB 04/2005 White to play and mate in 3 Manolis had one of the first problem pages on the net, although I have not seen much activity from him lately. This problem was taken from his problem pages, and in the spirit of true borrowing (what artist doesn't like to see his work republished - so long as his name is attached to it?), this one, much like a Giegold problem, is just good fun. Another in my line of "if you don't like this one, you just don't like chess!" 006 Leonid Makaronez EB 12/2005 White to play and mate in 5 Diagram and then WPd3=BP This problem combines two problems in one! The first, a Rex Solus (lone king) shows echoed mates in a zugzwang type problem; the second is pure zugzwang! 007 Albert D. Wispelaere EB 12/2005 White to play and mate in 6 Our next-to-last problem, from a Belgian whose problems I have often admired, is a nice "hunt down the king" type. Experienced solvers will immediately recognize this as a "which way" problem - at least, that is what I call them and will be all the hints you will get! I suppose perhaps one more hint -- I enjoy again the "geometry" of such problems, both the beginning and ending positions. 008 Baldur Kozdon EB 6/2006 White to play and mate in 8 GM Baldur Kozdon is a real favorite of mine. Sometimes criticized for working a position too often, it often is a matter of finding the nuances of a small change in a position that makes his problems interesting. That this problem is about promotion is obvious; after the short decision of which piece to promote to, we see an interesting logical battle between the already standing black rook and white bishop. Like a great classic car, sometimes you stand back and enjoy the worksmanship that went into it, not necessarily the power or speed it is capable of. Solutions to Summer Minis In keeping with showing solutions, but also occasionally featuring one solver's thought process, I offer Tom Langland's thought processes, which I found instructive: 001 - (Lincoln) 1. Qf2 White can try to put black in zugzwang with either 1. Qe4 or 1. Qd2, where anywhere the e1N moves, white plays 2. Nf2 mate, but black play 1. ... Rf1! White has to cover g2 and f1, so the key is clear. As in the next one, solvers found the key easy to find, but also impressive -- but that is Bob Lincoln for you! 002 -( Lincoln) 1. Ng5 The key here is kinda obvious (note: most readers found this and made the same observation- neat but obvious!)but the various defenses is attractive: 1. ... Nh4 2. Qa8 mate 1. ... Bh4 2. Qa1 mate I agree - Bob's ability to squeeze so much into simple positions makes me wonder: "Why can't I do that?" 003 - (Lincoln) 1. Qa6 With the key, white put black in a terrible zugzwang again. If the a5N moves then 2. Qc6 mate, or if it takes the b7R then 2. Qxb7 mate. Any move by the a7B along the a7-g1 diagonal allows 2. Qa8 mate and on 1. ... Bb8 then 2. Rbc7 mates. I will also note that you have to appreciate the various tries and attempts here, especially 1. Qb5, which is one of those "almost as strong moves," only refuted by the simple block 1. .. Ba7. 004 - (Braithwaite) 1. Qa3 After the key, black must move the K or promote the a2P. On 1. ... Ka1 white checks with 2. Rc1+ then any capture/promotion on c1 is answered by 3. Qxc1 mate. If black promotes to interpose on b1, then that piece is pinned and 3. Qc3 is mate. The most elegant part of this problem is depending on the various promotions on a1, white has to choose a different response as follows: 1. ... a1=B 2. Qd3+ Ka2 3. Ra8 mate 1. ... a1=N 2. Ra8 N any 3. Qa2 mate 1. ... a1=R (or Q) 2. Qb3 R/Q any 3. Rc1 mate 005 - (Gize) 1. Bf5 The key threatens the immediate 2. Bd3 mate. Black must promote one of the pawns to attempt to stop the mate. 1. ... a1=N+ 2. Ka4! because the a-file is free and now that the white King is covering the b5 square, nothing can stop 3. Bc8 mate. 1. ... c1=N+ 2. Kc4! like the above line, the c-file now free for us. 1. ... c1=R/Q can only interpose on c4 after 2. Bd3+ R/Qc4+ 3. Bxc4 mate 1. ... e1=N now the b-file (actually the b4 square) is safe from e1 diagonal promotions, so we again can look forward to 3. Bc8 mate. 006 - (Kozhakin) 1. Kf2 One main mate I see is to get the a4R to b3 and the d7B to e6. Correct, Tom! Black is mated on a1, a2, or c4 by Bd4# or Be6#. In all cases, white finds a way to force black into a mating net, whether the king moves or the e5 pawn advances. 007 - Degenkolbe 1. Bf7 White can not let the Black King escape out on b3. So, after the key, Black has to take on d1 with 1. ... Kxd1 and 2. Ke3 boxes black in. Then follows 2. ... Kc2 and 3. Ba2 (keeping the threat of 4. Bb3 and not letting the black King out via b1). The Black King must return to d1 with 3. ... Kd1 and 4. Bb3 mates. Correct! An attractive forced switchback of the black king. 008 - (Limbach) 1. Kb4 The f4B, g4N and b5P create a nice "northern" barrier that keeps the black King from venturing too far. The key cuts off the c5 square, when black plays 1. ... Kd4 next. Then 2. Be2 keeps black out of the d3 square, and black has to play 2. ... Kd5. Now 3. Bc4+ demonstrates why the d1B had to go to e2 rather than c2. With the bishop on c4, it covers both d5 and d3, so that after 3. ... Kd4 and 4. Kb3, black has to go 4. ... c5. This brings in the last piece on the board (the b6P) which allows 5. Ne6 mate. Of all Tom's comments, I find this one most valuable. A solver to one of my problem noted once that the moves themselves weren't hard to see but "counting" them -- that is, finding the right sequence -- was hard. There is wisdom in such comments. One solver expressed frustration with my "solve it from the diagram" comment - and I understand! I've often seen problems described that way in magazines that I couldn-t solve at all - what is easy to one is not easy to everyone always 009 - Degenkolbe Tom admits to not getting past this one! I appreciate such honesty, it shows "real solving," and thus offer Barry Keith, another active solver's solution: 1. Sc2 Kxb5 2. Rc8 Ka4 3. Rxc3 Kb5 4. Kc7 Ka4 5. Kc6 Ka5 6. Ra3# And I will note that black is mated on either a5 or a7: 4...Ka6 5.Rc5 Ka7 6.Ra5#. A small story to end: My friend Mirko grumbled at getting "the last honor" as a prize for this one, but my attitude was different: the judge was the aforementioned Bogdanov, a miniature expert, and anything he considers worthy and new would strike me as deserving - after all, he has probably seen more "minis" than any of us! But all artists are protective of their work, as they should be! |


text:
Actors usually receive the most recognition for a film or TV show, but there is always a dedicated team of writers working behind the scenes creating the stories and characters on-screen.
FOX's New Girl was no different according to actors Zooey Deschanel, Hannah Simone, and Lamorne Morris, stars of the 2011 comedy. The trio sat down with writer Luvh Rakhe on their podcast Welcome to Our Show to talk about his time working on the program.
"I think the pilot episode is one of the greatest comedy pilots of the last 20-years for sure," said Rakhe. "It's electrifying still."
Rakhe dug into some of the ideas he had on the show and how he helped turn them into some of the show's most iconic moments. Remember the towel incident from season one? Rakhe helped bring that moment to life and fought to keep it from getting cut out of the show.
"I noticed when you left the show our ratings kept dropping," Morris said.
"When you came back, we welcomed you with open arms," said Deschanel. "We needed more Luvh."
Rakeh is credited with writing 13 episodes of New Girl and producing over 100. During the show's eight season run he would occasionally step in to write and produce for another acclaimed comedy, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. He has also left his comedic mark on A.P. Bio, The Cool Kids, and is currently writing and producing Hulu's Dave.
To listen to the full conversation and find out which New Girl episode was Rakeh's favorite to write, check out "A Conversation with Luvh Rakhe" on the Welcome to Our Show podcast. New episodes are released weekly on the iHeart Radio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
If you want to be sure you're listening to the podcasts everyone else is checking out, iHeartRadio has you covered.
Every Monday, iHeartRadio releases a chart showing the most popular podcasts of the week. Stay up to date on what's trending by checking out the chart here. There's even a chart just for radio podcasts featuring all your favorite iHeartRadio personalities like Bobby Bones, Elvis Duran, Steve Harvey, and dozens of others.


text:
So if you have yet to sew with Minky, here are some helpful tips I read before hand.
Can you tell what I did wrong in this quilt pattern? I didn't notice. Until I was ALL done! Of course, that's always how it is. Luckily its still really really soft and that's what matters, right? (I switched the first and fourth blocks on the last row, just in case you didn't notice either :)
click on the picture for the link


text:
Mỹ thường phê phán nhiều nước trên thế giới về chuyện thiếu "tự do". Mỗi khái niệm đều là tương đối và "tự do" cũng không ngoại lệ! Sau đây là vài con số về nhà tù ở Mỹ:
Theo con số của cục điều tra dân số Mỹ http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html ,dân số Mỹ hiện nay là khoảng 303 triệu, và dân số thế giới là 6 tỉ 632 triệu, nghĩa là dân số Mỹ bằng khoảng 1/22 dân số thế giới.
Theo báo cáo mới đây, số lượng tù nhân ở Mỹ là 2,2 triệu người, gần bằng 1/4 tổng số tù nhân trên thế giới.
Báo cáo này có nhắc tới trường hợp một phụ nữ ở Florida bị án tù hai năm vì quăng một ly cà-phê.
Số lượng tù liên bang của Mỹ là 1,5 triệu. Năm 1970, con số này là 196.429. Tù cấp tiểu bang là 750.000.
Ước lượng sẽ tăng thêm 192.000 trong 5 năm tới hay trung bình 38.400 mỗi năm. Cần thêm 27.5 tỉ để xây thêm và vận hành những nhà tù mới.
Với mức độ hiện nay, 1/3 người da đen, 1/6 người La-tin, 1/17 người da trắng nam sẽ ở tù qua trong đời họ. Số lượng nữ tù nhân hiện nay đang tăng nhanh nhất trong tất cả các nhóm tù nhân.
U.S. prison system a costly and harmful failure: report
By Randall Mikkelsen Mon Nov 19, 6:07 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of people in U.S. prisons has risen eight-fold since 1970, with little impact on crime but at great cost to taxpayers and society, researchers said in a report calling for a major justice-system overhaul.
The report on Monday cites examples ranging from former vice-presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to a Florida woman's two-year sentence for throwing a cup of coffee to make its case for reducing the U.S. prison population of 2.2 million -- nearly one-fourth of the world's total.
It recommends shorter sentences and parole terms, alternative punishments, more help for released inmates and decriminalizing recreational drugs. It said the steps would cut the prison population in half, save $20 billion a year and ease social inequality without endangering the public.
But the recommendations run counter to decades of broad U.S. public and political support for getting tough on criminals through longer, harsher prison terms and to the Bush administration's anti-drug and strict-sentencing policies.
"President (George W.) Bush was right," in commuting Libby's perjury sentence this year as excessive, the report said. But he should also have commuted the sentences of hundreds of thousands of other Americans, it said.
"Our contemporary laws and justice system practices exacerbate the crime problem, unnecessarily damage the lives of millions of people (and) waste tens of billions of dollars each year," it said.
The report was produced by the JFA Institute, a Washington criminal-justice research group, and its authors included eight criminologists from major U.S. public universities. It was funded by the Rosenbaum Foundation and by financier and political activist George Soros' Open Society Institute.
The Justice Department dismissed the recommendations and cited findings that about 25 percent of the violent-crime drop in the 1990s can be attributed to increases in imprisonment.
"The United States is experiencing a 30-year low in crime, in large part due to the tough enforcement actions we've taken in the last decade," department spokesman Peter Carr said.
But there are signs of shifting attitudes on sentencing policies. Some financially strapped states are shortening sentences and Congress is moving to pass increased help for released prisoners, said Executive Director Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project, which has advocated alternatives to long sentences.
"Compared to where we were in the mid-(19)90s, it's been a very significant change," Mauer said.
More than 1.5 million people are now in U.S. state and federal prisons, up from 196,429 in 1970, the report said. Another 750,000 people are in local jails. The U.S. incarceration rate is the world's highest, followed by Russia, according to 2006 figures compiled by Kings College in London.
Although the U.S. crime rate began declining in the 1990s it is still about the same as in 1973, the JFA report said. But the prison population has soared because sentences have gotten longer and people who violate parole or probation, even with minor lapses, are more likely to be imprisoned.
"The system is almost feeding on itself now. It takes years and years and years to get out of this system and we do not see any positive impact on the crime rates," JFA President James Austin, a co-author of the report, told a news conference.
The report said the prison population is projected to grow by another 192,000 in five years, at a cost of $27.5 billion to build and operate additional prisons.
At current rates, one-third of all black males, one-sixth of Latino males, and one in 17 white males will go to prison during their lives. Women represent the fastest-growing segment of the prison population, the report said.
"The massive incarceration of young males from mostly poor- and working-class neighborhoods, and the taking of women from their families and jobs, has crippled their potential for forming healthy families and achieving economic gains," it said.
(Editing by David Alexander and Cynthia Osterman)