the failure of the postal service would be devastating to our economy. i see that you are nodding in agreement. it would pose a threat to the jobs of millions of americans. today you've heard the postmaster general describes a crisis. he says the postal service is on the brink of default. a year from now we will not be able to meet its payroll and carry out its operations yet this morning or this afternoon you come to us and tell us that the administration does not yet have a plan. you've proposed several of the reforms, the fundamental reforms that postmasters general has put forth as far as the separate retirement system and changing to the contribution system. you asked for word you say you want more time to study it, you asked for a 90 day delay in the 5.5 billion. you haven't mentioned your procession on the noeth layoff provisions that are in the union contracts other than to take a position in opposition to the repayment of the $55 billion of the csrl s system that our actuary has described. i just don't understand why the administration doesn't have a concrete plan to put before us today he given the dire straits that we are in the senator harper and all i have pulled out there for many months they are not perfect and they've been overtaken by the rapidly deteriorated in crisis that we face. why doesn't the administration have a plan before us today? >> there will be a plan as i testified that the white house will have that submitted with the deficit reduction package within the next few weeks, and the president will meet his promise to give that to the congress. i also just want to correct what the administration hasn't taken a position of the postal service proposal on the retirement system's so i'm not here in opposition to those. >> you're not supporting it either. >> all i did was to explain it will require further study but there is no formal administration position of opposition, so i want to be clear on that point. the other is something we are supporting and it's in the president's budget and is reflected in a number of the pieces of legislation is the overpayment, the surplus in the retirement of what we estimate to be the $6.9 billion the administration does support returning that the postal service. it would require legislation to do that, but we are supportive of that relief and i think that will go along way in terms of helping some of the challenge that i know you all are wrestling with the we want to help. >> but mr. berry, the 6.9 billion pales in comparison to the 55 billion that mr. levy described, and you said that you don't have the authority. i've gone back and forth on this. i wrote the provision of the 2006 act that gives the authority and section 802 c2 and it says the postal regulatory commission can hire an actuary that's what they did to take a look at it and it gives you complete authority to then change the formula. so, i just don't understand why the administration continues to say that it doesn't have the authorities. >> i am not an attorney, and i have to defer to my general counsel, my inspector general and board of actuaries in their reading of bill walsh and i know there is no disagreement in this what with respect, they advise me. i do not have the authority to determine fair and equitable as he testified. that authority rests with you and you alone, with the congress. i'm not here testifying against the report in fact we find a lot of value in the report and it might be a good basis for the committee, for the postal service and for us to have our act worries and staff work with you to determine what is fair and equitable, but the congress needs to said that in the law and that's where i'm stuck. >> mr. postmaster general, my time is expiring rapidly. but you did not mention the need for her reform and the workers' compensation program. this is an enormous expense that's supposed be a safety net for workers were temporarily out of work and yet the postal service as is pointed out is something like 2,000 individuals over age 70 who are receiving worker's comp. mr. postmaster general, those people are not coming back to work. >> i think it is in my written testimony, will double check that we need reform with workers' compensation. the proposals you put forth makes a tremendous amount of sense to us and we would like to have that included in the comprehensive legislation going forward. specs before. >> thanks for the information and according to the normal custom of calling on membersñóó right before the gavel in order of seniority and after the gavel in order of appearance if theyó are here we will call on the?ó senator's a cocotte, orrin,óó clyburn, brown, mccaskill.óóó senator akaka is not here,óóó senator moran is not here so weó will go to senator begichóó petraeus genex before mr. chairman. let me if ióóóó can follow-i can and regards to mr berry to follow-up on that i understand the 6.9 billion, you don't question that. you want to give it to the post office sooner rather than later. we all agree on that. the 50 billion give or take, do you agree on that number? i am to stand you've got the process convoluted between the sides so do you agree on the number? >> it would take -- we would need to get the actuaries on all of the parties in a room together. >> but you said you had asked where eagles do the work. >> i appreciate your message that we are following the law because that is what has driven our interpretation is applying the standard of the law. the law has us do this on an annual basis and not look forward in terms of the issues that you heard mr. levy discuss on a fair and equitable. >> the work that your editorials did, did they indicate any overage payment, any payment above 1 million, million, 40 billion, 50 billion, any number? >> we would agree there are many ways to accomplish the goal of a fair and equitable -- >> that's not the question i asked you. can you provide the study that your editorials did in regards to this issue? >> absolutely. can you provide also i know we got a letter from you about your legal interpretation kind of from the council to you to then us but i would like the legal analysis that was given to you. >> absolutely. >> we will get the act were real documentation which will show how they did their analysis on this question of the money, not the process on do they believe or not. we are clear on that? >> yes. >> if i could because i don't -- i am not trying to avoid your question is when you look into the future yet to make certain assumptions on inflation rates and mentality rates and on the difference between genders and all these other things that need to be accounted by actuarial and that's where in other words -- >> by understand that part as a former mayor i have to revamp several retirement programs, the whole system defined for all of it so i want to make sure understand you have a basis of assumptions and i will differ from his assumptions and everybody's assumptions. i want to see if there is a number and how you got there. we can argue over the inflation rates and return on investment and all that stuff. >> knowing of the importance of this and both with senator collins and the chairman and the whole committee and appreciating the criticality of this issue i can pledge to you our actuaries stand ready to be here to help inform your judgment on what is fair and equitable. >> in all of my years dealing with this issue from a small perspective still in the hundreds of millions of dollars it took many years to resolve these issues between the unions and the individuals as well as the retirees because there's no group representing them and the list goes on and on and so i'm very familiar with how this works i just want to see your assumptions. were you about to say something in regards to this also? >> the 50 to 55 billion relates entirely to past payments. it has no actuarial assumptions. it's the 68 billion for the future that as actuarial assumptions involved. >> the 6.9, no one disagrees with that. you're going to pay at some point if we give authorization? what i'm interested in is the 50 billion. the 50 billion number in 03 you determine of past behavior. >> i wasn't here. islamic there was a determination by the congress that there was an overpayment 73 billion if you direct us to pay and we pay it back. in 06 you did the same with military service credit, 28 billion-dollar credit and was a determination of the congress that would be fair and equitable to have that paid by the treasury, not the postal service. it is reasonable congress might decide in this circumstance that a fair and equitable solution would require a new determination of that number and if it determines we will quickly implement a. >> in regard to eliminating saturday service as you know we are concerned about this in a variety of reasons the world component but also as a small-business person but it will impact a small-business owner who really depends on as much as possible they are not corporate, they don't have male runners to a package of their stuff and should it over to the post office the owner has to do it and they have to go do it and the small business been on the delivery as well as making sure they get their mail coming in for the supplies. how do you respond to that? >> that small business owner, i'm talking small, 1500 employees >> as we have looked at what will be the best day if any to eliminate the delivery saturday is it generally the volume is about ten to 15% lower on saturday and the rest of the week we will keep post offices open on saturday so people will have access to our 30,000 plus post offices. >> shipping packages and so forth. >> and we would be able to provide that service. now we will not be running what we call outgoing mail that might set a would go out on monday but they would have the access to the services. >> i have questions i will submit for the record and go from there. >> thank you, senator begich. previously as somebody mentioned the 3 billion-dollar figures of savings annually for eliminating the saturday delivery is that your number also? >> that is our number, yes. >> next, senator pryor. >> let me start with the federal employee health benefit program i am curious about the numbers that you think you can save a else tell the committee once again about how much you think can save. >> we've been frustrated to resolve this retiree health benefit payment going forward and truthfully like i said in my opening statement any other company would have been bankrupt so what we've come is gone back and taken a different look and what we did is we sat down and thought rather than arguing about whether or not we can get the money back from them we will present a different approach and that approach was how he eliminates the need for the prepayment by changing the cost and the health benefit program savitt lagat with any other company would do and this is the way that it breaks down. number one we think with 1 million people in that plan we can pull the costs down. our experts told us between eight to 10%. i will write a check this year for $7.2 billion for health care without refunding money and it's almost 13 billion. so you pull the cost down eight to 10%. second thing is medicare. we are one of the largest contributors to medicare in this country we do not require people to use medicare and we have about an 80% usage for medicare and about 75% for bea. we knew that the current retirees in the future retirees using medicare will pull those numbers down jerry to the tune of around $20 billion over the course of time. the third part of the proposal is changing the way that we provide health benefits to the current retiree is what we would do is not take anything away from the current retiree is what we would freeze them at a certain level and increase, we would increase the money going to them to pay the retiree health benefits based on the cost for the plan so we would have very good control. the fourth thing would be for people like me. capped payments going forward so when i retire i will not have the same percentage that you see the federal government, 72%. it might be 60, 55, the way we work through this we've been able to completely eliminate the need for the refunding. it's about $46 billion at the same time, the overall cost. >> has understand your proposal, you would actually lead? >> that's our proposal. >> you know what impact that would have on the rest? >> i would have to believe that optimistic. >> in terms of the dollar impact would not be significant. islamic what about on medicare? tell him again about the impact you think he would have on medicare. >> we think that right now we will spend and add about $1.1 billion of the medicare fund this year. we spent about 24 billion. we know who increased medicare and it's our feeling we pay into medicare now we should have full benefits of it. >> let me ask about workers' compensation i think that's an important issue that sometimes gets overlooked and we have some ideas on the worker's comp reform. >> we are in agreement with what is being proposed by senator collins and we also like to explore what a lot of the states do we are proud of the fact of the last ten years we've improved the safety rate and we are the number one voluntary protection plan as far as we have more facilities certified and the accident rates have gone down from the problem is the costs continue to go up so we need some way to control the costs. senator collins is a very helpful and we would like to be able to take a wide look just like we've been looking at the health care how does the private sector do it that is what we would like to do. >> why mtv, one bit of warning you have to remember when you're doing the workers' comp reform people, state and federal government should do from time to time remember the goal of the workers' comp is to compensate the workers and sometimes in an effort to find a lot of savings the workers can get left out. >> improve the accident rates and do the right thing that reduces the accidents and then go on a worker's comp. >> it sounds like you've had a fair amount of success in reducing your accident rates. >> we've done a good job, a lot of programs and we are proud of that fact and i think it to the cut from an employee's standpoint when you have a person come to work every day he we look at how to find savings and cut our spending and% term mccaskill part of this is to make sure that every single sacred cows that everything >> everything is on the table. >> including executive stuff as well as facilities and vehicles? >> we have a proposal that we are going to be implementing reductions in health care contributions for the executives. we would be at the federal rate in three years, 10% a year and that is one of the recommendations made where we >> the relocation expenses for employees, have you taken care of that? >> yes, sir. estimates before mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator pryor. senator carper? and then senator coburn. >> you have a meeting at 3:30, d want to go ahead? >> no, no, go ahead. >> please, go ahead. it's been a call is the operative word. >> we put back to the restrictive business model. i sit here and think about we're talking about the editorial changes of the $55 billion over 40 years how does it take 40 years to figure out $55 billion off in terms of what was compensated? the absolute stupidity of congress and what we've done is totally amazing to me. >> the other thing i've heard and i've had this discussion with every postmaster general since i've been in congress is the revenue estimates. the revenue estimates we have for 2020 are absolutely in exaggeration that means 401st class pieces of mail nine years from now will go to every household in this country i don't believe it. i don't believe that its half of that so unless you are going to double the rate on the first class mail the revenue estimates are totally bogus and every of revenue estimate that i've heard over the last 12 years has been bogus coming from the postal service so we're looking at the numbers of 39 billion pieces of mail first-class mail i would bet you $1,000 right now mr. postmaster that it won't be half of that nine years from now. >> the technological change is coming and unless we anticipate we are going to be six years from now doing the same thing >> the third point i would raise is standard mail and partial service is important to the business and i know that you are worried about the impact of pricing on the business but the first class mail is going away and unless the business model adapt to that it doesn't matter what we do senator collins or senator carper's bills it's going to be a short-term fix that is going to be short-lived. and so i would caution us to think challenge the assumptions that are being made like mr. o'hare, challenge the assumptions being made and when we think we figured it out then go to war three measurements again before we cut to make sure we are not like we were in 2006 and i will remind my colleagues in 2006i predicted we would be back here. i actually voted against postal reform bill because we did not anticipate. we did not fix what we knew and as a matter of fact you always said we did at the time so do we sit five years later not having fixed the problem because we didn't measure three times and then cut. i'm not blaming anybody for that. it's because the assumption change because the scenario we laid out were too rosy. we fixed a lot of things and if things would have been worse had we not done at now we find ourselves here again. just as you said taking the economy out of the equation, first-class mail is going to go away anyway regardless of the recession. the technological changes. so i would caution us i think that we are going to come together with a great bipartisan agreement on how we offer the things that are needed. this isn't a partisan issue in front of us but i think we certainly need to think way down the road and we certainly need to provide the postal service with the effective means of running a business that allows them to make changes based on dynamic changes that they are going to experience in their business and if we don't do that, we will not have fixed the problem and with that high yield and will submit questions for the record. >> thank you, senator coburn. senator carper? islamic it is the lack of certainty and predictability, a great deal of uncertainty. a couple of years ago when chrysler and gm were going to go out of business people stopped buying cars and the first question i have mr. postmaster general was given the uncertainty and is the post office are going to be around another year when our three or four months from now what kind of impact do you think that lack of certainty and predictability is having on your business and the devotee to book more business? >> i think that uncertainty has a tremendous impact just this weekend i got an e-mail from my chief marketing officer and he was asking about a couple customers who were worried about doing business with us in the small package area and i told them i said i will call the company's and reassure them myself that we will be okay. we have to get stability in the systems and we've got to address these issues long term to senator colburn's point and i agree 100% this cannot be a short-term fix. we have to not only look at revenue through 2020 we have to look at the revenue beyond that and make sure from the postal service standpoint we resolve this issue now to give the postal service the flexibility to manage going out in the future. >> i would say to the colleagues what we need here is not the dealing with the symptoms of the problem. what we need to do is solve the problem. as didier as the situation as i certainly believe it is not a hopeless situation. this is a problem that can be fixed and there is it can be provided. from the folks that work with you at the postal service but may be a greater extent to the congress and the administration and working with you and the other stakeholders. i'm going to go back and talk about the auto industry for a moment. it's not a perfect comparison but there are some points that are relevant. number one the auto industry two or three years ago had more workers than they needed given the demand for the product. number two, the benefit structure for the folks working for them was too high. number three they had more plants than we needed, and what happened is a lot of people think about the federal bailout to the auto industry. as tax payers we go back every dime that we invested in chrysler and gm. we are not talking about a bailout in the postal service. we are talking to that is whether the postal service will have access to 50 or 55 or $60 billion that appears to have overpaid their retirement system to a federal employees retirement system it's not a bailout. should the postal service have access to the money a lot of people from the group believe arguably could be drawn back and returned to the postal service allowing the postal service to pay down their very conservative retirement schedule for the retiree benefits. very conservative approach. but here as i said before the three things the auto industry needed to do. there were three things the postal service needs to do and the question is are we going to let them? i'm not interested in laying off you or anyone else lead off the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of postal the employees but i think that you resist by about a quarter of the last six or seven years that's a lot of people and maybe 200,000 or so you have about another 100,000 folks that will probably leave through attrition and people retire and say that's enough i'm ready to go on with my life and about 120,000 or so who if incentivized would have encouraged to retire would actually encourage or retire and the question is are we going to make sure we have the resources and the cash to incentivize those people but run the numbers and think about this just run the numbers for what it cost to incentivize 120,000 people to retire we can look at the auto industry and they had more people who to go for the retirement than they expected. but if you offer the retirees say $20,000 may be 10,000 over the period of time to take over the retirement to go ahead and retire early how much will that cost? if you're trying to get 120,000 people to take early retirement that works out to about $2.4 billion. the overpayment to the federal and please retirement system is about $7 billion. we are talking about using one-third of the overpayment to the system that would enable you arguably to reduce your headcount by another 120,000 people beyond the 100,000 that would bring your headcount down if i'm not mistaken i think close to 400,000 people, something like that and my sense is that would be an ongoing enterprise much as the auto industry is going forward. the other thing the auto industry has done is they've put on their thinking caps and how to come up with great looking vehicles and electronically it is much smarter vehicles and in your testimony when you talk about how to use the digital approach and things like that that would enable you to actually capture some new business and my friend tom coburn is gone. he talks about first class mail going away and will continue to be. the question is are we smart enough for the postal service to come up with new products, and new innovations and are we smart enough and the congress to let them market those when they come to work? but me ask you if i can the company drawn into this and thank you very much for coming. i'm glad you are able to come on short notice when i was the governor and treasurer we used the company a lot and thank you for that service and this service as well. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. we used the group a lot helping with our personnel and issues in the state and obviously they are one of the company's. so here we have independent sources both highly regarded siegel and hagel and the inspector general which has a different view there's been this overpayment. we don't ask the gao would you take a look at this? would you take a look and see the work the group has done and the auditors within opm. >> that is an offer we might want to take advantage of. >> have you had the chance to meet with the folks to understand what their assumptions are? >> i know ever staff has and there has been communication not only with them the the other studies done and we welcome the gao's participation in the sand with the committee staff in helping the committee decide what that fair and equitable standard should be. >> i'm over. let me stop there and say thanks for giving me a few extra seconds and thanks for the response. >> cementer mccaskill. >> we were in the middle of hearing the 167 post office closings being proposed in my state 85% of those are in the counties of less than 50,000 residents. i spent a lot of time in my state going around outside of the urban area the last month i worry that the transparency of the process and the last time you testified before us senator pryor asked the question to my knowledge that question hasn't been fully answered has there been time places have been removed from the list following the public comment and the comment process ever had an impact on the decisions, the initial decisions to close. >> i would have to double check on that as far as there have been cases i will double check. >> if you could get back on that i want to make sure this isn't a dog and pony show for these folks some of their hearts are breaking over this the other post offices are going away and i want to make sure the process is fair and transparent. the other thing i want to talk about is the five day delivery and i am one that is in the camp of first of all several members of the savings as you know there hasn't been a consistent number you quote one number the regulatory folks said it was half of that and i'm somebody who is worried about the spiral of the five day delivery. it's a marketing advantage the postal service has a six day delivery and it seems to me that we ought to be focusing on how to get better advantage of the marketing advantage that mitch we have in the market and no one else has that saturday delivery is something nobody else can offer and have you consulted with the newspaper magazine folks about the impact that will have on their business model? >> we've spoken to the newspaper and magazine and there was some concern on their part about the smaller town newspapers that have saturday delivery generally one day a week. >> the other thing is coming and i know this may sound corny and 90 and frattali initial that i had the opportunity to go through a box of letters that my mother had from my grandmother's house that were my letters i sent to her in college and as we went through these letters i remember through history how many times in history courses i had taken the gaps in history were filled in with letters. we had a lot of best-selling books that were letters between everything from the founding fathers to the soldiers in the battlefield, and i am not sure that there's been a marketing campaign about the value of their written letter and what it means and how it is preserved and what it means to families. my kids are in college. i don't have a box like that. i had to impose the will you can't get money by text message. [laughter] they didn't even -- we were not even having conversations. i was getting gibberish spellings need money 2day. it was ridiculous. it is a longing in these uncertain times for some of the things that have provided stability over the years and just as we have a place in our hearts for the reliability of the service there's also something special about that piece of first-class mail knowing that it's come from somebody you care about its bringing you news, and i think that while you have done a great job with the flat rate delivery i'm sick of that guy. [laughter] >> we love that guy. one price, one price. it works. has your business model shown this works? haven't you increased the amount of packages that your handle on that one price? stat absolutely. >> so i really believe if somebody would begin to market the value of sending a written letter to somebody that you loved you might be suppressed redican for your christmas season. i know the christmas will help, christmas cards are part of the culture that we value, but i think that to give up i disagree dr. colburn. i don't think we should give up on the notion we are going to sit down and write a letter and put thoughts and prayers and hopes for somebody that we care about and we are going to just be electronic from here on out. i refuse to let go of that and i think that if you do that you might be surprised on how you can stabilize first class mail. it's more than bill paying. >> we agree 100%. let me just say moving away from any of the traditions we have in the sixth day delivery to the post office, they are all terribly hard decisions because we touch american lives every day six days a week. we have programs we deliver one we run in schools where we try to teach the kids how to write letters. it's been successful but it's something we have to keep pushing on because a lot of times the schools are interested in teaching computer skills versus writing skills but i will take that under advisement. the other thing we won't be advertising mail this fall we are going to put advertisements on tv talking about the volume of mail, the physical connection and that somebody comes to see you every day and there's a lot of value in that. the unfortunate thing we do face is just the technology behind the bill payment. that pays so much of our overhead and so much of what we do every day and i think if we don't look at all these changes that we will never be able to recover financially. >> and i get that and i know we have to make painful decisions but i just think it's important that we continue to look at the processing network and maybe moving to the curbside delivery. that is a huge amount of savings estimated also. i would rather be eliminate everything we can that is realistic before we get at the essence of the six day delivery and i feel strongly about that and i know others disagree but i want to go on the record i feel strongly about it. thank you mr. postmaster. >> thank you senator mccaskill. we are open to all suggestions and yours is wonderful. passionate letters for those we love. >> [inaudible] [laughter] that was meant to be positive actually. we had a great time in the last committee for your efforts there and i don't know if it was mentioned i've been wrapping up meetings in my office but i think it's important to note the devotee of the postal employees for the work they do every day. they seem to be getting lost in this mess and i think it's important to note we have a lot of hard-working people in my home town and i know every person there i've known for 22, 23 years and i have been to many retirements and other communities, new postmasters' coming and being there and they are so thrilled to go through the chain and be a hint of something very special, and i don't want that lost in everything we are trying to do and i never said the challenge. we have met everybody here and often this we met in my office in both the real fiscal challenges and it is unfortunate. it's kind of sad and i feel melancholy in that we have an institution like the post office going through these changes but here we are and that being said i'm wondering if the 2015 deadline that you've given yourself to meet the changes is to mcginn dishes or you feel is just about right and what pushback you think you will be getting along the way. >> first of all let me just comment on your statement about the employees they do a great job as people would have looked just in the past couple of weeks with her rican aye reena and we give people the next day making sure the male got delivered and the process through the bad winter this year so i appreciate your comment and it's something we take very seriously. from the standpoint of our plans we laid out a plan that includes changes both operational with of the benefits it is an aggressive plan what we are looking at is trying to get profitable by 2013 when i say profitable is about a billion or $2 billion but that does is allow us to start paying down the debt and allows us to eventually get in the position where we will be able to make important investments. we need to do something about vehicles. there were other investments we need to make but more importantly than that is the fact that we need to stabilize our finances. a good stable postal service as i testified earlier is critical for the american economy. critical for the way people feel about the postal service. every corner i have to report lost and go through the same discussion and they can't get their head above the water and their antiquated. none of that helps because it potentially scarce the business away so i'm very focused on getting the profitable, getting the changes made in the network's, getting the changes made in the flexibility with employees. it's critical that we get to that point as quick as we can because the revenue will continue to go down so it's important we get to the point where we can stabilize and then continue to work the way forward from that point. spry i appreciate one of the things i'd appreciate about this issue and i've only been here about a year and a half now but i have appreciated the full full approach and i just a lot of tough questions privately in the office with folks that have come in and i feel very direct dancers and it's important to have that coastal's to understand the problem and get up to speed so we can make a proper decision here. do you think a lot of these changes will such as eliminating the saturday service will prevent -- i want to see because it is on my notes a death spiral or just such reduction in consumer usage it will get out of control and you won't get to the profitability breakeven point? >> i think the failure to act on these issues to get stable will result in a death spiral. i think that if we continue to try to make incremental changes going in with one swoop and making big changes we will cause every year we will be in the situation we are reporting losses said you have to make this cut and move on from there. >> thank you for coming today. how do you view the postal service proposed plans in line with getting the network work force and competitive do you think based on the volume of the mail and etc? >> we've been talking about the need for the network realignment for several years now and that's an important step in the proposal to cut plans from 500 to 200 is a noteworthy step. >> is the time for inappropriate for the aggressiveness? >> it's going to be tough by 2015. a lot of stakeholders are involved, a lot of plans. it will take a plan and everybody coming together saying we think this is important and we are all going to get behind it. >> the timeframe and anyone can ship them on this comegys think we need to move? i've been here a year and a half and i discussed about the way things are done here, the lack of bipartisanship and come artery. it's gotten better with certain people but all in all we should be doing a lot better. what is the time frame? i don't see us moving too quickly on the host of things and i hoping it doesn't come down to -- from all the postal service shutting down and we are going to be in the tenth hour 1159 trying to ram something through that doesn't make sense to you have an indication mr. chairman or ranking member what is your time frame that you need to get this done? >> as we proposed, we would like to see the long-term comprehensive legislation by the end of september. we have asked for the ability to take over the health care benefit we can resolve the pre-funding issue that way. it's a tough decision but it has to be made. let us move to get our money back. it will stabilize the finances. i'm offering right now with a week's worth of cash a 65 billion-dollar business. nobody would be doing something like that. >> you need congress to move by the end of this month. so mr. chairman whatever we can do. we have to figure this out to the line type of waiting until the last second. i hope we could work on a bipartisan manner and in a manner that the president will sign the bill to get this done. come on. this is a no-brainer, folks. >> i agree with you don't know that we can meet that schedule will the postmaster has given that is you have that comprehensive legislation by the end of september and i don't think we can and interested he said in his testimony that the president will submit a plan to meet the postal service fiscal crisis along with his recommendation for the joint special committee of 12. i still would like our committee to market a bill that responds to both with the postmaster has proposed and other proposals because i feel we've got particularly but senator collins and senator carper has much or more expertise as most people in the congress to and i know that you're the ranking in the subcommittee, so i am committed to moving this along and the postmaster has been pretty clear that even assuming that he defaults on his 5.5 billion summer, 2012, he's not going to what i'm saying is i agree. we should put together the legislation, pass it and give before that so you are not the point we are saying tomorrow the male is not going to be delivered. >> are we going to fight by the post office, too? >> i hope not. on the agree. >> i know you agree. you are one of them trying to work together as was the gentleman to my left and the leedy to my left. so we need to kind of push our colleagues and leaders to put this and make this a priority. thank you. >> thank you i know if you had another hearing and i appreciate that you've been able to return to ask questions of the panel. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will say a few words before going to the questions. in 2006, congress passed a bipartisan legislation to modernize the postal service. now as the economy faces the challenges nearly $5 billion per year, pre-funding payments required by the 2006 law threatens the postal service with insolvency. the core of any proposal post service must address the refunding issue while eliminating or offsetting the payment. other reforms likely will be needed, some of which are under the postal service's control and some which we may need to enact the legislation. i express my concerns over the past proposals including delivery reductions arbitration changes and facility closing. s chairman of the federal work force committee i also have concerns over new proposals released by the postal service on health and retirement programs and lay off. congress must be cautious when affecting contracts negotiated in good faith. the house oversight committee is also released legislation. however, i do not believe it is a responsible way pleasing one of the nation's largest employers into receivership by stripping the postal management of its authority will not address the fundamental problems. the postal service needs more flexibility, not more bureaucracy. the postal service is operating on borrowed time because congress has not yet acted on any proposals. failure on our part to the enact legislation could have negative consequences affecting the nation's economic recovery. i remain committed to ensuring a viable future for the postal service and i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to craft legislation to achieve those goals. i have a longer statement, mr. chairman, which i will submit for the record. director barry come in the 1980's the six federal agents have had their own health insurance plan available to employees in addition and eliminated their plans most notably the federal department insurance corporation in 1998 the fdic had to pay millions of dollars to bring employees back to the sehb after they found that the plan was more costly. my question to you, director, is how feasible is breaking the postal employees breaking off from the sehb and what would be the consequences if they ever wanted to come back? >> mr. chairman, think you for your question and it's always good to be with you serve with the agencies that you described that of broke away from the fbhp and came back and found that the savings they projected or not to be had this is one of the reasons that the administration is proposing that we move extremely cautiously and carefully in this area. the administrative overhead cost of our .08%. we provide choices and plans in all 50 states and including urban and rural areas. to provide health care. currently, the co-payment cost share for the postal service is less than provided by the federal employees for the same plan. so that is negotiated, but it is a 10% differential. in other words, the postal service pays 10% more than the federal government pays. the employees in the federal plans pay a higher co-payment percentage. so when you look at all those choices i fink we need to move very carefully before we would remove. we have over 9 million employees in the market pulled now in the federal plan. each year we consistently deliver a rate increase that is below the market rate increase in the country and we will do that again this year. i don't see how with 600,000 to a million employees going off on their own with an age that is higher than the pool they are going to achieve the savings the postmaster general with all due respect has projected so i think we need to move extremely carefully and be very cautious and study this extremely carefully before we would recommend moving forward. >> the postal service also considered leaving the program in the 1990's but nevertheless my question is didn't the postal service leave at that time? and what those reasons apply today? >> thank you, senator. in the 90's we looked at leading but there was a decision i think it is pretty much the same decision that happened to the fdic the fasb economy rules would have required us to put the health care cost on our books. since then the fact that we are pretending, that issue is no longer an issue than it was back then. what we decided to do with exploring the option is to see if we would be able to take the cost down through the plan. i do not disagree at all with the director. this is something we have to study carefully and i think we have to study it jury quickly because what we are proposing is not unlike what any other large corporation does when you go out on to the open market and get the best price for the health care plan. let me assure you this i do not want to do anything that would have a negative effect on the employees or their retirees. we want to the right thing and we are trying to figure out how to manage the cost going forward and this is one of the ideas we had. >> i know my time is expired. i have one more question. >> how can i say no to you, senator. >> thank you. your testimony once again brought the issue of modifying the collective bargaining process to require that they consider the financial health of the postal service. the cbo analysis in the last conference continued this provision did not project any savings on this issue. my understanding is that the trade is routinely considered the postal service finance. my question is how has the gao done in the analysis suggesting there would be cost savings from this change to the arbitration process? >> in the work i did not refer to it in my statement today but we did in the business model issue dillinger rego we said that would be an issue for congress to consider going forward as it thinks about collective bargaining agreements, what's affordable for the servicing the situation where the contracts go to arbitration to ensure that would be put on the table because the precedent in the past has been that there is in mail volume and revenue to pay for the cost increases and things of that nature. we are looking at a very different scenario now and it is s testified as the postmaster general testified has been discussed here today that we look forward as a bright one there would be the letter-writing campaign and people would begin to write more letters that the fact is many bills are now going to be prepared and distributed electronically and that has been the lifeblood and a lot of the financial literature as well, the czechs and things of that nature from the banks, those are all moving digitally now, so it is in that spirit we made the discussion for the congress to consider. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. finally, senator moran. >> i know you're disappointed i returned to the committee. [laughter] >> it's always a pleasure to see you. >> you're so kind. >> i can't speak on behalf of the witnesses on the second panel but no, we are glad you came back. >> i have been to a corporation subcommittee hearing on the homeland security, and do want to ask the postmaster general a couple questions. first i would like to commend him for his efforts to find solvency in the united states postal service and want to be an ally working with him to do so and hope that he is asking his staff tall levels of the service for suggestions about efficiency many times i think the best and brightest ideas come from the people who work at the postal service for their suggestions about how to improve the bottom line. 3700 post offices is something certainly that caught my attention 134 of them are in kansas and i don't want to be overly provincial here but i always want to make certain that rural america doesn't get just forgotten decisions made in the nation's capital. .. not that i mind that, but what i would love to know is it's very things that community members can say, evidence that can be garnered, facts that can be told, and that would then alter the decision made at the postal service as to whether or not this particular communities post office will continue to be in existence. my impression that many people who have attended those meetings is almost without exception the postal service has made up their mind. they go through the motions. they are in the town to pretend to listen to us, but we never get indications that there's anything we could do to reach different conclusions than closing the post office. but adenosine or what am i missing quite >> i think the key thing is to make sure that our people understand exactly what the community would pace with change. i think that when you look at what we got proposed, we are looking our criteria is that of less than two hours of work on a daily basis. and generally, it is under $20,000 in revenue. one of the things have got to keep our eye out and make sure we don't do is make access impossible for people in states like kansas because you don't want to have two or three post offices within a certain area that get changed and become a village post office circuit consolidated and have to drive a 20 or 30 miles to get postal services. that is the key thing. i think constituents need to make sure whatever we are proposing is reasonable for them and reasonable meaning a couple miles, three, four, five miles to a post office. we take universal service very, very serious and want to make sure we are not setting our customers have. the other thing i encourage that customers have ideas, we are all gears. we have been encouraging businesses to step up and say hey, will write a contract, but the village post office is we can provide access seven days a week, but they may only get a couple hours a day. so those are a couple things i'd encourage. if there is written criteria, a checklist when postal employees come back to the community meeting they met this, but not as commander to see what the criteria is that there is an opportunity for communities that matters to the postal service. as you and i said before the hearing started, i'm an alley of the earth in signing the win-win combination in which there is a village post office saving space and personnel with a check store pharmacy. those things matter a lot to the community. i wrote you a letter, postmaster general. on august the 10th he responded in a thank you for that. one of the things i want to raise that i didn't understand or didn't see the answer to it is the united states code permissions is postal service shall provide the fact that reiko areas, communities and small towns are post office are not self-sustaining. no post office shall be close solely for operating a deficit, it been the intent of congress the postal service be insured to residents of both urban and rural communities. when you're out having hearing for the list of 3700 post offices, my experience in 14 years as a member of the house and just a month as a member of the senate is the post office as i worried when i walk in and discover the postmaster is about to retire but the building has deteriorated. what's the criteria now? what do you expect to be able to do with this legislative language? one of the things you might be asking is to eliminate the legislative language. and the essence of this, how can you close 3700 post offices? >> one of the things we don't want to do is ask any changes in the language. your post offices out there that lose money that are large post office is insert dozens and dozens of people. most of our offices to lose money. but what we are looking to do from a standpoint of reviewing offices is to come up with a very fair in standard criteria. that was the idea of post office is that of less than two hours with a business, less than $20,000 worth of business coming across a counter. when you have that criteria, and then you cannot get it very objectively i'm a candidate like we mentioned earlier about what is the geography? is there a place to consolidate? is there a story can contract with? that's the way we want to approach it. but we don't want to do is have a situation where postmaster is afraid to retire. what do you not have to did things like that. we'd rather have a much more transparent criteria so that anybody out there that the same these kind of changes is exactly where we are coming from. >> i just came as a set from a homeland security subcommittee, where we worry about the relief of people suffering from disaster. read incoming kansas is a construct a tornado, never in a list of 3700. out of the building is damaged they are having a community meeting. this is the wrong kind of message on how to recover from a tornado at that because we suffered this natural disaster come the postal service is now contemplating closing our post office. >> i'll look into that right away. >> thank you, sir. thank you, chairman. he might do much to make a brief statement before we move onto the next? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know all of us have so many more questions than we have a panel that we've been waiting for for an hour. i just wanted to make a comment and also give another assignment to mr. trini. -- mr. herr. first, it's important to realize that if they postal service defaults on the $5.5 billion payment for what the retiree health benefits fund, that unfunded liability does not go away. and in fact, there is an unfunded liability in the fund that i believe is in the neighborhood of $56 billion. and i think that is important because even if we restructure and they really salute the postmaster general for his sweeping proposals. i think they are very construct days. whether i agree with them all or not, they are very construct it on what they need. but the fact is that postal service has huge unfunded liabilities and i can see general agreement with that. so, my assignment or request to you, mr. herr is, if we were reinventing the postal service from scratch, a de novo approach, how would restructure? would we have a chilling with the federal government's retiree health programs, employee health programs, pension programs? would we give it access to prior work to $15 billion from the treasury, which is obviously an advantage that private enterprise doesn't have. would we give it hard to launch in setting rates and if they deemed who it delivers to acquire i would like you to help us figure out what would be the ideal while still ensuring that we are providing this absolutely vital linchpin to our economy, a linchpin that is not only important to the 8.7 million people who work in the mailing industry, but also has to bring this together as a country. after all, that is why the constitution mentions the postal service. so i would like your ideas on if we were starting from scratch, how would we sat forth this vital institution? thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator collins. i will send a request to gao. thank you to the panel. you've been very informative and very start. i want to say again, there is a clock ticking. $5.5 billion, the postal service owes. you're not going to be sued clearly today that by next summer or, if nothing else is postal service, you're going to effectively have to start delivering the mail. and that should get a spyware can come even across party lines. thank you very much. second panel please come to the table. cliff guffey, president of the american postal workers union. louis atkins from the postal supervisors, ellen levine and the blind. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] british prime minister david cameron said this week >> the british house of commons returned this week from its summer recess. monday, british prime minister david cameron gave an update on the situation in libya. he spoke about the weekend news from triple-a about documents relating to relationships between libyan security authorities, the cia and the u.k. secret intelligence service minus six. questions fro from the british house of commons, this is an hour 20 minutes. >> for a statement, the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission i would like to make a statement on libya. when we met here on that fridays in march,tatement gadhafi's tanr down on benghazi. his air force had already begun strikes against his people and his family had managed through zawiyah with the large loss of with a grave loss of life. adhafi had vedto own people like rats using the full might of his armed forces backed up by mercenaries. i didn't think britain should stand by as gadhafi slaughtered his people. nor could we allow a failed pariah state festering on europe's southern border with a potential to threaten our own security. the libyan opposition and the arab league both called for nato to protect the civilian population. so together, with the u.s. and france, we secured agreement for u.n. security council resolutions 1970 and 1973. and with this clear legal mandate, this house voted by a majority of 544 in favor of military action. today, the libyan people have taken their country back. mr. speaker, i am grateful for the support that all sides of this house have given through these last six months and i'm sure the whole house will join me in paying tribute to the incredible dedication and professionalism of our pilots, sailors, ground crew and everyone in our armed forces that have been involved in this mission. but we should also pay a full tribute to the bravery and resilience of the libyan people themselves. this has been their revolution and none of it could have happened without them. ordinary libyans from all walks of life came together and rose up against gadhafi. from the villages of the mansions, to the blocks of misrata, the alleyways of za we are and the streets of benghazi, the libyan people fought with incredible courage. many paid with their lives. others have been seriously injured. the struggle is not over. they still face forces loyal to a dictator who threat yented to turn libya into a hell. the long work is just beginning. what is clear is that the future of libya belongs to its people. the task of the international community now is to support them as they build that future. that means helping to finish the job, ensuring security, addressing the immediate humanitarian needs and supporting a longer term process of reconstruction and political transition to democracy. let me address each in turn. first, finishing the job. britain has been at the forefront of the military operation to protect the libyan people. our aircraft have made over 2,400 soldiers across libya carrying one fifth of all nato air strikes against some 900 targets in gadhafi's war mission. our warships supported this effort, helping to enforce the u.n. arms embargo and brigade to those in need. at the peak, 2300 british servicemen and women were deployed on the operation with 36 aircraft, including 16 tornadoes, six typhoons, fifa tack helicopters, tankers and aircraft and helicopters. these were supported over the course of operation by eight warships and a hunter killer submarine. the job is not over. as we stand the free libya forces have liberated tripoli and controlled the key population centers. pro-gadhafi forces still pose a threat, in particular control sirte and other towns south of the country. the national transitional council has been working to negotiate a peaceful out come. but the leaders specifically requested that nato continues its operations to protect civilians until that is achieved. over the weekend, tornado struck eight military command and control installations southwest of rah dan and nine weapons -- for as long as gadhafi remains at large, the safety and the security of the libyan people remains under threat. so let me be clear. we will not let up until the job is done. first britain and nato a lice will continue to implement u.n. security council resolutions 1970 and 1973 for as long as we are needed to protect civilian life. those thinking that nato will somehow pull out or pull back must think again. we are ready to extend the nato han date for as long as is necessary. second, we will support the libyan people in bringing gadhafi to justice. mr. speaker, this is a man whose crimes are becoming evermore apparent every day and who is wanted by the international criminal court. there must be no bolt hole, no pampered hiding place from justice. he must face the consequences of his action under international and libyan law. turning to security, the early signs have been encouraging. there has been some disorder that it's focused on symbols of the regime. the council is moving to stand down fighters from outside tripoli. the police are returning to the streets and the council leaders have been clear and consistent in cautioning against disorder and crucially against reprisals. britain and the international partners are helping too, working closely with the national transitional council in securing chemical weapons sites and -- in misrata and benghazi and other areas. there has been -- the prior orts today are health, water, food and fuel. on health, humanitarian partners report that hospital and clinics in tripoli are functioning well and are returning to work. britain is providing additional support to the international committee of the red cross, including surgical teams and medicines to treat up to 5,000 war wounded patients. on water, substantial numbers of people in tripoli are still without running water. however, unicef is procuring 11 million liters of bottled water and the libyan authorities are working to fix the system. 100 wells are back on-line, representing 20% of capacity. on fuel, there remains significant short ajts, but the situation is improving. the world food program shipment is supporting the national transitional council with the procurement of 250,000 liters of fuel. let me turn to reconstruction. mr. speaker, libya is a country of 6.5 million people. one of the richest in africa. libya is fully capable of paying for its own reconstruction. there's a role for foreign advice, help and support. i didn't think we want to see an army of for represent consultant driving around giving the impression this is something being done to the libyans rather than something done by them. what the libyans need above all is their frozen assets back. a week ago britain gotta agreement to release one billion pound worth of did he nars back to the central bank of libya. planes have thrown in hundreds of millions of these bank notes. at the summit, the international community committed to unfreezing $15 billion of libyan assets. and for their part, we expect the new libyan authorities to meet their pledge of ensuring transparent and accountable financial system. next, political transition. some people warned as gadhafi himself did, that the libyan people could not be trusted with freedom. that without gadhafi there would be chaos. what is emerging now, despite years of repression and the trauma of recent month, i believe is impressive and encouraging. in a far-reaching roadmap and constitutional declaration, the new authorities set out a clear vision and a process for a new democratic libya. this is not imposed from above. it ises being shaped by the libyan people. at the paris summit, the determination was spoken of building a society of tolerance and for give necessary with respect for the law. a national conference will bring together all the tribes, civil society, men and women from east and west united to shape this political transition. they are planning for a new constitution and elections within 20 months and britain is also in discussions in new york about a new u.n. security council resolution to reflect the new situation. the new libyan authorities must now be able to represent their country at the u.n. as they did last week at the arab league. mr. speaker, rpt ro building a bilateral relationship. we have close relations through our mission in benghazi and the special representative is going to tripoli to re-establish our full diplomatic presence in that city. our relationship with the new libya must of course deal with the serious issues from the past. on megrahi, i believe he should never have been sent back to libya in the first place. on wpc yvonne tlefletcher, i wa to see justice for her family. there is an ongoing police investigation and the house will wish to know that the prime minister has assured me of the attention to cooperate fully. finally, significant accusations have been reported today that under the last government, relations between the bit british and libyan security services became too close, particularly in 2003. it was because of accusations of potential complicitly by the british security services in the mistreatment of detainees overseas, including rendition, that i took steps in july last year to try and sort this whole problem out. as the house will remember, we acted to bring to an end the large number of court cases being brought against the government by former inmates of guantanamo. we've issued new guidance to security intelligence services personnel on how to deal with dee tien ease held by other countries. we've asked retired judge to examine issues around the detention and treatment of terror suspects overseas. this inquiry has already said it will look at the latest accusations very carefully. my concern throughout has been not only to remove any stain on britain's reputation, but also to deal with these accusations of malpractice so as to enable our security services to get on with the vital work that they do. and because they can't speak for themselves, let me put on record once again our enormous gratitude for all they do to keep our country safe. mr. speaker, the achievement of the libyan people gives hope to those across the wider region who want a job, a voice and a stake in how their country is run. on syria, britain will lead the argument for a u.n. resolution to build on build on the oil embargo now in place. the message to president assad must be clear. he's lost all legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead syria. the violence must end and he should step aside for the good of his country. it is the libyan people who liberated their army. there was no foreign army. this was a libyan-led process assisted by the international community. many critics claim stalemate and asserted gadhafi would never be defeated. the libyan people proved them wrong. it was a unique set of circumstances and not something that we can or would wish to repeat all over the world. but i've never accepted the argument that because you can't do everything you shouldn't do anything. mr. speaker, removing gadhafi from power was a major achievement. although the work is not yet done, the libyan people can be proud of what they've achieved and we can be proud of what we've done to help them. i commend this statement to the house. >> i start by thanking the prime minister for his statement and i join him in paying tribute to the libyan people and their courage because this was their uprising. they knew the price that might be paid if they rose up against the regime to claim a better future, yet they found the courage to do so and win through. we on this side salute that bravery and sacrifice. but change in libya would not have come without action by the international community. let me therefore commend the role of the prime minister and the british government in making this happen. the initiative of pressing for u.n. resolutions 1970 and 1973 is what made the actions to protect civilians possible. it was a risk and it was the right thing to do. for our part, we supported it at the time. we've remained steadfast in our support and we support it now. if we have not acted, mr. speaker, we would have been spending recent months not talking about the progress of our action in libya but wringing our hands over slaughter in benghazi as we did after bosnia. but this time the international community did not stand by. it acted through and with the authority of the united nations. and once again as the prime minister said, it was to our brave british servicemen and women that we turned. as always, they have risen to the challenge. they represent the best of our country and again we owe them a debt of gratitude. mr. speaker, i want to ask a number of questions about the security situation, economic stablization, the political settlement now required and some of the wider lessons. let me first say that i agree with the prime minister that the gibson inquiry must get to the bottom of the allegations we have seen about the involvement of the security services in relation to libya. no part of the british state should ever be complicit in torture. let me first turn to the security situation. the prime minister is right to say that there should be no artificial deadlines for the end of nato action. we are in libya to enforce a security council resolution and should be engaged action for no more and no less than the time it takes to make sure that the u.n. mandate is fulfilled for the protection of civilians. mr. speaker, given these symbolic and substantive importance of the national transition council ttc taking up their place in government in tripoli can the prime minister give us a sense from the paris conference about when we might expect that to happen? because that will speak to the security situation in tripoli. >> we also know from past conflicts that security matters but that essential to a successful transition is economic and social reconstruction and we all agree it must be libyan owned. i welcome the extra assistance the government has announced to help provide medicine, food, and help reunite families affected by the fighting. i'm sure the prime minister will agree the role of the u.n. is going to be very important in coordinating this help and therefore can he say what discussions he has had with the u.n. special envoy al khatib and how prepared he believes the u.n. are to provide the necessary help to the libyan people. can you also share with the house, mr. speaker, his thoughts on how the new u.n. resolution that he talked about to provide recognition for the new government will also provide a mandate for a longer-term u.n. mission to support the libyan government? the prime minister is right to say that the oil wealth of libya offers huge potential for its people. given the legitimacy of this popular uprising was based around the fact that the libyans themselves were clearly in the lead. that clearly also needs to be true in relation to the oil resources. does he agree we should learn lessons of the period of past conflicts and ensure the role of private companies in libya is to operate transparently and in a way which clearly benefits the libyan people. on the politics i join the prime minister in welcoming the ntc's commitment to establishing a new constitution and holding elections within 18 months. we agreed we should provide full support to the libyan people and its new government in bringing colonel gadhafi and the leadership to justice either through the icc or the libyan courts. but we've also learned, mr. speaker, from past conflicts, that the need for a broad based inclusive process of reconciliation, indeed the prime minister talked about that in his statement, but also the vital work of maintaining government services. can the prime minister share with the house his understanding of how the ntc is continuing to use officials from a lower level of government to keep basic services running? we also know that de through ..al process of the ballot box but through a strong, vibrant civil society. can the prime minister tell us what specific plans there are for direct relationships between libya and organizations such as the bbc world service, westminster foundation for democracy, and the british council who can play an important role in helping build up civil society? let me finally ask about the lessons of this conflict for britain and for the international community. mr. speaker, the arab spring was clearly not envisioned at the time of the strategic defense and security review and is meant to call on some resources which are due to become obsolete. can i ask the prime minister whether he sees the case that i see for there to be a gain in formally looking afresh in light of events in libya and the arab spring. for the international community as a whole, the lesson is of the effectiveness it can have when it comes together through the u.n. and speaks with one voice. now, no two situations are the same as the prime minister said. and of course the situation in syria is different for a number of reasons not the least practical issues to the idea of military intervention and lack of support for it. we support the use of all nonmilitary means at our disposal in libya and i've heard his remarks about president assad and share his view. he talked about the need for a new u.n. resolution but can he tell us how he assesses the chances of that new u.n. resolution and in the absence of that resolution what further steps he believes can be taken against the assad regime? mr. speaker, let me end on this thought. the arab spring has seen the overthrow of authoritarian regimes in tunisia, libya, and egypt. it is right that britain has been on the side of those who are fighting to enjoy the basic social, economic, and political rights we take for granted. let me end in agreement with the prime minister. we should take pride in the role we've played in protecting the libyan people as they claim a better future and should now help the libyan people with the next phase from popular revolt to stable, democratic government. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i thank the gentleman for his kind remarks and what he said in his response to my statement. i think he's right to oppose the alternative of what would have happened had we stood back and done nothing, what would be we discussing today? of course he is right to praise our brave service personnel. i also note what he says about backing the gibson inquiry and the important work that now needs to do to look at all the accusations of accomplicety. on his issues of security, stablization, and politics, let me try and answer his questions. first of all, on security think he's right to say no artificial deadline for nato. we must continue until the job is done. on the issue of the ntc's move from benghazi to tripoli, that is already under way and parts of the ntc have moved. i think it's very important they move as a whole. we shouldn't try and second guess everything that they do. i've been very struck through this process that the ntc often gets criticized and calls are made will it do this and will it do that? in the end that does always seem to rise to the challenge and i think has been effective and we shouldn't under estimate the people working in it. on stablization he mentioned the u.n. role. it's important to differentiate between the role of mr. tipp who was trying to look at ways of finding a peace process before this conflict resulted in the fall of tripoli and the person who specifically is drawing up the plans for a u.n. mission to libya. i think those plans are well under way. i think it's very important that we focus on those things that the libyans want, rather than things we think they might want. and it was quite interesting in paris listening to the specific things they cared about most. clearly, one of the roles the u.n. can play is to make sure the elections when they come are properly observed and are free and fair. the point he makes about private companies is a good one and i think we should learn all the lessons from past conflicts as he says. in terms of the process of reconciliation, maintaining government services, one of the things the ntc has been trying to do, and i think again quite effectively, and we've been advising and helping where we can, is to make sure there is no process, that junior officials in departments were encouraged to go back to work. it is very early days and there are going to be huge problems at the end of a conflict like this. but i think the signs are that things like the rubbish collection, the hospital services, the police back on the streets, those things do seem to be working. he asked about longer-term relationships. the british council and others, clearly, once the security situation is in a better state, those relationships can be built and built i think from a very strong basis. on the issue of the strategic defense review, i would argue, having followed this very closely through the national security council on libya that met sometimes daily through this conflict that actually the case for what we're doing in the strategic defense review has been proved. it's been proved and it's the right decision to keep the tornado aircraft with the storm shadow capability and they perform magnificently over the skies of libya. i think typhoon in many ways has come of age. one of the things that became clear in the conflict was the need for greater eyes in the sky, greater technical capabilities. and that's provided for in the strategic defense review. having said that, of course, after any conflict like this and intense period of military and government and humanitarian activity he's right to learn the lessons and my national security adviser will be leading a lessons learned exercise in terms of how a white hall machine operated and what lessons we can learn. this should include the operation of the oil cell which i think did a very good job trying to help deny oil to the regime but to make sure that the rebels who are not getting oil products got them. he mentioned the u.n. resolution on syria. we'll continue to work for that. the eu oil embargo is an important step forward and has a real effect. above all i thank him for what he said and i agree we can take pride in what british forces and officials have done on this occasion. >> understandably there is wide interest in the prime minister's statement. if i am to accommodate that interest, i require brevity. in pursuit of a helping hand, i look to an old hand, mr. nichol nicholas sohms. >> thank you, mr. speaker. may i enjoin myself with the praise for the prime minister for the magnificent performance of the british armed forces. and, indeed, for the courage and resolution of the libyan people. but will the prime minister agree with me that matters are inevitably about to come a little messy in libya in the months to come. and it will be important for britain to continue to offer what help it can in a spirit of general cooperation and humility. >> i think that is absolutely right. i think it's very important that when people are looking at the humanitarian plan, the reconstruction plan, the plan for political progress in libya, we recognize this is something the libyans are doing themselves. we're there to help. we're there to assist. it's their plan, not our plan. and i think humility on this occasion is absolutely right. >> mr. jack straw? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, and also the remarks of my friend in praising the leadership which the prime minister, foreign secretary, other ministers have shown during the whole of this period, there is no doubt that this was very decisive in securing international cooperation and in following it through. only obligations that have been made overnight, as foreign secretary at the time i say two things. first as he knows it was the consistent policy of the previous government as his, wholly to be opposed to any accomplicety in torture or ill treatment or unlawful rendition. but second to say, given the serious nature of these allegations it is entirely right that they should be examined in every detail by the inquiry under gibson. >> can i thank him for what he sbats myself and the foreign secretary and others. can i say on the issue that he raises, i think it's right that sabita gibson can look at this whole area but i think it is important that nobody rushes to judgment. we have to remember in 2003, two years after 9/11, you had a situation where there was a libyan terrorist group that was allied to al qaeda and at all times our security services and intelligence services are trying to work for the good of the country to keep us safe. so i think it is very important to remember the circumstances at the time. i think anyone should not rush to judgment but it is his view, my view, the view of the entire house that britain should never be complicit in torture or in extraordinary rendition and it is very important that we make sure that's the case. >> my right honorable friend has been circumspect in his references to the documents which have recently emerged and with good reason. but i wonder if you would agree with me there is one lesson that can be held at this stage and that is particularly when dealing with unsavory regimes in the shadowy world of intelligence, it is necessary to maintain both fastidiousness and distance so as to avoid accusations of impropriety or illegality. >> i think my rival friend is entirely right. and as i put it in my statement the accusation is that after libya came in from the cold and gave up the weapons of mass destruction, the relationship almost at times became too close. there was a degree of credulity. but i do think it is important to just put on record our thanks for the security services and what they do. what i've tried to do, what this government has tried to do is put in place a new set of arrangements, so proper guidance to intelligence and security services personnel to clear out these guantanamo bay cases that we're going to drag through our courts and bring our security services and our country down and to deal with them properly and then to have an inquiry so we get to the bottom of what happened and if there was any malpractice we deal with it. i think it is very important that we clear this issue ha abuses in those countries. >> well, i've certainly joined the honorable gentleman in loathing the human rights abuses taking place in syria and i think what we've seen happening is simply appalling, the loss of life, the damage and terror that the president is inflicting on his own people. on the issue of russia, i think one of the things that's been encouraging was the fact that the russians came to the paris conference and were one of the 63 countries represented there and supported the statement that came out of that conference about nato continuing its work and making sure we complete the job in libya. he's right to then say from a sedentary position what about syria? i think the whole international community can learn the lesson of some success in libya and apply that elsewhere in terms of the unity we need to see in the security council to put the pressure on syria. >> someone who had reservations about the principle of intervention, can i congratulate the prime minister on a successful outcome in libya, which was largely achieved by two aspects? one that it was legal and, secondly, had the support of the libyan people. but further, to the last question, using it as an illustration to persuade permanent members of the security council such as russia and china that a well conducted intervention can successfully be used to restrain autocrats in countries such as syria. >> i am grateful to my honorable friend for what he says. i think everyone should have misgivings about these sorts of operations and one should never have a naive belief that they're easy or that everything is going to go to plan. that very rarely happens. i think we should always be hard headed and careful about these things. i think also we should respect the fact that this is not done yet. this is not completed yet. and also i think we should be very cautious about trying to draw up a new doctrine. it seems as soon as we establish a new doctrine a case comes up that flies completely in its face. but i do hope that other members of the security council will see that there has been a success in removing a dictator and giving that country a chance of peaceful and democratic progress, which would be good for the world. >> jeremy corbin? >> will the inquiry conducted by sabita gibson be held entirely in public? will it have access to all of the documents that have been discovered in libya which apparently have now been taken under control of the transitional national council? and will it also look at the question of british military involvement with libya up until march of this year and what lessons can be learned from that? >> i am grateful for the gentleman's question. some of it will be held in public some by necessity because of the very sensitive nature will be held in private. in terms of documentation he will have access to all the paperwork he wants to see. clearly, what has come out of libya in recent days is relevant to him and i think he's already made an announcement saying he is looking forward to seeing that information. in terms of britain's relations with libya, as i've said, i think it's entirely understandable that it was the last government's wish to have a new relationship with libya after getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. i think in some instances it was too credulous. obviously we need to think carefully about our security and military involvement and sales to all regimes which is why the start of the arab spring we reviewed our practices and should keep them under review. >> mr. patrick mercer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. how concerned is the prime minister about reports of islamist influence in the new libyan government? >> i think one should treat all these reports with concern and we should obviously always prepare for who we're dealing with but what i'd say is this. i think one of the long-term answers to islamic extremism is actually successful development of democracy in the arab world. i think this is a three-part play. it's -- part one is getting rid of bin laden. part two is greater democracy across the middle east, and part three is the solution to the arab/israeli conflict. and to think that, supporting these dictators helped us deal with islamic extremism. i think is profoundly wrong. we find many of the islamic extremists that we are fighting or dealing with in pakistan or even afghanistan come out of countries like libya or syria and we should ask why. >> the libyans split their country during the last few months. what discussions have been in place with countries such as italy and malta to enable those who fled to return? >> well the italians and maltese are extremely keen that they should return and i think there is now every reason that they can return. i've been impressed by the members of the libyan group here in london who have been in and out of libya while the situation was going on. pressure has been very great particularly on small countries like malta and we use our embassies elsewhere in the world to try to help them with this issue. >> dr. lewis? >> does the prime minister see any room for the intelligence and security committee in investigating the allegation, which if true would be both shameful and shocking that britain had a part in handing suspects over to the gadhafi regime even in the context of 2003? >> well, it's absolutely a matter for the intelligence and security committee, what they examine. but i'm sure that my friend and member will want to look carefully at these allegations. i don't think any of us should rush to judgment. we do have to remember the situation the whole world and this country was in post 9/11 where there was a real concern about people who wanted to damage our country. the libyan international fighting group was allied with al qaeda. it's not anymore. it's separated itself from that organization. so let's let these inquiries take their course but not rush to judgment about them. >> mr. nigel does. >> may i join in the congratulations to the libyan people and the prime minister's colleagues and political leadership during this time. he rightly talked about the issue of legacy and referred to fletcher. he says a series of problems from the past. among those will be the issue of compensation justice for the many hundreds of victims of libyan sponsored ira terrorism. can i seek assurance from the prime minister that he continues to back the case for justice and will do what he can to secure compensation from the new regime? >> i certainly will do that and it is a vitally important issue. there is no doubt that the libyan provision of semtex to the i.r.a. was immensely damaging and over many years and possibly even still today. and so i think we need to be very clear that this is going to be an important bilateral issue between britain and the new libyan authorities. clearly, we've got to let this government get its feet under the desk but it is very, very high on my list of items. >> mr. peter lily. >> after the liberation of kuwait in which britain also played a significant part the financial costs of our contribution were fully reimbursed, largely by kuwait, itself. does my right honorable friend intend to seek a similar contribution from libyan authorities once oil begins to flow? >> that's not a consideration that we've gone into so far. i mean, clearly, there have been costs to the uk from this operation, costs in the region of 120 million pounds excluding munitions. obviously this is funded outside the defense budget through the reserves so it won't impact other defense spending. but the gentleman makes an important point that we can bear in mind. >> mr. tony lloyd. >> the prime minister quite rightly made the point there would be no process taking place in libya but nevertheless the reality is that the institutions across libya are both corrupted and very weak and in particular the courts and central functioning society and how gadhafi's placement in position, will britain perhaps with the european union put real effort into making sure we do support the development of the civil structures? >> we will certainly make available our advice if it's wanted on those sorts of issues. specifically in paris they talked about the importance of police training and trying to make sure that the police were properly independent. it was encouraging to hear them say that. and of course having a strong independent justice system is part of any free and democratic society so we stand by to help in any way we can. >> jane swenson. >> i welcome the progress for the libyan people and also the success for the united nations principal responsibility to protect. the catalyst was the sath of february with the widows, mothers and sisters of the massacre. women played a crucial role in the revolution and are a vital resource for the tough task ahead of rebuilding libya. so what can our government do to encourage the involvement of women at all levels in the decision making processes in the ntc and national conference in line with the u.n. security council resolution and also the wishes of organizations such as women for libya? >> i think the honorable lady makes an important point and one of the best ways to do this is work with the ngos who have particular expertise in this area. i repeat again i think this is not the same as iraq where basically an intervention knocked over a government and there was then a process and we had to try and put back in place what had gone. here what we're doing is trying to work with the libyans who are putting in place these things themselves. so i absolutely agree that a much stronger society would emerge if there is a proper and appropriate role for women as tragically there isn't in so many societies but i think going through ngos is probably the right answer. >> i join with others with commending the prime minister's role in this. there were 8,000 libyan students starting a new life in the kingdom at the moment 2,000 of whom are state sponsored. the funds for these students are being held by the british arab commercial bank. they cannot release the funds without the approval of the ntc. could he use his good offices to make sure that this matter is resolved so the students can complete their studies and return to rebuild their country? >> i thank the gentleman for what he says and his kind comments. my understanding is the money is now being released but if there are any problems we'll certainly try and help secure that. i think there will be a welter of these problems of dealing with unfrozen assets of people who got stuck in a different country and all the rest of it and who have to work through each of these problems in turn. >> mr. bernard jenchin. >> may i commend my right honorable old friend for acting in a way that vindvindicates hi policy of britain acting as an effective global power and can i also commend him for not rushing to a new doctrine or going back to an old one like liberal interventionism but does this not demonstrate the importance of maintaining armed forces with global reach so that we can influence global events and project our interests? >> i'm very grateful for my honorable friend's comments. what i said about doctrine is just that i think if you overdue your belief in a particular doctrine you'll find the next problem that confronts you will fall completely outside it and you have to spend a lot of time inventing a new doctrine to deal with that one. i'm practical, conservative, you're right. i'm a practical, liberal conservative and that's whey believe and i think this was a practical, liberal, conservative intervention. in terms of -- it's a way of thinking. in terms of what he says about armed forces being able to project, i absolutely agree. you don't maintain that reach in power by not having a defense plan, by sticking with mass battle tanks in europe. what you need to do is modernize your armed forces and make sure you have the reach for the challenges of the future. i repeat what i said. far from disproving these strategic defense review i think libya proved the case with the sort of changes that we're making. >> mr. david winnik, no one will be sorry to see the end of gadhafi's criminal regime deeply involved as well with international terrorism. but there is some hypocrisy in all this. isn't it the fact that up to this year britain was actually sending sniper rifles to the gadhafi regime, crowd control equipment, and now we learn there was a close collaboration between some western countries, not only britain, and the gadhafi regime, where terror suspects were actually sent to gadhafi's torture chamber? >> far be it from me to join him in attacking the last government. the point i make is this. to be fair, i think it was right to have a new relationship with libya when we could persuade them to get rid of their weapons of mass destruction, discontinue their nuclear program, and try to take a different path. i have my criticisms that i think the last government was then too gullible in going too far in that direction and, specifically, when we had the o'donnell report in to megrahi it found the last government was trying to facilitate his release but i don't generalize the intent of wanting any relationship. what really changed was the treatment of gadhafi of his own people and that was the moment for the world to act and i'm proud of the fact that the world did. >> rory stewart? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the most impressive aspects of this intervention is the libyan pride in what libyans see as the libyan event. would the prime minister reassure the house that he'll do all he can to restrain the irresistible desire of the international community to micro manage and over intervene and remember in this kind of intervention less is more. >> i know my honorable friend speaks with considerable knowledge because rather against my will he spent two days last week in tripoli. and he's seen for himself that the libyans are managing this transition quite effectively but i think what he says about trying to make sure we understand our role in this as backing a libyan plan rather than substituting our judgment for theirs is the right way ahead. >> carol iain luine lucas? >> to ascertain whether his predecessor tony blaire personally authorized the items that led to the removal to tripoli in 2003. the nine human rights agencies who don't currently feel they can cooperate with it because it is not up to the standards of human rights will he review it so it will be open and transparent and get to the bottom of these questions? >> let me put the honorable lady right on one thing. there is a rule which you cannot willy nilly just see the papers provided to a previous government. i think governments would spend probably their entire time doing it rather than actually governing the country which is what they're supposed to do. that's why there is an inquiry. it's being carried out by an independent judge and we should allow sabita gibson to get to the bottom of what happened in this case and indeed the decisions ministers made if they were ministerial and ministers at the time will have to answer for them. i believe that's the right approach and the one we'll be following. >> jane ellison. >> thank you mr. speaker. i welcome the prime minister's statement today. many constituents have probably said something along the lines of we don't want another iraq over the last few months and obviously that and the post conflict stage are very much on people's minds. could the prime minister be more detailed about how the lessons of post conflict iraq are being brought forward and applied in this situation? >> i think, honorable lady, a lot of people have said we don't want another iraq but we should also listen to those people who say we don't want another bosnia. i think the prevention of a massacre was very important in these circumstances. on the issue of the difference between libya and iraq i would say this. because the libyan operation hasn't involved an occupying force or invading army, the libyan people rightly feel this is something they have done largely themselves. yes, with nato assistance for which they're very grateful but just as they own the end of gadhafi so they are owning the transition to democracy and all the problems of disorder and crime that will be in the interim. but from what i can see they're dealing with these problems well and we should be with them, helping rather than telling them what to do. >> andrew miller? >> my honorable friend, i ask about migration. one of the issues that became clear during the previous regime was that many of the people that ended up in malta originated not from libya but from other countries sponsored by an illegal criminal network which no doubt gadhafi had some role in. that means that some of those places have got huge numbers of difficult cases to manage. how is he going to manage that and can he assure the house that he will open up dialogue with the ntc to make sure that those criminal groups are closed down away?ght >> i'll certainly do that. first of all, i think it is important to get this in perspective. you remember the countries of northern europe. we still get more asylum claims than the countries of southern europe. so i think we have to bear that in mind. the second point i'd make is as i said we have this relationship with malta where clearly they can't afford to have embassies all over the world. we use our embassies in countries to try and help them to return people to countries of origin because as the honorable gentleman says many people coming through libya are not from libya. >> mr. mark pritchard? >> mr. speaker, is it not the case that the new constitution of libya to be legitimate and sustainable that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are very much included in the new constitution? in particular, protection given to the orthodox church, roman catholic church, serbian orthodox, russian orthodox, and the greek orthodox church? >> i think my honorable friend makes a good point and we've seen this particularly in egypt, the importance of protecting koptic christians and others and i am very heartened by what the chairman has said about respect for human rights and tolerance and i'm sure he'll want to follow those things through. >> roy? >> an estimation given to british oil workers regarding jobs in libya? >> i don't have an estimation for that. but i think it's in libya's interest that the production of oil gets back to normal as fast as possible. some people say this could still take up to three years to get back to its full capacity. i think the encouraging thing is a lot of the refineries and other oil installations have not been badly damaged and so there is no reason why this shouldn't happen as rapidly as possible. >> like other members of the house i'd like to congratulate the prime minister on the leadership he's shown in supporting the libyan people over the last few months. can he tell the house what role is envisioned for the arab league and other arab nations in the post conflict reconstruction of libya in months ahead? >> i am grateful for what my honorable friend says. i think there will be a big role for the arab league because one of the things i think where we can try and learn the lessons of the past is that i don't think libya will want to see, as i said in my statement, huge numbers of people driving around in 4 x 4s telling them what to do. i think arab assistance can play a huge role in helping them to get back on their feet. but they seem very keen to do a lot of this on their own. >> hugh bailey? >> you are absolutely right to stress that the political future of libya needs to be determined by the libyan people and not by outsiders. can it cast any light on the statements coming at the moment from the african union that they have concerns that the transitional arrangements are not fully inclusive and what discussions is he as foreign secretary having with key african leaders to ensure that only future u.n. resolution gets african buy in? i was very encouraged that at the paris meeting there were a number of african leaders there strongly supportive of the ntc, strongly supporting of democratic transition in libya and, frankly, i think the african union hasn't always been as clear as i would like it to be about the importance of democracy and freedom and human rights and progress in libya. i hope now that all the countries of the african union will get behind the new libyan authorities and give them the support and help they need. >> mr. andrew rosendale, i think the whole house will be celebrating the end of the monstrous gadhafi regime. will the prime minister assure the house that he will continue to put pressure on the new government of libya to ensure that the killers of pc are brought to justice? >> like my honorable friend i feel this is an extremely important issue in the bilateral relationship between britain and libya at the paris conference i spoke to the prime minister about this issue and said how important it is to people in our country. it's an appalling act, a reminder of what the gadhafi regime was capable of. we should put it alongside the provision of the semtex of the i.r.a. that took hundreds of lives, alongside the appalling act of blowing up an airliner over the skies of scotland. this regime was capable of appalling things and now there is a chance to find justice for these people and we should pursue it very strongly. >> wright davis. >> i welcome the prime minister's statement but given that we are in the aftermath of what in many respects is a civil war, how comfortable is he with the 20-month time frame for the delivery of a new constitution and elections? and what measures will be put in place to protect human rights and political rights, including freedom of movements of international observers? >> i believe the timetable is realistic and i think the key issue is whether we have faith in the national transitional council. i find throughout my dealings with prime minister gigril and chairman jalil both of whom i've met on a number of occasions they wanted to be national representing the whole country bringing country together. they wanted to be transitional. this is a move toward democracy not a takeover and that they see the future of libya not in an islamist or tribal fashion but a democracy. now, clearly, we'll have islamic elements. this is a muslim country. but i think that that's the path they want to take and a path we can encourage. >> i strongly welcome the prime minister's statement especially in relation to the inquiry which could be critically important to our future good relations with the new libya. can i ask the prime minister if it can include consideration of the role and pace of the old regime's intelligence chief? >> the issue around koussa is he is helping the police with the inquiries into for instance the yvonne fletcher case, and they are going to go on having conversations with him and that will go ahead. as far as sabita gibson is concerned his inquiry can go where the evidence leads and he can call for papers he wants to see and the key thing he is looking at is the accusations of complicity with torture or rendition or malpractice and maltreatment. that is what he's looking at. >> could we join the prime minister in paying tribute to the great men and women of our armed forces and also welcome the extensions of the inquiry. does the prime minister believe that inquire u is enough to get to the bottom this of truly awful and reprehensible allegation? will he for example be able to interview former labor ministers and ask what they knew about these operations? will he also be able to make judgment of the activities and actions of the last labor government? >> well, as i said, what gibson will be able to do is call for papers and call for people and to question people about the decisions that they took and he's looking into accusations of complicity, mistreatment, rendition, complicity to torture and all of those things and that it will be for ministers, whether in the last government or not, if they have questions to answer they will need to answer those questions. that's the correct way for these things to be done. >> john baron. >> mr. speaker what does the prime minister believe to be the lessons from our intervention when it comes to possible future interventions given that the arab league contained countries like syria and we as a country refused to help citizens of the yemen and bahrain? >> i don't subscribe to the idea that because you can't fix every problem in the world you shouldn't fix any. it seemed here was a problem we had a moral obligation to deal with to prevent a massacre. but because there was an ought there was also a could. we were able to do this because we had support of arab nations, nato behind us. we convinced the u.n. security council to vote for this so when ought and can come together it's a pretty good case for action. >> thank you mr. speaker. the prime minister has spoken of hope across the wider region following events in libya. will the premium he and other national leaders have put on inclusion and consensus in building constitutions and the primacy of democratic elections also be reflected in their response to the current efforts of the palestinian authority in respect of this given that this is the target month in which it was to be recognized at the u.n.? >> as i said earlier, i see that all these issues are linked just as we want to see greater democracy, peace and progress in middle eastern countries across the board so we want to see the palestinians have the dignity of their own state. but we believe in the two state solution so it must be a palestine along side a secure israel. that is, i think the test for us when it comes to this whole issue of recognition is are we doing something that is going to help push forward the peace process? that is the most important thing. in the end, we can't compel israel and palestine to reach peace between themselves. they have to want to do it. >> as the prime minister knows i've called for several years for an inquiry to rendition but i have to say the preparatory work -- is the prime minister aware he has already decided not to follow the same certification process used by lord butler in his inquiry to ensure that he got the right papers? he has decided against appointing an independent investigator and the country to the spirit of the reply the prime minister gave when setting up the gibson inquiry he will not be looking at detainee transfers in theatre. will he look again at the protocol to ensure that mr. gibson can do a proper job? >> i will look very carefully at what my honorable friend says because he has been pursuing this issue with dogged determination over the years and quite right, too. what i would say, though, in relation to this, is we are dealing obviously -- this is an inquiry almost entirely concerned with the security and intelligence services. it's extremely difficult area to inquire into. it has to be done with great sensitivity. i don't want to do anything that puts our country at risk or anything that jeopardizes the work of our security and intelligence services so i see this as a package. there was the clearing of the guantanamo bay cases, vital so the security services could get on with their work. there was the new guidance. officers in the field knew what they should and should not do. there is this inquiry to try and clear up the problems of the past. yes, it's about uncovering any mistreatment or malpractice and that's not to be justified in any way. but it's also to enable our security services to get on with the job of keeping us safe. >> madeline moon? >> the prime minister has rightly paid praise to the 2,300 service personnel. their professionalism and skills and if libya is to take over responsibility for its own security so that our service personnel can return to base and other duties, will it ensure that financially the training we can provide in building the new libyan army, air force, and navy is competitive with other countries so that we can pull our service personnel back, provide the training, and hopefully build a new form of relationship between our armed forces? >> well, certainly we will make available our advice and services and help for the new libya. as i've said we must allow them to choose what we want to do rather than force things on them. i don't think we should have the attitude because we've helped to liberate libya therefore we should get some sort of automatic preferred status. i think we should do it on the basis of what we have to offer and we should do it on the basis of all the normal rules and regulations we bring to this. >> mr. tobias elwood? >> could i commend the prime minister's resolve on this issue. he is right to stress that it is for the libyan people to determine the future but the removal of gadhafi actually is a complex network of tribal al allian alliances and we aren't out of the woods yet. does he agree stability over the next few months is critical if we are to see a role reversal where the rebels become the state and pro gadhafi tribal forces become the insurgents? >> my friend is quite right to draw attention to the risks there are as we move from a situation of gadhafi in command to gadhafi now on the run and the ntc taking over. there are all sorts of risks and we shouldn't be complacent or over confident about what will follow. all i would say is that those who warned that this was a country so full of tribal loyalties and divided between benghazi and tripoli and so prone to extreme islam, so far those have not been proven to be the case. this revolution wasn't about extremism. al qaeda played no part in it. it was about people yearning for a voice and a job and i think it is our duty to get behind them and help them build this new country. >> mr. steve mckay? >> mr. speaker, as the prime minister has indicated some of the rebels do have an al qaeda past. we all want good relations with the new libya. does he agree it's important this has as much information as possible about the histories of who is now assuming positions of power so that frankly we know exactly who we're dealing with? >> of course that information is valuable and as i said we shouldn't be naive in thinking that we're dealing with one type of people. we're dealing with all sorts of different people but i think this idea of trying to encourage people who have a strong belief in the muslim faith into a democratic role rather than a -- is the right approach. when people, obviously, there are concerns about where this can lead but i think when you look at a country like turkey where you have a government that does have some pedigree out of muslim politics you can see that can be compatible with a very successful democracy. >> mr. raymond tischly. >> thank you. on syria with regards to the situation the international community has come to the conclusion it has become a legitimate regime. we've seen arab countries like saudi arabia, kuwait, jordan withdraw their ambassadors from syria. how far away are we? >> well, i think we should act with others and we should act in a way that maximizes our influence. i think what's happened among arab countries and their progressive recognition that assad is illegitimate and cannot now take his country forward i think is very important. we still haven't got it a position where there is a unanimity across the arab world or indeed in the united nations itself. >> mr. william fay. >> thank you, mr. speaker. although libya is the second richest nation in terms of gdp per capita, it suffers from unemployment rates in excess of oo%. can the prime minister say how the international community can help the new libyan government develop and to increase libya's share of trade with the eu and other major trading partners? >> i think the honorable gentleman raises a very important point which is why we're trying to change and sucti change the entire neighborhood policy to make it much more about market access and trade if these north african countries traded as much with each other and the european union as european countries do that have far higher gdps and much more balanced economies. i think the exciting thing about libya is that because of its oil wealth and relative size it can be an economic success story. too many countries have found oil to be a curse rather than a blessing but libya has this opportunity with the new start and to use the oil revenue for good use. >> the british government has planned to play a role in the training of the new military forces of the new libyan government. will this be greater or less than those allocated by the previous labor government in the training colonel gadhafi's forces which enabled him to better repress his own people? >> it was an ingenious question, mr. speaker. the point is that we should wait to see what it is that the libyans want us to do. clearly, we have strong capabilities in training armed forces, police forces, advising on independent judiciary and the like. i think we should make those available and see what it is the libyans want. on this issue of training the police forces of other countries, this is a difficult issue because if you get into it on the one hand, you'll be accused of helping a regime that isn't perfect in every sense but if you don't you don't have the opportunity to try and explain some of the finer points of independent policing and respect for human rights. now this is a very difficult issue we haven't yet got right. thank you, mr. speaker. rightly emphasized in relation to syria, president assad has lost all legitimacy and should stand aside and the violence must end. at the same time he recognizes there is not yet the degree of international agreement necessary to give effect to those expressions of intent. could he tell us rather more what he is doing to try, what he and his government are doing to try and build international agreement to the level where it does become possible to force president assad to pay attention to what he described in the relation to libya as the moral imperative of stopping the slaughter of civilians? >> well, i think the answer is that it's a series of permanent conversations particularly that my right old friend the foreign secretary is having. at the european level there is a high degree of unity and i think the eu in some ways has led the way particularly with the oil embargo but we also have to have and are having very strong discussions with the permanent members of the security council and as honorable friend mentioned russia which i'll be viscsiting soon but also nonpermanent members like south africa and others but also more widely so that we build international support including in the arab league there is no substitute here for just quite a lot of hard work and diplomacy to try and build the strongest possible coalition. >> m clifton brown? >> mr. speaker, my right old friend's actions in saving many lives in libya have been totally vindicated. no order that the transition of the national council isn't overwhelmed with offers of help, who will take the lead in reconstruction in libya and precisely what role will this country play? >> well, i'm very grateful to my honorable friend for what he says. the key here has been building up, and my ripe old friend the development secretary is key to this building up a libyan led and libyan owned plan for transition. it is their plan. we've assisted and helped coordinate but it is their plan and then other people can get into it. it has been very interesting listening to the things they want. not all the things you would expect. the biggest single demand they made in paris was for the need for temporary classrooms because so many schools have been used by gadhafi's forces and indeed for some temporary housing. so we will fit into these requests but it is a libyan led plan. >> mr. andrew love? >> i understand that it is indeed early days for the new libya but can the prime minister see just a little more about the discussions around unfreezing assets in libya? because justifiably there is a need and urgency to distribute these assets. there is also some concern about the, whether they will go to the correct places and indeed whether or not the concerns around this room will come to fruition which may be affected by those assets. can the prime minister say just a little more about the discussions so far? >> well, the honorable gentleman raises an important point. at the moment what we're doing is taking through parts of unfreezing assets on an ad hoc basis through the u.n. security council so we were able to unfreeze the libyan dinars printed in this country and we can now distribute them back to the libyan people. in terms of making sure they're properly received as i said in my statement, there should be a proper accounting and transparency initiative in libya. in terms of having a more general asset release we need a new u.n. resolution and we're pushing for that. but of course we don't want to lose what we have at the moment which is a u.n. resolution that enables the nato mission to go on protecting civilians. it's a balance of trying to get both those things so that the assets can be unfrozen more broadly. >> mr. ben wallace? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the last government consistently told us that the whole reason for the work inclusive with libya was the agreement reached in 2003 with the weapons of mass destruction. with the collapse of the gadhafi regime we now see gadhafi hardly kept any part of that agreement. he hoarded massive stocks of chemical weapons continually to brutalize and ignore human rights. doesn't the prime minister think it is rather odd the last government knew that all along and for the eight years continued to increase cooperation with the libyans? >> well, i think my old friend makes an important point. we now hopefully with a new government in libya will be able to see how much of the agreement over weapons of mass destruction was kept. when it is concerning that there are still large supplies of unweaponized mustard gas that have to be kept a very close eye on by the international community and now by the ntc. as i say, when the new government gets its feet under the table perhaps we'll find out more. >> my constituents who in the process of completing a contract with the libyan oil industry, when the uprising started, now the failure of that contract to come to completion will cause significant financial problems for them. it's taken me over two months to get the department of business to come back to me. can the prime minister tell me whether he will be able to get the british businesses in the middle of contracts with libya any support and what way he'll be able to put behind them? >> well, i think the honorable gentleman raises an important point and it will help that we've now not only got the mission in benghazi but our ambassador will be coming established in tripoli as well. that will have the full support in companies like the one he represents in his constituency will be able to get in contact with the embassey and they'll help him with that contract mr. philip holliday. >> i commend the prime minister for his leadership throughout this episode but can i press him on the issue of costs? what is the latest treasury estimate of the cost of british intervention in libya and given that some $15 billion of assets are about to be unfrozen, given that libya is an oil rich nation, given that the arab league wanted us to get involved, surely it's not unreasonable to ask for at least a contribution to the cost the british taxpayers spent in freeing this country? >> i think my old friend makes an entirely reasonable point. the costs so far have been 120 million pounds in terms of our contribution to operations. the costs in terms of munitions spent is somewhere in excess of that figure. i think around 140 million pounds. clearly, britain has spent money to help the libyan people to free themselves and as you say, this is a wealthy country. a >> in the united states. but are divided over whether the values of islam are at odds with the u.s. values. this is part of a report of the brookings institution and public religion institute, which looked at the role of religion in u.s. politics. this is about two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> i want to welcome everyone here today. i am e.j. dionne, senior fellow sheared routines.m it is very good a view to come be with us. you come this is a very exciting survey. we sat a lot after 9/11, and that we have a new normal, that this had changed us in ch extraordinary ways. in this survey you are about to hear more about, talks about abu americans attitudes 10 years men later. att we feel more safe marchitude li, feel we have less personal freedom, less respect you in many ways, perhaps we didn'tways change and indeed some of then'd divisions among us, before 9/11 among us before 9/11 have only been aggravated. one of the things we will talk about a great deal are partisan and ideological splits that have spread from issues such as taxing and spending to issues such as what the meaning of religious tolerance is and where we stand on immigration and how we adapt to new groups. we will be talking a lot about generational divisions in the country. we will be talking quite a bit about immigration. i can't resist sharing g.k. chesterton's's observation that the united states has sought and i quote literally out of a nailed nation that comes to love, and we have always struggled over this. we have always and in there and manage to bend towards inclusion. there is a hunch that my colleague bill gholston on the survey we will again but we have also struggled over this question and there will be a lot about this struggle as we have this conversation. this survey and the report are part of an ongoing collaboration between the public religion research institute and the project on project on religion policy and politics here in the government study at are things. the survey was carried out by pri and bill galston and all of us are grateful to the great colleagues for collaboration that goes back to a survey we did that might interest some of you on the relationship between christian conservatives and the tea party. all this is available at both of our web sites. i also want to say that we are going to -- i want to welcome the c-span audience and i want to know that you can participate in this discussion by tweeting your question. it it is hashtag diversity poll, all one word. i got that right christine, did i not? it is hashtag diversity poll and christine will be passing along your question so not only will the people here participate but we hope all of you who are listening will participate. thank you and so many people worked on this. i just want to say right up front that we at brookings want to thank y. davis, christie jacobs and emily luken at pri shannon craig, emelia thompson, sammy hultquist and we also want to thank you for some of the lovely charge we see in this report. here is how we will proceed. robbie jones will give one of his patented copyrighted really and powerpoint presentations which will give you a very good sense of what this survey actually found. that will be followed by bill galston and is reported as you see will come into parts. bill will present the part that he and i worked on and then i will separately introduce our respondents. we are truly blessed and i may use that in the context that bears on religion that we will be joined by dr. muqtedar khan and jose casanova. i can't think of anyone better to respond to a survey of this sort of ireland traduced them later on in the program. right now i will introduce robbie and build and probably will take it away. robbie is the ceo and founder of the public religion research institute. he writes at figuring faith, a featured "washington post" on faith blog and is one of six members of the national steering committee for the religion and politics section of the american academy of religion. he holds a ph.d. in religion from emory university and in a m.a. from southwestern baptist theological seminary so he is fully qualified across the board to offer the observation he is about to. my friend and colleague bill galston holds the ezra k. zilkha chair in brookings government studies programs were he serves as a senior fellow. he is also college professor at the university of maryland. prior to joining brookings he was professor at the school of public policy at the university of maryland and director of the institute for philosophy and public policy. you can tell by the title of that institute that will knows everything there is to know about philosophy and everything there is to know about politics. he probably knows a fair amount about baseball too. we are very honored to have this collaboration with you robbie and it is great you are joining us here at workings again. >> thank you. >> i am delighted to be here to talk about the findings from the pluralism immigration survey conducted by public religion research institute our organization and that forms the foundation for a joint report the brookings institution. what it means to be american attitudes on an increasingly diverse america 10 years after 9/11. so if cj said with some folks joining us, the c-span audience and on twitter. the report that the full topline questionnaire the full report can all be found on research web site at www.public religion.or. you will see it right there in homepage and you can click on it and download the information right there and i will repeat -- we have the hashtag diversity pole all one word following along on twitter. e.j. has said some things i want to add a couple more before jumping in. first i want to thank brookings institution and particularly e.j. and bill for the ongoing partnership that has been so fruitful and really so much fun to work on together. as e.j. mention some of the findings we have flushed out in the survey we first uncovered almost a year ago now with the american value survey which was something we talked about here at things and we identified really these issues of attitudes towards islam and immigration as emerging issues that will be coming more to the floor and public policy. here we are making good sort of on some of the promises that were made back then to sort of flesh this out and see what is going on underneath the hood. i want to say also a thanks to the ford foundation was made our ongoing partnership with the brookings institution possible and also a a shout shout out to dan cox who was the principle researcher on this report. a couple of words about the survey itself. the survey is just out of the -- so august 14 that was the last day of the. macsata was in the field august 1 to august 14. the result i'm presenting here today were based on telephone interviews with 2450 americans age 18 years or older and including 800 respondents raised by cell phones of a margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.5 to 90% interval. so, the presentation i am going to make today has three basic parts. the first part that talks about where we are looking back 10 years after 9/11, how do americans perceive our safety, reputation in the world and issues of security, tolerance and pluralism and the second part i will delve into views of islam and the use of american muslims. the third part will deal with immigrants and immigration reforms of the big parts. the key word i think you will hear over and over are variations on a theme of wrestling. americans are wrestling with fear but on the other hand they are wrestling with the acceptance as e.j. alluded to. you will see the tension between these two things going on across a number of the findings. so americans continue then to wrestle with issues of purity in an tolerance and pluralism the issues of what it lies to the heart of what it means to be americans. americans affirm first amendment principles but as you will see they don't always are we don't always apply these principles evenly or consistently particularly with regard to american muslims and current immigrants. the powerful forces of political party affiliation, political ideology, generational differences and television news media are fueling large divides in the country. so let's start with the first section, 10 years after 9/11, where are we? we found some majority of americans, 53% say we are safer today than we were 10 years ago. there is a modest generational gender and education differences on the question that the majority of them at that 10 republicans say we are safer today than we were 10 years ago. now compare that to the other two questions we had 10 years ago and turning 10 years ago. the first one here is do we have more or less personal freedom? overwhelmingly eight of 10 americans say we have less freedom than we did 10 years ago. a very similar pattern on the question of respect in the world. seven of 10 americans say that we have less respect in the world then we did 10 years ago before 9/11. one other broad thing before i go into specific question about islam and immigration and muslims and immigration business broad support we find for tolerance, for principles of the first amendment religious liberty and separation of church and state. we have near consensus on the question of religious books we had this year the infamous event of the koran earning, the threat of a koran burning. almost nearly all americans believe religious book shelby treated with respect work on questions of the first amendment separation of church and state again strong agreement nine of 10 americans including two-thirds even when they had this fairly strongly must maintain a strict separation of church and state two-thirds of americans agreeing with that statement. so again, broad support for the principle. again we will see inconsistencies and application of what it means across the number of what it requires of us. so we will start off with some attitudes and what we see about attitudes towards muslims in society, some some clear ambivalence. we have a series of questions asked about comfort levels with different activities by american muslims. the majority supports -- the majority saying they would be a least somewhat comfortable of doing a variety of activities but as you can see there is also a fair number of americans saying they would have at least somewhat uncomfortable with the number of these activities so going from right to left, the muslim teaching in elementary schools have the highest level of support, six in 10 saying they would be a least somewhat comfortable with that foreign 10 saying that they would be somewhat uncomfortable. the rest of the measures, and men praying in the airport and a mosque being built which there has been a lot of news around this last year in oslo him woman wearing of. , those are much more closely divided and we will see this play out a bug -- across a number of issues. here's a big picture question about whether muslims are an important part of the community and thinking about acceptance. the majority of americans say muslims are an important part of the religious community in the u.s.. however, one in 10 disagree so still a sizable minority disagreeing although a majority agreeing. another kind of question that has been in the news about agreeing or disagreeing american muslims ultimately want to establish sharia applies the loveland of the u.s.. six of 10 americans reject this proposition that the muslims want to establish sharia law so by a margin of two-to-one americans disagree with the statement. however again, three in 10 a sizable minority agree with the statement. as we will see later there is also some very strong partisan ideological divide on this question. one of the things to note here is that in 2011 has been an enormously active year on this question. a year ago it was sort of the islamic center in manhattan. this year it has really been the sharia law. 49 bills have been introduced in 22 states to ban sharia law and what we see as there has been an effect when we asked the same question in february, only 23% of americans agree that muslims wanted to establish sharia law as the law of the land. that number has gone up to 30% so still a minority but the minority has grown just over the past year. probably not largely or somewhat in response to the activity on the legislative front in so many states across the country. so now i want to talk a little about division before moving on to immigration. there is a lot of information here but the most important thing to see on the slightest of pattern of responses. these are bipartisanship come the number of questions across the bottom are american muslims want to establish sharia law in the country and muslims are not on the disagree site an important part of the u.s. religious community and another question that we had about whether islam was at odds with american values and way of life. if you look at this you can see really large divides. the blue are self-identified democrats, and a the tan color our independence and the lighter red color by republican and the darker red color are self-identified americans who identify with the tea party. so you can see these really large divisions among the country on really all of these questions. the other thing to note here, some of the things to point out is one that the divides are bigger and particularly on the negative side is bigger on questions about islam than it is on questions about american muslims so this question on the right here is about whether islam itself, the values of islam are american values and way of life. two-thirds of those and tea party and 63% of those who are republican agree with that statement and only four in 10 democrats agreed that they meant. this question divides most of the american committee. we find the negative slide -- side a good bit lower although the partisan divides are still here. one other thing to point out here is that the divisor little bit asymmetrical. that is that republicans are sort of more further away from the population then democrats are in this question so democrats averaged eight points from the general population at a more positive direction across all these questions and republicans averaged 14 points in the general population and were negative direction on these questions. we see the same pattern on the other partisanship, a similar pattern on views of islam in american muslims. again the same questions across the bottom but by most trusted media source and i want to be really clear here, with this question is based on is we asked americans who they most trusted to give them accurate news and information about current events and politics, which television news outlet so among americans in this chart is showing among americans who chose different television news outlets to be the most trusted one, how their views than shakeout on these various questions. the main thing that you see as there is excellent not a lot of difference by most trusted media source except for those in the most trust "fox news." that is the red bar that really jumps out. on all these questions americans who trust "fox news" are significantly more -- and the other news source to say muslims want to establish sharia law law and american firms are not an important part of the u.s. religious community and to say the values of islam are at odds with american values so a pretty stark difference here. finally before we move on to immigration, one other question -- we tried to get a sense of how americans evaluate religious violence reticular leah in light of the tragedy in norway. try to think about how do americans react when the perpetrator is doing something in the name of christianity versus when a perpetrator is doing something in the name of his long. what we found here is a double standard and i mean that in the most descriptive light, that there is literally a different standard applied when the perpetrator is a self-identified christian versus a self-identified muslim. the way it sheikhs out eight in 10 americans say that when a person commits violence in the name of christianity they are not really truly christians 08 and 10 reject that claim to be christian. americans do not apply that same principle to the perpetrator who does something in the name of islam. less than half of americans say the 48% as -- say when someone commits violence in the name of islam that they are really muslims are pretty stark difference in how americans value religious freedoms and religious violence. this hopefully make some sense about how the government went in the wake of the tragedy in norway. so views on immigration and immigrants and we will see some of the same patterns really showing up here. similar to the slide i had earlier we had a set of russians about general american attitudes about what they think about immigrants. very strong numbers of americans, nearly nine in 10 saying immigrants are hard-working. eight in 10 saying immigrants have strong family values. on the other hand there is some kind of reservations saying these could be interpreted negatively. seven in 10 say immigrants mostly keep to themselves in a majority actually saying immigrants do not nick an effort to english here. again we will see there are some strong partisan divides particularly on the question of learning english in the country with republicans more likely to disagree that they make an effort to learn english and democrats more likely to in win the same thing for ideology. i am -- not surprise me. number -- and other general question that specifically backs that up, what do americans think about overall impact of immigrants on society? a majority, 53% say the newcomers to american society strength in american society however you should be able cc it pattern here, four in 10 say that newcomers actually threatened traditional american customs and values. again, partisan divides her. six in 10 democrats say americans strengthen -- newcomers strengthen american society and 55% of republicans say that the newcomers threaten american society so the majority is on the opposite side for this question on partisans. this translates really into some real tensions when it comes to policy questions of how to handle particularly the problem of illegal immigrants and what approaches should be taken on the one hand. if you ask and agree disagree question about the path to citizenship and majority of americans 56% say that the best way to handle the problem of illegal immigrants in the country to allow them to have a pass for citizenship legal resident status with eventual -- at the same time 51% say to make a serious effort to deport all illegal immigrants. we have a little bit of inconsistency here in the way that americans think about -- for both of things are true. by the way just as we saw an increase in the numbers on sharia law over the past year we pulled them with the same question about the support for deportation in march of 2010 and it was far below majority support. it was in the 40s. i don't have a number right in front of me. low 40s and out the numbers have climbed to the other side. however when they put these things head-to-head we see different pictures so these are kind of asking them individually and when we put them head-to-head with the presumption that the border would be secured on both sides of the question and we sort of asked respondents to choose head-to-head on a question, which do you think is the best way a secure the borders and provide a path to citizenship or secure the borders and arrest and deport all illegal immigrants, the secure the borders and provide citizenship strongly outweighs the other side. so when you put them head to head and ask people to choose with the presumption that the border should be secure six in 10 americans say provide a path to citizenship rather than deport all illegal immigrants. as you can see there is a lot of room to play in these questions. setting up a similar pattern looking at artisan ship and media consumption patterns across a number of questions here. again we see very similar patterns in partisanship and also media. this was on partnership. across the bottom and have a question about the d.r.e.a.m. act allowing illegal immigrants brought to the uss children to gain legal resident status if they join the military. to college. six in 10 americans overall support that and a strong partisan divide including republicans in the tea party affiliates and the darker red. the second is a path to citizenship allowing undocumented immigrants who've been in the u.s. for several years to earn legal -- and finally disagreed with deportations and the disagree cited deportation so they don't go in the same traction. we should make a serious effort to deport illegal immigrants back to their home country. again we see democrats at least six in 10 favoring the path to citizenship than disagreeing with deportation on the republican side. four in 10 agreeing and only three and in 10 disagreeing with deportation and those who are affiliated with the tea party lower than those. the same pattern you see a really strong kind of partisan divide on these questions. again we look at media consumption patterns here and we see a very similar pattern as well with "fox news" in the red and public television viewers on the right here. those that say they most trust "fox news" in the red and those that say they most trust public television in the darker blue and we generally try to arrange them in order and on all these questions we see a very similar shakeout with those who say they most trust "fox news" are less likely than general public to favor the d.r.e.a.m. act or disagree with deportation. the one thing that is different here is those who say they most trust public television viewer standout more on this question than they did on attitudes towards muslims so we see seven in 10 of americans who say they most trust public television standing out on this question and favoring all these things and disagreeing with deportation. >> finally i want to lay out something on religion and say something about the d.r.e.a.m. act as opposed to a more comprehensive reform. this is also in the report. opposition for the d.r.e.a.m. act that is allowing younger immigrants in the country illegally to sort of gain legal resident status if they join the military. to college actually has less intense offered -- opposition and broader support than the more comprehensive question about immigration reform. wanted to put out some religious differences here. what we see here is all religious groups in the country with the exception of white evangelical protestants support the d.r.e.a.m. act. white in the evangelical partisan stand out as being small majority and opposition to the d.r.e.a.m. act. one slide for the road of head and then i will turn it over to bill. what happens when they look at the millennial generation? what do they seem to suggest about how that generation may push some of these complex? i'm going to look at one question on islam and the big broad picture on islam and one on immigration. on the question about whether islam is at odds with american values if we look at the contrast being tween lineal said seniors would basically see there on opposite sides of the question so with millennials those are americans 18 to 29 years of age. those are people that are as young as 810 years ago during 9/11 and aged eight to 1910 years ago so came of age at that moment in that era, so they are a majority in support of, or a majority disagreeing with the statement that islam is at odds with american values. more seniors agree with the statement and a big picture question on immigration again the differences are even starker here that two-thirds of millennials nearly say that newcomers to the u.s. strength in american society while a slim majority of seniors say that immigrants threaten american society and traditional values there. so one thing to say as we go back to the big picture question, it really is america wrestling between fears and acceptance. we see this on the front of immigration and we see this on the front of the place of american muslims in society and attitudes around islam and we also see i think some indication here that the millennial generation may have a little bit of a different take than older americans and may influence where we go from here. now i will turn it over to bill. [applause] >> well, as has been the case with previous instances of this very fruitful collaboration, e.j. dionne and i were inspired by the survey and itsindings we decided to commit a few acts of interpretation.terpretae have five brief mini-essays on specific topics to contribute to the mix. e.j. began his remarks by quoting chesterton. i guess i can too. and that is chesterton also famously described america as a nation of the church and then that raises the question, which church? and the answer is that the unifying religion of america is americans. so the question is, how do you get to be a member in good standing with the american church and who decides and the boundaries of the american church. that essentially is the question that this wonderful survey probes. and, let me make five points in 10 minutes. the first , the united states is committed at its core to the idea of free exercise of religion and respect for diverse faith, but that commitment historically has been tested by successive waves of new religions, it either home-grown or coming to the united states through immigration that it tested the boundaries of a doctrine that was originally developed within protestantism. in the 19th 19th century conspicuously mormons and catholics and today muslims. our argument is that public attitudes towards muslims today to the extent that they encapsulate reservations about muslims, combine combined some of the features of 19th century attitudes towards mormons and 19th century attitudes towards catholics on the opposition. mormonism was less theological than it was practice-based. there were specific mormon practices, particularly polygamy, which the first, the very first platform of the republican party and the 1850s described as one of the twin relics of barbarism, slavery being the other. in the case of catholics, it was more theological and doctrinal. first, the belief that was not without foundation that the catholic church in the 19th century was officially opposed to liberalism and democracy and secondly the belief that it demanded loyalty to an authority other than the supreme authority of the constitution of the united states, and mormons and catholics had to adjust, as did the united states in order to bring them within the framework of free exercise, and we would argue on the basis of the survey that attitudes towards muslims today combined reservations about specific actresses, for you know, for example the wearing of the burqa, which invokes a great deal of discomfort as robbie says and is just indicated, along with broader fears about the incompatibilities between the values of islam and the values of the united states. on the other hand, you know, there is evidence of building inclusion. you have majorities believing that muslims are an important part of the religious community and even larger majority saying that too many americans regard all muslims as terrorists and as we have just seen, the proposition muslims want to institute sharia law is rejected two-to-one by the american people. so rustling, america is wrestling with islam and islamic america. this is part of an often heated historical pattern. the second i can be much briefer. that is that the sorts of tensions that this report is focused on having to do with islam and also immigration are not just freestanding issues. they have been integrated into the framework of growing political partisan polarization in the united states that is developed really over the past four decades. so you know as robbie has put it, the issues of islam and immigration have now become part of a broader fabric of america's culture wars. with regard, and this is my third point, to immigration, there is a very interesting tension revealed in this survey between, on the one hand, a diffuse majority in favor of fairly capacious and comprehensive immigration reform but on the other hand and intense minority that opposes it. there is more intent -- there is more intensity on -- against the views on the favorable side and american politics, political institutions have a way of giving disproportionate influence to intensity, and that has to do not only with party primaries but the fact that if intensity tends to show up among those parts of the population that are disproportionately likely to participate in the political process, then you have what we in fact see on the issue of immigration and that is this tension between the aggregate numbers on the one hand and the actual rhythm and feel of the political competition on the issue. .4, which is really intriguing. what we call the mormon factor. while it is the case that mormons are still less widely accepted than the jewish and catholics it is nonetheless the case that two-thirds of americans, 67% to be precise, approve of mormons. it is also the case that the hostility to mormons is equally prevalent among liberals and conservatives for very different reasons. approval rates for mormons, nine points higher among republicans than democrats and what they called the white evangelical --

Related Keywords

Turkey , China , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , United States , Bahrain , Egypt , Libya , Ireland , Czech Republic , South Africa , Norway , New York , , Loveland , Malta , Afghanistan , Tripoli , Tarabulus , Islamic Center , Jordan , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Pakistan , Tunisia , Sirte , Sha Biyat Surt , Iraq , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Oslo , Kansas , Yemen , Paris , Rhôalpes , France , Italy , Kuwait , Zawiyah , Idlib , Palestine , Americans , America , Russian , Maltese , Scotland , Libyans , Britain , Italians , British , Libyan , Serbian , Czechs , Israeli , Palestinian , Russians , American , Cliff Guffey , Dee Tien , David Cameron , Jane Swenson , Begich Petraeus , Al Khatib , Louis Atkins , Nicholas , Al Qaeda , Ben Wallace , Brown Mccaskill , Robbie Jones , Tony Lloyd , Dillinger Rego , Carol Iain , Ezra K Zilkha , Yvonne Fletcher , Ellen Levine , Christie Jacobs , Orrin Clyburn , Mia Lee , Andrew Rosendale , Jose Casanova , Dan Cox , John Baron , Tom Coburn , Patrick Mercer , Andrew Miller , Clifton Brown , Philip Holliday , Steve Mckay , Wright Davis , Tobias Elwood , Rory Stewart , Hugh Bailey , William Fay , Savitt Lagat , Jane Ellison ,