later that day, lbj are just another democratic senator to support medicare. in this call, with carl hayden of arizona. . .

do like you did before. wait and see. if we do not have to have you, then we go. i hope we do not. >> el bj en carl hayden talking about medicare legislation and the debate in the senate in 1964. later that day, the senate comes up with a tie vote on medicare. in this call, with minor feldman, they're considering how to break that tie. >> mr. president, we have a tie

vote on the medicare amendment. we have to get either jordan or money to get a sale by pairing with teddy kennedy appeared luther hodges has [unintelligible] he will might give us a commitment. the suggestion is that, perhaps if you called either money or jordan, this would convince them to give us the pair we need to carry this. >> i do know what to do it in less i have to. -- do it unless i have to. >> mr. shrieve, what is a live parrot? >> that was a gentlemen's agreement that was periodically used during this time in congress. in this case, what it amounted

to and what it always amounts to is that, when there is an absence senator for whom you know that senator's position -- in this case, they were referring to senator kennedy, who was a supporter of medicare -- if you could pare that senator with a present senator and there would both agree not to vote, that would essentially offset the vote, one supporter against one opponent. what they were essentially asking the opponents to do was to not to vote, but to pair instead. >> we will be chatting with you in the but later. later on september 2, 1964, the senate does approve the medicare amendment on a vote of 49-44. on september 3, lbj and burial

o'brien took the next steps. you will hear john maccormick, carl albert, and republican leader charlie halleck. >> codex yes -- hello? yes, mr. president. >> what they want to do is that they say that, if it goes conference, it will never come out of conference, maccormick says. they can have a vote to extend to the second amendment. bill says he has to hundred 50 people against that. >> yes. >> i would hope that he is wrong.

i would not think that that many would stestand up and be against it. the other votes would be duto refuse. they're going to decide what to do. my old head guess would be that [unintelligible] that would instruct them -- i would look the house defeat it appeared >. >> first of all, we have delivered people in this morning and talk to the senior citizens and all that stuff yesterday. they want to do all of these things and then you will finally say ok. you're the ones were supposed to handle republicans. do you have 40 republicans? well, they do not have 40

republicans. they have about 20 per republicans. i got a hold of bob and said, whether you doing here? there are only two votes in the conference for us. what do you have in mind? for christ's sakes, is this a bill with goldwater and mills opposing the administration? i know you do not have any troops, but you could make an interesting conference out of it. mills, talk to him about it yesterday and i talked to him again this morning. what the hell? we realized that we cannot get the senate bill adopted in a goddamn house. the only judgment i can make at this point is that mills will certainly try every device he can to get an agreement and the conference that would include

fives and king because they hate like hell to be on the house side of a conference. >> my thought would be that you will talk to the senators who are free. if we could get mills to agree, we could take it out of conference and that would be fine. you have any of the feelings? >> no. at the moment, i share that view. with the stores around the country today, we have something going on this a damn thing. god almighty, i would hate to see that leadership join up with mills on some kind of wrap up that screws as quickly pared >>

we do not know for a fact -- screws us quickly. >> we do not know that for a fact. we can get it out with the votes we have. >> we do not have the votes in conference. >> that which grows, would it not? if we came out good and proper, just to vote up or down, is that it? >> we could vote up or down, but i do not know that we could spark the country on that. my view is that this thing can get to really heated up. my view of the thing is that -- well, i know that you are tied up now. if it is alright with you, why do i not to get back with you and we will talk about it later this afternoon. >> ok. >> on september 3, 1964,

president johnson and larry o'brien. on september 14, larry o'brien tells lbj about his conversation with house leaders. >> hi, mr. president. hale boggs and carl albert called me a little while ago. they came to the conclusion that the best thing to do on this medicare bill would be to go to conference without instructions. they wanted to get our view on it here. i told them that i was lucky to disturb you with it, that you had -- i told them that i was not going to disturb you with, that you had discussed it with me and that i could say to them that their argument made some sense and it sounded reasonable

and they could get in those two comment at some point -- and they could get mills to comment at some point and withdraw any attempt to have any kind of floor action on it. they're going to contact maccormick. they felt he shared their views. he asked me about labor. i told him that labour's share their view. they told me exactly the same thing. [unintelligible] i said he should talk to the three leaders. to cecil king -- and to talk to cecil king. let's see, in talking to mills the the day, he said, i cannot see the point.

he follows going florida. the speaker wants to do it. i said that the point, perhaps, wilbur, is that there are many republicans that would be positioned finally on medicare that have, until now, not taken a position. he said, how many of them will there be? i said, but 30 or so. so the speaker this morning talked to jim tremble. i don't know what transpired in the conversation. but the idea the speaker had in his mind as he could ultimately convince trembled to vote tomorrow. t --. rimble -- he could ultimately convince trimble to vote tomorrow. they believe there is some merit

in putting the pressure on mills. they could get a firm agreement that would be discussed in conference. labor is notifying the leadership directly that they share the view. leadership asked me what the white house position was. i said that would take it on my own because i was not in a position to consult with you further at this point. i did not feel that there was any need of having a big discussion and bother you directly and why do i not just leave it, that they talk to me. i am telling them on my on whether i am right on ro or wro. >> ok. >> ok, mr. president. >> that was president of johnson and his chief aide. we are joined again by historian

and author and david shrieve. what is going on with the conference committee at this point and explain what the suggestion of sending it to committee without instructions -- what does that mean? >> the debate in this car station has to do with whether or not the administration -- the debate in this conversation has to do with whether or not the administration andy congressman from massachusetts -- administration and the congressman from massachusetts would put pressure on mills. he would likely be joined by the other two republican house conferees, which would give him a majority on the house side of the conference committee. cecil king, hale boggs, they are the other two house democrats that would likely support the amendment.

chairman mills joining with the republican opposition to defeat what is essentially the democratic position. going with instructions simply meant that the majority party leadership would instructed their committee conferees to vote a certain way. there were not bound to do so. but they would be issued formal instructions to do so. by that, they would put pressure on wilbur mills and take it to the people. >> on september 24, 1964, as the conference committee continues to resolve differences between the senate and the house version, lbj got a call from one of the conferees, russell long. he is also the manner of the senate finance committee. in this call, you will hear harry byrd and committee democratic members albert gore

sr. >> i want to find out when you broke up this afternoon, did you make any progress? >> i do not like the way things are going. i thought with wilbur mills, he told us that he was going to do something, that that meant he was going to do what he is talking about. [laughter] [unintelligible] i have the majority, have 47. i love to that thing with addison and corporate i cannot leave my proxy with them because they will double cross me. the only thing i can do is to be

there when the vote ochercurs. [unintelligible] wilbur said something to me this morning and sounded like he was not willing to take anything. then he brings up to the point of order thing. addison is very upset about the way things are going right now. if worse comes to worse -- i am a hell of a spot. as you know, i love the guy and i am tied to him and the trade to be true to him.

at the same time, i would be able to take anything that he would go for appeare. i think we are in trouble. wilbur had not shown his hand yet occurred but i think he is -- his hand yet. but i think he is going to say that it cannot be done. i would say that we should settle for the rest of the bill and talk about this medicare business next year. i can vote against racine two times and three times. -- i can vote against reseedinceding two times and the times.

i ask him if he was quick to ask for instructions. he said, no, i am not going to do that. >> how can i ever make an issue over there? >> here's my thought. the house has to act first on the conference report. so when he takes the conference report back -- i think i ought to sign when we can get. and then gore and adderson can refuse to sign. when it goes back to the house, the senate is going to oppose this conference report. they would vote -- it will put at a son notice and they will oppose it. -- they will opposput addison on

notice and they will oppose it. we should have taken an least some part of what the senate had, you see? we think there should have been some kind of a medicare program. we want more conference. we want to go back at them with the conference report. you recall old mine frustrating efforts to go back to conference. but the one time i did get to conference, we beat the conference report. you can get a vote on it. when they bring it back to the house and bring the thing up, you can say, wait a minute, i think we should have taken some part of medicare. i think we ought to go on record

on this. the only way to do this is to vote against the conference report occurre. >> i will talk to him later and much obliged to you. >> that is president johnson and russell long, a member of the conference committee on the social security bill with its medicare provisions. on september 24, 1964. later that day, lbj gets an update on the committee's action from hale boggs. the will hear mentioned from wilbur mills. >> i just want to ask you what happened on the social security. is wilbur going to give it to us again? >> i am afraid so. we were in a half breath's of raymond. -- we were in a half breath's o

f mills. he comes back at 2:30 p.m. this afternoon and thought it may be subject to a point of order. i know we can get a rule whether something is a point of order or not i just told them, you have taken this course. if you think it is a report -- if you think it is reprehensible to ask for a rule, i think it is reprehensible that your acting the way you are acting. this is just a way to get out, that is all. if we do not take some medicare,

then we ought to better the whole damn bill. >> ok. >> that is president johnson and hale boggs on september 24, 1964. later, president johnson got more bad news as the talks with conferee and florida democratic senator george some matters. -- george smathers. >> i talked to them. i talked to russell and hale. >> russell was not there today. i was busy raising $75,000 in florida. i got that fellow that we talk about, remember? he is coming in.

anyway, you get the picture. did you talk to clinton? >> no, i am going to. as soon as a finished with the meeting, i was going to call him. >> i talked with him and he told me what happened. i am going to talk with a very. i am went to talk to everybody there. it looks worse now than it has looked. it is cleansed decision to let it wind itself out and let it not be anything. byrd is against any of it. the house people would like for us to pass the bill on the grounds that it will take

forever. it uses up a valuable point, they say. i have a feeling that clinton is probably right. -- that clint is probably right. it looks like they will be able to recess by saturday night. >> good. thank you. i will be in touch with you. >> on september 24, 1964, president johnson and florida democratic senator george smathers in our special program of some of el bj's telephone calls on medicare legislation. we will continue with the lbj tapes in just a few minutes. first, we will speak again with historian and author mr. shrieve.

what happens to medicare on october 2, 1964? >> this is the day in which we see the vote in the conference committee. the house conferees are voting separately. as we heard, the prediction that many had forecast came to pass here. that is thatmills -- that is that mills against it. the senate conferees, instead of voting to support to except for the amendment, voted simply not to except any bill. what clinton anderson had suggestion, i think we picked up in that last phone call, was that we perhaps would be better off -- the democratic party, the nation -- they would be better off just letting it all slide.

this is one side of wilbur mills that comes in as well. he is opposed for a number of reasons. it is not only to except the senate amendment, but to accept any medicare legislation at this point. one of the critical factors in one of the reasons he is opposed is because he has a little bit of a concern that, if a medicare bill coupled with advances in cash benefits in social security reaches a certain point and they have to raise the taxes -- the payroll taxes -- to support that into a certain point, it might foreclose the possibility of doing much in the future, either expanding the medicare legislation, getting something better -- they did not feel they have anything will the wild at this point -- or expanding social security benefits, which was his baby. we will see at the end of that

mills exercises are some interesting judgment and power in determining the taxation rates in the final bill. it is an interesting product that he devises. >> we will also be hearing a call about support for the medicare provision from dr. benjamin spock. who is he? is his opinion important? >> we will hear from dr. spock just a few days after the historic election that year. in part, we will hear his reaction to johnson's landslide victory, but also the democratic party picked up 38 seats on the outside and two on the senate side. earlier predictions on the senate side were more pessimistic. by any means, they were very pleased with the outcome. spock was a very big supporter of president johnson. ironically, he would become an

opponent of the vietnam war. he was very outspoken in later years. attorney general ramsey clark would prosecute him and convict him of encouraging people to evade the draft in 1968. it was a sentence for which he never served time. but spot is the same as pediatrician, author of the common sense book on baby and child care. i think the publication numbers are something like 35 million copies of 45 million copies. everybody in the country knew dr. spock was pared the telephone operator -- knew dr. spock. the telephone operator mistakenly calls and dr. spark. he and a number of doctors put together a committee to push for the passage of medicare. included in this committee is

dr. debakey, dr. cole built a full symphony york, eleanor roosevelt, and lou gehrig's private physician and a number of luminaries in the medical world. we will also hear spock referred to issues in the program in which he appears. the opposition has a hard time fielding anybody for this show as a counterpoint. >> league final call and our medicare program takes place on march 23, 1965 as lbj talks to house leaders and the assistant secretary of health, education, and welfare. what happens to medicare on that date? >> this is the day on which the ways and means committee voted

affirmatively to pass medicare. this does take us 40 bid into 1965. the electoral changes did make a big difference -- this does take us forward a bit into 1965. the electoral changes did make a big difference. the old adage back in 1964 and even in 1962, when kennedy was pushing for medicare, was that we need the 13th vote. they did better than that. they ended up with 17 votes on that date in favor of medicare. wilbur mills saw that immediately. he is making speeches in late 1964, after the election, to chambers of commerce and various groups back in arkansas where he goes on record saying, i am going to go for medicare. his influence was just the strong.

>> we will wrap up with you after these next few calls. gore sr. on october 2, 1964. >> i made a statement which i hope does not indiscrete. i want to tell you about it. i said that this, in my opinion, that this will permit you to go to the people who seek a mandate, which i am confident you will receive. i want you to show that i had said that. >> you had no agreement. >> there was no agreement. there was one change this morning. senator byrd came with his vote to recede. george was there. russell did not show up.

but the georgia voted as proxy. formless devoted to insist on the senate position. -- four of us of voted to insist on the senate position. if the congress should return of thafter the election. the sentiment is high here. they can take the issue to the people and we will get a good health plan next year. what they were trying desperately to do is to drive through the social security benefits and leave health care standing there and alone. now we will put it together in a package. >> you do not think we ought to try to call them back after the election?

>> we have already passed it in the senate. we may not pass it in the senate anymore appeared if we lose moss and mcgee and new york, three or four of these places, we may not have the votes. new york would not make any difference. but some of the other places would. maas would end mcgee would and some of those. we got it passed. i think call congress back in november. after the election, everybody is through. but you give a little thought to it and we will talk later. i want your judgment. see if we think we will have trouble passing it in the senate again. >> from october 2, 1964, tennessee democratic senator albert gore, sr. tells president

johnson that the conference committee is deadlocked resolving differences between the house and the senate versions of the medicare provisions and the security bill -- the social security bill. the president then has a call with medical supporter and well- known pediatrician and activist dr. benjamin spock. >> you may be interested that, on abc yesterday, wait taped a half-hour event for medicare that abc is putting on. >> do you remember what program it is on? what is it called? >> issues and answers. >> yes. >> they asked the head of the ama to take the other half. when he found out that i was

going to be on it, he withdrew. they did not want to give the impression that the ama was split on this issue. this was to be taped yesterday afternoon. when tower called abc yesterday morning and said that it was a shambles, he could not come up to do it. they finally got congressman mack trader. he is doing it sometime today. >> that is a very interesting. i am so grateful for you -- so grateful to you for doing it. i will try to be worthy of your competence. >> i have great confidence. >> that is president johnson and medicare supporter of dr. benjamin spock on november 6, 1964. on march 24, 1965, the house ways and means committee approved the new medicare measure. we hear about it in its so-

called with lbj, john maccormick, wilbur mills, and health education and welfare assistance secretary wilbur cohen. >> i think it is a great bill, mr. president. >> is that right? >> yes, sir. you natalie have very thing that you wanted, but we got a lot more -- you not only have everything that you wanted, but we got a lot more. >> on the budget, what do we estimate to? >> i think that it would be around $450 million more than what you estimated for the net cost of the supplementary program. >> what do they do under that? how is that handled? explain that to may, over and above the supplementary you stole from burns. >> generally speaking, it is

physicians' services. >> so my doctor that i go up to and he pumps my stomach to see if i have ulcers, that is the physician. >> yes, sir. >> any and the services? >> yes, sir. -- pennanny md services? >> yes, sir. he cannot charge whatever he wants. it would be their responsibility, under the with the chairman has provided the deal, that they would regulate the fees in effect of the better. they wanted to make sure that the government was a regulating the season directly. the bill provides that the doctor can only charge the reasonable charges. but this intermediary, the blue shield, would have to do all of

the policing so that the government would not have its long hand in it could >> that is good. what did they do for you the patient on doctors? it says that you can have doctor bills paid. up to what extent or how much? >> the individual patient has to pay the first $50. >> all reichert >> then he has to pay 20% -- >> all right. >> than he has to pay 20%. >> i hope that keeps the cut -- the hypochondriacs out. >> that keeps the hypochondriacs out. >> yes, sir. it is something that just about anybody can do. they can borrow that much. they can get their folks to pay that much. what doesn't get you on hospital and nurses' home -- what does it

get you on hospital and the nurses' home under king anderson? >> there is a $40 deductible. >> that is good. >> and also has three other benefits that word in your bill, mainly the home health- care services, the outpatient diagnostic -- and we fixed that amendment up the way you wanted. the only change was in the home health services after you get out of the hospital. >> that is good. >> i think they're going to go over to the senate and raise hell on the thing. quite frankly, there is no longer any room for the private insurance companies to set insurance policies over 65. , they can take the combination

of hospital care and physician services. >> remember this. nine out of 10 things that i get in trouble on is because they laid around. tell the speaker and wilbur to bring it up as soon as the camp. >> they want to do it as soon as next week. >> but tell them not to let it lay around. they just about killed my education bill because they laid it around. it is like a dead cat. you better either bury it or do something. >> [unintelligible] >> congratulations. let me talk to carl if he is their. >> yes, sir. >> how is little john? >> [unintelligible] >> make cannot let this stuff

lay around so they can generate opposition to it. >> yes, sir. >> mr. president, do not worry one minute about these doctors and hr companies against this bill. the ama is going in all directions. i have had some come to me in confidence saying that they would accept the payroll taxes if we would use it. you could not have that. but they have come a long, long way and they are going in all directions. the insurance people are going to oppose it. there's no doubt it. there were going to oppose h.r. 1. they're going to oppose anything we did. the only thing that i am

concerned about is that there are $450 million in this bill out of the treasury. >> i will take care of that. you see, what i have done, wilder, this will not hold for the rest of the year, but the first eight months by constant cabinet pressure and ultimatum and being meaner than you or harry byrd. [unintelligible] i think would lease get down to 450 million. the budget that i brought to in january is $1 billion under the

deficit last year. i reduced the deficit $1 billion. i think that we can -- they're going to last may -- they said, you want to put in $400 million or $500 million. we had an old judge in texas one time. he said, when i talked to him one time about the constitution -- what is your constitution between friends? i said, tell wilder that $400 million is not going to separate -- tell will bbur that $400 million is not good to separate us as friends. [unintelligible] >> they came to see me. i, too, was concerned about the impact of the tax.

>> we are worried about that. >> we have revised our rates. they are in keeping with their views. they are completely satisfied. >> what they wanted me to do, most of the spender's said that i was not putting enough money in it and i would have to put in $400 million or $500 million. now they come along and say that you are taking a lot more out. juergen to get in trouble. i it -- you're going to get in trouble. >> we agreed and we have changed the bill. >> i will get out a statement and then gradually the committee and congratulate you. for god's sake, do not let that dead cat lay out on your porch. >> [unintelligible] >> i sure do. i know where you learned it

appeared let me talk to the speaker. -- i know where you learn it. let me talk to the speaker. do not let the dead can hang around. let's get it passed before they get to the letters in. we will have a damn good record. that sounds like a better bill, john, then we sent you. does it not to you? >> it does come to me, yes. >> you and i never argued about $450 million for people over 65, did we? >> no. >> ok, my friend. >> that was march 23, 1965. as we conclude our special lbj program about medicare, we have a few final thoughts from

historian david shrieve. please summarize what happened after march 23, 1965, the date of this last call we heard. >> without getting too tangled up into many of the details -- because there were a number of changes -- the bill did emerge pretty much as it had emerged at this point out of the ways and means committee. however, it is probably worth noting that, when they went to conference and the senate desk for changes and they had to go to a conference committee as well, they had to reconcile about 500 changes between the two houses. there were a number of changes. typical of those was the 60 days they cited for hospital coverage which was expanded to 90 days. that was one fairly prominent change. they kept going around with the tax rate and how they're gonna do that. it is worth pointing out how some of this discussion you here, there was a part where mills talks about a discussion

he had, they were urging mills and the other conferees and anybody who would help determine the fate of this bill to consider the impact of the spending on the economy and the taxation that would be implemented to pay for it. what they did, in effect, was to lower the tax rates on the payroll tax side by increasing the cap -- the salary cap -- for which the tax would be subjected. mills was happy to go along with that. he is worried about actuarial soundness. this trend and better than he had imagined. if -- this turned out to better

than he had imagined. [unintelligible] the your original health insurance payroll tax was 0.35% for the employee and the employer. the co-payments under part b, the doctors' bills part, was $3. and the subsidy from the government was $3. it was a 50/50 basis that helped offset that. it has changed over the years. the federal government picks up a larger share. it is important to wrap up a little bit by mentioning johnson's comments on the $450 million cost and how he saw the country paying for that. he said should, you had to read between the lines. he said that prosperity was going to pay for it. revenues had been growing to

such an extent that they would accrue more than amply enough to pay for this kind of a program and other things. indeed, that does come to pass. when johnson leaves office in 1969, the federal government budget is in surplus. for that very reason, it was not because of cutbacks or because he was meaner than harry byrd or wilbur himself. that was showmanship. he knew good and well that they could pick up this $450 million tab easily. it may also be worth pointing out given the current debate, over the next 10 years while the government's share of health- care payments increased dramatically because of medicare/medicaid, the percentage of gdp that was represented by health care spending actually dropped over

the next decade. i think that is testimony to johnson's outlook. this proves that what he saw likely to happen really did happen. >> finally, what similarities do you see between the johnson administration's efforts on medicare and the current administration's goal for health care legislation? >> maybe we ought to talk about that dead cat. [laughter] one thing you should know and it is probably obvious from some of these discussions is that this is legislation that had been bandied about and considered for many years. the current administration, of course, is moving as rapidly as they can, too rapidly, perhaps, for some folks. when you put it in that context, it does look like this current struggle is perhaps more difficult than the one that johnson faced in 1964 and 1965. the other thing that is perhaps worth mentioning is that we do

not have wilbur mills any more or people like him-sharing significant house committees. the power of the committee chairman has been diminished, mostly because post-watergate reforms. there were no amendments allowed on the floor. that changed in 1973. it was not really affected -- it was a really effective until 1975. and now it is messier. you have more moving parts. you have more players. you have the said committee chairman with influence. the conference committee debates, if we get to that point cut would be even uglier and messier and more volatile than what we saw described here. >> that is david shrieve

historian, author, and editor currently working on a book called "american promise." thank you so much for your insight and information. >> it was a pleasure to be here. >> we know that these tapes are provided by the lbj the library and museum in austin, texas. this program will be available on our website. you can go to c-span's based radradio.org . >> coming up next, actor robert redford on how he got involved in politics and environmental

policy. later, a group of young republicans talk about the future of their party. and then there is a discussion on the political influence of hispanics in western u.s. states. >> wednesday, president obama goes before a joint session of congress to talk about health care legislation. see his remarks live at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. you can also watch online at c- span board or listen on -- you can also watch online at c- span.org and listen on c-span radio. next, we have robert redford. he spoke with tom udall on a conference called project new west. >> it is great to have robert redford back here in colorado. [applause]

we're going to take some dialogue and take your questions. one of the things that i wanted to ask bob about, that i think is fascinating in light of the video is that, the first thing he told me after the video was, i do not want to go out there. the show is over. >> is a tough act to follow. >> it is a tough act to follow. the idea of summits and bringing out the very best in people and in ideas and issues and trying to move us forward, you did that a long time ago, a long, long time ago. you started doing that in 1980's. you teamed up with my dad. you did one on global warming that we talked about when people

did not even know what global warming was appeared before we start jumping into those, the first thing i want to rescuask s that, i was reading some stuff and people say, bob, he is a movie star, but he is an anomaly. he is a man of substance. what is it that brings you to have credentials and a caring for the west. you're born in santa monica, california. tell me what brings you to this,what your passion is, and how you get here. >> i grew up in a lower working class neighborhood which was mostly hispanic. we did not have much access to recreation or any of the entertainment that existed. it was the ocean. later on, i got a job at yosemite national park and i

waited on tables and worked at camp curry and learned to climb there. that is when it really started, when i went into the sierras. in between, i was going to desert and that kind of thing as soon as i got a car appeare. i guess the natural environment appealed to me. i was not involved politically, obviously. i was only 15 when i went to work there. but the love which is 70. that led to other -- but i love yosemite that led to other things. my mother would go to indian reservations. i was 5. i was so fascinated with the native american communities near gallup and stuff like that. i would tell my mom, can you stop? i want to touch these people. she said, be careful.

what do you want -- what are you talking about? i said, look at the costumes. they're different i made that connection with the native community then. already, from the time when no is a little kid, there was this connection with hispanics and the native americans. later on, when i went to school in boulder -- i went to school here in colorado for one year. i was asked to leave. [laughter] i was in building too much in the west. -- i was in buildindulging too n the west. [laughter] i spent a lot of time here climbing and angelina u.s.. -- climbing and enjoy eating and the west. all the things started to

multiplied over time. my affection and my interest in the well-being for the natural west developed. i think the video showed really well. i got involved with mo udall on the alaskan situation. i went to raise money for his candidacy in arizona. your dad and i got involved when i asked him if he would be the chairman of this new organization at sundance called the institute for resource management. i had gotten clobbered pretty hard. i got involved politically on issues for the west back in 1969 and 1970. that was slowly territory because, in the interest of what we preserved for our destiny and what we develop for our destiny, it was pretty much one-sided in

those years. was on the side of development. so a voice speaking out about preservation of our balance was a small voice. he retreated pretty roughly -- you were treated pretty roughly by gas and oil interests. i've got some rough treatment. so i went into this coal power plant in southeastern utah in 1975. i found out that that is pretty incredible country and spent a lot of time there, hiking, motorcycling, riding horses, and so forth. i saw an incredible amount of territory that, if it got savaged by oil and gas development, it would destroy something very valuable of the american identity. so they were not holding any public hearings. it was a consortium of energy companies. there was southern cal ed. there was public you talk power and light.

they were privately and quietly -- which means sidley -- planning a power plant. that was to be the beginning -- which means secretly, planning a power plant. that was to be the beginning. there would be another one in new mexico. .

i do not think that would be taken seriously bit cause of was actor -- because i was an actor. this was before reagan got elected. [laughter] we went back and forth and i said i would do it on one condition, that you interviewed the governor of utah another people, to give them equal time. they said dan rather route, and he and i taught. i said i did not want to talk in their room and be a head, a talking head. i'll show you what is at stake. we went down to lake powell and talk to the terret -- what through the territory and showed him all of the pictographs that would be destroyed. when it came out, it was a very popular show. they got 6000 pieces of mail and they advertise that. one can send and, i think it was like seventy-five cents. it was really sweet, sending in

money and said, i want to do what i can to save this so that when i grow up liking go to see it. they publicized that, and suddenly the group pulled out of the project. and they blame me. the next thing i knew -- [applause] it's nice now, but it was not so hot then. [laughter] i was getting leonard's about my family. i said wait a minute. what i do is one thing but i can have that fallout unfairly on my kids. -- but i cannot have that fallout unfairly on my kids. that led to -- i will get back to that in the second, but that led to me deciding that me being out there alone was a mixed bag. i was not sure that it was doing any good. whenever i say and support would be countered strongly by the

media on the other side. how does that bridget had decided to create a organization like irn -- i decided to create an organization like irn. if you could educate people coming into the field, and maybe the older people were already lost, but if you could educate young people who would be coming into positions where -- where management decisions would be made regarding the environment, that might be the thing. >> tell us how your dad -- my dad joined up with you. the focus on the irn period, and one of the most interesting things is that you did global warning -- you did global warming before anyone knew what a powerful issue it was. you got the soviet union involved. you had their scientists and our scientists at the sundance.

>> the way that they happen -- well first of all on your debt. i was well aware of stuart -- well, first of all on your dad. i was well aware of st ewart. he was a close friend of a hero of mine. he was dedicating a mountain called mount adams, and that is how we met. stewart and i came together naturally and asked if he would be willing to chair this organization. and he did but by this time he was retired from public office. he carried so much weight and experience with him and he had such a wonderful way of expressing himself, like most did, and he had so many friends

on both sides, he became the chairman. i said that you had had industry and the environmental. you have to have the top. the guy that shows up from the industry is howard allen, who was then head of southern cal edison, the chief proponent of that power plant built and i said, oh, man. >> he was the guy that wanted a bill that to bring the power over. >> stewart said, no, you have to work with them. anyway, howard comes in there and i am wade p.m. wedding. he says, bob, it is just great to see you. i said, what, are you kidding? no, no, i have to tell you something. i've got to thank you. you know when that project came up there, to tell you frankly, if you say it does a lot because the truth is it was getting so expensive, i was looking for a way to pullout.

and you get as the excuse. you became my scapegoat and so i have to thank you. and i said, thanks a lot. i thought that was an ironic story. stewart came in and from that point on we got really close. he took it so seriously just like he did everything. and he was so persuasive because he knew the environmental leaders but he also knew industry because he had had to work both sides in politics. we would take top environmental leaders from audubon and environmental defense and so on, and then we would take top industry figures and we would pick a particular issue and have a conflict resolution. there is something that they can agree on, even if it is something small. but you can build from there. if you build from there, accusing compassion and respect,

using an open mind and understanding of the problems, you might get some more there weren't -- that we were not. -- you might get somewhere that we were not. even though i am more radical by nature, i did not get anywhere with that. so what happened was, the fourth conference that we had, it started out with issues on native american lands, electricity and so on. and then it went to boulder -- to denver, the jewish hospital here in denver, and we had a conference on air in the extreme west. and the mayor of phoenix was there, he wanted help and so forth. in that conference, two guys from the center for atmospheric research came to do it slide presentation at lunch. it's usually someone singing or keep people happy while they're

eating. the two scientist brought in a presentation on global warming. no one had heard that. 1985, and they showed signs of what had happened in the intervals for the last 30 years , the heating up of the planet. and then they showed slides of what was going to happen in 10 and 20 years. they showed slides of kilimanjaro without snow. you could not grasp it. they said that sea levels would rise and icecaps would melt and it would affect the climate. when it was over, it was so powerful, it diverted the attention of the conference. i year and a half later i was in the soviet union doing a film during that window in time called perestroika. and while there, the soviet academy of sciences was having a conference. and it was on global warming.

i said, wait a minute. you guys, your scientific community is talking about something, and we are to, but nobody knows about it. i could play a role in having you come here. once i said that, the guy that was with me, my associate sundance, just about ripped my cut off. what are you doing? are you crazy? so, anyway, a year later they came and we had the conference. stewart ran the conference. he was so good, because he was the moderator-executive to run the conference. what was amazing is that almost the entire academy of sciences came, the head of their space program, cross sagan -- carl sagan kaine.

this was called greenhouse glass nose. what was over, -- greenhouse glass must cnost. i made a nice if mistake politically of thinking that you could present this to our president and bears and it would get the word out. that was a mistake. he got shelved, thank you very much, and policy. and that was the end of that. it was not even me not to understand the relationship between the families and oil, and gorbachev being focused on other things. so the thing went by the wayside, and nobody ever heard of it. >> bob, one of the things that my father has told me, and in order to talk to you today, he

lives 50 feet from me and i spent a bit of time talking about the irn days. this is one of the remarkable plays about bob redford. my dad said, the whole time he was doing the summits with you, he said his approach was not to bring publicity to himself, but to bring publicity to the issues. and i think we have heard that today in terms of what you are talking about. that is why you are here today, because you love the west. your and sundance, you are a resident of you've got -- of utah, and you really love the west. you know this from your visits, it is the landscape but it is also the people. the native americans, the hispanics. and you have done a wonderful thing with our governor richardson to try to extend our

of a native people and hispanics to work with it communities. i think people are wondering what happened after irn? you're going to continue its sundance that have a conference center and do things, and you are also, i think, going to focus on the native people in some of their problems and also the rich history that hispanics have with the west. >> yes. that is true, i do love the west. it is instilled. i love it so much that before the irn -- and one other thing that i forgot to mention, in 1975 i came across an incredible piece of history. the a lot trail. i ran across this almost by accident, it just after "butch cassidy." i spent time with butch cassidy's sister, who was still living.

she said -- she showed me letters that he had written. and she said, there are some hideouts and things that are buried away. they probably still exist. and that led to further research at the university of utah, and a historian who knew a lot, which led to the discovery of something called the a lot trail. it was a piece -- a stretch of trail that went from montana and almost mexico. it had three intersecting drills coming into it, -- trails coming into it. there were three settlements along the trail, one was the whole on the wall called all on the wall in montana, and brown's part was the centerpiece in colorado. and that history was so amazing, nobody knows about it.

they used to travel at the pony express. rob a bank, and move on to the next tide out. i found that so fascinating that went to the national geographic in 1975, and said, you guys ought to check this out. this is great history. and it was like that of a " 60 minutes" deal, we will do it if you do it. first of all, i bet national geographic doesn't like profanity and i cannot imagine the national geographic going out on a trail and not hearing that. i can imagine censoring that. and they said, it is as simple as this. if you will do it, we will do it. i said, let me think about it. and then i thought, what if i could bring some people to get a dead did not know each other very well, but they're connected to the west, the can ride a horse, but it can out, and we wrote the trail like the outlaws.

-- we can camp out, and we rode the trail just like the laws. we were documented in and it led to a book -- an article in the "national geographic" and a book came out of it. in the trip, that is where it really hit hard of the real value of the west. what i could see was that agriculture is being threatened by developers. some of the development was necessary, and a lot of it was not. the part that was not was replacing something that i thought was, the role of agriculture in the west, which has a lot to do with our history. ranching, farming, agriculture, and the land being used in that way. i could see the threat writing the outlaw trail. that hit me so hard that that turned me more and more political. which led to the irn and so

forth. because of my background with native american and hispanic culture, i felt very passionate. as a less started sundance and the belmont lab. we had a native american lab -- and the film lab. we had a native american leaven and hispanic lab. there were no native american filmmakers. they were essentially a focused on handcrafts, weaving, and so forth. sooner or later, storytelling is going to come to them and maybe we will be there to help. and and the hispanics, i could see the population increase particularly in california. i wrote a letter to garcia marquez to see if he would help, and he did. those two labs were at sundance. recently -- once we were in one

fell onto the system, then this project with governor richardson came up in new mexico. which you know about, the property between this area, where that land goes back to 1709. it was used off and on through the years, it was the fun to lately, and the idea was to turn it into something. he wanted to make it a cultural center, but he wanted sundance involvement. i said that i could not move the festival for our lab program. but i think we could bring the native american lab and the hispanic part here because it is more appropriate, because the history is deeper here, longer and deeper. and they were the first americans. so let's focus on them. anyway, that is happening. we really have two points -- two access points.

>> bob, one of the things -- and i would like to shift now. we have done a lot of the history. we have woven back and forth. but what are the challenges facing the west now? i think what we are here about today, what are the challenges and how do we force the coalitions to get the things done? and i know that you have been involved in all the western issues, climate change, tribal issues, all of those. and you mentioned cold fire plants -- coal-fired plants. my opinion is that we have to do two things on burning coal. we need to find out with intensive research whether we can do it cleanly in any respect. and that should be federal

government investing with energy -- which industry. if we know that we cannot delay, then we know that we cannot use that. i would put a one year to a five-year timeline on that kind of a project. and then we should not be building any other conventional coal-fired plants. [applause] and you were there, you were there on that power plant, leading on that. so i am wondering, what do you think the biggest challenges that we face? is that the global warming and the coal-fired plants? is that the boom in population and water? charles wilkinson, who teaches here, he talked about the big boom in the west. we've doubled our population in a generation. what is the biggest challenge? what should this group -- what should we all gather around to say, go and do? >> first of all, all of the

above, because they are connected. one coal, it's a tough shot because it has been such a main stain -- may sinstay of american development. it is important. on the other hand, you had that argument against the future of our planet. and that is a very destructive element to the future of our planet, particularly pulverized coal. my hunch, and it is just a hunch, i doubt that they will be able to prove that it can be burned cleanly. but i think that there are other alternatives. conservation is one, and i think that is happening. i wish that that that happened sooner. what i think about the issues that are connected, is that for so long the west was seen as

this big, wide open area of rich in resources and never ending and that was there for the taking, and that produced manifest destiny. and manifest as the steep worked very well in the early years when railroads were being built. but now manifest destiny is yesterday. manifest destiny has led the west to be smaller, because of the development, the out of control development. on mining law that we are still living with is 1872? that is insane. something needs to change. [applause] based on my experience, there has to be a realignment of thinking. i think that when you think about water, obviously i remember when the colorado river made it to the sea. it does not do it anymore. the colorado river as just half of its flow. that is sending something very

loud and clear. water is going to be an issue, based on the clash between development and preservation. and in order to not have that stage a clash, if you have to come up with an alternative. i personally like to see the return of more agriculture. i may be sound like a lot i but i do not care. i think that agriculture as a respectful and held the use of the land. >> absolutely. >> with subdivisions of luxury homes, and dams, no. i think pam should go away. >> we are taking them down in the west. >> the faster, the better. >> i do think that time and resources are running out in the west. i have seen it. i have experienced it and it makes me nervous. you want whenever changes are

going to happen. climate changes affecting water. -- climate change is affecting water. people need to focus on that and wild land right now. it is going to be who is in office that understands, who is in office that is going to replace those people whom we have had a live with for the past eight years, that's all manifest destiny still in play, and thought that the west was there for the taking, and they tried to destroy the west, destroyed the environment. and their administration was an outgrowth of james watt who was there with reagan. you have two administration is committed to development, and thereby destroying our environment. they were thinking about yesterday. there were yesterday's people, from yesterday. and there was not anyone for thinking, thinking, where are we going to go? what kind of place are we leaving for our kids and their

kids? the realignment has been amazing to watch. the west is been a stronghold for the gop. and there's this incredible moment where you have this ticket, taken over -- hickenlooper and others and now it is completely turned around. the same thing happened in the south, going the other way. those realignments, they tell you something about people waking up and saying, hold it, my interest in my investment in this place is being threatened by these people. so i need to get rid of them. that was a really positive sign. those are all positive steps that are occurring. and i am very much for them, particularly colorado and utah and arizona and new mexico. these are wonderful states, and there is still -- here comes somebody. >> she is trying.

you are interrupting this wonderful conversation but we want to. we want to engage the audience. >> we have a budget utah residents here and these are the activists and leaders of utah. >> if you know what things are like in utah. >> before we go to questions, in utah we had with president bush -- you helped mark udall and tonya dog elected to the contras. i watched what the bush administration was doing in southern utah. we were battling in the minority in the congress. could you talk a little bit about what the activists and others were doing on the outside to try to -- in southern utah, the bush assault on southern utah? >> you talk and be very retarded. -- utah can be very retarded. [laughter]

they're people that still living yesterday and and i going to be a friend that the empowerment. i did you have sitting right here in colorado of the secretary of the interior, a man who i raised money for war, he sits in a big catbird seat. he has to do this balancing act. salazar, he understands the west, i know that. and he has made some very good move so far, but we also have people on the other side that are in the office. they probably should be gone because of their age and their ideology. they are not aligned with what the west really needs right now. they still see it as a place to develop. take wild lands, wilderness, no, that should be developed. and i disagree. with the new voices coming, i think salazar sits in a very key position to see what he does. he is a man they can make a huge

difference. but he is going to be hit on the other side by people who are saying, wait a minute, you are destroying my constituency. there is always someone running for office. they say, i am going to lose my conservative base. we had a guy and you talk a completely with conservative in the last energy bill -- in utah the completely wet conservative in the last energy bill. -- who completely went conservative in the last energy bill. that is going on and that is the way it is going to be. there is this compromise that is needed. it is a democracy. i just hope that enough people wake up to realize that we're going to lose some things incredibly valuable. and what are we going to have for our children and their children, photographs and old movies? does that answer your question? >> i think it was trying to focus on you and me rdc -- you

realize what a battle against the outside. we were in the minority but you did some incredible things with activist on the ground to try to preserve it. in fact, ken salazar, i think he really did answer my question. you jump ahead. you said ken salazar and did some of the most destructive policies of the bush administration oil and glass leasing on the edge of a national parks and monuments. areas that most of us believe ought to be in those parks and monuments. it was your fight on the outside and then finally having the election that i think made a real difference in terms of reversing that policy. go ahead. >> i do not know that had an effect. i sometimes wonder. all kidding aside, i think that people in my business -- if you

are considered a movie actor or a celebrity, there is a hidden resentment for your having something, maybe someone does not have, or you have not earned something. i have -- i am sensitive to that and so far are people who do not agree with i think. but on the other hand, if you have earned it. i would not speak out if i had not earned it by living there and being there and spending time and appreciating the real bad you. -- the real value. it is easier than it was a few years ago but there is still a long way to go. you asked about utah. i think you taught is changing. years ago, it was a lot rougher than it is now. it is still behind in terms of what is needed, particularly in matters of the west. but it is changing. a lot of it has to do with people coming in from the state from the outside, young people,

the new generation seems to be a generation that has really invested in wanting to play a role in politics, adding their voices heard, and they care about these issues. so i am actually quite hopeful, both for the state of utah and the west, but only hopeful. only time will say -- would change it. >> one of my dad's greatest accomplishments, and he believes this, was the national park in southern utah. the story of how that happens. he was flying the secretary of the interior over southern utah and he sees this marvelous landscape. he looks down and he asked the officials who were with him, what is that? and they told him, he described the area a little bit, and he said -- he thought in his mind, he was with the governor of the you taught at time -- of utah at the time. but he said it was a national park if he'd ever seen one. [laughter]

he went back to washington and he got it done. there are some marvelous things going on in southern utah. [applause] go ahead. >> one quick thing. to show you how they're changing. they have a terrific governor right now. gov. huntsman is a republican. to show you how you have a open mind, it doesn't matter what party your wit if you look at something with the same mind. like looking at the west and natural resources. huntsman, in the past, had people that saw you taught as a place to be developed. it was kind of ironic. there was an irony there in that utah is a state that we promote its historic value. the mormon conquest -- the settling of the mormons and how important a land was, building

log cabins, and so forth. and then there were opening at all up to be taken apart. so huntsman comes in, and he is of the modern generation of political leaders that understands these values. now is going off to china. but that was to me a good sign that utah is beginning to understand a new set of values related to the lan. >> jill, do you want to? i think bob would like to hear some of the question. >> i actually do not because it is so much fun to listen to this. but really, i think all of us were transfixed. people are really enjoying this, don't you agree? [applause] so you have both of you in this room and legislative leaders and you have the first woman senate -- first woman leader ever

elected right here. you have state legislators, if you have acted as comely of organizers, conservationists, you have donors and they're going to go back to their community and organize. i like to hear both of you talk about this. there is an apology about how the west was won. -- there is a mythology about how the west was won. we do not see much in the american conservation -- conversation about how communities build america, wagon trains, building towns and schools. my question to you is, how the west was really build. how do we translate that into the car role of government that is is boiling over in this country? can we bring it back to the other issues that we're grappling with the day?

i think we would that your answers as we go back and organize. -- we would value your answers as we go back and organize. >> maybe the new west should consider returning to more of the old west, in the sense that when agriculture was the main -- you had communities build on cooperation. you have neighbors, you have families, and they live closer together and work together and is supported each other. now you have subdivisions, u.s. cities that are expanding, sprawl, which threatens that epic. i think that one could think about less development -- development is inevitable and you cannot stop it. but you have to think about what kind of development. it for communities were developed where people -- yet more communities were developed where people worked together, i think that is one thing.

the other thing -- you want to think -- you cannot just say stop. you have to come up with a solution or an idea for one. art is my profession, that is what i am essentially about as an artist. so i believe that art has been kicked around for a lot of years, particularly by extremists on the right who have labeled art as a trivial pursuit or elitist or damaging morally or what have you. which is stupid. they said that it is not an economic driver. in this last and it was built, there were trying to put some money aside for -- in this last stimulus bill, they were trying to put some money aside for the arts, they tried to cut it down and then take it away. the argument that they were using is that art was a trivial pursuit and does not make money. i said, hold it.

i can tell you from my own personal experience that sundance film festival was $92 million into the economy. that is not hay. that is just one example. it stretched out across the land and you think about the amount of jobs produced, ticket takers, ushers, projection is, you go right down the line, it is a healthy economic driver. so maybe if there is more focus on that rather than building a new dam, but building are in the community and thinking about more grass roots and community building, then you will not have this brawl that takes the land away from us. there might be a chance to save -- and the resources within the land, which is water.

>> and to build on what bob said, i see the big challenges you look back and bring it up to date -- first of all, we are locked in now. we have a strong oil and gas industry but that has not prevented us at all from becoming overly dependent on foreign oil. we are now to the point where almost 70% of our oil comes from six little countries in the middle east and iran and russia. this has put us up against the wall. so the way to think about that is an american way to think, let's let's get what our future and what our resources are. i think that the resources in the west are abundant, in terms of solar and wind and biomass,

geothermal. those are the jobs of the future and that is the energy of the future. and that is what i hope that all of us will focus on, how do we empower that, how do we move in that direction, and that is where i think we really want to go. you can extrapolate some of the things from the past but you also have to look at the future. bob, do anything? >> let me tell this creek story. -- let me tell this quick story. my dad worked for chevron. he went to work during the war or what was then standard oil. that was the only job that he could get during that time. that is how the family survived. so i grew up with a father working for an oil company. he was in the accounting division. i worked there as a kid, to earn money in the summer in the

oilfields. you can imagine -- he was transferred when standard oil became chevron. he was transferred to california, of north. but his whole life, 38 years. when i became an environmentalist or began to speak out, simply because i had been to a conference and fail in 1973. this is what really happened for me. -- in vail in 1973. that had a lot of community experts talking about energy. a letup in said, wait a minute. it is such a clear picture. you got renewable and non- renewable. sources of energy. all the money, all the attention, all of the political weight is going into non- renewable energy, oil, gas. renewable energy is over here and nothing -- what, is this

crazy? it seems simple and crazy to me. this was not getting the attention. how long was the plane going to last? that began a journey for me to focus on that, and it was not easy in the earlier years, but at a certain point, i had to come out against the oil companies. particularly in that power situation and so forth. i loved my dad. he said, what you doing to me. -- what are you doing to me? i said, i'm sorry, dad, i'm sorry. he was a good enough men to respect my positions but it sure made his jaw crappy hisjob -- his job crappy at the plant. i was going to be on larry king, he said it was going to be energy. what specifically?

so they put me on a remote, not in the studio. those awful. they put you in some remote place, he said on a deck, a place in napa, calif., and i was at this place nearby. although house and a deck, and was a camera and a person with the sound of was this thing in your ear. you're staring at this lands that does not give anything back. you hear in your year the thing. and he was calling for more every was coming your l.a., and he had a panel of people that were going to be on the show. talking about energy. i did not what is going on. i don't know what i am supposed to say. i put the blood into my ear, and he says, ok, your five minutes out. am i going to talk to somebody? is someone going to tell me what is going on? he said, larry will be on.

4.5 minutes, and when is he going to be on? [distortion] is this larry? yes? what are we going to do? we're going to talk about energy. we go back and forth. the three minutes. somebody wasn't taught to me? -- someone wants to talk to me? this guy was bill reilly. he says, robert? what is this, set up? a said mr. riley, hi. i'm coming on right after you, robert. i said, i guess that that will be interesting. he said, i want to tell you what a great guy your dad is. [laughter]

i said, what are you? he said, i started out working under your dad. he was so good to me. he was a great guy and i wanted you to know, when you made that film coming your dad came in and you are already talking about stuff, but he came in said, i wanted to take you all to see this movie my son did. and we went there with your dad, and he introduced us to you, and we became a fan of yours. i just wanted to say what a great guy he was. and i said, great. tonight on the air and i say, well the trouble with 12 -- [laughter] -- the trouble with oil -- [laughter] >> i hate to stop this but i have to say something. you speak with such passion and credibility and knowledge about

this, we do not hear you as an actor. we hear you as a conservationist and someone who loves this region. i think that is the voice that we all hear robert redford spree from. -- speak from. and senator udall, if you decided not to be in politics, you would be a perfect talk show host. [laughter] it was wonderful. >> you think i have a second career? i am going have asked bob about that. >> i have to say you -- tell you, this is a gift to us. we appreciate you being here is spending time with us. we had so many questions from you all, but this was too enjoyable just to listen to. i did not want to interrupt. thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> next on c-span, a group of young republicans talk about the future of their party. after that, discussion on the political influence of hispanics and the western states. and later, more about hispanics in politics with the look of a growing influence that they have. >> president obama will deliver a speech from wakefield high school in arlington, va. on tuesday about the importance of succeeding in school. after the speech, we will open our phone wants to take your calls to get your reaction to the speech, including dedicated phone lines for students and teachers. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span. >> now a group of young

republicans talk about the future of their party. the event was hosted by the young republican national federation. it was moderated by margaret hoover, the great granddaughter of herbert hoover. this is about 30 minutes. >> i will introduce people one at a time so that they can join us in the chairs. . help me welcome kentucky secretary of state trey grayson [applause] next we have your on states -- your states secretary of state t,ood rikeita tood -- todd rikeita. we have jennifer nassour.

we have ryan frazier. and last but not least that all, mississippi state gop staichair and trailblazer brad white. [applause] i thought what -- it would be appropriate to start off the questions on the tail of bob jones is presentation about technology. understanding that republicans really just did not measure up in the 2008 election. we're not going to do a post- mortem, but we're going to talk about technology and how we can use the going forward since we got so ultimately crashed by the democrats and their ability to leverage technology in the last election. i think you're republicans uniformly learn this and are

doing interesting things with that already. one of the people doing is todd. we will kick off to you and ask you how you are using technology. how can we fix the technology gap between the republican democratic party? >> i thank you very much. welcome to indiana. i hope you had a great weekend. we work really hard for this and i expected to have a great time. i was start i have it with the panel and try to keep my answer is as short as possible so that we can get to as many questions as we can. from our wonderful moderator and from u.s. law, and a secretary grace and. technology gap, i am very proud about 75% of everything that we do our done online. that has allowed me to turn and -- that has allowed me to turn in a budget that was less than

the budget that the secretary of state turned in a 1987, when adjusted for inflation. there are some real things the republicans can do when running for office and in office to use technology to drive down the cost. and that is what we're about, right? small government and efficient government. campaign wise, i was not so much impressed that barack obama got millions of dollars from george soros and all those kinds of folks. i was more impressed that he got millions of dollars, $10, $20, up $50 at a time for credit card transactions on the internet. and what i'm going around the state, i am encouraging local parties to absolutely have a website, and also had goals. how many new volunteers and e- mail addresses are you going to get to that website this year? how many $50 text are you going to get your county party website?

all of that filters down and you have to take better advantage of that. thank you. >> brad, go for it. >> the main thing that we need to do is change our mind set on technology. you were mentioning the credit cards. i was talking with someone that works at the rnc, and a did work for the rnc and worked for the finance department. it was one of the years the barack obama racked up millions of dollars in one month. the you do anywhere close to that in our best month? they said, no, we don't but frankly we would not know how to process all the checks when they came in. they were not even thinking about online and using technology to do anything. they were still into the 1970's, frankly. i think the first that that has to be made with the rnc and the state parties is to change our mind set on technology and start

realizing that there are valuable resources and tools out there, make sure that we're using each one of them. >> jennifer? >> go ahead. >> for us, i took over as party chair in january, and i was astonished to find out that, this is a small number, 12% registered republicans in massachusetts, under 500,000 people. we had only 4000 e-mail addresses -- horrible. i make my staff, every time we are out, collect e-mail addresses and cellphones numbers, because i was so impressed by the people i knew that were getting text messages from the obama campaign. and we got nothing. it was radio silence until the very end of the campaign when we started getting more and more e- mails. but we were so far behind the curve. it is really important for us to do that.

>> you had a raise coming up. are you using technology to harness voters and volunteers? >> i'm going to start off by asking you that question. they can tell me for sure. i'm going to get the new wing town for my telephone. -- ringtone for my telephone. the key for having me. i bring you all greetings on behalf of the majestic rocky mountains of colorado. it is good to be out here in indiana. we are embracing technology to help us connect with people. that is ultimately what we're talking about, are we? we're talking about information sharing, to provide information about our campaign or access information about our campaign to know what is going on to know what they can do or learn more about our candidacy. we're bringing the new media concepts out there, facebook, we're doing the twitter and all

that good stuff, as our former president used to say. we are all about the google. [laughter] but we're looking at ways in which we can continue to provide additional information to people about our candidacy, not just to colorado but around the country. . how about you in kentucky? >> we do more with less.

we're doing a lot more. some of you may have heard about two months, i release an exploratory committee. and the 55 days in a period where i could raise money, 20% of our contributions came on line. erased about $600,000. even in the last two days, we got $36,000 in the final 48 hours. and i was exploring. you were trying to figure out what is going on in kentucky. i'm excited about living -- putting this into practice. i've already maxed out on a personal number of baseball -- facebook friends that i have. 5000, but i am hurt, i cha-

cha-ed myself, and it said we needed more ever mentioned. >> let's do a softball question at first. quickly, between the two candidates who are exploring for u.s. senate, who has more e-mail addresses? addresses? how many do you have? >> can i ask cha-cha that question? >> can you categorize how many contacts you have made over the internet? >> we do have facebook. i think i have 1000 or something like that. >> so you have some room to grow. >> yes. >> here is a harder question. young republicans are going to be choosing the national chairman for the next year and

that thought it would be poignant to ask about conservatism. what does conservatism mean to you? there is a lot of discussion about individual freedom cannot fiscal responsibilities, strong national security, and the word conservatism gets tossed around a lot. i thought it would be nice to hear from each of you walked by the most important tenets of conservatism and how you define conservatism? >> for me, as the practice of conservatism for me individually evolves, it is really focused on the constitution and these days. the underlying premise of our constitution is what conservatism is to mate. we are losing that in this country, far and wide. we are forgetting what made this

country so great. there are many of us who think the constitution is a living document that changes with the times. it is absolutely opposite. it is an in-place blueprint. for me, conservatism has to get back to those principles. >> i agree. [applause] it means so many things to so many people. it for me, it has always come back to two basic things. freedom and opportunity. freedom and opportunity. somebody once asked me what i thought made this country so great. it is the freedoms that we enjoy in the opportunities ahead of us. i think that is precisely what conservatism is seeking to

advance. freedom for the individual and the opportunity for everyone to make a life for themselves. why am i the republican? evidently i am not supposed to be one. [laughter] i grew up in the working poor neighborhood in south carolina. my mother separated from my father when i was 7 years old, worked two jobs to provide for three boys. we did not have a lot but we had each other. my mother instilled in us to make a life for ourselves. in order to do that we had to embrace opportunity. when i look at conservatism and what i believe the party's role is for young people, it is that role of expanding freedom and opportunity for everyone regardless of age, race, gender. everyone should have an opportunity to make a life for themselves.

that is what conservatism is about for me. [applause] >> and jennifer? >> i am from massachusetts. such conservatism in massachusetts, not really synonymous. but we have a large constituency that is fiscally conservative. for ross in new england, it is more of the the financial questions, the financial endeavor that we are all seeking. keeping government small is making sure that our taxes did not sky rocket, and our legislature just impost of 25% sales tax increase on us. our property taxes are out of control. they won a tax on natural gas. they want to raise our tolls. it is a constant surge in government to continue to tax those of us who work really

hard. and it does not matter if you are working hard as a waiter or waitress, working hard in the financial institutions, or if you or of professor. is that you are out there working. and so for me, and for most of us up there, it becomes a question of how do we control costs? had we made sure that people are not taking advantage of the system? and to preserve all of those liberties and freedoms that we enjoy it and keep government's dirty hands off of the people. [applause] >> i agree with all that they said. when william buckley started "national review," it was right on the heels of the new deal with fdr. we stand up toward history yelling, stop. that is what i think that it means. the transaction should take place in the private sector. .

you and i want to make a deal, we can determine one that benefits both of us. any time the government gives entitlements -- any time you give tax dollars, you cannot do that without taking it from someone else. for me, i think it goes back to getting back to the basic fundamentals of government that is of the people and serve the people, and do the things that people cannot do themselves, and only that. >> it is always great going last. what is the next question? i may want to go last next time. i don't have a lot to add to the definition. i guess my one addition i would make is that -- we pretty much agreed on things. we answer the question differently. if you had enough time to ask everybody in this audience this particular question, we would generally agree on a 80% of

things. i think it is important as we think about the definition and how we apply that to our politics and our policies that we focus on that 80% and not the 20% that divides us. 20% that divides us. if we focus on that 80%, we will win elections. [applause] >> i could not agree with you more. it was ronald reagan that said eight out of time. if we could agree on those eight out of 10 things, -- i am going to toss to the next question. over the last eight years, i have the honor of working with president bush in the white house. one of the things that got me going allot was bush derangement some time. any time anything went wrong, they blamed president bush. there was a trailer out right now. it is an independent movie about

food and where it comes from. it is a classic case of bush derangement centum. now that we are in the minority, how do we prevent ourselves from going nuts and having obama derangement send sent thymptom? k even though we are not setting the agenda, health care may not have been at the top of the agenda, nor would some of these spending stimulus packages. is it our responsibility to be putting forth constructive opposition agendas and policy ideas in the context of them framing the debate? how do we best do that and be affected in the minority? >> when you are in the

opposition, you have to stop at ideas. we ought to do our best to persuade the public that the ideas are bad. one of the ways you can do that is by proposing an alternative that sounds better. the other thing to think about, we are in opposition in washington, d.c., but we are not in opposition all across america. here in indiana, [unintelligible] he is a great governor. [applause] we have some great governors and secretaries of state. we have other great legislators who are doing great things. we need to highlight those. a lot of the darkness of the late 1970's, the democrats controlling all of those offices for all of those years, we grew up and had this great farm team of leaders that came from the state level.

as we do this, in washington we have to oppose and give great ideas but let's highlight the things going on in the state's. >> brad, do you want to take a stab at it? >> just like the stimulus bill. it was the republican governors who took the first stand against it. i think it is exactly right. it is not enough to be fighting against things. the republican party needs to learn how to be for things and be proactive with issues. it all boils back down to communication. one of the biggest problems with our party, going back to the technology and things like that, in the 1990's, when all of these guys got together, the day of effectively communicated to the people that this is who we are,

what we stand for. if you elect us, this is what we are going to do. we have gotten away from that. we have failed to communicate effectively. [applause] we have failed in the past at times nationally to put together a very effective and efficient message that can be communicated. then to a great degree, unfortunately, we have lost some credibility in in backing those issues that the republican party has always stood for. until we get pro-active again and back to the basic fundamentals of our party. >> i guess i would add to this, to this question, before we are republicans and before we are democrats, we are americans. i think we need to remember that. first and foremost, we are americans. we need to look at it from the standpoint that republicans are

not always going to be right and democrats are not always going to be right. as what was said earlier, where they are wrong, they are wrong and we ought to point that out. whatever the issue is, we have to offer a better solution to the challenges that this country faces. when we do so, we regain the confidence of the people in a way that does not make us look petty or divisive what is best to move this country forward. >[applause] >> i think it is multi-part. during this time were we are not in power, we should take the time for self reflection to

realize and really think about what we did wrong and where we need to go. not what we did wrong during the bush administration about what we did wrong during the election. find it in the field team, get everybody up and running, really of fact the grassroots and talk to people who feel like they have been left out in the cold and no one cares about them. i am sure all of us have been in that position where we've worked hard on the campaign and now the campaign is over and you never hear back from the government official. i heard that the republicans just ask for money. what does that do to us? it destroys our reputation and our brand. it takes of reflection to look back and say we are going to stop doing that.

we have many smart people in the party. we need to engage them. we need to be spin doctors. the democrats do a great job of spending everything so they look wonderful. we can do the same thing. we can spin the issues said they are our issues governor romney introduced a new health care plan and said it should be a model of what we are doing nationally. instead of looking back on what massachusetts bay, they just forget about what massachusetts did and are basically trying to tax the hell out of all of us. >>[applause] >> the only thing i can add to that is what governor romney and what gov. daniels has taught me as a young republican. yes, we have to have the better

idea, but that better idea can be less government. that better idea can be a suggestion. we can help ourselves and our neighbors better than any government program can. we have to have the strength and the courage to talk straight to people about that and not look like politicians. i think people can handle it. we ought to talk with them as equals. that is one thing i think we need to do a better job of. >> the next question i have is about a couple of deficit we are running on the republican side. nationally, deficits have tripled. in the republican party, and this is not a financial question, there is a diversity deficit, a gender deficit, and an age deficit.

that makes you all at a very unique, select group. 41% of our independent, 41% are democrats. what do we do about the deltas here? young republicans are a shrinking species. what do we do about diversity in the republican party? what do we do about the gender gap as well? >> this is one of my hot-button issues. i am a woman. as a woman in my 30's, there are very, very few of me. the mass delegation that is here, we all know it is the same women. it is a few women in their 20's, '30's, one or two in their '40's, and then back in the '60s. we as a party have done an awful job in reaching out to the groups of people that would be

our normal affinity groups. when i start talking to women and other matteothers about isss that really resonates with parents, making the world better for our kids, it is not a partisan issue. it is amazing how you can start engaging people. it does not have to be a fiscal conversation that you are having. my grandmother emigrated here from sicily when she was 10 in the early 1900's. she taught herself how to read and write in english. she went on to own her own business. she made this world better for my mother and better for myself. i would like to leave a better world for my daughters. why can't we reach out to people? there is no reason why we can't grab kids out of college and say

whether you are making $20,000 or $200,000, you have to pay taxes. how are you going to support yourself? suddenly, people's interest perks. we have to start reaching out to minority groups on every aspect. i am sorry, gentlemen, but there is one woman and one non-white man. when you look around, there is not much diversity and the party. we have to work on that. we have to talk to everyone and make them talk to their friends and their friends, because we are losing it with young people and women. no interest at all. >> absolutely. [applause] gosh, we really do have a lot of work ahead of us. i know we are up to the task.

now is the time. for those in the room, now is the time. this is the moment. i like to joke that these are rare moment. barack obama was elected president and the arizona cardinals made it to the super bowl. these are rare times. it is time for young republicans to step forward and engaged. if we engage around those two ideals that said about earlier, freedom and opportunity, we have opportunities to make gains with women, younger folks, minorities, you name it. when it comes down to what people are looking for, they are looking for an opportunity to make a we need to be that part that looks at ways where we can create economic opportunity through stimulation, through reducing the tax burden on our

businesses, by reducing the regulatory burden and our businesses, and allowing them to create the jobs that put people back to work. that is where republicans can help make the difference, by engaging in these opportunities, and when we do so through opportunities, people have scan in the game, and when people have a skin in the game, they want a government that is responsible, that lets them live their lives. i would like to say to folks all of the plays, look. people want a responsible government that keeps their taxes low, that builds roads and water system, that protect their rights afforded by the constitution, that strengthens the free-enterprise system, and gives parents a choice in their child's education, and, yes, my friend, a government that is willing to give people that need it a hand up, not a hand out. not a handout.

[applause] >> todd, or trey? >> it is hard to follow those two speakers. i am going to try. one issue that we have talked a little bit about his health care. my wife is the one that is very involved in the health care decisions in our family. as a country, right now, health care is the biggest topic of discussion. we know what congress is looking at is terrible. it is putting bureaucrats between you and your health care provider. i don't need to persuade any of you about that. we have the opportunity to

refrain the debate and say why don't we empower the consumer, the consumer of that health care, the person that is in the doctor's office? if we can get a better hold of that issue and become more articulate about our vision for the health care future, that may be a way to cut into the gender gap on the issue. it is a particular concern for women. when president bush closed at the gender gap on education, democrats used to kill us on education. president bush convinced a lot of women around the country and men cared about improving the education system. i think health care is the issue that we need to grab onto and offer a better way. >> those are great answers. do either of the other two men want to take a stab at the

denver city gap? >> -- at the diversity gap? >> i guess the simple answer to it, in my opinion, i have heard speeches about this from republican leaders for about 15 years. it is easy to just go do it. we had a state house district in mississippi. 65% were black voting population. in the past, that would be a district where the state party just concedes to the democrats. we got active, recruited an outstanding candidate, a true believer. we ended up losing that race but for the first time in the history of that district, the democratic party, everyone had to go over there and fight it. there was another district, the

same way, where we recorded the only sitting republican woman senator. i think it is something that you just have to go do. somebody and called me when i was that young. you have to reach out and go do it. >> don't be afraid to engage. i don't care who they are, where they come from. don't be afraid to engage. just talk to them. we have more in common than apart. >> i think the man from colorado is exactly right. we have to be careful with pandering. i don't think anybody wants to do that. because of who we are, personal responsibility activists, limited government activists, we are selling health food. they are selling twinkies, a much easier sale, but it will kill you. whatever the demographic is, we

have to make an argument that selling health food is stronger and better. we can't wait for them to come to us. we have to go to them for that message. >> we have one more question to wrap this up. i would like to ask each of you to offer what you see as the biggest challenge in the next two to four years and how we should address it. i did not give them a heads up that i was going to ask this. >> i think connecting back to the american people, what we have been talking about the whole time. as jennifer said, doing a self evaluation, determining who we are, and then communicating that effectively to the american people. fighting that fight and reaching out and being something that people would want to be a part of and that people can buy into and get skin in the game with.

i think that is what we need to be about. >> i will go. it absolutely is -- i think our biggest challenge is just branding. we are the labeled that the republican party has gotten is awful. we are these mean, cold, nasty people that do not small and that -- and do not like to have fun or party. i know you guys had a party last night. so, need to go out there. our principles are so phenomenal. we want smaller government, limited taxes, personal responsibility, liberties, and freedom. who cannot agree with that? if we are not communicating those during a normal discussion, people will not listen. we have to engage people and make them feel good and make them believe in us.

we can't sell them a bill of goods and not follow through on it. it is very important for us to forge ahead, talk to everyone, do our reach, make people invested in the party and invest in their future. that will get us back on the right track. >> i kind of skipped my turn. i talk a little bit about this on my website. www.frzierforcolorado.com. we have to connect with the people. we have to connect with the people on the issues that they care about. if we do that, i think we will regain confidence and restore ourselves as the majority of this country. [laughter] >> i will quickly get out of the way by saying thank you for coming. there is another fellow in the room who is thinking about running for the u.s. senate

against a certain mr. by. thank you for being here as well, sir. [applause] as i turned it over to secretary grayson, if you go to each of our website, you will see on our biographies a very important fact. we have kept the wars between indiana and kentucky down to zero during our tenure. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> as we are looking over the next couple of years, a lot of the conversations have given us some food for thought. to me, when you are in opposition and try to stop bad ideas, always remember to be forward-looking. i think ronald reagan paused genius was -- i think ronald

reagan's genius was forward- looking. it was the dawn of a new day. be optimistic and be positive. president obama was able to do that during last year's election and it really helped him out. as we think about the future, look at the policies. when i look at these, i want to leave a better life for my daughter's then my parents left for me. keep looking to the future and keep looking forward. that optimism is the tie that binds all americans. if we could recapture that, i think we can recapture a lot of the office is that we have lost over the years. [applause] >> thank you. thank you to our speakers and sharing your thoughts with us.

we would also like to thank the chair of the convention that put this on. he did a terrific job. [applause] have a wonderful rest of your convention and thank you for being with us here today at lunch. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> here is a look at our upcoming schedule. next, a discussion of the political influence of hispanics. after that, more about hispanics in politics, with a look at the growing influence they have. later, a discussion from c-span radio on lyndon johnson and the politics of medicare. >> the house returns tuesday at

2:00 p.m. eastern from its august break. members will begin the week with a number of bills dealing with lands and historic sites. there is a plan to protect the eastern shore. live coverage on c-span. and the senate also returns on tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. senators will begin with speeches, and later in the day, u.s. tourism for people from other countries, creating a corporation to do so that would get its money from fees on foreign visitors. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. >> now, a discussion on the political influence of hispanics in western u.s. states. we will hear from the arizona attorney general and the auditor for new mexico. there is the project new west. this is 50 minutes.

>> welcome. i am with project new west, and we are looking to discuss strategies with you. one of the interesting things has been that over the last few years, project new west conducted 25 focus groups in english and spanish to understand it wants is among spanish voters. we did 17 of them in just the political season last year, and, of course, we are all very aware that quantity is not necessarily the prime thing we are looking at. we are also looking at quality,

and what made project near west and all of the focus groups exceptionally terrific and a great basis for research was that we had a traveling band of merry nomads. we sort of went from city to city, up to 20 people at certain instances, because we had a lot of subscribers that joined us, and what was interesting is that every night, we made sure that we debriefed, that we talked about the focus groups. if we needed to, we would make minor changes to the guide, up with ideas on how to improve it, and that is the kind of camaraderie -- i have done a lot of focus groups with a lot of individuals, and i have to tell you that in the years that i've been involved in this, this is the first time we have mutual respect and really wanted to get down to the deep and dirty about how to move hispanic voters, so this is something very unique

year, project new west. we have looking to continue all of those assets that we had last year. now, we know that we did our share to get out 57% of the hispanic vote over to the progressive side last year, and we are very thrilled about that. now, one of the things we tend to do is to see race and ethnicity through the prism of her own experience, so i would like to share more so you know about more of my perspective and where i come from, so a lot of folks really want to know more about my last name, and they went to meet mr. chambers, and he does not exist except for my dad, and my grandfather worked in the copper and silver mines in mexico, so, in fact, he married a mexican woman and had a big family of about five kids, and they all grew up in mexico,

so my parents are mexican immigrants. they came in november, 1963, and the very first image that my mom had of the u.s. was really a fascination of president john f. kennedy. she was beginning english at the time, so that was sort of heard searing image of this new country, and so what happened was -- that was sort of her searing image. we went back and down my family in the 1910 census, and there they were in busy, ariz., so you have this chamber is a family where all of the kids had -- bisbee, ariz., so you have this chambers family were all of the kids had four names. there are a lot of other folks, especially in the southwest, who

had very similar experiences. now, while the mexican spaniards have been writing to the u.s. for centuries, we are here today to find out what it is about this community that makes it so new. why do we feel that this is something new that we need to learn about? we are experiencing a democratic shift that we are witnessing before our very eyes, and to many of us, that is a fact that is well known and quite obvious, so today, we will dig a little deeper to find out what a demographic change really means, not just for each and every one of us in this room but also for a long-term strategic planning. what is the value of this electorate in the progressive state? we will discuss not only where they are now but where there are headed towards in the future, and more importantly, what it is we can do to create partnerships. with the electorate.

ok, i want to share a premise that we are starting with here at project new west, and i want to understand that we are not in a post racial america. we did not even contemplate naming a panel called "the post racial america." trust me. we had a lot of conference calls. we are extraordinarily proud of the work we accomplished in 2008 and the opportunities ahead of us, so we are realists, and we are pragmatists, and we really want to keep winning, so here is a bit of reality. we know that out of every 100 hispanic high school kids, only 50% graduate, and out of those 50% son, only 12% of those graduate from college, and only 3% of those received a postgraduate degree. for those of you that are good at mathematics, only six graduate from college, and less

than one gets a postgraduate degree. what are we doing for this work force? these are workers upon which the u.s. will depend. you have got policemen and women, nurses, teachers, government administrators, small-business owners, and the list goes on and on, so we learned it from mark lopez. it shows that the more -- if we have lots of high school dropouts, what does that mean politically? will last-minute tv programs that come up once every four years get as to where we need to

be? as we move forward, are we communicating to the distinct electorate in ways that are sustainable over the long term? so, to start of the conversation, i would like to share a graphic from an article from "usa today." i think it should come up behind me, and it is actually a map. it is a map that shows the growth, a county by county map, that shows the increase in growth in every county, so what we have here is the majority minority. we see the southwest. we see counties in florida, and what is interesting is that growth in the south. we are talking mississippi, alabama, georgia, and the carolinas, not to mention up there in the dakotas, so we go down to asian population growth, and you will see that population change. this is one or more percentage points between 2000 and 2008 among the asian american

community. if we look at the black population growth, we will see that the growth in counties was really sustained in the south and asa parts in the mid- atlantic. now, if we go to the hispanic growth, that is over the last eight years, and so, essentially, these are percentages of growth in every county, and really, as you can see, all the way from iowa, kansas, the midwest, clearly the southwest, and basically more than half of florida. there is a lot of opportunity here, so with that, i would love to introduce to you our first panel, which is mark lopez. mark lopez is the associate director of the pew center, where he joined that in 2008. he served as a research professor at the school of public policy at the university of maryland and received his ph.d. in economics from princeton university in 1996, and he specializes in labor

economics and other issues, including the economics of education. he has studied, which is really fascinating here, the electoral participation of young people, the young people's views of the first amendment, and the links between college attendance and civic engagement. please join me in giving a warm welcome to mark lopez to the podium. [applause] >> hello, and thank you. i hope you'll find this informative and useful, but before we do that, i want to give you some perspective of the pew center, where i have been working for the last over one year. i will try this one more time. there we go. it is based in washington, d.c., and it is important to note that

the pew hispanic center calls itself a fact tank and not a think tank, and what we mean by that is that we just provide information. av we just provide facts. a lot of work that we do ravas a r&b and demographics of the hispanic community, and we do polling, but what you will notice is that there is never ever any policy recommendations or suggestions at the end of the report on how to change things, and that is important, remember, because the pew center is really a fact tank and not a think tank. i know that is a weird name. areas of study. we carry many different things pertaining to the hispanic community. in fact, how many undocumented immigrants and united states, we estimate a 11.9 million, but i stress that that is the estimate, but that jason's of some of the things we do at the pew hispanic center. what i want to talk to you about today is the demography of the hispanic community in the united states.

that is the first thing i want to talk to you about. then, in their electoral participation and their points of view on some things, such as which political party has more concern for hispanics that we have been trending over the last several years, so first, on demography, as you know, the hispanic population represents about 50% of the american population, so 15% of all people living in the united states are hispanic, and when you take a look at the population, the majority is native-born, 60%, and 40% foreign born, but if we were just to take a look at adults, he will notice that the population over 18 is majority foreign-born, more than half emigrants. when we look at the trends, first, there are 46 million hispanics in the united states. that number has tripled since 1980. we project that this number will triple again by 2050 and that

their share will double by then. what is interesting about patterns of growth is that a lot of the growth has really been driven by immigration in the past. in fact, it immigration has been an important driver for hispanic population growth, but moving forward, it is u.s. births in the united states, hispanics born in in the united states, that will drive this, and we see where hispanics registering to vote and participating in recent elections, and hispanics generally represent a much smaller share of the eligible voter population than they do of the general population. the reason why is that many are immigrants, and many are under 18. also, as greta pointed to, he new centers are erosion. -- eroding. this is becoming much more dispersed across the united states. here is a graph through this decade. here is what we will project will happen as we move forward.

here is what we see in terms of growth that will be coming. in terms of population shares, here is how we reject the population shares. by 2050, we project that the united states will be a majority-minority society. in terms of the hispanic population, you will notice that it is a much younger population than the white non-hispanic population in the united states, but perhaps what is most exciting, when you look at hispanics and break it down by activity, look at the age distribution for native-born hispanics. a large share of native-born hispanics are under the age of 18, and that has huge implications for our future what we are talking about the political aspirations of hispanics, because every year, we will see more and more young latinos turn 18, and that is the large driver in the hispanic voter eligible population. now, to give you a sense of where this growth is coming,

this graph shows that it has mostly been driven by immigration. in this decade at weber, hispanic births became more important for growth and immigration, and here is what we project to happen in the future. in fact, we think in this decade, the share of the hispanic population that is foreign-born is actually at its peak. now, some maps. we just saw some good maps into a usa today" that loretta presented, but this map shows the share of each county -- i am sorry. it shows you where the share is 50% or more. those are the darker-colored counties. these are along the u.s.-mexico border and in south florida, but here at -- here is what has happened since 1980. here is the same graph but from 1990, for 2000, and for 2007. as you can see, the hispanic population has become much more dispersed across the united

states, and, in fact, between 2000 and 2007, of all of the counties in the united states, the hispanic population increased, so the hispanic population is increasing in alaska. it is increasing in montana. it is increasing virtually anywhere in the united states. now, a little bit about the geography of hispanics, and i want to give you some hispanics. first, half of all hispanics, frankly, live in california and texas. however, in arizona, there are in a 1.9 million hispanics. 37% of the hispanic population of arizona is foreign-born. for colorado, here is a similar figure. usc 20% of the state's population is hispanic, just under 1 million hispanics overall, and 29% are foreign- born. 40 mexico, here are similar figures.

locale of the share of foreign- born are in mexico. for nevada, for utah, for idaho, wyoming, and montana. you can see the share of hispanics in the mountains west varies tremendously depending on which state we're talking about, and the share of the hispanics also varies depending on which state we're talking about, so what about latino voters? there are about 18.5 eligible latino voters who could vote, and that is up by about 2 million since 2004. as you can see, the hispanic population has really been growing and has translated into a lot of growth in terms of potential voters out there. for the most part, hispanic voters are more likely to be younger, more likely to be naturalized citizens, more likely to be children, and more likely to not be college graduates than the general u.s. population. furthermore, when we talked

about geographics, many are in four states, california, texas, new york, and florida. half are in california and texas, but in the mountain west, here, about 10% of them reside, and you can see that 4% of hispanic voters nationwide live in arizona, new mexico, cavarretta, and new mexico, but 10% are in the mountain west. and here this will show you where hispanic voters are. the states that have the highest share of voters that are actually hispanic is actually shown in this particular slide. you can see that mexico stands out. 38% of eligible voters in new mexico are and hispanic origin. that is followed by texas and california, and at the very bottom is illinois in the top- down list, so you can see the hispanic share hovers around a

certain percentage. now, how many hispanics are actually registered, and how many actually vote? over a 11 million said they were registered, and i say that they said that they are registered, because this is based on a national survey. 9.7 million said that they voted, and you'll notice that the trend is upward. in the period previously, the number of hispanic voters as previously tripled between 1988 and 2008, so each and every election, more and more hispanics participate. now, at the pew hispanic center, we have also been doing a lot of polling about hispanics and issues, and we have also been asking this one question. which party do you think as more concern for hispanics, the republican party, the democratic party, or is there no difference? when you take a look at this chart, over the last decade, hispanics have said the democratic party has more

concerned than the republican party, but a large share was sitting there was no difference, but in the last year or so, we are starting to see a real change. that number for democrats has got up to 55%, saying the democratic party as more concerned for hispanics than the republican party. the republican party is only at 6%, and 35% say there is no difference. now, about the dilution of hispanic voting power, typically, we think of voting and voters as the share of voters that are hispanic should but the difficulty with that is that for hispanics, they represent 15% of the u.s. population. because many of them are too young to vote, we take them out, and 13% of all adults over the age of 18 remain, but also, because many hispanic adults are not u.s. citizens and therefore cannot vote in u.s. elections,

only 8.9% of the u.s. citizens are actually hispanic, so when you think about it, their share, their political voice, he is somewhat diluted because of political factors. we predict that not until 2016 will share of population that hispanics somewhat lower close to the share of eligible voters that are hispanic, so this process will take many decades, and a lot of this is going to be driven by young people turning 18 -- by 2016. i want to finish by talking about our electorates and not reverse it was in this last election. according to census bureau data and analysis on the part of the few hispanic center, and these are people who voted inax:ectios much more diverse than it has ever been. , almost one-quarter of all voters were either black, hispanic, or asian. the numbers here are making me nervous, so -- no, no, no.

that is fine. to show you how many votes they are casting, you can see that for the most part, whites still outnumber everybody, and this makes a lot of sense given the last slide i showed you, in terms of votes cast. between 2004 and 2008 for blacks and hispanics, particularly, in terms of the number of votes that were cast, and what we talk about turnout coming here is what the trends look like. in the last election, african americans essentially caught up to their white counterparts in terms of participation, and there has been growth in participation among hispanics even though the population has been growing by leaps and bounds. it has been growing by 2 million every election. that kind of dampens the voter turnout rate because it is hard to get an additional 2 million registered and then to vote, but as you can see, there has even been a growth in the hispanic

turnout rates. how did hispanics vote? how did other groups vote? this is based on the national exit polls, and you can say that hispanic voters voted very differently. 95% supported obama. almost two-thirds supported obama. in contrast for white voters, we saw a 45%/55% 4 obama/mccain. if you take a look at latino voters, you can see the across- the-board, support for obama was very strong, whether we talk about younger folks, men, women. no matter which demographic you look at, you are seeing a lot of strong support. in terms of the states, the obama margin of victory among hispanics was greatest in new jersey, and you can see here that they rank to them for you. nevada, california, illinois, texas, arizona.

and last, i am going to stop your soon because i know my time is running out, but i want to show you some key states. here's what we saw in 2004 and 2008 in new mexico. here is what we saw in colorado. here is what we saw in arizona. and here is what we saw in nevada. now, i want to end with florida. i know florida is an interesting state in many respects because of the changing demographics of florida, but take a look at the hispanic vote in florida in 2004. the hispanic vote in 2004 in florida went for george bush, 56%. look what happened in 2008. the hispanic vote in florida when 4 barack obama 57%. what is interesting about this

is that in the voter registration rolls for florida, at the number of hispanics voted -- registered as democrats surpassed the number registered for republicans, so for a border really represented a change in terms of the hispanic vote, very fascinating, and i would be happy to talk more about this. i am just going to stop here because my time is up, but let me show you won last slide. earlier this year, we ask hispanics what are the issues that the new administration should address. the economy was number one. i want to point out though that that is followed by education, health care, and national security, immigration, an energy policy. i want to end there. thank you for taking the time to listen to me. i will be happy to answer the questions after our panel is over. [applause]

>> mm-hmm i would love to have our two panelists join us. joining us today are the attorney general from arizona and the state auditor from new mexico. [applause] he was born and raised in tucson. his father served in the 1960's, and he received his law degree from the university, and he served and retired as a commander the attorney general has a legal career of 30 years which began as a prosecutor in the attorney general's office. he was elected not once, not twice, not three, but four

times, and he led the city from 1984 -- from 1995 until 2002. he was elected to the board of the central arizona water conservation district which works with a project. attorney general, thank you for being with us. now, at the age of 33, he was elected to be mexico's state auditor position. his election marked a milestone for britain and mexico and the nation. he became the youngest hispanic in the country. at the age of 29 and with no prior political experience, he ran for a seat in the house of representatives and one. he graduated from the university and earned his law degree from the university of

new mexico. please welcome him. [applause] i think what we are going to do is do a little bit of q&a. i am going to attempt to move the podium a little bit. i have staffers to help me. we will start with some q&a. ok. very good. ok. so thank you all for joining us here today. and i do have a few questions from the audience, as well. we are going to try to do this as soon as we get to our panels here, so one of the things that we learned last year and a project that new west did is that we found two key values that were shared by a large majority of hispanics in the midwest, and one is that they are proud to be american.

and i do not find that surprising, but we know that many people might be a 72% of them consider themselves to be part of the middle class, but my question to the panel is, does this finding surprise you? attorney general? -- many people might. 72% of them consider themselves to be part of the middle class. >> no, there is an extraordinary group of veterans that are above the population as a percentage, so the pride in the country is clearly eminent. we clearly see that the numbers do not dramatically changed as a bloc. perhaps something we should think about, even more new

registrant's that are latino in background are becoming independence -- even more new registrants that are latino in back rent are becoming independents. they are not taking a different role. they are moving right with the economy and with the general population. >> not at all. i share the same sentiments. the hispanic community is very diverse. there are very complicated. -- they are very complicated. however, systemically, across the board, you will see whether duty for country or, in mexico, we have a high proportion of veterans that had been in many of the conflicts that the united states have to face. we have per-capita the highest concentration of veterans across

the country, and we have the highest hispanic population of the level of patriotism, the level of loyalty to the american dream. it is seemingly very high, so it does not surprise me. as far as the middle class, economic indicators is that we have a poverty problem across this country. you'll see that most families, whether they are under the poverty level or above the poverty level see the american dream as their kids going to school, their kids having public access to education, and i think that even if we are from a poor family, we kind of sense that we have a large stake in this country, so i think we do not go by traditional economic indicators about whether we think we are poor or middle class, but i do not find it surprising that even a large percentage of hispanics living in poverty see themselves as middle class or right on the doorstep of becoming middle class through their youngsters,

which you saw the statistics. we are a very young public it -- population. >> you brought up a great point. there is the issue of patriotism and that mexico has the largest percentage of veterans. obviously, now there is a lot of military activity. where do they stand? and also, the attorney general brought up the idea of independents. does that mean that they are truly independent and can go through all of the issues and make a decision in the voting booth, or they really just do not feel akin to one party or another? what does your research show? >> talking about the political party and vacation among latinas, certainly in the last cycle, there are those that have a democrat increase, but there is a substantial share it that identifies as independent.

i think it might be a reflection of a lot of what you might see happening among young people. generally speaking among young people nationally, you see about one-third that are independent, and that has stayed pretty even across the years, suggesting that they are maybe not quite ready to identify with one party just yet. we are not quite sure. we do not know exactly what that answer is, but i am sure that particular with young latino voters, which might be seeing a similar phenomenon as to what we are seeing nationally -- we might be seeing a similar phenomenon. we looked only briefly and not as much as we probably would like to do, and is something that is on our agenda to do moving forward is taking a look at military participation among latinos today, so i do not think i could provide a good answer. >> we will be waiting. ok. gentlemen, please give us a snapshot of