history tv brings you archival coverage of presidential races. next a 1980 debate between governor ronald reagan and former cia director george h.w. in houstontook place before the texas primary. governor reagan went on to win the primary. bush asicked mr. his running mate. they won 44 states in the 1980 general election defeating jimmy carter and walter mondale. our coverage is courtesy of the league of women voters. >> good evening. i'm the national president of the league of women voters. ,elcome to the houston forum the third event in our 1980

presidential forum series. this series is part of a very important league tradition providing the public with nonpartisan election information about issues and candidates. tonight i am particularly pleased to be evil to tell you the league of women voters is going to continue on with that tradition. we announced we are going to sponsor the 1980 presidential debate. a series of debates that will be and nest -- next september october. the enthusiastic response of the 1976ic to the debate and to our current series provides evidence of the fact that americans will expect candidates to participate in

face-to-face debates next fall. event andth tonight's our moderator, the distinguished howard k smith. >> thank you. good evening. we are pleased tonight to have two candidates for the republican nomination for the presidency of the united states. former ambassador george bush of texas, former governor ronald reagan of california. before we begin in response to the league of women voters, they will sponsor the presidential debates after the convention as it did four years ago in 1976. if nominated by your party would you agree to participate? i'd love to debate in the rose garden. yes, i would. mr. reagan: i can't wait.

>> thank you. agreed there be no time limits to what you have to say. you will have an open discussion. chairman'srve the privilege of asking a question if i want to change the subject. towards the end we will accept questions from the audience. after that there will be brief closing statements. , everyone bush including your opponent has congratulated you on your victory in pennsylvania yesterday. in the course of the program face the nation sunday you said you hoped to win because you had adopted the strategy of hammering away at the differences between you and mr. reagan. one difference you mentioned was you said in your words, mr. reagan was overpromising the american people.

you explaincould that? mr. bush: it was meet the press. secondly. point what we must do is defeat jimmy carter. i got that into focus. i want to get these differences out with the governor so the voters can make a good determination. i hope that is what has happened in pennsylvania. a big difference the governor and i have is in regard to tax cut. $70 billion the first year. and gift taxes. we have computed that at $5.4 billion. and balance the budget and

increase. resident kennedy suggested the cots were implemented by johnson . it was $11.4 million. it resulted in a $4.4 billion revenue loss. inflation was 1.8%. today it is 18. investor confidence was out there. now there is none. that economic program would exacerbate the deficit. it would result in less stimulation of the economy because of the conditions. and i believe before we can have massive across-the-board tax cut's we have to have the budget in balance. i am proposing a supply-side tax cut to stimulate savings for homes and businesses. mr. reagan: that is indeed a major difference.

i still believe firmly and think there is some difference of opinion about figures. four times in this century we have had across-the-board tax cut's. the government even in the first year got increased revenue, not less. governmentevenue for and of course government was smaller than. $109 million. according to the figure than the got $1.1overnment billion additional revenue in the income tax. me point something out. george mentioned the difference. under jimmy carter the tax burden of the gross national product has reached the highest level in the history of our nation. under the revised budget the

total federal taxes are projected at $628 billion. one of would be individual income tax. 115 percent increase in the tax since he took office. over the next 10 years, if things are changed it is estimated the total tax increase on the people of america will be one and a half trillion dollars. rather than the bill i support, the idea of a 10% cut across the board administered over a three-year time. will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and not reduce federal income. it will only reduce the increase in taxes. we are going to be faced with an increase in taxes that is beyond .ur comprehension right now

, you woulde that cut reduce the first year less than of the total tax revenues the government is going to beginning. i believe itroven will sting like the economy, more people will be working and it will be contrary to the policy of flooding -- fighting inflation adding to the unemployment lows. i support and stand by the idea of incentive taxes that will provide incentive to increase productivity so we can compete in the international market which we can't do on even terms today. mr. bush: the difference we have is kennedy tax cut implemented resulted in ason $4.4 billion deficit.

high,or confidence was not low. today incut applied the same percentages, same numbers would result in an inflation rate of 30, 30 2%. i could not agree more about the percent of our gross national product but i believe the first thing we must do is get in balance, not the way jimmy carter proposed it, get and balance by the reduction of billionures, by a $20 supply-side tax cut, and then reduce rates. if we risk with investor confidence where it is a deficit that is going to be already 37 billion. i am afraid we can't break inflation. mr. reagan: i believe in

reducing the cost of government more than the decrease than mr. carter has proposed. less than the federal government is going to get in a -- that amounts to more than $20 billion. if we get that and balance and then do what i say, that is the key thing. would risk exacerbating the deficit. today our creditors abroad, our to foreignlinked economy. they see us living at deficit after deficit. it is like the kennedy tax cut. there wasn't a surplus. there was a deficit. the economist the proposed it, he says i don't know whether it would work.

i don't believe we can take that risk. much risk is there in going along with what we have been doing? i propose something very different than what we have been going along. that we can'td possibly reduce taxes, this is reduceton's cry until we government spending. government does not tax to get the money it needs, government always needs the money it gets. withson can be extravagant his allowance and you can lecture him about saving money and nothing extravagant or you can solve the problem i cutting his allowance. [applause] program i am putting forward cut's the allowance. cats on the spending. it doesn't risk of this promise everybody everything. youtaxes $210 billion and

favor increasing and you cut inheritance and gift taxes, and i believe your point and up with a figure deficit. that is where we differ. onwhole program is based getting tax is. waynot going to do in a that will make that deficit. mr. reagan: one last point we haven't touched on. we are talking as if those dollars that are saved in taxes are not going to have any effect on the people's pockets used out there in society. is as been proven there greater multiplier affect and creation of prosperity in people -- money spent by the people and invested by the people then when it is spent by government. we have got to recognize that .oney isn't buried in a tin can

it is going to be used to buy things. .hen we buy things productivity we have the highest percentage today of industrial plant and equipment of any of the industrial nations in the world. we cannot compete evenly with them because they don't have the camp -- capital investment. mr. bush: you are going to simulate production. howard: i don't want to keep you from a grain. -- manyon i have to ask observers have said many of the arguments all flawed. you spoke of the kennedy tax cut when it was 18%. >> that was the first year. it was a two-year tax cut.

howard: you have spoken of a tax cut, a waste in government. you said it cost three dollars to provide one dollars worth of benefit. and they said it cost $.12. mr. reagan: i would not believe them if they were here in the room. [applause] howard: there were several other facts like that you disputed. upi, and donhe landrieu has come out with a story that has to do with one set of figures that how many employees the carter administration added. one of the networks went on the

air and they had gone to a fellow in government to ask him and he said there were only 6000 added in all these three years. why don't my say figures might not have been fairly accurate at this time, i appear to be closer to the mark. in the last three years the total number -- number has grown by 63,282. then, he went on to point 145,000 that work for it the department of a gw. a gw is paying the salaries of one million additional workers who governments and other organizations -- federal revenue pays the salaries of 77,000 state workers in the u.s.

employment and unemployment offices. all of these workers are excluded from the governments employee records. no official count has ever been taken. when this is added to the civilian and military employees, we see as many as 14 million people are working for the government. at least one u.s. worker out of 806 job to washington. thus reagan's increase is possible and may understate the rise in federal government. howard: you covered that plane. [applause] >> the figures were wrong, but it is the things i have studied and researched on that.

i attributed them to the wrong report. it gave the u.s. geological survey the responsibility to use those figures. they checked simply with them who said they were not in the report. i found that is all i had done in that particular one. i have been waiting for an opportunity to do this. i have confidence in the facts and figures i use. howard: benefits. at.reagan: this in an account by an economist. not having any chance to check with the economist i took the figure used for redistribution of income outside of social security to people below poverty level and the figure of those below the poverty level and divided it into the total figure and it came out if the people

below poverty were getting all of the money in that budget, a family of four would be receiving $27,000 a year, four times as much as they are receiving. i figured that would be three to one overhead. in my view we should be doing some thing about the employment thing. no one would have been thrown would a job but people leave and not be replaced. he campaigned on less people employed. i drove by the other day and the , people is staffed working for the white house. they don't feel the recession. they don't see these layoffs that the steelworkers feel. that is what i do on that.

on energy, i don't believe there is enough in alaska within the reasonable future to replace the 9 million barrels a day we get from overseas. a decline is already set in. some companies have started pulling out of alaska. my energy program is not the control and alaska but it has alternate services of energy. howard: let me ask you something just developing now. the famous recession which is beginning to happen. it may be there when either of you become president. will you hope that it will reduce inflation or try to halt the recession by things like government expenditures and tax cut's? i do believe the alternative to inflation is recession. i think that is old-fashioned economics.

i don't think you have to trade unemployment. president carter said he would never fight inflation by using unemployment. assident carter has said part of his fight against inflation unemployment is going to be allowed to go up. this is self-destructive. for every percentage what you youto the unemployment role have 25 to $29 billion to the federal deficit. both in the loss of revenue and the benefits that go out to them. i would do the things i have talked about regarding the cut of government and to some experience in a same situation i became governor of california. it was bankrupt. and with a deficit. i know some of these things work. i would even go back to an

example that happened since i was governor, prop 13. everyone heard the horrifying things that would happen if they cut the taxes as much as they said it would. the result is there are 100,000 fewer public workers. the private sector has created 532,000 new jobs in the state of california ended up with a $3 billion surplus. mr. bush: i don't believe there is an economic plan. seelieve you are going to some increase in unemployment. i believe the way you fight back is to stimulate, risk-taking and production. the way you do that is through this kind of approach i talked about as well as fighting the inflationary side of the government spending.

i believe it would work. there are programs that would help. for jobs that exist through tax credits rather than train them up to get some kids hopes up. stimulating the private sector, i believe that would work if you hold government under control. you can't go and risk making the deficit bigger at the same time. otherwise you have that inflation. stimulation of employment sector and lowering unemployment. he did that to some degree for a while but inflation went off the

charts because of reckless deficits. other thingse did to create the deficits. he was going to streamline government pre-decree to the energy industry. he is now created the cabinet level management for the department of education with more billions of dollars. he has the biggest staff as you pointed out in the white house have any president we know of. i think he who was going to trim when he calledgh teddy kennedy the biggest spender in the senate, he's the biggest spender in the white house. providehen you said they incentive for increased productivity the american worker today is stating the lowest us an edge of earnings at any time in the last 30 odd years, and a japanese worker could say -- say five times that an american

can. it is not going in to savings accounts, not going to insurance premiums, not going as capital to invest in the private section. the only investment they have been able to make have met federal requirements, if added to production costs which reduced productivity. i want to see an increase in productivity. the system you're talking about, we have been trying for a lot of years. it is time for something new. and what is new is let's believe in the people that we can spend the money smarter better than the government can. howard: ladies and gentlemen please suppress your enthusiasm until we are finished. and ambassador bush, you blame the government for many issues.

but the most productive industry we have is agricultural and its productivity is due to government activity and research stations. world war ii the government created the oil industry. spectacularly, putting a man on the moon was a government project from a government plan. aren't you underrating the effectiveness of government? mr. bush: no. i don't think government adds to production. industry, now it is better done in the private sector. we have a wartime economy, of course you will have government intervention. has moved in on the private sector with regulation. i built a business here in texas, started it from scratch. when we started to drill a well, it was two permits.

now it is 12 permits. every time you turn around there is too much regulation. does something and they can help people. and they do. i'm not an antigovernment person. and provide for the defense there are certain functions government has that are compassionate. and i think good. i think there is room for a partnership. what government does is not productive. we ought to be cutting it back. productivityng to that i think is essential if we are going to beat inflation and bypass citizens. as they getbypassed into the workforce. i brought some figures because i thought they would come in handy.

1950, thens since last 30 years have been able to save and invest, if our economy had grown one and a half percent more a year, our income would be 50% higher, jobs will be plentiful. we would have a balanced budget. lower payroll taxes. and our industry economy would be three times as great of the soviet union. we would have a question superiority. there are legitimate functions government must perform. the basic three that are outlined in the basis of our government in our constitution, the federal government exist to protect us from outside aggression and national security, to protect us from disorder within and to guarantee stability of their money. those at theof moment we could say this administration has failed.

they have not protected our national security. let it declined to the most dangerous part we have been in that i can recall. we know about disorder in the streets. crime and so forth. ,nd the stability of our money our currency is worth less than any time in our history. howard: i want to move to another subject. there was supposed to be a third man tonight. congressman john anderson. he received word he would not take part. tomorrow or the next day he will announce he is forming a third-party. what do you think that will do to the party? mr. bush: i don't really believe after the initial flurry it is going to make that much difference. -- there are those who

would be for ted kennedy if they thought he was going to have a shot. so i don't view it. i don't think it will be third party. he will run as an independent and they will add the same success. we are a two-party system. it is part of our stability. debate him in the whether he was willing to support the nominee of the party. he made clear he would not prepare that. i think you are right that he will do it. idle think it is going to amount to much after a good trip around the country. i don't see -- he is caught. he doesn't have the true give digital's of a candidate and wants to move against the credentials they got him elected to the house. let him do what he wants. that is the way i feel.

[laughter] governor reagan said he could get 20% of the vote. a threat? be >> that would be a disaster. he is probably going to take away from the carter side more than from our side. that i speak pejoratively when i said that i miss him tonight. let's turn to foreign affairs or both of you have been unsatisfied without the president has handled the iranian crisis. now he is having some thoughts of using force which you have indicated approval. that may run some options past you. the most often quoted is mining the oil in persia, blockading

oil in persia. is there a danger that the russians would sweep the minds and after shoot or shut up? well, it is difficult to talk about what is a viable option during the sixth month of their captivity. first of all, something might endanger them further. second, if you have a good idea of something that should be done, i don't think we should say it out loud. , i don't like criticizing what has been done. i do not think the president has 10 anything he could not have done five months ago. then was the time when all the means of diplomacy failed, then

was the time to look at the options that only the president knows that he has. as to what he thought he might any the least chance of violence that might exert pressure on them and give them -- either the hostages are released on that date with this goes into effect. used the term military force and now it is a possibility that that could include what you said. ed, we would have to also prevent russian minesweepers from trying to take them out if they wanted to try that. i wonder whether they are prepared for a possible escalation conflict with us at this time. they are regressive against and africa. even but they have a lead on us and everything, i do not think

they are prepared at this time. they do not want the confrontation. >> wouldn't it be a risk to find out? >> no, it would not be that big of a risk. i have been to that part of the gulf. in my judgment, the situation in iraq, with the rock pulled away from the soviet union has a bearing on this. my judgment of the situation in and'san, both china concern about afghanistan for different reasons. the chinese with their special relationship with pakistan where , almost islam concerned united in their concern about with the soviet union

is over -- overcommitted and afghanistan. i do not believe your thought process is correct. it will escalate. that is an option that the president should give very serious consideration to. about --ot talking once you mind, no matter how many, insurance rates skyrocket. a halt. screeches to i think it should be considered. it is for the president to make the determination. a highly classified body of information that on the a handful of people have access to. that is the president and his top people. if that decision is made, it would have my support. i do not believe there is a risk to be concerned about. the risk will be internally in

iran when you are dealing with reckless people with no respect for international law. seizing our embassy. i would not worry about the .oviets in this context . [applause] >> what about the option of doing nothing at all? hasmost important -- iran not completed its revolution. there are probably more pro-united states people in iran than we realize. iran --wdown inside which may have already begun -- might see our side -- but if we use force, we may force iran into russian arms. i do not think they see it as

patients, they see it as a weakness. they have humiliated us. diplomats officials, he arrivedwhen was boasting about how they rubbed over face in the dirt. used all the diplomatic things we have done, not that commission from the u.n. because -- from the because it is not in the charter. all the diplomatic efforts we could make peacefully to get them back and then used one of these and let us say hypothetically the mining in the blockade -- are that time, they were greatly dependent on outside commerce. adjusted and for us to put sanctions on, our

trade has shrunk down which will not affect them in all but then if we had done that forcefully and in those first few days had gotten our hostages back, then don'tld have said -- we want any trouble. we would like to work with you. we could be helpful to you. up northa neighbor that i'm sure you do not want in here in a think they would have listened to us. whenould they listen to us they look to themselves as stronger than we are because of the way we have gone on month after month that in his humiliation occur? -- says theyn sam strapped .re using ancient weapons he feels that we should send them considerable aid. you believe we should? >> absolutely.

look, if you have a brutal aggression and you are now willing to help and i think the way to do it was through practice if you are now within to help, what possible help -- hope -- you have to start in foreign policy with your definition of what the soviet union intends. i believe the evidence is overwhelming that they seek superiority. i believe when they see us weak and africa as a stabilizing influence they are going to go in there and use that stabilization to spread identity -- hedge mnd -- hegemony. more thanbeen enough they should be allowed to digest. i think the best answer to it is for them to know that the united

states is going to keep its commitment. everybody -- about our allies. they don't know that they can believe jimmy carter. they think he is going to change his mind him whatever he does. it took him three years to find out that the soviets [inaudible] >> i agree. way people want to be free, soviet or cuban domination, the united states it should be willing to provide weapons to fight. that want to >> do you believe there should be a blockade of cuba? >> i suggested that is a hypothetical. it was based on this thing we both have said. with regard to afghanistan, the

i think over word the credibility of the united states when he made a serious warning to the soviets not to invade afghanistan. he used the term serious consequences will follow. we were not ready to put in troops. in the world's is still standing here just as we are still standing. we accepted it. feeling is what i said at the ame was that we ought to have plan, we are to have a strategy of our own. we ought to have contingency plans. i propose that there might be pressures we could exert on the soviet union with the logistics are not against us.

give oneet me hypothetical idea and there may be better options. soviet satellite off our sure. instead of pressing sanctions are threatening the olympics, why couldn't we blockade cuba and say to them, when your troops get out of afghanistan, we will drop the blockade? [indiscernible] [applause] >> it was not cubans that invaded afghanistan. problems today it seems to me. if you go back and look, become more purity he used the word quarantine -- to quarantine cuba it would require today because of the decline in the united states navy according to a former chief of naval operations the entire atlantic

fleet. i don't believe -- i have a difference. as i digest what castro is doing, if afghanistan where invaded or someplace were threatened -- i would not respond against cuba. i believe that would be bad. do not link them into solve something halfway around the world. >> there is a disagreement in naval su services. factve to face up to the that our troubles in central and south america are being generated by castro's cuba as well as in the caribbean where they are also threatening to

choke off our lifetimes and it is a problem that has to be faced one day. russia has enough of a presence there. has fighter-bombers, submarines, a brigade that we know about. russia provides one tanker row week of oil for cuba. they could not stand a blockade very long. a little call on the hotline with this kind of a threat might get a withdrawal of troops from afghanistan. cuba?t do we do about which is 90 miles off our border . it is a soviet outpost. has a imitator now in the island ingranada, some presence guyana. when jimmy carter came in, he

traded cuba with civility. people look at us and say, what is going on? this man has made a conscious revolution,export not supported. communism makes a very interesting distinction. in alliance with castro. guyana has been in trouble before. jamaican police is being trained by cubans through that is the tip of the iceberg. the rest of it is in central america. ism convinced that castro supplying the military equipment to stimulate revolution. what do you do? you change your naive foreign

policy that considers him as a person who will live comfortably . the the united states our list -- must always adhere to human rights. i would keep our strategic interests in mind pushing for equity. we are to have some questions from the audience. >> i would like to know, do you think the children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend texas public schools for free? you first. i would like to see something done about the illegal alien problem that would be so sensitive and understanding about labor needs and human needs at that problem would not come up. if those people are here, i

would reluctantly say i think they would get whatever it is, what society is given to their neighbors. the problem has to be solved. sometimes the labor i would like we are creating a whole society of really honorable family loving people that are in violation of the law, and exacerbating relationships with mexico. he had to your question -- the answer to your question is more fundamental than attending schools. if they are living here, i don't want to see six-year-old and eight-year-old kids being made totally uneducated and feel they are living outside the law. good people, strong people, pardon my family's neck

-- part of my family is mexican. i think the time has come that the united states and our neighbors -- should have a better understanding than we have had. what we haven't been sensitive ofugh -- they have a problem unemployment. this cannot continue without the possibility arising with regard to better their country we talked about, cuba. the possibility of trouble before the border. we could have a hostile neighbor. her faster than making them, talking about putting up a fence , why do we work out problems he? it possible for them to come here legally and while they are working, they pay taxes. when they go back, they can go back. open the border both ways by understanding -- this is the only safety and health may have with unemployment.

. we could have a final relationship and he was solve the problem you mentioned. i hope of you gentlemen will address this. local filling stations are said to be cutting the gasoline their so as to exhaust abundant supplies on the advice of their parent companies in order that their next allocations will not be decreased. how do you feel about this practice? this is part of what i think is a great energy crisis caused by government. part of it is from that energy agency and the allocation system. allocation time, the was made by the marketplace,

supply and demand. today you have a government agency dictating where the gasoline, oil, diesel will go and trying to guess how much should go where. florida, in southern in the primaries, they were running into a shortage -- the agency decided people drive less than they do in the summertime and it didn't stop to think that it is summertime in south appearedll the winter people are driving just as much and probably even more people coming. we lined up ton gas stations, they based our allocations on 1972 figures. we have 4 million more automobiles than we did in that year. let us turn the industry industry back and let the marketplace dictate that. [applause] that example makes a good

case against price control. the energy department saying put the gasoline where the people are, when we had a gasoline problem. control and this is a good example of a price control that has distorted supply. [applause] i would like to ask, with college costs up to $6,000 per year at state universities, would you ok tax cuts for families with college students? this is important to students who are in middle income families who are above financial need scholarships but still feel the strain of education. congress --pported how big they can be has to in my judgment be considered along with the entire economy.

i do not want to say we will when i amunding talking cutting back on some kind of expenditures. credits,uition tax this to loan program. do not favor abuses in an unbroken that permit people with $100,000 incomes to get loans at subsidized rates. >> we are in agreement on that. i support the idea of tuition tax credits. in the loan program. in california, we had a scholarship program that was only $4 million, it was $43 million when i left. dishes and the girls dormitory room -- that was one of the better jobs i had. that, again, is a casualty of inflation. until we get that down to common

sense, we are going to have these problems. wenzhou please tell us who some of the people are that you are considering as your vice presidential running mates when you are nominated? >> i don't know what the answer is going to be at the other end of the stage, but i can tell you this. i have refused to allow myself to consider that. there is a wealth of talent in our party. i have refused to let myself turn my mind to that. unless and until i am closer to seeing the required number of delegates. even with my newfound optimism out of pennsylvania, i

am not far enough along to think about the name of the person. he or she must be able to take presidentinutes the is incapacitated. and secondly, a certain degree of loyalty to the president 's views. not total agreement, but a willingness to support the president. vice president mondale has been a good vice president for jimmy carter. those of the two major criteria i would look for. saying that ihout ,hink anyone that you announce recommend to the convention, he would have to feel would carry out the program that you would promise the people to implement. however i pick would have to

agree with my tax bill. >> we have one minute for closing -- [indiscernible] >> i am pleased to be back in texas. i am looking forward to the campaign in my home state. believe that this kind of function is an extraordinarily good thing. spell out the differences so the voter can determine who can beat jimmy carter? if we have a sensible economic policy that is not overpromise and we couple that with the foreign policy based on , the u.s. will strengthen intelligence and adhere to the values that made

us strong, we can help people at home and we can restore the respect we have lost abroad. thank you very much. [applause] >> in the 18th century we the freest most unique society that has ever been known. in the 19th century, we built the greatest industrial power the world has ever seen. we spent most of the 20th century apologizing. i do know what we apologizing for. americans today have fought harder and done more for the dignity of man than any people who have ever lived. i also share the view that jimmy carter must be removed from office. if i thought someone is had a better chance to beat him, i would not be a candidate, i

would be supporting somebody else. in the last 20 years, we must make sure that the young people and people who will follow us will have the same opportunities , the same glittering opportunity that has been hours for 200 years. it is all possible to the american people and i want to see the american people have that chance with a government credit vendetta becoming a powerful instrument controlling their destiny. thank you. [applause] >> that concludes our forum tonight. i want to thank ambassador bush in governor reagan for being with us. they agreed on some very important things. they didn't disagree as much as i wanted them to which is very bad for showbiz the very good for the republican party.

[applause] [laughter] series in the debates are in the interest of our nation. thank you all and good night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: the c-span cities tour takes you to long beach, california to explore the history and literary culture located south of los angeles. learn about women's contributions to the world war ii effort. >> when the army was looking for a place to build a plant to , they pickedaft

long beach because steps away we have a wonderful airport. it was one of the first airports that had a takeoff and landing in different directions which the army loved. douglas wanted to full production mode and was turning out planes 24/7. it needed a lot of people to work. women for the first time were brought out of the house and into the workforce. at its peak, douglas employed 45,000 people a day in the long beach area. 48% of those people where women. announcer: we visit the port of long beach to discover the importance of the nation's second busiest container port. >> it was established as a

harbor in 1911. we are over 104 years old. this port started on a wooden wharf. lumber for thely growing city of long beach. station and naval shipyard and naval complex were the early 1990's. unfortunately, through the base closure process, the naval complex shutdown. we were able to take federal facilities and turn it into one of our modern container terminals. where we are today is we are sitting on the most modern sustainable marine container terminal in the world. watch throughout the

day on the tv and sunday afternoon in american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates. each week, american history tv's real america brings you films that provide context to public affairs issues. why braceros? is a 1962 film by the council of california growers which argues in favor of a guest worker program that began in 1942 due to world war ii labor shortages. the agreement between the u.s. to bexico allowed bracero transported across the border when farmers and agribusinesses .annot hire american workers at the program's peak