>> that would be a disaster. he is probably going to take away from the carter side more than from our side. i know 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. my criticism, 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 with the least chance of any violence that might exert

pressure on them and give them -- either the hostages are released on that date with this goes into effect. he used the term military force and now it is a possibility that that could include what you said. if we mined, 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 afghanistan 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 pakistan, both china and's concern about afghanistan for different reasons. the chinese with their special relationship with pakistan where you have islam concerned, almost united in their concern about the soviet with the soviet union is over -- overcommitted and afghanistan. i do not believe your thought process is correct. i do not think it will escalate. that is an option that the president should give very serious consideration to. you are not talking about --

once you mind, no matter how many, insurance rates skyrocket. commerce screeches to a halt. i think it should be considered. it is for the president to make the determination. there is 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 soviets in this context. [applause] >> what about the option of doing nothing at all? the most important -- iran has not completed its revolution. there are probably more pro-united states people in iran than we realize. if a showdown inside iran -- which may have already begun -- might see our side -- but if we use force, we may force iran into russian arms. impatience, they see it as a

>> i do not think they see it as impatience, they see it as a weakness. they have humiliated us. one of our officials, diplomats his speech when he arrived was boasting about how they rubbed over face in the dirt. if we had used all the diplomatic things we have done, not that commission from the u.n. 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. now, they have 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 we could have said -- we don't

want any trouble. we would like to work with you. we could be helpful to you. you have a neighbor up north that i'm sure you do not want in here in a think they would have listened to us. why would they listen to us when 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? >> congressman sam -- says they are 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 hegemony. they have been enough more than 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. where people want to be free, soviet or cuban domination, the united states it should be willing to provide weapons to any men that want to fight. >> do you believe there should be a blockade of cuba? >> i suggested that as a hypothetical. it was based on this thing we both have said. with regard to afghanistan, the president, 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. so they invaded and the world's is still standing here just as we are still standing. we accepted it. my feeling is what i said at the time was that we ought to have a 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.

i said, let me give one hypothetical idea and there may be better options. here we have a 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. we have problems today it seems to me. if you go back and look, blockades, kennedy 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 much as i detest 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. [applause] >> there is a disagreement in naval services. we have to face up to the fact 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. >> what do we do about cuba? which is 90 miles off our border. it is a soviet outpost. has a imitator now in the island of granada, some presence in 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 decision to export revolution, not supported.

communism makes a very interesting distinction. granada is now 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. i am convinced that castro is supplying the military equipment to stimulate revolution. what do you do? you change your naïve 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 to see legal, 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. these are 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 enough -- they have a problem of 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 both of you gentlemen will address this. local filling stations are said to be cutting the gasoline prices so as to exhaust their 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. once upon a time, the allocation 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. recently, in southern florida, 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 florida all the winter appeared people are driving just as much and probably even more people coming. california, when we lined up to 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. i oppose price 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. >> i have supported congress -- 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 maximize funding when i am talking cutting back on some kind of expenditures. i favor tuition tax credits, 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. i used to wash dishes and the girls dormitory room -- that was one of the better jobs i had. the answer is, 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 over the minutes the president 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. >> because without saying that i think 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. whoever 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. i 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 experience, 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 created 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 else hada 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 government becoming a powerful instrument controlling their destiny. thank you. [applause] >> that concludes our forum tonight. i want to thank ambassador bush and 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, but very good for the republican party. [applause] [laughter] >> this forum series and the debates are in the interest of our nation. thank you all and good night.

2016 go we follow the candidates of the c-span radio c-span.org. >> this weekend, on the presidency, senior historian at the smithsonian national portrait gallery chronicles abraham lincoln's love through photographs and portraits. here is a preview. the famous practically. at some point during the , you have torocess hit the chemical mixture before you apply the paper. it cracked. these are incredibly fragile items. inre are only two surviving

he looked at this current incident that is not any good and through a plate. there is only one correct plate image in the gallery. it is not very good condition and we shall rarely. -- show it rarely. with.e are looking at it 1865 where the war is one but he knows he has to win the inauguration. thinking about the speech, he is reconstruction, and dealing with the social problems of emancipation ha. he is melancholic because he is very tired and you can see the in this photograph. if you noticed the shoulders are

out of focus, and the list i does not have useful that usual crispness of clarity. it seems to be. to itself. if you are a french literary theorist you can read the crack in the union being bound up in the body abraham lincoln. what we know is that lincoln is looking forward to the future, but we know that he is going to die. >> you can watch the presidency on sunday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern here on american history tv on c-span3. ♪ >> i am a history buff and i do enjoy seeing the fabric of our country, and how things work and how they are made. >> i love american history tv and american artifacts.

idea audit. it is something i would enjoy. >> american history tv, it gives you that perspective. i have a c-span fan. >> each week american history tv's real america brings you films that provide context to today's 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. and mexico allowed bracero to be transported across the border when farmers and agribusinesses cannot hire american workers. at the program's peak between 1956-1959, 400,000 mexican workers participated each year.