Jimmy Carter photo

Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With a Group of Publishers, Editors, and Broadcasters.

May 20, 1977

DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY

THE PRESIDENT. I see a few old friends around the room. Right now, as you know, we have a great number of domestic and foreign efforts or projects underway. We today are watching the Senate vote on strip mining legislation. We have made good progress already in establishing a new Department of Energy. We have submitted a drastic reform which is long overdue of the social security system. We are evolving now a presentation to make on welfare reform of a basic nature, prior to the summer work period of the Congress which will begin in August.

Later on this year, we will propose to the Congress a comprehensive reform of the income tax structure. We have, I think, made tremendous progress, with the Congress almost in complete harmony, on the economic package, primarily to put American people back to work with a heavy emphasis on youth employment. We've now had approved over a million summer jobs for young people. I think the Congress will very rapidly approve roughly 270,000 CETA jobs, training, and job placement for young people, plus another 35,000 jobs in our forests and national parks, another 30,000 jobs for young people in our urban areas.

And, of course, I signed into law last week the new tax reform measure which greatly simplifies the entire tax structure and also reduces taxes to be paid by about $4 billion. In addition, of course, we have in prospect a great number of other matters that are of equal importance. I won't go into them because I don't know what you have an interest in.

On foreign policy right now, I've spent a good bit of my time this morning communicating with Cyrus Vance on the telephone and by cable as he negotiates with Foreign Minister Gromyko on SALT talks and other matters. Our own Vice President is in detailed discussions with Prime Minister Vorster from the Union of South Africa. He will leave there and go to meet with Marshall Tito. He has already visited on this trip Portugal and Spain, new democracies in Europe.

We are very encouraged to realize that as far as NATO is concerned, for the first time in history all the members of NATO are now democracies, which I think is a good move in the right direction.

We are quite concerned about the problems in southern Africa. We are now assessing in a quiet way, in a very subdued way, the possible consequences of the election results in Israel. I have a good hope that we can work something out, in addition, to let our European allies know how strongly committed we are to the strengthening of NATO and the cooperation with them.

We've been successful in the recent summit meeting, I think, and also in my visit throughout England and Switzerland, in reestablishing a clear-cut concept of what our Nation is, what it stands for. And the outpouring of affection and approbation that was demonstrated on this recent trip was not, I don't think, for me a personal thing but just an appreciation of .our European allies that the devastating times for Watergate and Vietnam and CIA revelations and Cambodia, and so forth, are over, and that the United States once again is a clean, admirable, strong, competent entity.

We've got some results already, I think, on economics. When I took office, we had about an 8.1 percent unemployment. It has dropped to 7 percent. I don't claim credit for that, but I do think that this is derived from a renewed confidence among consumers in what our country is going to be in the future. There has been an increase in consumer spending, and we have recent independent results from McGraw Hill, a very respected economic analyst group, that investment plans by business for the next year will be up about 18 percent compared to this past year. Discounting for inflation, it would still be above a 10 percent growth in business investment plans. So, there's a general feeling of confidence and hope, I think, in our country.

I've enjoyed being President so far between 3 and 4 months. We, I think, are staying up quite well with this multiplicity of sometimes related and sometimes isolated challenges and developments. I think the best way for me to spend my time now rather than continuing to enumerate matters that come to me for a decision, would be to answer your questions.

QUESTIONS

CUBA

Q. Mr. President, today is Cuba's Independence Day, May 20, so the question is about Cuba. Will you, sir, insist on your policy of human rights when dealing with Cuba in the future? How far will you go in that?

THE PRESIDENT. We have had no indication from Castro that Cuba is interested in the restoration of diplomatic relations with us.

When I was first in office and went over to speak at the Agriculture Department, a question was asked by one of the employees there about what we hope to achieve in the process of restoring those normal relationships. One thing that I pointed out was a demonstration by the Cubans of their commitment to the human rights concept, particularly by releasing some of the thousands of political prisoners that they have had incarcerated for a number of years, 15 or 20 years; secondly, the abstaining by the Cubans of their involvement in the internal affairs of nations, particularly in Africa, and a refraining on their part from disruptive practices in the Caribbean, particularly their insistence that Puerto Rico be independent of us. Of course, we want Puerto Rico to make their own decision about what their status should be.

We have successfully concluded a fisheries agreement and a maritime agreement with Cuba. And my guess is that in the near future we will have some diplomatic officials in Cuba and some Cuban diplomatic officials in Washington, not in our own embassies, but just as observers.

I don't know what Castro's intentions are. I have had no indication that he wants to proceed any more rapidly than we are proceeding, but those are elements that are very important to us. Of course, what he has asked for is an immediate termination of the embargo, trade embargo, against Cuba as a prerequisite to other negotiations, which I think is something that he is not likely to achieve.

Q. And Guantanamo, too.

THE PRESIDENT. I'm sorry.

Q. Guantanamo was mentioned by Raul Castro.

THE PRESIDENT. That's right. Well, t. here are several other obviously very complicated elements in dealing with Cuba.

Q. You are not going to desist on your policy of human rights?

THE PRESIDENT. I would not ever desist on my policy on human rights, no, not only as it relates to Cuba but to all other countries in the world, and also including our own country. I think it's accurate to say that almost the entire world leadership is now preoccupied with the question of human rights. And that affects me, it affects the European countries, it affects countries in South and Central America, it affects those in Africa, I think it affects the Socialist and Communist countries to the east, it affects Cuba.

We've had 25 to 30 nations-who have made very substantial moves toward enhancing the quality of human rights in their nations. Almost every time they take such an action, they will inform me directly that, "We have done this action, and we are very proud of it." And we have complimented them on it, quite often quietly through diplomatic channels.

I think it's something that our country ought to assume as a permanent clear-cut commitment of our people. I think it's compatible with our constitutional stance, the framework of our societal structure. It's something that appeals to our own people. It restores kind of a beacon light of something that's clean and decent and proper as a rallying point for us in all the democracies of the world.

And the last thing to say on human rights is that as we approach the Belgrade conference where the Helsinki agreement will be assessed--there are about 35 signatories of that agreement--I think all the countries are eager to put their best foot forward and to show that we have made strides toward the enhancement of human rights.

So, the human rights issue is a very important issue in the minds of all of us now, which I think is a good move in the right direction.

THE MIDDLE EAST

Q. Sir, the resurrection of Richard Nixon on TV brought out that this country had made certain commitments to the Middle East. Do you feel any obligation to follow those commitments?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, it depends on what those commitments were.

When commitments of that kind were made in an official capacity, by the President, by the Secretary of State, by the Secretary of Defense, often with the knowledge of Congress, I feel it is binding on me to carry those commitments out.

I'll give you one illustrative example involving politics. Kissinger promised the Israeli leaders that there would be no recognition on our part of the PLO prior to the PLO's recognition of Israel's right to exist--right to exist permanently. So, I would feel constrained by that promise.

There have been other commitments made on the type and quantity of weapons sales to Middle Eastern countries. I've now established a policy of great restraint on conventional weapons sales, but I still feel that I am under an obligation to meet the commitments that were made by my predecessors.

It wouldn't be fair. It is like a contract, for our country's word of honor, where our country's word of honor is involved. Others, though, I don't feel any obligation to honor.

For instance, there is a letter that has been recently published, I think, with the permission of President Nixon where he promised $3 or 4 billion in aid to the Vietnamese. That's one that I certainly would not honor.

I think now even President Nixon has renounced it, saying that it was abrogated by the fact that the Vietnamese broke their word on nonintrusion into South Vietnam. But I like to use my own judgment. But when I felt that the agreement at the time it was reached was compatible with the wishes of the American people and was confirmed, my inclination would be to honor it.

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

Q. Mr. President, as I understand your proposed Food Stamp program, it calls for a flat grant living subsidy. This subsidy is planned as an average cost of living per family. But doesn't it seem unfair to the North, and especially New England, with our high oil prices, that these high utility prices will hurt the northern poor families more while being less demanding on the southern poor?

THE PRESIDENT. I think when looked at in the full framework of the welfare concept, looking at welfare as a generic term, there are compensatory allocations made.

For instance, the housing allowances and others are quite often based on the cost of living in a particular community. I think the proposal that we presented to the Congress on food stamps is adequate. And I think it's fair.

SPACE EXPLORATION

Q. Mr. President, the majority of my readers work at the Johnson Space Center in Clear Lake City, Texas. They are concerned over budgeting for NASA in the future. Right now, the only manned program budgeted is the space shuttle• What plans does your administration have for manned exploration of the space frontiers in the future?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can't answer that beyond the present recommendations to Congress. I think it's unlikely that we would mount a new effort for manned space flight to the moon or to the planets, for instance. We will continue the evolution of the space shuttles with additional vehicles already approved by me and the funds recommended to the Congress.

I think at this point there's a great deal of analysis being conducted by NASA and by both private and publicly employed scientists about how the space shuttle itself might be used to the greatest advantage.

We have many recommendations along that line, but I think until the space shuttle is fully .used, both in a conceptual way and in a practical way, it would be unlikely to embark on a new and different kind of major space effort.

FEDERAL URBAN PROGRAMS

Q. Mr. President, in view of the criticism of national neglect of cities, what kind of a national urban policy would you like to see the Federal Government develop?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, we've done a great deal on that already. For instance, the basic change in the formulae for allocating Federal funds has been modified for public works projects, for the block grant programs for housing and investment. The formulae for allotting funds for employment opportunities have been changed drastically this last 3 months as compared to what they were before. This means that more of all Federal programs, not just a few of them, will be channeled into the deteriorating and needy urban downtown areas, whereas in the past they were channeled, I think, too much, to the sunbelt area and to the suburbs where the need was least.

We have, in addition to that, given special consideration in our energy programs and will in our welfare programs to those special needs in the urban areas wherever they might exist in our country.

We .are now evolving a comprehensive transportation policy that the Secretary of Transportation, Brock Adams will conclude this year, that will take into consideration those special needs on rapid transit and so forth.

So, we have, I think, made progress already in some of these areas. In others, we are just evolving policies for the future. I think it's accurate to say that in the past quite often Federal funds have not been channeled where the need was greatest. And I think that the first thing we need to do in all of our proposals to the Congress is to recognize that fact and correct those deficiencies. I think that is about the best I can describe.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Q. Mr. President, I am from Connecticut, which I believe is now the only State which generates more than half of its electrical power by nuclear means. In fact, we have three operating nuclear plants at Waterford and Hamden, within a 20-mile radius, and the fourth being constructed at the present time.

My question is this: There seems to be something of a discrepancy. We are assured by the AEC and others that nuclear plants are entirely safe. Yet, I believe there is a requirement that any new plant not be built in an area, in a city area or some immediate suburbs; in other words, that they be built in rural areas. Is this for safety reasons, because we are not absolutely sure how safe they are, or what is the reasoning behind this? This seems to worry a lot of our people.

THE PRESIDENT. I think that the nuclear power plants have demonstrated themselves to be safe. So far as I know, since nuclear power became a factor on the world scene, there has never been a fatality. I know there hasn't been in our own country.

Admiral Rickover's nuclear power plants, which have been used in tightly confined configurations like atomic submarines and also which quite often have been experimental in nature, have operated a cumulative total of 1500 years with never any sort of mishap. And I think part of it is because of the rigidity of standard that Admiral Rickover instituted and also the very tight operating supervision.

The major reason to consider the siting constraints on nuclear power plants is to try to avoid fear of people in the neighborhood and try to avoid the long delays that quite often have resulted because people could not be convinced that they were safe.

So, when you have an option to build an atomic power plant in a heavily populated area and one that's not populated, obviously the best place to go is to one that's not populated.

I hope that all States will do what, for instance, Georgia has done working in conjunction with North and South Carolina, for instance, and that is to identify sites for energy production many years ahead of time so that there won't be the hot controversy and the feeling among environmentalists and others that they are being circumvented when a decision is being made.

For instance, getting away from nuclear power for a minute, our three States have already found sites that are acceptable to environmentalists, local and State officials, oil companies, five different places along our coast where we would be glad to bring oil from offshore areas into the mainland, five places where we would be glad to see oil refineries built long before oil is ever discovered. So, there won't be the hot controversy and long delays and court suits when that occurs.

I think another thing that obviously needs to be done that does involve safety is the siting of atomic power plants away from earthquake fault zones and a standardization of design of the power plants.

We have other needs that don't indicate that atomic power plants are unsafe, but just are cautionary measures. One is a clear concept among people in a community about how to evacuate if you should have--I wouldn't say a catastrophe---but if you do have an accident, adequate insurance coverage. But in the provision of these factors which are designed to alleviate concern, that doesn't, I think, follow that they are an indication of the danger of atomic power plants.

So, I think that the siting is just one of the things to alleviate, in most cases, unwarranted fears. I think everybody probably knows that it's impossible for a light water nuclear power plant to explode. It's physically impossible. It can melt down. I have seen this happen in one instance in Canada, and radioactive gases can escape.

But now in any sort of heavily populated area we are putting the atomic power plant in a tightly sealed building with a heavy vacuum maintained so that if you do have radioactive gases released, they are contained within the building for a period of years until the radioactivity dissipates. So, it's no indication they :are unsafe because we want to put them where people don't live. How are you doing?

SOUTHERN POLITICAL FIGURES

Q. Hi. Nice to see you, Mr. President. I remember sitting beside you at a luncheon and urging you to continue to be active after your term as Governor ended, and you said that you would and you had some plans. You are certainly a man of your word. [Laughter]

Your election in the South seems to have accentuated a new set of political and psychological assumptions of a more confident nature. It seems that what that is likely to produce is the elimination of some old symbols of self-respect that seemed to be important when the South thought of itself as a scorned region-such symbols as Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Jim Eastland, McClellan. Those symbols no longer seem to be emotionally necessary in the South. So, there may be a purge without your lifting a hand. Do you agree with this interpretation, and, if so, do you think it's a good thing for the South and the Nation?

THE PRESIDENT. No. I certainly wouldn't want to associate myself with the statement that Jim Eastland is an anomaly or an anachronism that needs to be purged. [Laughter]

I think that it just proves that the South is heterogeneous in nature, that the time for racism as a factor in political success is past. And I think it also proves that this change was made not by political figures, but among the people themselves. And I hope that the reassurance of the South has not been commensurate with a cause of consternation in the rest of the country. But I don't think that it's likely that these political figures will necessarily be purged.

I think that my own belief is that many of the political figures that you mentioned have had an inclination to change with the times. And I Know that in our own State this has been true. Senator Talmadge, whose father, you know, was characterized as strongly supported by those who were against integration, has now become strongly supported himself by the blacks and other deprived people in Georgia.

So, I think it's true to say that not only have the people themselves as voters changed but also the elected officials have changed to accommodate those new inclinations on the part of voters.

Q. Very good.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. I was trying to be skillful. [Laughter]

PRIME MINISTER BEGIN OF ISRAEL

Q. Have you been in touch with Mr. Begin since his election, and do you plan any meeting with him? And what changes in our Mideast policy does this suggest may be necessary?

THE PRESIDENT. I have not been in touch with Mr. Begin. I think it's proper for me to wait for congratulatory messages and also to contact Mr. Begin until the President of Israel officially designates him as the new leader. At this point, of course, Mr. Perez is still the Prime Minister, and until the President designates Mr. Begin as the one to put a government together, I don't intend to communicate with him.

After, though, he is designated to put the government together, my intention is to congratulate him and also to let him know that I would welcome a visit and a discussion with him about the future of the Middle East.

I am very hopeful that the election will not change the long-time commitment of Israel to searching for a permanent peace settlement. And I have never met Mr. Begin. He has been here earlier to meet with Dr. Brzezinski since I have been President, but I was not here and did not get a chance to meet him. But we are being very reticent about making any statements concerning the Israeli election until we can understand the prospects of the new government as it relates to a possible peace settlement, and I doubt that I will know, even have a firm opinion, on how much that's changed until I have a personal meeting with him.

We have successfully concluded talks with the leaders of Israel, when Mr. Rabin was there, of Egypt and Jordan and Syria. I found all those talks to be very constructive and my hope is that these constructive remarks made to me by the leaders accurately represents the strong inclination of the people whom they lead. If so, I think that the identity of particular leaders will be much less a factor than is generally believed in the immediate aftermath of an election.

So, I hope that the election of Mr. Begin will not be a step backward toward the achievement of peace.

WELFARE PROGRAM

Q. Mr. President, it has been a long time since the Colony Square for your formal announcement. I have heard that you have made the statement to the effect that the welfare program is no good. And if this is true, and you say that it should be scrapped, and it's conceivable that you have some idea, concept as to some type of program that might be instituted in place of it, can you today enlighten us to that effect since this is not for print (sic) or what have you?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, we will present a comprehensive welfare program to the Congress, as I said, before they go home in August for what they call the summer work session. We have made a lot of progress in the last 2 weeks. We had a very strong, apparently conflicting opinion between the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the one hand and Labor on the other about whether we should emphasize increased block payments of welfare assistance or whether we should emphasize massive job opportunities for those who are able to work and who in the past have been dependent upon welfare payments.

I don't know yet what the outcome will be. But we want a simple system. We want one that's fairer. We want one that is much more uniform in its assistance to people without regard to where they live than we have had in the past.

We want one with a heavy emphasis on work for those who are able to work. We'd like to distinguish between those who are permanently disabled or permanently dependent upon government support who have small children or who have some problem with age or health on the one hand and let them have an adequate support level with one simple system, if possible, and a heavy encouragement for other welfare recipients to go to

work.

But I can't describe any details of the plan yet because we haven't decided the details yet. I am trying to do it so it doesn't cost the taxpayers more money.

VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY

Q. You said that you enjoyed your Presidency so far.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. How have you gotten used to the restrictive elements of it, such as the security, the swarm of photographers, et cetera? What are your thoughts on that?

THE PRESIDENT. I had 2 years practice. [Laughter] Well, that's not exactly true because I would say I had about 4 or 5 months of practice following a year and 16 months of loneliness when I was looking for photographers. [Laughter]

So, it's a fairly pleasant life. I can be by myself when I want to. The White House Mansion is private. We don't permit staff members or anyone else to come up on the second floor where we live.

The White House grounds are not open to visitors except during certain carefully prescribed hours. The Secret Service protection does not follow me in my living quarters. And I have a private office off the Oval Office where I can work in complete isolation.

I have spent more time with my family since I have been President than I have in many years. Amy, who was only 2 years old when I was elected Governor, I think is as happy now as she has ever been in her life. She is 9. She has been assimilated within the public school system up here, and she enjoys it, looks forward to going to school every day.

I have a good opportunity late in the afternoons to go swimming with Amy or to play tennis on occasion. Harry Truman put in a one-lane bowling alley in the basement. So, in the wintertime we have access to recreation. I stay in good physical shape, and I have been to Camp David two or three times. It's in the Maryland mountains. And it's a very isolated place to relax and to think and to work.

The other point that makes it attractive is it's highly diverse in nature. You don't get bored. [Laughter] And this is really kind of a form of recreation. In 'an average day's work I have 10 or 15 different kinds of questions to address.

The Secret Service have been with me now since October of 1975. And when I was Governor I had a State patrolman who was required by law to stay with me all the time.

So, I think those constraints on my personal life are more than offset by the challenge of the job and the interesting nature of my responsibilities and the closeness of my family.

It would be hard for any of you to realize that haven't been involved in a long political campaign how burdensome and onerous it is to run for office for 2 years all over the country and where I very seldom saw my little girl and where my family was divided into 11 different places in the country and I had no home life and lived out of a suitcase for that long and, in the early stages of the campaign, was really quite often physically lonesome and isolated and quite often ignored and discouraged. But now it's a much, much better life than it was then.

So, in summary, in a personal way it's been enjoyable.

I'll take one more question.

SOUTH AFRICA

Q. Mr. President, the Mondale-Vorster talks seem to have ended with an agreement to disagree---

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q.---and there have been some reports that if that were the case, we might be applying various kinds of pressures in the near future. Can you tell us what comes next?

THE PRESIDENT. No. I can't until I talk to Fritz when he gets back. You know, the South African question has been a problem for the world community for generations, and nobody expected that a day-and-half meeting between the Vice President and the Prime Minister would solve all those problems. We had three basic hopes when Fritz went to Geneva. One was--to Vienna--one was that the South African leaders would back us and Great Britain in our efforts to bring some resolution to the question of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe. We may have made some progress there. I don't know yet.

Another one is that we hoped that the meeting would encourage Vorster and the South African Government to abandon in its entirety their commitment to the Turnhalle Conference concerning Namibia, formerly known as Southwest Africa, and to permit a widely diverse group of potential leaders to present themselves to the electorate for future democratic choice of a government.

We may or may not have made some progress there. We don't know yet.

And the other part is a much more difficult one, and that is for Fritz to understand the South African leaders' point of view and for them to understand our point of view about possible progress in South Africa in the future toward an end to apartheid or the distinction under law between the rights of black citizens compared to those of white citizens.

We never have had any expectation that we would change the basic structure of the government in South Africa, but I would guess that in all those areas if we don't have any tangible achievements that we have made some progress.

I don't think anybody has ever been better prepared for a trip than Fritz Mondale was when he left here. He had spent literally months studying all the details and the history and the background and the neighboring countries' attitudes and the identity of the persons involved and what their interrelationships were concerning Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, on the one hand, Southwest Africa or Namibia on the other and southern Africa.

So, I would guess that when Fritz comes back, he and I will have a much clearer picture of what prospects might be for progress in the future even if he didn't achieve any tangible signs of progress in these discussions.

I talked to Fritz twice on the phone yesterday during recesses in his conversations with Vorster, and I think that my statement has pretty well encapsulated what his expectations were, nothing of a treaty or a firm nature, but progress toward at least better understanding.

I have got to go. I have enjoyed talking to you. I wish I had more time. I appreciate your coming.

Note: The interview began at 1 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White House.

The transcript of the interview was made available by the White House Press Office on May 21. It was not issued in the form of a White House press release.

Jimmy Carter, Interview With the President Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With a Group of Publishers, Editors, and Broadcasters. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/243014

Filed Under

Categories

Location

Washington, DC

Simple Search of Our Archives