Carter: I Look Forward to the Job

Seated in the comfortable parlor of his home in Plains, President-elect Jimmy Carter was interviewed last week by TIME Chief of Correspondents Murray Gart, Washington Bureau Chief Hugh Sidey and Correspondents Stanley Cloud and Bonnie Angela. Speaking at length of his plans for the presidency and his progress thus far, Carter disclosed that he:

> Expects to meet with Soviet Party Chief Leonid Brezhnev some time before September;

>Has already had exchanges with him over Strategic Arms Limitation;

> Hopes to maintain a personal relationship with the Chinese leadership;

> Plans to reorganize the leadership of the FBI;

> Will consider a federal job freeze;

> Will make extensive use of Wife Rosalynn as a sort of roving ambassador, and may open some Cabinet meetings to the press.

Excerpts from the interview:

Q. Has your view of the presidency changed from the view you had as a candidate?

A. I think the overall thing is that I've learned a lot about the Government and seen the need to address myself to broad policy issues and foreign affairs and defense matters, and the coordination among Cabinet officers, rather than the details that have sometimes preoccupied previous Presidents.

Q. How about the presidency itself? The pressures of the job?

A. As far as the prospect of actually being President, I look forward to that with anticipation, with a growing sense of confidence, because I know I have a good team to work with me and the good will of the American people. I think almost all of them want me to succeed.

Q. Have you had any second thoughts about your desire to conduct an "open" presidency?

A. No, I've not changed my mind about that. In whatever way I can be open, I'll do it--with frequent press conferences, fireside chats to explain complicated issues, perhaps with town-hall-type forums around the country, where I answer questions from the public. I think, on occasion, I might very well have Cabinet meetings open for a limited number of news people to come in. I would have a fairly steady stream of visitors--just average Americans whom we've met during the campaign from around the country--to come in and spend a night with us at the White House and eat supper with us, so that we could have that interrelationship.

Q. In your dealings with Congress, might you establish a procedure somewhat similar to the question period in the British Parliament, in which a Cabinet officer--or even you yourself--would go before Congess to answer questions?

A. Yes, I would like to see this done--to have Cabinet officers go there. I would reserve judgment on whether I should go myself. But it's a possibility.

Q. What about a role for your wife Rosalynn in the Administration?

A. She's already announced that she's going to help organize a commission on mental health. She would certainly be interested in the comprehensive health care program. I'll let her decide what sort of projects she wants to become involved in. But she and other members of my family will probably travel a good bit, both within this country and in foreign countries. I'll use her as an extension of myself.

Q. How large a role will your Vice President play?

A. There's no doubt in my mind that Fritz Mondale will play a major role in governing. He'll be my chief staff person, and his office will be near mine in the White House. He ought to get the same CIA briefings, the same foreign affairs dispatches that I look at, and he'll be a constant adviser to me and constant partner with me in making decisions.

Q. Do you expect to ask the American people to make any sacrifices, given the economic and energy situations in the country now?

A. I hope to evolve, within the first 90 days of my Administration, an overall energy policy. This might very well have, as a major component, the conservation of energy. In economic matters as well as energy matters, on occasion, I would certainly feel free, without embarrassment, to call on the American people to make a sacrifice. I think they would respond well.

Q. What sort of energy program do you have in mind?

A. One person, Mr. Schlesinger, will be in charge of the whole energy field. He will be located in the White House, as an assistant to me. It's imperative that we should know what our goals are in conservation and in research and development priorities, and this will be the first major undertaking of the Administration. I hope, too, to establish a separate Department of Energy.

Q. Is your goal self-sufficiency for the U.S.?

A. No. I think that's something that we can't ever hope to achieve and I don't see any reason for it. We can't become self-sufficient in zinc, or molybdenum, or bauxite or oil. But we can have an adequate assured supply from overseas, and an adequate reserve supply in this country, an adequate conservation program so that we don't waste fuel any further. And we must make a shift toward coal, whose quantity is almost unlimited.

Q. Doesn't a conservation program suggest major changes in American life, like smaller cars and less travel and smaller houses?

A. I think it would encompass all those things, yes.

Q. Do you favor a federal job freeze?

A. That's certainly a possibility. In different departments, perhaps many departments, you can freeze the hiring. I don't intend to fire anyone because of reorganization. I don't think that's fair to the civil service employees. But I would reserve the right not to fill all vacancies as they occur, to reduce the total number of employees in certain areas of Government and to transfer people to more productive jobs with no loss in pay or seniority.

Q. In the economic area, will you give priority to tax cuts or to job-creation legislation?

A. My first preference would be to enhance job opportunities, preferably on a continuing basis--and not just a quick, temporary, or transient effort toward employment. There are several job programs already evolved by Commerce, and the Administration structures are in place. They would be immediately available for expansion. There's a limit on what we can do in the job-enhancement area. Whatever we can't do in stimulating jobs I would make up with some form of tax reduction. I don't know yet the full level of economic stimulus to recommend. Perhaps I'll decide before January 1.

Q. Which is the greater evil now, inflation or unemployment?

A. The greater urgency now is to address the unemployment question. We've got so many people out of work, and we've got so much unused industrial capacity, that I think if we carefully target employment opportunities around the country, we can decrease unemployment substantially before we start becoming equally concerned about inflation.

Q. Which would be more important, stimulating the private sector or enlarging the public sector?

A. I think the private sector. But you have to remember how tightly they're interrelated. Public money can ultimately be used to stimulate the private sector. An illustrative point would be in the housing field, where Government action to encourage the building of homes can be done with a minimum expenditure of public funds, but a maximum amount of benefits.

Q. Do you have plans for a major housing program?

A. I think that would be a part of the immediate proposal that I would make to Congress.

Q. Mostly low-cost housing?

A. No, I think not mostly. There would be guarantees of loans by private and corporate agencies; construction of multifamily dwellings, as under the 202 program for senior citizens; some restoration of funds for rehabilitating existing homes. Perhaps some interest subsidy. And I'll do everything I can to hold down interest rates. Perhaps we could modify, through the Government mortgage programs, the scheduled rate of repayment, so that a family that wants to buy a home could make lower monthly payments now, and higher ones later.

Q. What about welfare reform?

A. Our proposals will be forthcoming in 1977. I haven't decided on the specific formula, but there would be both federal and state participation.

Q. With the greater burden on the federal?

A. I think so; I don't have time now to put together a comprehensive welfare or tax or health program, but it will all be done very expeditiously. I would guess all those would be forthcoming this year.

Q. When would you expect the U.S. to have a national health insurance plan?

A. It'll probably take at least four years to fully implement a comprehensive health program for our citizens. And it will be phased in, year by year. The first step has got to be the reorganization of the federal agencies that now handle roughly 300 different health programs.

Q. What changes do you plan for the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community?

A. I wouldn't make any precipitous changes in the intelligence community's functions until I know more about them. My knowledge of the intelligence community outside the CIA is very limited so far.

Q. Are you leaning toward a kind of intelligence czar?

A. Well, President Ford's executive order set up the Director of Central Intelligence as a kind of czar. There are several intelligence agencies, as you know, and I haven't decided whether to change the present arrangement.

Q. Are you thinking about changing the structure and the responsibilities of the FBI?

A. I think the FBI director has got to be more directly responsible to the Attorney General. I would like to see a top person in the Department of Justice responsible for the control of crime, maybe the Deputy Attorney General, or some other top official, coordinating the efforts of the FBI, the LEAA [Law Enforcement Assistance Administration] program, the U.S. Attorneys around the nation, and perhaps a crime division. I'd like to pursue aggressively the control of crime. I'd like to remove the FBI completely from politics, maximize its professional status.

Q. That amounts to a war on crime, doesn't it?

A. That's right. The control of crime now is divided up under too many different entities. I would like to bring more of a responsibility for drug control, for instance, under the FBI than there has been in the past. These responsibilities have been scattered around the Government and are not nearly so effective as they would be if they fell under a comprehensive and enlightened and aggressive leader.

Q. Turning to foreign affairs: many leaders around the world have been asking what you mean by morality in foreign policy. Can you describe your feelings about your foreign policy?

A. I'd like to go out of office with people being able to say that I always told the truth. I'd like to continue to play a leading role in the search for an enhancement of human rights. I'd like to do everything I can as President to ensure world peace, a reduction in the arms race. I don't mean to preach to other countries. I'm not going to try to set a standard on the type of government the other nations should have.

Q. Do you expect to travel widely?

A. No, not as a main thing. I hope that I can speak in such a way that the rest of the world will know that I accurately speak for the American people. I think it's important that during this next year I meet and get to know personally the leaders of many nations around the world. I can't say that I'll not travel at all, but I'd like to hold it to a minimum. I would certainly welcome an opportunity to have other foreign leaders come to this country to meet with me. The order of sequence of my meeting with foreign leaders is something on which [Secretary of State-designate] Cy Vance has been doing a great deal of work.

Q. What do you hope to get done first?

A. I think the Panama treaty ought to be resolved quite rapidly. That's almost uniquely our responsibility. In the Rhodesia question, I would like to see Britain retain the leadership role there. I want to establish a feeling within South Korea and within Japan that we won't do anything abrupt that will disturb them or upset their belief that we are still going to play a legitimate role in the western Pacific. I've spent long hours talking to Cyrus Vance about our general approach [on Turkey, Greece and Cyprus].

Q. What about the Soviet Union? Do you give high priority to the SALT agreements?

A. Yes. I think the basis [for the next agreement] would be the Vladivostok terms,* perhaps expanded to some degree. This would be a satisfactory beginning [for negotiation]. I don't want to say that I'd adopt everything in the Vladivostok agreement. I would like to conclude this [new SALT agreement] before [the interim agreement expires in October].

Q. Would this involve a meeting with Brezhnev?

A. If necessary. I would guess that Mr. Brezhnev and I would meet during this coming year, probably before September. My own preference would be [to hold the meetings] in this country, but that would depend on a mutual decision between us. But I think that to get into discussions on the present SALT talks, we would lay the groundwork for much more drastic reductions in common nuclear capabilities.

Q. Would you want to include any destruction of existing nuclear armaments?

A. Yes. I would like to set that as a goal. The exchange that has taken place already between Secretary Brezhnev and myself has been to explore the possibility of a freeze on the number of missiles, the number of warheads, [leading to] some limits for this next SALT agreement below those that were established at Vladivostok. And then I would like to see a careful amount of mutual reduction in total numbers of atomic weapons between us and the Soviet Union, and I'd like to encourage, as much as I can, other nations to follow suit. In addition, I would like to see the termination of all tests of nuclear weapons. And I might add that there has been some indication that the Soviets agree with this proposal and have even put forward the possibility of on-site inspection.

Q. What sort of communication have you had with Brezhnev?

A. Indirectly, I've had messages from him to the Soviet ambassador here. I've also had messages through Averell Harriman when he was over there a few months ago. [Brezhnev] did write to congratulate me on my election, and I responded to thank him.

I've tried to be very cautious about acting as though I was already the President, so I've not met with any ambassadors or any foreign leaders, although I've had a lot of invitations. And I don't believe any President could possibly have been more gracious or more firm in his commitment to an orderly transition than President Ford has been. I really do appreciate it, and it's been a great service to the country, I believe. He could have just been polite about it, but he's been very forceful in directing his Cabinet to cooperate fully.

Q. On the Israeli-Arab crisis, the Soviet view seems to be that the Geneva conference should be resumed as soon as possible. Do you agree?

A. I don't yet know to what extent the U.S. should play a role in initiating a date [for such a conference]. I think the first step should be for me to meet with Mr. Rabin [the Israeli Prime Minister], Mr. Sadat [of Egypt], Mr. Assad [of Syria] and others--and then to decide what public proposal we might make to initiate any peace talks. Whether it would be appropriate to try to have exploratory meetings before the Israeli elections, I don't really know yet.

Q. On South Africa, you have said you support majority rule. What do you mean by that?

A. I think it means that basically a one-man, one-vote provision should prevail, with mutual respect for majority and minority elements in the society. And this should be our ultimate goal. How rapidly it can be achieved is still to be determined, and I hope that it can be achieved by peaceful means.

Q. What are your thoughts about the relationship between your Administration and the new government in Peking?

A. I don't know yet if there is any urgency about resolving the differences that exist between the mainland and Taiwan. I would go into that very cautiously. We have a defense pact with Taiwan, the Republic of China, and we see the need to have good relationships with the People's Republic. I don't really know to what degree [Taipei and Peking] want to accommodate our commitments and at the same time search for a way to resolve their differences.

Q. Would you hope to continue the personal relationship between the President of the U.S. and the Chairman of the People's Republic?

A. Yes, I would hope so. I would certainly consider it one of my major responsibilities to pursue and continue the peaceful relationships we have with China [Taiwan] and the People's Republic.

Q. A European statesman predicted recently that Communists will join the Italian government in 1977 and the French government in 1978. How much does this matter to the U.S.?

A. It matters a great deal. And concerns me very much, depending on the degree of Communist participation in the government, and the loss of the respect and confidence of the citizens of those nations in the democratic processes that we prefer over Communism. Another factor is the degree of allegiance that might be shown by Communist leaders toward the Soviet Union and away from our own nation and from NATO. I think the best way to minimize the Communist influence in Italy and France is to make the democratic processes work, and to restore the confidence of the citizens in the government.

Q. What are your thoughts about yourself now, less than a month before the Inaugural?

A. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the American people. I've had a rapid learning process. You asked my wife whether we could be satisfied to live in Plains and not try to stretch ourselves beyond Plains. Well, I think we've managed to stretch ourselves a little.

* During their meeting at Vladivostok in November 1974, President Ford and Leonid Brezhnev reached a tentative agreement on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.