Response to Questions by the Association for Cooperation in Engineering

Q. What do you see as the role of our various energy sources and of conservation methods in meeting U.S. energy demand? How would you allocate research, development, and demonstration funds in these areas?

Governor Carter. One of the greatest failures of national leadership is the failure to convince the American people of the urgency of our energy problems. Our national policy for energy must include a combination of energy conservation and energy development, together with price protection for the consumer.

We need:

• strict fuel efficiency standards and ratings for motor vehicles;

• rigid enforcement of energy-saving speed limits;

• efficiency standards and better labeling for electrical appliances;

• mandatory improvements in building insulation;

• revisions in electric utility rate structures to discourage total consumption and peak power demand;

• development of integrated mass transit systems to alleviate somewhat our dependence on the automobile; and similar conservation measures.

A major immediate need is to derive maximum energy from coal, while preserving environmental quality.

Power companies and industries must shift to this source of energy, but without destroying the surface of our lands through uncontrolled strip mining. We must invest in improved mining efficiency, cleaner combustion technology, and a better transportation system for moving coal to its end users.

With respect to nuclear energy, we should apply much stronger safety standards as we regulate its use. A strengthened safety program should require that:

• nuclear reactors be located below ground level;

• powerplants be housed in sealed buildings;

• plants be situated in sparsely populated areas;

• plant designs be standardized;

• radioactive wastes be effectively isolated from the biosphere;

• a federal safety officer always be present, with full authority to shut down the plant in case of any operational abnormality.

At the same time, we need a major thrust to greatly increase the development and use of solar and other renewable sources of energy.

Allocation of research, development, and demonstration funds should be based on a comprehensive, long-range, understandable energy policy. With proper planning and determined execution of long-range goals, federally funded RD & D can help increase substantially both energy conservation and energy development in ways which are consistent with environmental quality and economic well-being.

Q. FOA regard to nuclear power, what is your view on full development of the breeder reactor?

Governor Carter. We must not close the door on any long-range energy sources, including nuclear power. However, our allocation of limited research and development funds must reflect a balanced assessment of advantages and disadvantages for each alternative.

During the past few years, two-thirds of all federal R & D funds went for atomic power, primarily for the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR). Since this potential source of energy will not be economically feasible until the price of natural uranium increases several times over; since England, France, and the U.S.S.R. have design experience with the LMFBR; and because of the mounting costs and safety and environmental problems, I believe our emphasis on this project shpuld be substantially reduced and converted to a long-term, possible multinational effort.

In the short run, our R & D emphasis should shift from the LMFBR to energy conservation and cleaner coal technologies as well as to the rapid development of renewable sources of energy. We should also take steps to reduce our dependence on enriched uranium.

Atomic plants in the United States use light water with enriched uranium. Some countries, such as Canada, use heavy water with more plentiful natural uranium. At present, the U.S. Government's fuel enrichment plants are expected to be able to produce adequate enriched uranium for the next decade. A shift away from sustained production of atomic weapons or toward heavy water reactors can extend this time of adequate supply, and minimize the need for either breeder reactors or the private commercial production of enriched nuclear fuel.

Q. Do you favor divestiture of the oil companies? And if so, how?

Governor Carter. I see clearly the value of a strong system of free enterprise. I believe that competition is preferable to regulation and intend to combine strong safeguards for consumers with minimal intrusion of government in our free economic system.

If and when competition within the petroleum industry is inadequate to insure free markets and maximum benefit to America's consumers, I would support selective divestiture of the oil companies. At the present time, I consider these circumstances to exist or to be a threat at the wholesale and retail levels within the vertically integrated oil companies, and within the coal and uranium industries because of excessive ownership and control by the oil companies.

I do not feel it is necessarily in the consumer's interest to limit a vertically integrated company to one single phase of activity, such as exploration, production, or transportation.

I do support legal prohibitions against ownership of competing types of energy, such as oil and coal. There may be some limited instances in which there should be joint responsibility for any phase of production of competing energy sources.

To insure maximum protection of the American consumer, I will insist that we have reliable information available on which to determine the adequacy of competition in the oil industry, and will be very strict in assessing whether a lack of competition is having an adverse impact on consumer prices and availability of oil supplies. Our antitrust laws must be effectively enforced, and disclosure of data on reserve supplies and production should be required.

Q. Do you see your administration proposing a national policy on the development and use of mineral and material resources? If so, what will it be?

Governor Carter. I believe we must undertake a comprehensive long-range assessment of our mineral reserves and the demand for them in order that development proceed in an orderly, predictable way which assures wise use of these resources. We must assess the full range of natural resources used in the production process—from metals, fuels, and minerals, to such organic substances as lumber and fibers. And we must evaluate materials supply and utilization through all stages of the materials cycle—from acquisition of raw materials through processing and manufacture to eventual disposal, reuse, or recycling.

The results of this assessment can then form the basis for a national policy on the development and use of mineral and material resources, including any changes in the institutional and policy making machinery which may be necessary.

Q. What is your position regarding increased public works spending to cut unemployment?

Governor Carter. Many simultaneous actions should be taken to reduce unemployment, of which public works spending is only one. To reach full employment we must assure:

• an expansionary fiscal and monetary policy, at least for the next year, to stimulate private sector demand, production, and jobs;

• incentives for the private sector to hire the unemployed even during periods of economic downturn;

• on-the-job training by business;

• more efficient employment services to match people to jobs;

• improved manpower training programs.

As a supplement to the private sector, I favor federally created jobs for areas and groups afflicted by acute unemployment. According to a recent MIT study, the cost would be only slightly higher than existing relief programs. The benefits in additional national productivity, taxes paid, and human dignity would be enormous.

I also favor accelerated public works programs as another means to cut unemployment where such spending is consistent with national priorities and efficient use of public funds. For example, in the area of transportation, it must be recognized that the task of rebuilding the existing transportation system is so massive, so important, and so urgent that private investment will have to be supplemented with substantial direct public investment. However, while some additional costs would be involved in providing jobs for repairing the railroads and completing our mass transit systems, most of the cost would be within present budget allocations for transportation and would instead reflect a reordering of current program priorities.

Q. Do you favor increased control over, or a decrease in the power of, federal regulatory agencies? If so, how would you implement such a change?

Governor Carter. The reform of our regulatory agencies would be one of the highest priorities of a Carter Administration. Rather than discuss the functions of regulatory agencies in terms of increase or decrease in power, I feel it is important to examine the manner in which the regulatory agencies exercise their authority.

Throughout this campaign, I have emphasized the need for a "code of ethics" for federal regulators. Such a code includes:

• government in the "sunshine" which is open and accessible to all members of the public, not just special interests;

• strong implementation and enforcement of our freedom of information laws;

• disclosure and control of the activities of lobbyists through enactment and enforcement of a strong lobbying disclosure law;

• breaking up the sweetheart arrangements between regulatory agencies and the regulated industries and closing the revolving door of employment which exists between them;

• annual disclosure of all financial involvements of major federal officials should be required by law;

• no gifts of any value should be permitted to a public official.

Finally, I will not permit our regulatory agencies to become dumping grounds for unsuccessful candidates, faithful political partisans, out of favor White House aides, and representatives of narrow special interests. Insistence on high qualification of regulatory officials, coupled with openness in government can go a long way toward making our regulatory agencies truly responsive and responsible to the public interest they are designed to serve.

Q. What is your position on developing and also on procuring advanced weapons systems?

Governor Carter. The prime responsibility of any President is to guarantee the security of our nation with a well organized and effective fighting force. We must have the ability to avoid the threat of successful attack or blackmail, and we must always be strong enough to carry out our legitimate foreign policy. This is a prerequisite to peace.

Without endangering the defense of our nation or our commitments to our allies, we can reduce present defense expenditures by about $5 to $7 billion annually. We must be hardheaded in the development of new weapons systems to insure that they will comport with our foreign policy objectives. Exotic weapons which serve no real function do not contribute to the defense of this country.

The defense procurement system should be reformed to require, wherever possible and consistent with efforts to encourage full participation by small and minority business, advertised competitive bids and other improvements in procurement procedure so as to encourage full and fair competition among potential contractors and to cut the current waste in defense procurement. A more equitable formula should be considered for distribution of defense contracts and other federal procurement on a state or regional basis.

Finally, we must get about the business of arms control. The Vladivostok Agreement set too high a ceiling on strategic nuclear weapon systems. The SALT talks must get off of dead center. The core of our dealings with the Soviet Union must be the mutual reduction in arms. We should negotiate to reduce the present SALT ceilings in offensive weapons before both sides start a new arms race to reach the current maximums and before new missile systems are tested or committed for production.

Our nuclear deterrent remains an essential element of world order in this era. But by asking other nations to forego nuclear weapons, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we are asking for a form of self-denial that we have not been able to accept ourselves. I believe we have little right to ask others to deny themselves such weapons for the indefinite future unless we demonstrate meaningful progress toward the goal of control, then reduction, and ultimately the elimination of nuclear arsenals.

The United States and other nations share a common interest in reducing military expenditures and transferring the savings into activities which raise living standards. In order to smooth the path for such changes, we should encourage long-range planning by defense-dependent communities and managements of defense firms and unions.

Q. What do you see as the future role, priorities, and funding for NASA? Within NASA's budget what importance do you place upon aeronautical R & D, space science and space applications?

Governor Carter. Perhaps the greatest potential area of application for space research and technology is in telecommunications.

One important part of a comprehensive energy conservation program is the effective use of telecommunications technology—including the telephone, mobile radio, television, satellites, and computers. In a time of widespread inflation and high unemployment, telecommunications is one of the few sectors of the economy which has consistently provided more jobs with increased productivity. New applications of telecommunications can do much more to improve our quality of life and conserve our scarce resources.

I am pleased to note the efforts at NASA and a number of universities and research institutes to evaluate the potential of telecommunications for increasing the efficiency of energy-intensive activities such as travel. New ways of using telecommunications—such as telephones linked to computers or video conferencing via satellite—bring the promise of substantial time, money, and energy savings in the use of transportation. In other areas, we can, for example, make better use of mobile radio or satellites and computers for on-the-spot diagnosis of heart attacks and delivery of emergency medical services. The technology is here today. What we need—but do not yet have— are the institutional mechanisms and commitment in both the public and private sectors to make best use of our technological assets.

The federal government can play a constructive role in encouraging more effective use of telecommunications, in part through agencies such as NASA. I believe that the federal research and development emphasis should be on innovative uses of telecommunications and information services—particularly for improving productivity in the delivery of public services by federal, state, and local government agencies.

Q. What are your priorities in financing and carrying out a national transportation plan? What do you see as the financial tradeoffs between highways, mass transit and other surface modes of transportation?

Governor Carter. As a consequence, America has, with the notable exception of urban mass transit (where substantial new construction needs remain), an essentially mature total transportation system. Priority now needs to be given not to developing massive new national transportation systems, except in the case of public transportation, but rather to achieving more effective utilization of the existing rail, highway, and airport networks.

The federal government often has encouraged one mode of transportation to the disadvantage of another. No coordinated transportation policy exists. While the nation has an extremely well developed rail, highway, and aviation system, substantial parts of that system have deteriorated to the point where the efficiency and effectiveness of the total system is being compromised. Arresting this deterioration and completing needed work on new urban transit systems must become the nation's first transportation priority.

The Highway Trust Fund has served as an outstanding and successful mechanism for constructing an extensive and effective highway network in the United States. In doing so, the fund has also supported a major section of the U.S. economy, providing jobs, advancing technology, and changing the face of the American landscape. But we are now in an era in which the nation's transportation needs are changing. Such problems as energy costs, material shortages, and environmental considerations will continue to have a great and increasing bearing upon future needs and programs.

We must substantially increase the amount of money available from the Highway Trust Fund for public mass transportation, study the feasibility of creating a total transportation fund for all modes of transportation, and change the current restrictive limits on the use of mass transit funds by localities so that greater amounts can be used as operating subsidies.

What we need most today is a balanced multi-modal approach to maintaining and improving the nation's transportation system. The concept of a total transportation trust fund is especially appealing in that it would support and facilitate this balanced approach. At the same time, we need to review and change the complex regulatory system with which our transport industries must contend.

Q. How do you intend to use the Office of Science and Technology in your administration?

Governor Carter. It is crucial that the advice of the scientific and engineering community of this nation be actively and permanently sought by elected officials in the evolution of national policy dealing with the complicated, unpredictable, and rapidly changing technological problems of this modern world.

The day when political leaders could make effective policy decisions independently and turn to the scientific community only for assistance in implementation has long passed. The Office of Science Adviser to the President should be upgraded immediately to provide a permanent and high level relationship between the White House decision making process and the scientific community. When Governor of Georgia, I appointed a science adviser and supported activities in technology transfer, technology assessment, and the effective use of science and technology within the various state agencies.

Q. In the implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act: Would you encourage on site consultation by OSHA inspectors to discuss compliance? Would you favor deputizing existing safety engineers, who are employed by insurance companies and the like, to act as official OSHA inspectors? Should firms with 100 or fewer employees be exempt frbm OSHA regulations?

Governor Carter. We must do more to guarantee each and every American the right to a safe and healthy place to work. Over 600 toxic chemicals are introduced into our workplaces annually. There are currently over 13,000 already listed. Nearly 100,000 working people die each year due to occupational illnesses and accidents. Over 17,000 disabling injuries occurred in our nation's mines. This terrible toll cannot be tolerated.

I believe the basic concept behind OSHA is excellent. We should continue to clarify and expand the state role in the implementation of health and safety. OSHA must be strengthened to insure that those who earn their living by personal labor can work in safe and healthy environments.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 should cover all employees and be enforced as intended when the law was enacted. However, early and periodic review of the Act's provisions should be made to insure that they are reasonable and workable; I would look favorably on developing means to provide technical assistance and information to employers to encourage compliance with the Act.

The control of occupational hazards can save many workers each year who die prematurely because they are exposed to toxic chemicals, dust, pesticides, unsafe machinery, and other dangerous conditions. Nationwide efforts in this area should continue until our working citizens are safe in their jobs.

Q. Do you believe in regulating the voluntary standards and certification activities in the United States? What is your stand on Senate bill S, 3555, which would establish regulation of such activities by the Federal Trade Commission?

Governor Carter. I understand that this question is important to the engineering profession. Clearly, many engineering organizations have made valuable contributions to the development of technical standards which are in wide use today. As a general rule, however, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me during the campaign to endorse or oppose specific legislation which is now pending before Congress. The issues raised by S. 3555 are ones which, if I'm elected, I would want to review in greater detail before making legislative recommendations.

Q. With regard to the Clean Air Act of 1970, do you feel that the specific reductions in auto emissions mandated by the act are just and achievable? Do you agree with Act provisions for control measures and air quality standards which were intended to prevent the degradation and/or substantial deterioration of air quality?

Governor Carter. My strong commitment to environmental quality is based on the conviction that environmental protection is not simply an esthetic goal, but is necessary to achieve a more just society. Cleaning up air and water supplies and controlling the proliferation of dangerous chemicals is a necessary part of a successful national health program. Moreover, environmental protection creates jobs. Environmental legislation enacted since 1970 already has produced more than 1 million jobs.

It is time that this country had a coherent, dear national policy dedicated to the protection of our environment. I do not believe that there is an incompatibility between economic progress and environmental quality. We should not be diverted from our cause by false claims that the protection of our ecology and wildlife means an end to growth and a decline in jobs. This is not the case;

With respect to air pollution, given the findings of technical feasibility by the Environmental Protection Agency, The National Academy of Sciences and organizations such as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, I feel that we should require our automobiles to meet the emission standards of the Clean Air Act just as quickly as lead times allow, taking into account such important technical factors as the necessary retooling and capital investment I also support enforcement of the nondegradation clause of the Clean Air Act.

Q. What change if any do you recommend in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and in its regulations and implementation?

Governor Carter. If elected, I will insist on strict enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to protect our oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams from unneeded and harmful commercial pollution. I would oppose efforts to weaken the mandate embodied in that statute. I will, however, give full consideration to recommendations which will make our efforts to achieve water quality more effective and efficient, which recognize basic regional differences in ecological and economic conditions, and which help insure that states and localities are not penalized by pursuing environmental programs.

Environmental research and development within the public and private sectors should be increased substantially. For the immediate future, we must learn how to correct the damage we have already done, but more importantly, we need research on how to build a society in which renewable and nonrenewable resources are used wisely and efficiently.

The technological community should be encouraged to produce better air and water pollution control equipment and, more importantly, to produce technology which produces less pollution.

Q. What forms of technological aid do you recommend that the United States offer to developing countries?

Governor Carter. The people of developing nations need our aid, technology and knowledge. Our program of international aid to developing nations should be redirected so that it meets the minimum human needs of the greatest number of people. This means an emphasis on food, jobs, education, and public health—including access to family planning. The emphasis in aid should be on those countries with a proven ability to help themselves, instead of those that continue to allow enormous discrepancies in living standards among their people. I believe the time has come to stop taxing poor people in rich countries for the benefit of rich people in poor countries. We should undertake a systematic political and economic cost-benefit analysis of existing international institutions in the United Nations' systems and outside, with a view to determining the appropriate level of United States support We should end the current diplomatic isolation of the United States in international forums by working more closely with our allies and with moderate elements in the developing world cm a basis of mutual understanding consistent with our respective national interests.

Q. Institutions of higher education are faced with new responsibilities and with continually increasing costs. What measures will your administration support to provide the financial resources required to maintain the excellence of engineering education in the United States?

Governor Carter. I feel we need imaginative reforms to strengthen our colleges and universities in times of financial difficulty. For example, parents whose children attend private colleges understandably complain that they must support public colleges and universities through taxation as well as pay high tuition fees. During my years as Governor of Georgia, voters authorized annual grants for each student attending private colleges, at a smaller cost to taxpayers than if these students enrolled in public institutions. Such legislation should be encouraged elsewhere. Also, basic tax reform proposals should give proper consideration to private philanthropy in education.

We must remember that, in our search for peace in the world and a better quality of life at home, we depend on and must call upon the best talent we can find in the business world, labor, the professions, and most certainly, in the universities and the scientific and engineering community.