    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 19 (Monday, May 16, 1994)]
    [Pages 1033-1044]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Remarks in a Town Meeting in Cranston, Rhode Island

    May 9, 1994

        The President. Thank you very much. First, thank you, Doug and
    Ginger, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming. And I want to
    thank the people in New Haven and Springfield.
        We only have an hour tonight; we're not going to have any breaks. So
    I'm going to give a very brief opening statement about the problems
    presented by our health care system in America today and briefly what we
    propose to do about it.
        There is a crisis in health care. During any given time in the year
    there will be a total of 58 million Americans without any health
    insurance. There are 81 million Americans--out of a population of 255
    million--in families with preexisting conditions, that is, someone in
    the family has been ill, which means they either don't have insurance,
    they pay much more for their insurance, or they can never change their
    jobs because they would lose their insurance if they changed jobs. It's
    a huge problem.
        One hundred and thirty-three million Americans, or three out of four
    Americans with private health insurance, have insurance policies with
    lifetime limits, which means

    [[Page 1034]]

    they can out-run their limits if they have someone in their family
    really sick. In addition to that, the costs of the Government health
    program, Medicare and Medicaid, are going up at roughly 3 times the rate
    of inflation and threaten to undermine all of our efforts to bring the
    deficit down. It's a very serious problem.
        And one more thing, even though we have this many people, 58
    million, who are without insurance, our country spends a higher
    percentage of its income on health care, 40 percent more, than any other
    country in the world. Yet we are the only major country that hasn't been
    able to figure out how to give insurance to everybody.
        If we want to cover everyone, if we believe everybody should have
    health insurance, you either have to have a Government-funded program,
    that is, Medicare is a Government-funded program or a program like the
    Canadians have, or you have to guarantee private insurance to everybody.
    There aren't any other options.
        I favor a program of guaranteed private insurance to the employed
    uninsured because that's what we have for most everybody else. Nine out
    of ten people in this country with private insurance are insured through
    the workplace. Eight out of ten Americans without insurance are in a
    family with at least one worker. So I favor guaranteed private insurance
    with good benefits--including primary and preventive care and mental
    health benefits and alcohol and drug abuse benefits, because all these
    things will save us money over the long run--no lifetime limits, and
    insurance that can't be taken away.
        Under our plan, we would preserve the choice of physicians,
    something that is rapidly disappearing today with growth of managed-care
    networks. More and more people are losing the right to choose their
    doctors, actually being forced to give up their family doctors and go to
    someone else. So under our plan, every American every year would have
    the opportunity to choose at least three different plans in which they
    choose the doctor, choose a high-quality plan. Employers wouldn't pick
    the plan, the employees would. And insurance companies couldn't deny
    anybody coverage.
        To deal with the problems I mentioned up at the beginning of this
    talk, it would be illegal to drop coverage or cut benefits, increase
    rates for people who had someone in their family who'd been sick, use
    lifetime limits to cut off benefits, or charge older workers more than
    younger ones. I hope we'll get to talk about that more in a minute. Some
    younger workers are upset about that, but I'm convinced it's the right
    choice for our country. And I hope we get a chance to talk about it.
        Our plan would preserve Medicare as it is but would add to Medicare
    prescription drug benefits and phase in long-term care benefits. I think
    that's quite important because a lot of people on Medicare don't get the
    drugs they need, with the result that hospitalizations are more frequent
    and the program actually costs more and keeps people less healthy than
    would be the case otherwise.
        I favor guaranteeing these health benefits at work, with employers
    and employees bearing a portion of the contribution, in more or less the
    ratio they do with major companies today but with discounts to small
    businesses who couldn't afford it otherwise. And the Government would
    help with the unemployed.
        The last chart I turned over is just a summary of what I said.
    [Laughter]
        So that's how the program would work: universal guaranteed private
    insurance; maintain the choice of doctors; leave Medicare the way it is;
    require employers and employees who don't cover now to take up their own
    coverage, but provide discounts for small businesses; the Government
    would have a pool to pay for the discounts and to cover the unemployed,
    uninsured; add prescription drugs; and phase in a long-term care benefit
    for the elderly people on Medicare and for the disabled, which I think
    is quite important.
        Now, I hope we can flesh it out, but I don't want to talk anymore.
    Let's go to questions.

    Health Care Reform

    [At this point, moderator Doug White introduced the first participant,
    who asked if the new health care plan could focus only on peo-

    [[Page 1035]]

    ple currently uninsured and if health care professionals could donate
    one percent of their time to provide care to that group.]
        The President. Let me try to answer your first question and then
    your second question. First of all, somewhere around 15 percent are not
    insured. But the problem is more serious than that in two ways. A whole
    lot of people, principally folks who work for smaller business, have
    very limited insurance, that is, very high deductibles or co-pays or
    limited benefits. And an enormous number of people are at risk of losing
    their insurance. So we are actually adding to the pool of permanently
    uninsured people about 100,000 people a month.
        Therefore, we are going to leave a lot of people alone. There will
    be a lot of people, for example, who will keep the same benefits that
    they have. If they have the same or better benefits or their employers
    pay the same or bigger contribution, they'll be left alone. And that's a
    huge number of people. So there will be an awful lot of people that
    won't be affected by that in that sense.
        But we have to set up a system that stops this hemorrhaging and
    gives small businesses and self-employed people the right to buy
    insurance on the same terms that big business and Government can. So I
    think that's an answer to that.
        With regard to your other question, the truth is that most doctors
    and hospitals contribute far more than one percent of their time and
    earnings now because when people don't have insurance, they do
    eventually get health care. But they get it when they're too sick and
    they show up at the emergency room; they get wildly expensive care. And
    then they either absorb it, that is, the doctors, the nurses, the
    hospitals either eat it, or they pass it along to all the rest of you,
    so you wind up paying more than you otherwise would for your own health
    care because others don't do it.
        But I think that basically, we are going to leave as many people
    alone as we can while trying to minimize the chance that anyone can ever
    lose their insurance again.

    [A participant with an artificial limb asked if she would receive the
    same quality care under the plan, even if she happened to lose her job.]

        The President. First of all, this health care plan will not take
    away from you any benefit you now have.
        Q. Okay.
        The President. So if you keep working for the State and you have
    this option, you can keep it. Secondly--they say I don't have the
    microphone high enough. Usually they tell me not to hold it so high.
    [Laughter] The second thing is, the choice you have of your provider is
    something we are trying to protect. I know that's a hot issue in one of
    your political races here. What I want to say to you is that more and
    more and more Americans are losing their right to choose their doctors
    right now, as employers decide on managed care plans to hold down costs.
    A lot of people who work for these employers are having to move into the
    managed care plan, and their doctors are not enrolled in the plan, or
    their suppliers, and so they lose their choice.
        Under our plan, even if you change jobs--so you went to work, let's
    say, for a small business--every year, you would have the right every
    year to choose from a minimum of three plans, one of which would
    guarantee you the right to choose any provider you wanted. You might
    have to pay a little bit more for it than you would otherwise pay, but
    you would always have that right, and your employer would always have to
    make a major contribution to your health care.
        Q. Maybe I'll move to the White House next. [Laughter]
        The President. Thank you. It would suit me just fine. I'd like to
    have somebody like you working for me.

    Anticrime Efforts

    [A student asked about guns and drugs in schools.]

        The President. Thank you very much for your question. First, let me
    say, this young man has asked maybe the most important question in
    America today, but he's also asked a health care question. So I'll give
    you one line on the health care implications of this and come back and
    answer his question.

    [[Page 1036]]

        Why is it a health care question? Because one reason we pay more for
    health care than any other country is we have more kids getting shot and
    cut up and showing up at the emergency room, imposing enormous costs on
    this system. We have the highest rate of childhood violence and killing
    of any of the major countries in the world. It's a big issue.
        Here's what we're doing. We are in the process of passing a crime
    bill which will do the following things, and it should be passed, now,
    in a few weeks: First, it will ban 19 assault weapons, the purpose of
    which is only to kill people, not to hunt. Second, it will make it
    illegal for minors to own or possess handguns, except under the
    supervision of an approved adult for an approved purpose. Third, it will
    provide funds to schools that have high levels of violence to set up
    things like metal detectors and do other things to make children more
    secure in the schools. The fourth thing it will do, and this is where
    you come in--you asked your question. The fourth thing it will do is to
    provide funds to schools and States throughout the country to teach
    young people ways to resolve their differences and deal with their anger
    and their frustration, short of resorting to violence. Because a lot of
    our kids are growing up in troubled families, are not taught how to do
    this. And a lot of young people don't think about the future, they just
    lash out and hurt people.
        So all these things are in this crime bill. I think they're very,
    very important. We're also going to provide for more police officers on
    our street who can work with young people, work in the schools and go
    into schools and do things like the D.A.R.E. program, the drug education
    programs to try to keep drugs out of the schools. But I think all of
    these things will really make a difference.
        Now, what can you do about it? We can pass all these programs, and
    unless every school in this country has committed young people and
    committed parents trying to keep the drugs out and the violence out and
    the guns out, it's going to be hard for us to succeed. So we're going to
    give you the tools to do it, and then you have to organize, school by
    school, to get it done. I'll do my part, and I want you to do yours.
        Doug White. Do you think you can remember all that? [Laughter]
        The President. Sure you can.
        Q. I think so.
        The President. Get the assault weapons off, take the handguns away
    from the kids, metal detectors and other security devices at schools,
    teach kids nonviolent ways to resolve their differences, and organize
    every school.

    Education

    [Moderator Ginger Casey introduced a participant in New Haven, CT, who
    asked about racial balance in schools.]

        The President. Well, I think that racially balanced schools or
    racially diverse schools are good for the students. And in terms of how
    that is done, that's really a question to be resolved on a State-by-
    State basis. But one of the things we have tried to do at the national
    level is to change the school funding formula for Federal aid so that we
    give relatively more money to the schools that have a larger number of
    low-income children. And very often that means a more racially diverse
    population. That is about all we can do at the national level, besides
    enforcing the civil rights laws, which I intend to do very vigorously.
        But I think in every State, since we live in a country that is so
    multiracial and multicultural, it is better if children go to school
    with people of all different racial and ethnic backgrounds. And I think
    we should support that so we can learn to live together and work
    together.

    Anticrime Efforts

    [A participant from Salem, CT, suggested criminal control rather than
    gun control.]

        The President. Well, we already have the highest percentage of
    people in prison of any country in the world. And our crime bill gives
    more money to the States to build even more prisons. It also stiffens
    penalties. It has a ``Three strikes and you're out'' provision to deal
    with people who are very dangerous but are fortunate enough to commit
    crimes where their victims aren't hurt so bad. If they do three violent
    crimes in a row, they'd still be getting a life sentence, ineligible for
    parole under Federal law. I favor tougher punishment, and I favor
    keeping serious crimi-

    [[Page 1037]]

    nals in prison longer. But you have to do other things as well.
        There is no question that one of the reasons we have a higher death
    rate is, in the last several years, if you just look at it, is the
    average victim of a gunshot incident today outside the home has more
    bullets in him or her than was the case 10 or 15 years ago. And that's
    why I think we did the right thing to go after the assault weapon. But I
    also believe we should have tougher punishment and focus that punishment
    on the serious repeat offenders.

    Health Care Reform

    [A participant asked if inner-city hospitals would be adequately
    compensated under the new plan.]

        The President. The short answer, Sister, is yes. And that's one of
    the reasons that the Catholic hospital network has been so supportive of
    what we have been trying to do and has worked very closely with my wife
    and with me as we've tried to put this program together.
        But let me explain precisely what the issue is. There are an awful
    lot of people who are uninsured or underinsured in the inner cities.
    Under our program, every person who comes through your doors will be a
    source of reimbursement, that is, you will get reimbursed for the care
    you give. And it will make a huge difference in time to help keep some
    of our inner-city hospitals open, many of which have been closing at an
    alarming rate, leaving nothing left.
        It's gotten to the point where some of our inner-city areas, there's
    almost the same access-to-health-care problem that you have in rural
    parts of my State or in the High Plains in the country.

    Gun Control

    [Mr. White discussed the impending release of a juvenile murderer in
    Rhode Island on his 21st birthday. He then introduced a participant who
    questioned the fact that a juvenile criminal record would not prevent a
    handgun purchase under the Brady Act.]

        The President. Yes, I heard about it. The people of this State are
    very upset about this. I mean, I had that--I don't know--3,000 or so
    people out at the airport to meet me, and I was just working through the
    crowd and literally a dozen people mentioned this case to me.
        Let me say, first of all, I care a lot about this. My first job in
    public life was as an attorney general in my State, dealing with
    criminal procedures. Then I was Governor, and I had to enforce the
    criminal laws in my State, including the capital punishment law. Most
    States, years ago, before juvenile crime was the problem it is now, had
    laws which basically said you couldn't be charged as an adult until you
    reached a certain age. Many times it was 15 or 16, sometimes more,
    sometimes earlier. And if you were tried as a juvenile, you had to be
    released either when you became 18 or 21, and your records would be
    sealed. You'd sort of be given a new chance. That was before. When these
    laws were passed, you didn't have teenagers going around gunning people
    down like you do now. Now, I think you have two or three options.
        First of all, on this particular case, one thing the State of Rhode
    Island could do is to pass a law which says that the records of
    juveniles would not be sealed as it relates to questions under the Brady
    bill; that is, have you ever been treated for mental illness, have you
    ever committed a felony or what would have been a felony if you had been
    an adult? And the State legislature could simply change that law for
    that purpose and then put those records in. And then the gun store
    owners and all gun sellers would then be obligated to check that record
    and not sell a gun to that young man, just like they would be under a
    criminal, under anybody convicted of a crime as an adult.
        The second thing I want to say is, I do not know about the
    constitutionality of this, but another thing you could do is to say, if
    you want the benefit of the State's juvenile law when you could have
    been prosecuted as an adult--and if you have a law which permits 15-
    year-olds to be prosecuted as an adult--you have to be willing to
    voluntarily undergo psychiatric treatment and get some sort of approval
    before you are released.
        Now, those are two things that I would think you ought to consider.
    But I know on terms of getting--being eligible to buy a gun,

    [[Page 1038]]

    you could change that law tomorrow and apply it to this case and this
    young man and all other people similarly situated. At least you'd have
    that protection.
        Those are my best ideas. I think it's an outrageous thing that this
    kid could get out--apparently has refused all treatment--get out and buy
    a gun. I think it's wrong.
        Q. I agree with you there. I would like to let you have this because
    this is an article that was written, and it will give you a little bit
    more on the case.
        The President. Thank you.
        Q. He slaughtered two women and two babies and----
        The President. Well, I've given you my best ideas. And I think it's
    terrible. And yes, my eyebrows are raised and my temperature.
        You ought to fix that gun thing. You can do that. I think you can do
    that, and I hope you will.

    Arkansas Record and Health Care Reform

        Q. Mr. President, the Providence Journal recently published a report
    comparing the States on livability and health care. Rhode Island placed
    near the top, Arkansas, the bottom. I'm worried. Are you going to do for
    us what you did for Arkansas?
        The President. Do you think that's a fair question? I mean, is that
    a fair question? Of course not, right?
        My State, at the end of World War II, had a per capita income that
    was 56 percent of the national average. While I was Governor, the last 6
    years, we had a job growth rate higher than the national average. Our
    per capita income increased higher than the national average. We were
    nationally recognized for education reforms, for welfare reforms, for
    dramatic improvement. You should judge people based on where they
    started; now, that's a fair question. That sounds like the kind of thing
    that the President said to me in the campaign.
        And I also extended health care benefits to more pregnant women,
    more little children, improved health care to elderly people--those are
    things that I did do--and maintained taxes at the same percentage of
    income of my State when I left office as they were when I took office.
        So I think I did a pretty good job as Governor. And by the way, my
    fellow Governors, including the Governors of New England, once voted me
    the best Governor in the country. So I did the best I could.
        Now, having said that, I did not revolutionize the economy, wipe out
    all poverty, and end all problems. I plead guilty. But what I did do is
    just what I'm trying to do as President, which is to fix things.
        Now, what you have to decide is whether you think it is acceptable
    for the United States to continue to be the only advanced country in the
    world that cannot figure out how to give insurance to all of its people,
    whether it is acceptable for us to spend 14.5 percent of our income on
    health care. No other country spends over 10 percent. Germany and Japan
    spend under 9 percent; they cover everybody, and we don't. We have to
    decide whether this is acceptable. Why does it happen? Because we spend
    so much more on insurance and paperwork and other things. That, to me,
    cannot be justified.
        And if we want to go on like we are, where more and more people lose
    their right to choose their doctor every year, more and more people are
    finding themselves uninsured, we can. Otherwise, we should decide what
    we're going to do about it and how we're going to do it.
        I don't pretend for a moment to have all the answers. All I can tell
    you is that I've done my best to find them with the help of a lot of
    brilliant people, most of them, by the way, from your part of the
    country, not from mine. They came up with the plan. We've worked very
    hard on it. But I think what we need to do is to talk about how we can
    solve this problem. That's what I've been in the business of doing all
    my life.

    The Economy

        Ginger Casey. President Clinton, do you feel, though, that the
    economy has turned around for working class people in this country?
        The President. Oh, I think the economy has plainly turned around. It
    hasn't done as much as it should, but let me just give you some facts.
    Last month we had 267,000 new jobs come into this economy; in the first
    4 months of this year, a million jobs; in the

    [[Page 1039]]

    first 15 months of our administration, 3 million jobs. Rhode Island had
    8,000 new jobs this year, the first time in 4 years you've had any job
    growth. So it's beginning to turn around.
        We have driven the deficit down. And if my budget is adopted this
    year, we will have the first time since 1969 that we've got a decrease
    in domestic spending, except for health care, which is going up. And
    we'll have 3 years of deficit reduction in a row for the first time
    since Harry Truman was President.
        So I'm doing the best I can to turn it around. But what we need to
    do is to get everybody in a room together--Senator Chafee's got a health
    care bill, and we've got other health care bills--we need to find out
    how can we cover everybody, how can we hold the cost down, and how can
    we solve the problems of the country. I don't pretend to have all the
    answers, but I do intend to keep the same can-do spirit as President
    that I brought to the Governor's office. And I'm still pretty proud of
    it. And I think most of the folks at home think that way, too.

    Child Care

    [A participant in Springfield, MA, asked about the availability of
    quality child care.]

        The President. Well, let me just mention a couple of things. We have
    focused our child care efforts basically on trying to increase the
    incomes of working parents with modest incomes. This year, one in six
    American taxpayers will be eligible for an income tax cut because they
    are working for very modest incomes, hovering just modestly above the
    poverty line, and it's hard for them to be successful parents and
    successful workers. So we're focusing on that.
        In our welfare reform bill, we plan to also do more to try to help
    parents with modest incomes afford their child care. Beyond that, of
    course, there is the Federal child care tax credit, and most States do
    the same thing.
        Have we done as much as we should? I don't think so. But I think if
    we can help cover the health care expenses of all working parents and
    their children and help to deal with the income tax structure, I think
    that would go a long way toward helping you afford child care. And we're
    doing as much as we can with the money we have.

    Reaction to Criticism

    [A participant in Massachusetts asked if the President and his family
    were being held to a higher standard than their predecessors.]

        The President. Well, I think I've been subject to more assault--
    [laughter]--than any previous President, based on the evidence. But the
    Vice President said a few days ago that there are powerful forces in
    this country who basically resent the way the last election came out, so
    they keep trying to undo it and pretend it didn't happen. But we'll have
    an election in 1996, and I wish that we could just all settle down and
    be Americans for a while and work on our problems, and then evaluate me
    based on the job I do and let--people will have a chance to make another
    decision. But I think that the constant politics of diversion and
    division and destruction is not good for America, but I'm prepared to
    live with it and keep working. So far, it has not interfered with the
    progress and the record of the Congress and the work we're trying to do
    for the country. And as long as I can keep it from interfering with it,
    I can live with it if you can.

    Anticrime Efforts

    [A participant asked about the use of probation and parole and then
    asked if the President could speak Spanish.]

        The President. Let me answer the second question, first. I don't.
    [Laughter] I wish I did, and I probably ought to. And I think before too
    long, nearly every American President will be expected to, not only
    because of the high percentage of Hispanic-Americans we have but because
    of our increasing ties and our common future with Central and South
    America.
        One of the things that I'm quite proud of is that we're going to
    host a Summit of the Americas in the United States in December. And
    there are 33 democracies in Latin America, one democracy where the
    President's been kicked out by dictators, military dictators--that's
    Haiti--and one Communist country, Cuba. That's a wonderful record.
        What was the first question you asked? What was the first question?
    Oh, the overcrowding of the prisons. I think there should be more
    probation and parole. Let me say

    [[Page 1040]]

    what our crime bill does. Our crime bill funds more prison places to
    keep serious offenders in prison but also gives States the flexibility
    to use some of these monies to keep the nonviolent offenders out of
    prison with legitimate probation programs and diversion programs like
    boot camps and other kinds of programs.
        I think the lady a moment ago from Connecticut asked the question
    about shouldn't we keep serious offenders in prison longer. It will be
    easier if we draw reasonable distinctions between who should not be in
    and who should be in, so that those who should be in can be kept longer.
    I think probation is an important part of that.
        But as this young man can tell you, since he works in the program,
    if you want a probation program, you have to pay to have a good one;
    otherwise, it's just a joke. You can't let it be a joke, you've got to
    actually invest in one that works. And it's cheaper than prison.

    Global Trade and Manufacturing

    [A participant asked what could be done to help the failing costume
    jewelry industry in Rhode Island.]

        The President. I don't know. That's the straight and honest answer.
    But let me tell you what I have tried to do; and I think the American
    business community would support me in this assertion.
        Our administration has really tried to do two things in the area of
    trade. We've tried to open up more trade, recognizing it would subject
    our people to more competition, but we'd be able to sell more things
    abroad, because we know that's what we have to do, at the same time
    enforcing our trade laws more vigorously. And I've gotten a lot of
    criticism for it. I've gotten criticized for enforcing our trade laws
    against Japan, for example, the disputes we've had there, and some of
    the other countries we've had disputes with. But I think that is very
    important.
        The second thing I think we have to do is to move to a situation
    where, over a period of years, these international trade rules begin to
    take into account our obligations to the environment and our obligations
    to the working people of each of our countries.
        Now, we can't immediately rewrite the rules for all other countries.
    And we shouldn't tell other people how to live and what rules they ought
    to have. But we all do ultimately breathe the same air and share a
    common environment. And if the United States, or for example, there are
    other countries that may do more on the environment than we do, if these
    countries are to do well in the global economy, we must at least be
    moving toward some common accords on environmental standards and
    ultimately on labor standards. The United States has begun to put these
    issues in the national debate. When we made the trade agreement with
    Mexico, the first trade agreement ever, ever in history that had
    environmental standards in it, it had never been done before. So we are
    beginning to do that. Meanwhile, we are going to try to firmly enforce
    our own trade laws.
        The reason I said I don't know is, I don't know enough about your
    industry, I'm sorry to say, to make a comment. But I will look into
    that.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Casey. Mr. President, when there are other countries that
    underprice what it costs for people to manufacture an item here in the
    United States, countries that don't have to pay health insurance or any
    other kind of benefits or meet any OSHA requirements or EPA standards,
    won't business naturally go to where the cheapest widget is?
        The President. Some will and some won't. But that's always been the
    case. That is, if you go back to the whole history of America, first of
    all, jobs moved from one part of our country to another because of labor
    costs. Then jobs moved from one sector of the country into another. We
    used to have a whole lot of people working in agriculture, for example.
    Now, less than 3 percent of our people can produce enough food to feed
    all of us and half the world to boot. So they have to find other things
    to do.
        We have the same percentage of our wealth today comes from
    manufacturing as it did 15 years ago. But fewer people do it because
    fewer people can make more output in manufacturing. So we're in this
    constant struggle to create more new jobs than we're losing. And what's
    happened in the last 20 years for the first time ever--at least since
    we've been charting these things--we've

    [[Page 1041]]

    been creating new jobs, but they're not better than the ones we're
    losing. That had not happened to us before. And that's why average wages
    have been stagnant in the country for 20 years. Some are better, but
    some are not.
        So what my challenge is is to identify the new technologies of the
    21st century, make sure we are targeting investments on those
    technologies, make sure we are educating and training our people for
    those jobs, and make sure that the jobs we create are (a) as numerous
    and (b) better than the jobs we're losing. That is the great test of
    keeping the middle class alive in America. It's very hard to do, but
    we're trying to be on the path to do it. I think we're doing the right
    things.

    Defense Conversion

    [A General Dynamics electric boat division worker asked about the Sea
    Wolf submarine program and retraining for defense workers.]

        The President. First of all let me say, as you know, I supported,
    against a lot of opposition, doing the second Sea Wolf and to try to
    keep the electric boat company going and also because we're going to
    move in--we're going to have a transition, if all goes as planned, into
    a different submarine. In other words, the Sea Wolf was conceived as a
    submarine designed specifically to counter a Soviet submarine threat,
    but we believe if we keep working with the Soviets to reduce, the
    nuclear problems will not be there. We also, however, know we will need
    a newer, smaller, lighter, faster, different submarine to take us into
    the 21st century. So I do think there will be defense work in the
    submarine industries.
        Q. Will we survive that curve, through?
        The President. Well, that's why I wanted to do the second Sea Wolf.
    I'm trying to make sure you do get to the curve.
        The second thing we're attempting to do is to--we're spending
    several hundred million dollars a year now working with defense
    contractors and their workers to try to help develop other things they
    can do for a living, again, in high technologies that will be there 10
    years from now, so that they can earn the same or greater wages.
        Mr. White. They are uniquely skilled, so you are more able to adapt
    to a certain thing, and you would lose that by going away----
        The President. That's right. But I've been amazed, frankly, at the
    number of adaptations that a lot of these defense corporations are
    coming up with. I realize it's harder in boat manufacturing, maybe it is
    some sort of electronic circuitry, for example, or other kinds of
    weapons manufacturers. But we are working very hard on that.
        We've got this advanced technology project where the Government
    basically funds, on a competitive basis, proposals by defense industries
    to convert to domestic nondefense purposes. And so the results of the
    last year and a half have been incredibly encouraging to me. I can't say
    there will be a solution for every problem, but I'm confident that we're
    moving in the right direction on it.

    [The participant expressed his support for retraining programs.]

        The President. I think we have to do that, too. Let me say, I have
    been twice now on a program that the Secretary of Labor sponsored, Bob
    Reich, from Massachusetts, who believes that some people will just have
    to retrain for other high-tech jobs. And one of the people in the
    program is a 59-year-old--this is another reason I don't want
    discrimination against older workers in health care premiums--a 59-year-
    old Bell Lab employee who lost his defense job and had to retrain at 59
    and got a job working in a hospital at more or less the same level
    because he was able to do a lateral transfer through a high-tech
    training program.
        And I think that's going to be very important, because you're right,
    not every industry will be able to modify its own business. So some of
    the workers will have to try to get lateral transfers.

    Civil Rights

    [A commissioner with the New England Hispanic civil rights commission
    asked about civil rights policy.]

        The President. Well, if you look at--first of all let me say, we
    don't have time to go into the specifics, so if you will write me a
    specific letter, I will give you a specific an-

    [[Page 1042]]

    swer. But I want to mention one thing in particular. Last year, the
    Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was much, much more
    active in many areas than it had been in the past. The civil rights
    activities of the Department of Housing and Urban Development under
    Henry Cisneros dramatically increased last year over what they had done
    for years in the past. And then I appointed Deval Patrick, who's a very
    distinguished civil rights lawyer, to be head of the Civil Rights
    Division. And most people who had been following it believe that we have
    dramatically increased the activism of the division.
        But I can't respond to any specific concerns you have, sir, but if
    you will write them to me, I will get back to you on the specifics,
    because I intend to be very vigorous in this area. And my impression,
    just looking from the statistics, and I've gotten reports from the Civil
    Rights Division of the Justice Department and on the Housing and Urban
    Development, is that we have dramatically increased our civil rights
    activities, which is what I had intended to do. And so if there are
    problems, I'll fix them if you will get them to me.

    Hillary Clinton

    [A participant expressed his support for Hillary Clinton for President
    in the year 2000.]

        The President. First let me say that I'm sure my wife would be
    flattered by your attention.
        Q. President Clinton, I started this 2 months ago.
        The President. I just--by the way, I just talked to her on the phone
    right before I came in. She is in South Africa with Vice President and
    Mrs. Gore for the inauguration of Nelson Mandela. And she's a wonderful
    person with enormous ability. But she has always told me that she never
    thought she would ever seek elected office.
        Q. Yes, she would. [Laughter]
        The President. And after this life--I'm not sure she would ever----
        Q. Mr. Clinton, never say never. You guys are rolling with the
    punches. Good, keep rolling. [Laughter] You know, they can throw a lot
    of crap, but you're always----
        Ms. Casey. Oh, please, Mickey.
        The President. Thank you very much.
        Now tell them, I didn't know anything about this, will you?
    [Laughter]

    Drug Abuse Treatment

    [A participant asked about treatment programs for drug addicts.]

        The President. Well, that involves two activities of this
    administration, so let me answer you. The short answer to your question
    is, yes, if we get the whole health care plan passed. That is, our
    health care plan will cover treatments for alcohol and drug abuse
    problems. I think it's very important. And treatment works. I know it
    does, I've seen it in my own family.
        Secondly, this year in the crime bill and in our budget, we have big
    increases for drug treatment for people who are in the criminal justice
    system. It's crazy, folks, with such a high percentage of people who get
    convicted of things because they've got a drug problem, to turn right
    around and put them back on the street before they've had any drug
    treatment. It does not make any sense, and it's being penny-wise and
    pound-foolish, I think. So we're trying to help the States deal with
    that.

    President's Childhood

    [A 9-year-old boy being raised by a single mother asked if as a boy the
    President missed his father.]

        The President.  Well, sometimes I did, too. I missed--and you know
    something?
        Q. What?
        The President. Sometimes I still do. But my mother did a real good
    job, and she did the best she could. She worked real hard every day, and
    she was a real good mother. And I think I had a good childhood.
        And there are lots and lots of kids--a big percentage of our young
    people in America today spend at least some of their childhoods with
    only one of their parents. Now, and oftentimes that's too bad, but
    that's the way it is. And so what we have to do is be grateful for our
    parents that are sticking with us and helping us, and never use that as
    an excuse and just make the best we can of our lives, okay?
        Q. Yes.

    [[Page 1043]]

        The President.  Good for you, pal. Thanks.
        Give him a hand. [Applause]

    Child Support Enforcement

    [A participant asked how the administration plans to help single mothers
    who are having a difficult time collecting child support payments from
    irresponsible fathers.]

        The President. That's a wonderful question. First of all, one of the
    biggest problems we've got with deadbeat dads is--sometimes deadbeat
    moms, but usually deadbeat dads--is the ability to cross the State line
    and not have enforcement across State lines. So a big part of our
    welfare reform program is going to be to stiffen enforcement of child
    support across State lines and to try, whenever possible, just to have
    an automatic withholding from people's checks once they start missing
    their child support payments, even if they live in another State, and to
    have uniform enforcement. That will have a dramatic impact.
        Now, in many cases where there was not a marriage in the first
    place, we're going to have to have some help from the mothers in
    identifying the fathers. But in every case where we can, in my opinion,
    once people start to miss their child support, I think you just ought to
    have automatic withholding. I don't think people should be able to avoid
    the responsibility for their children just because they're not in the
    homes raising them. And I think the more automatic, the quicker it can
    be, the less legal hassle, the less going to court, the fewer lawyers,
    the fewer pleading with the judges, the more it's just an automatic
    system, the better off we are. And that is what we're going to work
    toward as a part of comprehensive welfare reform.
        I can tell all of you that your bills as taxpayers to support women
    and children on public assistance would be much lower if we had a
    tougher and more automatic system of child support collection, and I
    think that's what we have to do.
        Q. Mr. President, could I ask you when will this begin?
        The President. Let me just say this: We're doing better. Many
    States--one of the things that we did at home that I was quite proud of
    was, when people came in to have their babies, if they were single,
    divorced, separated, we started identifying the fathers then and
    immediately beginning to process the child support and creating a
    presumption of paternity that could be only overcome with proof.
        I mean, there are lots of things that are being done now in State
    after State, but we'll introduce our welfare reform bill in a few weeks.
    And then it will pass in a few months, and then it will become the law
    of the land. And it would be, I think, a big advance. We did some things
    last year to require the States to stiffen child support, but the big
    thing is, right now, is you've got so many people crossing the State
    lines and evading their responsibilities. That's what we have to try to
    attack. And I think you have to have almost some sort of automatic
    system to do it.

    Education

    [A high school student asked about college costs and education funding.]

        The President. Let me answer the second question, first. We are,
    this year, even though we're cutting overall spending at home, we're
    giving more money to education and training programs. The second
    question is, don't dismiss this national service thing too lightly.
    Basically, what national service does is to give young people like you
    the opportunity to work either before you go to college, while you're in
    college, and in some cases, after you leave, and earn credit, almost
    $5,000 a year, against the cost of going to school. We'll have 20,000
    young people in national service this year; the year after next we'll
    have 100,000 people in national service, solving the problems of their
    communities.
        In addition to that, last year when we adopted my economic program,
    the Congress did, to bring the deficit down, one of the things in that
    bill that almost nobody noticed was a reorganization of the student loan
    program to cut the costs of operating it, lower interest rates on
    student loans, and string out the repayments so that you need never be
    discouraged about borrowing money to go to college, because now if you
    borrow money in the student loan program, you say, ``Oh, I can't borrow
    4 years' worth because I'm going to be a teacher when I get out, and
    I'll never pay it back.'' Under the new rules you can now pay that money
    back over a

    [[Page 1044]]

    much longer period of time as a percentage of your income. So even if
    you're going to take a job that doesn't pay a lot of money, you'll
    always be able to limit your repayment to a percentage of your income.
        So we've lowered the interest rates and made the repayments easier.
    And that should mean that no one should ever be discouraged from going
    to college again, even if they have to borrow the money, because they
    can pay it back in a responsible and bearable fashion.
        Ms. Casey. Where do you want to go to school?
        Q. URI.
        The President. A paid political announcement. [Laughter]

    Infrastructure Improvements

    [A participant asked what has been done to rebuild America's
    infrastructure.]

        The President. First of all, we have fully funded for 2 years in a
    row now the ISTEA program, the intermodal transportation program that
    was adopted several years ago, to make sure we can push the money out
    more quickly. Secondly, I have now our people studying, with the benefit
    of folks from all over the country who are experts in transportation
    investment, what other options we have, short of some big tax increase
    which I don't think we can enact, to increase the funding flowing to
    infrastructure investments, and especially to road and bridge
    improvement.
        These things, by the way, create a lot of jobs in the economy, and
    they're basically good-paying jobs. And they often go to people who
    otherwise couldn't get them. And they dramatically increase the
    society's productivity.
        Many of the Asian countries that we're competing with that have far
    higher savings rates are spending massive amounts of money on fast
    trains, on new airports, on major new transportation systems. So it's a
    big issue in terms of our long-term economic health. And I believe--keep
    in mind we're keeping a pretty fast pace here. I had to work on the
    economy first and then pass the education programs. And now we're
    working on the health care and the crime bill.
        Q. A lot of bumpy roads.
        The President. A lot of bumpy roads. But I think we will have an
    infrastructure built to take some advantage of this, but not until early
    next year in 1995.
        Mr. White. Mr. President, thank you ever so much. Unfortunately, we
    are just about out of time. We want to thank you very much for coming to
    visit not only Rhode Island but us here at Channel 10.
        The President. Thank you.
        Mr. White. Our 10 Town Meeting is coming to a close. And we'd like
    to invite you, Mr. President, if you'd like, to stay behind and say
    hello to some of our friends.
        The President. Thank you. I have very much enjoyed this. The
    questions were wonderful, and I thank the folks in Springfield and New
    Haven, too.

    Note: The town meeting began at 8 p.m. at the WJAR-TV studio. The
    President was introduced by moderators Doug White and Ginger Casey. A
    tape was not available for verification of the content of these remarks.