[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.