[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 41 (Monday, October 18, 1999)]
[Pages 1991-1997]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks to the Forum of Federations Conference in Mont-Tremblant, Canada

October 8, 1999

    Thank you. Thank you so much. Prime Minister Chretien; to the Prime 
Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Denzil Douglas; Premier Bouchard; 
cochairs of this conference, Bob Rae and Henning Voscherau; to 
distinguished visitors; Governors--I think the Lieutenant Governor of 
South Dakota, Carole Hillard, is here--and to all of you: I think it is 
quite an interesting thing that we have this impressive array of people 
to come to a conference on federalism, a topic that probably 10 or 20 
years ago would have been viewed as a substitute for a sleeping pill. 
[Laughter]
    But in the aftermath of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia; the 
interesting debates--at least I can say this from the point of view as 
your neighbor--that has gone on in Quebec; the deepening, troubling 
efforts to reconcile different tribes who occupy nations with boundaries 
they did not draw in Africa; and any number of other issues, this topic 
of federalism has become very, very important.
    It is fitting that the first global conference would be held here in 
North America, because federalism began here--a founding principle 
forged in the crucible of revolution, enshrined in the Constitution of 
the United States, shared today by all three nations on our continent, 
as I'm sure President Zedillo said.
    It is also especially fitting that this conference be held in 
Canada. A land larger than China, spanning 5 times zones and 10 distinct 
provinces, it has shown the world how people of different cultures and 
languages can live in peace, prosperity, and mutual respect.
    In the United States, we have valued our relationship with a strong 
and united Canada. We look to you; we learn from you. The partnership 
you have built between people of diverse backgrounds and governments at 
all level is what this conference is about and, ultimately, what 
democracy must be about, as people all over the world move around more, 
mix with each other more, live in close proximity more.
    Today I would like to talk briefly about the ways we in the United 
States are working to renew and redefine federalism for the 21st 
century; then, how I see the whole concept of federalism emerging 
internationally; and finally, how we--how I think, anyway--we should 
judge the competing claims of federalism and independence in different 
contexts around the world.
    First let me say we are 84 days, now, from a new century and a new 
millennium. The currents of change in how we work and live and relate to 
each other, and relate to people far across the world, are changing very 
rapidly.
    President Franklin Roosevelt once said that new conditions impose 
new requirements upon government and those who conduct government. We 
know this to be the case not only in the United States and Canada, Great 
Britain and Germany, Italy and France, Mexico and Brazil, but indeed, in 
all the countries of the world. But in all these places there is a 
federalist system of some form or another. We look for ways to imbue old 
values with new life and old institutions with new meaning.
    In 1992, when I ran for President, there was a growing sense in the 
United States that the compact between the people and their Government, 
and between the States and the Federal Government, was in severe 
disrepair. This was driven largely by the fact that our Federal 
Government had quadrupled the national debt in 12 years, and that had 
led to enormous interest rates, slow growth, and grave difficulties on 
all the States of our land which they were powerless to overcome.

[[Page 1992]]

    So when the Vice President and I ran for national office, we had no 
debate from people who said, ``Look, this is a national priority and you 
have to deal with it.'' But we talked a lot to Governors and others 
about the necessity to create again what our Founding Fathers called the 
laboratories of democracy. We, frankly, admitted that no one knew all 
the answers to America's large welfare caseload, to America's enormous 
crime rate, to America's incredible diversity of children and challenges 
in our schools. And so we said we would try to give new direction to the 
Nation and deal with plainly national problems, but we would also try to 
build a new partnership that would make all of our States feel more a 
part of our union and more empowered in determining their own destiny.
    Now, people develop this federalist system for different reasons. It 
came naturally to the United States because Great Britain set up 
colonies here as separate entities. And the States of our country 
actually created the National Government. So we always had a sense that 
there were some things the States were supposed to do and some things 
the Federal Government were supposed to do.
    Our Founding Fathers gave us some indication in the Constitution, 
but the history of the United States Supreme Court is full of cases 
trying to resolve the whole question of what is the role and the power 
of the States as opposed to what is the role and the power of the 
National Government in ever new circumstances.
    There are different examples elsewhere. For example, in the former 
Yugoslavia when it existed before, federalism was at least set up to 
give the appearance that all the different ethnic groups could be fairly 
treated and could have their voices heard.
    So in 1992 it appeared that the major crisis in federalism was that 
the States had been disempowered from doing their jobs because the 
national economy was so weak and the fabric of the national society was 
fraying in America. But underneath that I knew that once we began to 
build things again we would have to resolve some very substantial 
questions, some of which may be present in your countries, as well.
    As we set about to work, the Vice President and I, in an effort that 
I put him in charge of, made an attempt to redefine the mission of the 
Federal Government. And we told the people of the United States that we 
actually thought the Federal Government was too large in size, that it 
should be smaller but more active, and that we should do more in 
partnerships with State and local governments and the private sector, 
with the ultimate goal of empowering the American people to solve their 
own problems in whatever unit was most appropriate, whether it was an 
individual citizen, the family, the community, the State, or the Nation.
    And we have worked at that quite steadily. Like Canada, we turned 
our deficit around and produced a surplus. We also shrank the size of 
the Federal Government. The size of the United States Federal Government 
today is the same as it was in 1962, when John Kennedy was President, 
and our country was much, much smaller.
    In the economic expansion we have been enjoying since 1993, the 
overwhelming majority of the jobs that were created were created in the 
private sector. It's the largest percentage of private sector job 
creation of any economic expansion in America since the end of World War 
II.
    Meanwhile, many of our State and local governments have continued to 
grow in size, to meet the day-to-day demands of a lot of the domestic 
issues that we face in our country. And I think that is a good thing.
    In addition to shrinking the size of Government, we've tried to 
empower the States to make more of their own decisions. For example, the 
Department of Education has gotten rid of two-thirds of the rules that 
it imposed on States and school districts when I became President. 
Instead, we say, ``Here are our national objectives; here is the money 
you can have; you have to make a report on the progress at meeting these 
national objectives, but we're not going to tell you how to do it 
anymore.'' And it's amazing what you can do if you get people to buy 
into national objectives with which they agree, and you stop trying to 
micromanage every instance of their lives and their daily activities. So 
we found some good success there.
    We've also tried to give the States just blanket freedom to try more 
new ideas in areas where we think we don't have all the

[[Page 1993]]

answers now, from health policy to welfare reform, to education to 
fighting crime.
    We have always felt--this has been easy in the United States, 
though, compared to a lot of places because we've had this history of 
believing from the time of our Founders that the National Government 
would never have all the answers, and that the States should be seen as 
our friends and our partners because they could be laboratories of 
democracy. They could always be out there pushing the envelope of 
change. And certain things would be possible politically in some places 
that would not be possible in others.
    And we have been very well served by that. It has encouraged a lot 
of innovation and experimentation. Here is the problem we have with the 
basic business of government and federalism today. In the 21st century 
world, when we find an answer to a problem, very often we don't have 
time to wait for every State to agree that that's the answer. So we try 
to jumpstart the federalist experience by looking for ideas that are 
working and then embodying them in Federal legislation and giving all 
the States the funds and other support they need to do it.
    Why do we do this? Well, let me give you one example. In 1787, in 
the United States, the Founding Fathers declared that all the new 
territories would have to set aside land for public schools, and then 
gave the responsibility for public education to the States. Now, then, 
in the next few years, a handful of States mandated education. But it 
took more than 100 years for all of our States to mandate free public 
education for all of our children. That was 19th century pace of change. 
It's inadequate in the 21st century.
    So I have tried to do what I did as a Governor. If something is 
working in a State, I try to steal it, put it into Federal law, and at 
least give all the States the opportunity and the money necessary to 
implement the same change. But it's very, very important.
    Since our Ambassador is a native of Georgia, I'll give you one 
example. One of my goals is to make universal access to colleges and 
universities in America, and we now have something called the HOPE 
scholarship, modeled on Ambassador Giffin's home State program, which 
gives all students enough of a tax subsidy to at least afford the first 
2 years of college in America, because we found in a census that no 
matter where you come from in the United States, people with at least 2 
years of education after high school tended to get jobs where their 
incomes grew and they did better. People with less than that tended to 
get jobs where their incomes stayed level or declined in the global 
economy.
    Now, we've also tried to make dealing with Washington less of a 
problem. We've ended something that was very controversial, at least 
prospectively, called unfunded mandates, where the Federal Government 
would tell the States they had to do something and give them about 5 
percent of the money it cost to do it. That, I think, is a problem in 
every national Federal system. We continue to give the States greater 
freedom and flexibility. And this summer I signed a new Executive order 
on federalism which would reaffirm in very specific ways how we would 
work in partnership and greater consultation with State and local 
officials.
    Federalism is not a fixed system; it, by definition, has to be an 
evolving system. For more than 200 years, the pendulum of powers have 
swung back and forth one way or the other. And I do want to say--for 
those of you who may be looking outside in, thinking the Americans could 
never understand our problems, they don't have any problems like this--
it is true that, by and large, in our State units we don't have people 
who are of just one racial or ethnic or religious groups. But to be 
sure, we have some of that. I'll give you one example that we're dealing 
with today.
    The United States Supreme Court has to decide a case from the State 
of Hawaii in which the State has given native Hawaiians, Pacific 
Islanders, the right to vote in a certain kind of election--and only 
native Hawaiians. And someone in Hawaii has sued them, saying that 
violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. 
We disagree because of the purpose of the election.
    But you can see this is a federalist issue. We basically said the 
National Government would give that to the States, the States want to do 
it this way; then a citizen says, ``No, you can't do that under national 
law.''

[[Page 1994]]

    Another example that causes us a lot of problems in the West--what 
happens when the Federal Government actually owns a lot of the land and 
the resources of a State? The National Government is most unpopular in 
America in States like Wyoming or Idaho, where there aren't very many 
people; there's a lot of natural resources. Cattlemen, ranchers have to 
use land that belongs to the Federal Government, and we feel that we 
have to protect the land for multiple uses, including environmental 
preservation as well as grazing or mining or whatever. And so it's an 
impossible situation.
    It's very funny--in these States, when we started, the Federal 
Government was most popular in the areas where we own most of the land, 
because we built dams and channeled rivers and provided land for people 
to graze their cattle. And within 50 years, the Federal Government has 
become the most unpopular thing imaginable. Now, I used to go to Wyoming 
on vacation just to listen to people tell me how terrible the job I had 
was. [Laughter] But it's a problem we have to face.
    And let me say one other thing I think might be interesting to you 
is that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the United 
States tend to have different ideas about federalism depending on what 
the issue is, which is why it's always good to have a dynamic system.
    For example, we Democrats, once we find something working at the 
local level that advances our social policy, or our economic policy, we 
want to at least make it a national option, if not a national mandate. 
When I became President, crime was going up, but there were cities where 
crime was going down. I went there and found out why it was going down. 
And it was obvious to me we didn't have enough police officers 
preventing crime in the first place, so I said we're going to create 
100,000 police at the national level and give them to the cities.
    The conservatives were against that. They said, ``You're interfering 
with State and local rights, telling them how to fight crime.'' Of 
course, I wasn't; I was giving them police. They didn't have to take 
them if they didn't want them. [Laughter] And it turned out they liked 
it quite well; we have the lowest crime rate in 26 years. But there was 
a genuine federalism dispute.
    Now we're having the same dispute over teachers. We have the largest 
number of children in our schools in history; lots of evidence that 
smaller classes in the early grades yield permanent learning gains to 
children. So I said, now let's put 100,000 teachers out there. And they 
say I'm trying to impose this terrible burden on State and local 
governments, sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong.
    On the other hand, in the whole history of the country, personal 
injury law, including economic injuries, commercial law has always been 
the province of State and local government except for things like 
securities, stocks, bonds, things that required a national securities 
market. But many people in the Republican Party believe that since there 
is essentially a national economy and an international economic 
environment, that we should take away from the States all their States' 
rights when it comes to determining the rules under which people can sue 
businesses. And they really believe it.
    And I have agreed with them as it applies to securities litigation 
because we need a national securities market. But I have disagreed with 
them as it applies to other areas of tort reform where they think it's a 
bad thing that there is State rights.
    And I say this not to attack the other party, but only to illustrate 
to all of you that in whatever context you operate, there will always be 
differences of opinion about what should be done nationally and what 
should be done at the State level. That cannot be eliminated. The 
purpose of federalism, it seems to me, is to, number one, take account 
of the genuinely local feelings which may be, in the United States, a 
result of economic activities and ties to the land and history; or it 
may be in another country the result of the general segregation of 
people of various racial, ethnic, or religious groups into the provinces 
in the Federal system.
    So the first process is to give people a sense of their identity and 
autonomy. And then you have to really try to make good decisions so that 
the system works. I mean, in the end, all these systems only have 
integrity if the allocation of decisionmaking authority

[[Page 1995]]

really produces results that people like living with, so they feel that 
they can go forward.
    Now, let me just discuss a minute what is sort of the underlying 
tension here that you see all across the world, which is, what is the 
answer to the fact that on the edge of a new millennium--where we would 
prefer to talk about the Internet, and the decoding of the human gene, 
and the discovery of billions of new galaxies in outer space--those of 
us in politics have to spend so much time talking about the most 
primitive slaughter of people based on their ethnic or racial or 
religious differences.
    The great irony of the turning of the millennium is that we have 
more modern options for technology and economic advance than ever 
before, but our major threat is the most primitive human failing: the 
fear of the other and the sense that we can only breathe and function 
and matter if we are somehow free of the necessity to associate with and 
deal with, and maybe even under certain circumstances subordinate our 
own opinions to, the feelings of them--people who are different from us, 
a different race, a different religion, a different tribe.
    And there is no answer to this that is easy. But let me just ask you 
to look in the context of the former Yugoslavia, where we are trying to 
preserve a Bosnian State--Prime Minister Chretien and I and our 
friends--which serves Croatians and Muslims, after 4 years of horrible 
slaughter, until we stopped it in 1995. Or in Kosovo, where we're 
exploring whether Kosovo can continue to be an autonomous part of 
Serbia, notwithstanding the fact that the Serbs ran all of them out of 
the country and we had to take them back.
    Why did all this happen? Partly because it was an artificially 
imposed federalism. Marshal Tito was a very smart man who basically 
said, ``I'm going to create federalism out of my own head. I'm going to 
mandate the participation of all these groups in government. And I'm 
going to forbid my government from talking about ethnic superiority, or 
oppression, or problems.'' He wouldn't even let them discuss the kind of 
ethnic tensions that are just part of the daily life in most societies 
in this world. And it all worked until he died. And then it slowly began 
to unravel.
    So one of the reasons you have all these people clamoring for the 
independence of ever smaller groups is that they had a kind of phony 
federalism imposed from the top down. So the first lesson I draw from 
this is every federalist system in the world today--a world in which 
information is widely shared, economic possibilities are at least--
always, to some extent, based on global forces, certainly in terms of 
how much money you can get into a country--the federalism must be real. 
There must be some real sense of shared authority. And people must know 
they have some real range of autonomy for decisions. And it must more or 
less correspond to what they perceive they need to accomplish.
    On the other hand, it seems to me that the suggestion that a people 
of a given ethnic group or tribal group or religious group can only have 
a meaningful communal existence if they are an independent nation--not 
if there is no oppression, not if they have genuine autonomy, but they 
must be actually independent--is a questionable assertion in a global 
economy where cooperation pays greater benefits in every area of life 
than destructive competition.
    Consider, for example, the most autonomous societies on Earth, 
arguably, the tribes still living in the rainforests on the island of 
New Guinea. There are 6,000 languages still existent in the world today, 
and 1,000 of them can be found in Papua New Guinea, and Irian Jaya, 
where tribes living 10, 20 miles from one another have compete self-
determination. Would you like that?
    On the other hand, consider the terrible problems of so many African 
peoples where they're saddled with national borders drawn for them at 
the Conference of Berlin in 1885, that took no reasonable account of the 
allocation of the tribes on certain lands and the history of their 
grazing, their farming, their moving.
    So how to work it out? There is no answer. We have to provide a 
framework in which people can work it out. But the only point I want to 
make to you today--I don't want to beat this to death, because we could 
stay here for a week discussing this--is that at the end of World War I, 
the European powers I think--and America sort of withdrew,

[[Page 1996]]

so we have to share part of the blame--but our record is not exactly 
spotless in how we went about carving up, for example, the aftermath of 
the Ottoman Empire. And so we have spent much of the 20th century trying 
to reconcile President Woodrow Wilson's belief that different nations 
had the right to be free--nations being people with a common 
consciousness--had a right to be a State.
    And the practical knowledge that we all have that if every racial 
and ethnic and religious group that occupies a significant piece of land 
not occupied by others became a separate nation--we might have 800 
countries in the world and have a very difficult time having a 
functioning economy or a functioning global polity. Maybe we would have 
8,000; how low can you go?
    So that doesn't answer any specific questions. It just means that I 
think when a people thinks it should be independent in order to have a 
meaningful political existence, serious questions should be asked: Is 
there an abuse of human rights? Is there a way people can get along if 
they come from different heritages? Are minority rights, as well as 
majority rights, respected? What is in the long-term economic and 
security interests of our people? How are we going to cooperate with our 
neighbors? Will it be better or worse if we are independent, or if we 
have a federalist system?
    I personally believe that you will see more federalism rather than 
less in the years ahead, and I offer, as exhibit A, the European Union. 
It's really a new form of federalism, where the States--in this case, 
the nations of Europe--are far more important and powerful than the 
federal government, but they are giving enough functions over to the 
federal government to sort of reinforce their mutual interest in an 
integrated economy and in some integrated political circumstances.
    In a way, we've become more of a federalist world when the United 
Nations takes a more active role in stopping genocide in places in which 
it was not involved, and we recognize mutual responsibilities to 
contribute and pay for those things.
    So I believe we will be looking for ways, over and over and over 
again--the Prime Minister and I have endorsed the Free Trade Area of the 
Americas--we'll be looking for ways to integrate our operations for 
mutual interest, without giving up our sovereignty. And where there are 
dissatisfied groups in sections of countries, we should be looking for 
ways to satisfy anxieties and legitimate complaints without 
disintegration, I believe.
    That's not to say that East Timor was wrong. If you look at what the 
people in East Timor had been through, if you look at the colonial 
heritage there, if you look at the fact that the Indonesians offered 
them a vote, they took it, and nearly 80 percent of them voted for 
independence--it seems that was the right decision there.
    But let us never be under the illusion that those people are going 
to have an easy path. Assuming that those of us that are trying to 
support them help them; assuming we can stop all the pro-integrationist 
militias from oppressing the people, and we can get all the East 
Timorese back home, and they'll all be safe--there will still be less 
than a million of them, with a per capita income among the poorest in 
the world, struggling to make a living for their children in an 
environment that is not exactly hospitable.
    Now, does that mean they were wrong? No. Under the circumstances 
they faced, they probably made the only decision they could have. But 
wouldn't it have been better if they could have found their religious, 
their cultural, their ethnic and their economic footing--and genuine 
self-government--in the framework of a larger entity which would also 
have supported them economically? And reinforced their security instead 
of undermined it? It didn't happen; it's too bad.
    But I say this because I don't think there are any general rules, 
but I think that, at the end of World War I, when President Wilson 
spoke, there was a general assumption, because we were seeing empires 
break up--the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire; there was the 
memory of the Russian Empire; British colonialism was still alive in 
Africa, and so was French colonialism--at that time, we all assumed, and 
the rhetoric of the time imposed the idea that the only way for people 
to feel any sovereignty or meaning was if they were independent.

[[Page 1997]]

    And I think we've spent a lot of the 20th century minimizing the 
prospects of federalism. We all have recoiled, now, so much at the abuse 
of people because of their tribal, racial, and religious 
characteristics, that we tend immediately to think that the only answer 
is independence.
    But we must think of how we will live after the shooting stops, 
after the smoke clears, over the long run. And I can only say this, in 
closing: I think the United States and Canada are among the most 
fortunate countries in the world because we have such diversity; 
sometimes concentrated, like the Inuits in the north; sometimes widely 
dispersed within a certain area, like the diversity of Vancouver. We are 
fortunate because life is more interesting and fun when there are 
different people who look differently and think differently and find 
their way to God differently. It's an interesting time. And because we 
all have to grow and learn when we confront people who are different 
than we are, and instead of looking at them in fear and hatred and 
dehumanization, we look at them and see a mirror of ourselves and our 
common humanity.
    I think if we will keep this in mind--what is most likely to advance 
our common humanity in a smaller world; and what is the arrangement of 
government most likely to give us the best of all worlds--the integrity 
we need, the self-government we need, the self-advancement we need--
without pretending that we can cut all the cords that bind us to the 
rest of humanity--I think more and more and more people will say, ``This 
federalism, it's not such a bad idea.''
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 2:25 p.m. in the Chateau Mont-Tremblant. In 
his remarks, he referred to Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada; 
Premier Lucien Bouchard of Quebec; President Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico; 
and U.S. Ambassador to Canada Gordon Giffin. The President also referred 
to Executive Order 13132--Federalism, published in the Federal Register 
on August 10, 1999. This item was not received in time for publication 
in the appropriate issue.