There are about 10 different steps, and a Washington bureaucrat telling us how to spend the money. Quite often when we go through that process they tell us what to do and it is going to cost $2 million, $3 million, but they do not give all the money to do it. This is a much more efficient and a much more effective system. As the gentleman and I point out consistently, we are not talking about doing away with that system. We would love to reform it, to make it more efficient, but we recognize that there is a lot of built-in support for that system. It is going to stay. We are going to keep increasing funding. What we are trying to do is to develop a complementary, a companion system that allows for more local control and local flexibility in terms of raising and spending money.
Pete Hoekstra: “There are about 10 different steps, and a Washington bureaucrat telling us how to spend the money. Quite often when we…”
On the recordJune 12, 2002
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the need for reform in federal funding systems to allow for local control.
Share
More from Pete Hoekstra
Jul 22, 2026
If (the referendum) is going to be influenced by governments, it’s going to be influenced by the government of Alberta and by the federal government, and maybe the other provinces, but not by the United States government.
Jul 22, 2026
You get calls and request to meet with folks and… if they’re people that are working on issues that may have an impact on U.S. relations, there’s a good chance we’ll meet with them, just to get some kind of perspective.
Jul 22, 2026
Compared to a provincial government and Canadian taxpayers running (political) ads in the United States of America? You’re equating those two? C’mon, that’s not even close!





