It is true that if a municipality, a county government or whatever, creates this monopoly they could be voted out of office. But is it not true that the U.S. Congress, by this legislation, will have created the situation where despite these people being voted out of office, the contract, under the bill as written--the contract term, or as long as it takes to refinance, or even the point at which the useful life ceases to exist, after it has been extended, up to 30 years--would still allow the monopoly to continue? So the candidates themselves may be defeated but that which they constructed, because we protected it, would continue to exist?
On the recordMay 11, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of legislation on municipal monopolies during Senate debate.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
Nov 14, 2023
It's enough that it's opportunistic. In other words, we're in a conflict with one, and the other sees that this is an opportunity.
Dec 19, 2018
I am informed that it is necessary for me to insert into the Record of the proceedings the resignation letter that I sent to Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona on December 12, 2018; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be…
Nov 14, 2023
The threat briefings that we received leave no question that both China and Russia, but particularly China see space as a war fighting domain.
Nov 14, 2023
we have to make decisions now to make sure that we have the capacity to build whatever we're going to need to build.





