I appreciate the gentleman's great efforts for transportation throughout Minnesota, but if they had built that tower in the future, they would be eligible for reimbursement. I do not want to be in a position of penalizing somebody for acting in a proactive manner and moving forward, ahead without that. I think that if we had the door artificially shut, and now we are opening it for reimbursement, it is not fair to say that because they were proactive, that they are not being reimbursed. It is on that ground that I encourage Members to not support the amendment.
Mark Kennedy: “I appreciate the gentleman's great efforts for transportation throughout Minnesota, but if they had built that tower in…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing transportation reimbursement eligibility during a floor debate.
Share
More from Mark Kennedy
as we well know, the rising cost of gasoline is a burden on hard-working families and on small businesses across the country. Recently, the price of crude oil hit the historic high of $75 a barrel. The average price of gasoline is now a…
in the last 5 years, funding for the grants under the consolidated Byrne-JAG formula have been cut by almost two-thirds. At the same time, we have had two consecutive attempts by the administration to eliminate this program entirely. I…
I believe that section 122 of this bill is an important public policy statement that says corporate executives who are not properly funding the pension plans of their employees should not be feathering their own nests with overly generous…
in a story published today, entitled ``Best Cheap Thrill: Crystal Meth,'' the Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages sunk to a nearly incomprehensible low. In that story the newspaper, and I use that word loosely, had the amoral audacity to…





