I want to talk to the general subject of the two second-degree amendments offered by the Senator from California which will be pending for us to vote on later this afternoon. They both have to do with the requirement under the underlying amendment to impose an ethanol requirement for gasoline throughout the country and to not allow States to opt in or opt out of that mandated ethanol requirement. One of the amendments by the Senator from California is to allow an opt-in, so that States that believe this will help them deal with their problems of ozone and the environment or other environmental pollution can opt into this program and take advantage of it; but for those States that believe it would be harmful to their environment, they would not have to opt in. The other amendment would require findings with respect to whether or not it would help the environment. I want to comment about that because the State of Arizona is one of the States that would be adversely affected by a requirement to use ethanol. Partly, this is as a result of the fact that the climate in Arizona is very warm, shall we say, particularly in the summertime.
On the recordJune 3, 2003
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing amendments related to ethanol requirements for gasoline during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
Nov 14, 2023
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, the whole point is if the adversary believes that our system no longer functions, then they don't need to try to wipe it out at the beginning of a conflict.
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.
Nov 14, 2023
Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, the fact is that our current system has deteriorated and aged to the point that we wouldn't be confident in the deterrent value of it on out into the future.
Nov 14, 2023
One of our recommendations concerns ways that we could potentially mitigate the risk of a deterrence gap.





