SEMI Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about something that has been top of my mind for a period of time, and I wanted to bring it to Members' attention today because of some recent articles of late as it relates to national security and global competitiveness, particularly as they relate to domestic resource development.

In recent months, since the beginning of this administration, I have spoken out in concern at the direction that I have seen the new administration take with regard to energy security and how that relates to Alaska. I have spoken out at length about my opposition to several of these Executive orders that were very early on relating to leasing and permitting moratoria in my State. In fact, there were eight specific orders that were directed to one State and to one State only. That is a pretty hard hit for Alaska.

In other areas, I don't believe that additional Federal lands and waters in Alaska should be placed off-limits. We already as a State hold more public lands than any other State, and by considerable degree. I don't believe our public land order removal process should be paused.

This was an announcement that just came out of the Department of the Interior last week. They say they are pausing it, but effectively, it could be delayed or abandoned not just for these next 2 years going forward but permanently. What this effectively does is it creates almost de facto wilderness, if you will, because you have placed land in a limbo, in a purgatory for decades. Nobody can do anything with it as these PLOs, these public land orders remain in place.

I note--no great secret around here--like most Alaskans, I strongly support our resource development industry and the men and the women who work within it. They are my friends. They are my neighbors. I fish with them. I recognize the importance and the value of what they do. I have worked hard here in the Senate and for a long time to ensure that the industry's continued centrality is allowed to prosper, not only because of them, the people I know, but because of what it means for our country, for our economy, our State's budget, our prosperity, and also for our environment.

After years of lagging behind, the United States has come to a better place on energy in recent years. We have seen domestic production rising. We have seen our emissions falling. We have created jobs. We have generated revenues. We have changed the world geopolitically even as we have lessened our impact on the climate. But these kinds of gains can't be taken for granted. They can't be actively ignored. They certainly should not be discarded.

We have to acknowledge that this energy renewal has not been even across the country. It has taken place largely on State and private lands. We have very limited private land in Alaska. And instate activity--we have been proudly producing for a while. But we also have, again, much land that is federally held, and we have only seen help arrive with any kind of activity and production on Federal land in the past few years. I would suggest that we cannot afford that forward progress to be reversed, but unfortunately that is the way it feels right now. The threat is that this administration is going to take an approach that is going to take us backwards.

So the question, I think, is a fair one for us to ask, to discuss here. It is an important question. What happens if we just decide we are going to turn our backs on this, our American energy? What happens if we really do move in this direction of just keeping it in the ground? What happens if we really do close our eyes to our domestic energy sources, these assets, if we close our eyes to the contributions that they provide?

I will suggest to you that there are a few warning signs that we have up on the horizon. Oil prices are back up above $60 a barrel. This actually helps my State; I will be honest there. We will accept that for budgetary purposes. But we all talk about what happens typically around Memorial Day. We have driving season coming on. We are still in the midst of a pandemic. But if the United States artificially restricts its supplies and demand rebounds rapidly, where does this put us?

I mentioned that there have been some articles of late that just really kind of struck me. It is interesting because I thought they were pretty significant, but it seems they are relatively unnoticed here in Washington.

According to Bloomberg, Russia has now supplanted Saudi Arabia to become the third largest supplier of crude oil in the United States. Canada is our No. 1. But there has been a series of circumstances. As our domestic production is falling, the Saudis have also reduced theirs, and it has been Venezuela. Venezuela is subject to sanctions. Their production has pretty much gone offline to the United States.

Part of what we are seeing, though, is the refusal on the Federal Government's side to approve cross-border pipeline infrastructure. Canada, again, is our largest--we import more from Canada than anywhere else, and they have greater capacity to help us out here so that we don't have to take it from Russia. But, instead, we haven't been able to take more from Canada to fill in that gap because of pipeline capacity. So what happens is, we are sending more of our money to Russia at a time when we are not on very good terms with Russia. Need we say elections? Need we say SolarWinds? Need we say what we are seeing from Putin?

This is what is happening: We are sending more of our dollars to Russia, and they are sending us more of the resources that we could produce here at home or perhaps at least import them from some friendlier nations.

U.S. crude oil production fell from an average high of 12.2 million barrels per day in 2019 to an average of 11.3 million in 2020. According to the Energy Information Administration, this loss in domestic production will return the United States to being a net petroleum importer in 2021 and 2022. By all accounts, a sizable chunk of this will come from Russia.

What is going to happen is, we are going to move from this position where we have been in these past few years where we have had some real energy security here because we have been producing, and we have been producing to the point that we have been able to even supply to our friends and allies. But now, with policies that are taking us in a different direction and still knowing that we need the resource, we are turning to Russia.

This is what really galls me so much: In 2020, the United States imported 538,000 barrels of oil per day from Russia. In Alaska--we recognize Alaska is a great producing State. Despite our immense potential and desire to bring it to market, in 2020, we were producing an average of 448,000 barrels per day.

It just begs the question: Is this what we really want? Is this what we really want, for Russia to account for more of America's energy supply than Alaska? We both have similar environments, both big, but oil production goes on in areas that are tough to produce in. I will hold Alaska's environmental record over that of Russia any day--in fact, over most countries and even most States any day.

One article put it this way. They said: ``America's increasing reliance on Russian oil is at odds with U.S. energy diplomacy.''

Let's kind of put it in context. The position that we have taken with Nord Stream 2--basically what we have said is that we are asking those in Europe who need Russia's gas--we are saying we need to be tough on this. We need to break Russia's hold here. For all the years--it has been 7 years since Russia annexed Crimea and demonstrated to the world that they are not afraid to flex their muscles when it comes to energy exports in order to achieve their geopolitical goals.

So we have been saying on Nord Stream 2: Europe, you guys, don't go there. Yet we have to look at ourselves here because we are telling Europe ``Limit your reliance on Russia for gas,'' but over here, we are happy to step up our imports from Russia on oil.

The President has just recently imposed tougher sanctions on Russia, as he absolutely should, but I think we need to be eyes wide open here, folks, in terms of what it means when we need that resource.

I do recognize that much of this discussion on Russia and how Russia has supplemented Venezuelan crude--I recognize that most of the oil that is being imported is heavy and that this is a situation with our gulf coast refineries that are specifically geared for that. I do recognize that they have fewer options right now, but I do think this is a conversation that we need to be talking about. We just can't sit back and say: Well, this is just the way it is.

Congress and the administration need to be taking the steps necessary to ensure that we in this country have a strong, stable supply of domestic energy to meet our current demand, our future demand, and, to the greatest extent possible, the demand from our allies.

Russia is positioning itself to capitalize on all of that. They produce from wherever they want, and they are going to sell to wherever they can.

The least that we can do here at home is to support our own responsible production from States like Alaska, so that we have our supply--our own supply--and can provide a diversified commercial alternative.

Moving from oil and gas briefly here, Alaska is also ready to help in another increasingly crucial area and that is with mineral development. Our history of tectonic events has created a geological environment that fosters deposits of a wide variety of minerals that are critical to both our current and our future economies.

Back in 2018, the Department of the Interior designated 35 ``critical'' minerals based on their importance to our economy and security, as well as their susceptibility to supply and disruption. These minerals are essential for everything. They help us with our advanced missile systems, solar panels, batteries for electric vehicles, your cell phones--everything. Our military is certainly aware of this. They recognize the vulnerable position that we are in. Our manufacturers recognize the vulnerability. These are products that we use on a daily basis.

Right now, the United States is import-reliant on 31 of the 35 minerals designated as ``critical.'' We have relatively no domestic production. We rely completely on imports to meet our demand for 14 of these. And, of course, most of where we are importing these materials are from China. That is not OK. That shouldn't be acceptable to us. I think we all should agree on the need to rebuild our domestic mineral supply chains. There has been good, positive conversation about what we can do.

I feel this is one of those areas that is a growing vulnerability. It used to be that we would talk about our vulnerability on the Middle East for our oil, and then policies changed and we reduced our reliance on that. That is why I am anxious. I am concerned about what I am seeing translate going forward. But I think we need to be, again, with eyes wide open when it comes to our mineral dependence and our reliance on these important materials for what we need to be a strong nation.

I think this is a pressing and long-term security threat that we face in this country. We have seen it play out in light of the COVID pandemic. We have seen the vulnerability of international supply chains. I thought it was great. It was so important that the administration really focused in on this. The new administration is focusing on this in a good way, and I appreciate that.

When President Biden released the first part of his infrastructure proposal, focusing on international domestic supply chains, he has one section there about electric vehicles. In the White House fact sheet, it says the plan ``will enable automakers to spur domestic supply chains from raw materials to parts, retool factories to compete globally, and support American workers to make batteries and EVs.''

This is the type of policy that we should all want to get behind, broadened out to every industry, not just to a select few. But the question here, though, is whether the administration is willing to accept what is going to be necessary in order to achieve this goal to have these secure supply chains, especially when it comes to expanding our domestic supply of raw materials. It is going to require approval of mining projects, and that has been a challenge for us. That has been a challenge for us.

This is where I go to another article that came up a few weeks back. This is from Reuters. It appears to me that rather than looking within our own borders, the administration is looking beyond. In this article from Reuters, it states that the United States looks to Canada for minerals to build electric vehicles. It provides:

The U.S. Government is working to help American miners and battery makers expand into Canada, part of a strategy to boost regional production of minerals used to make electric vehicles and counter Chinese competitors.

It goes on further to talk about the different ways that the Department of Commerce is discussing with many how we can boost Canadian production of EV materials. It goes on further to say:

But Washington is increasingly viewing Canada as a kind of ``51st State'' for mineral supply purposes.

I am a big fan of Canada. They are our neighbor, but if we are going to be adding Canada as a 51st State to help us with our minerals and access to minerals, let's not forget the 49th State, because Alaska has good, strong resources. Where we seem to have problems is in gaining access, whether it is in the permitting process or just the ability to move forward with some of our mineral potential.

Again, I am not suggesting that we shouldn't be looking to our friends to build these alliances, particularly with our neighbors directly to the north and to the south. This is good. I am not suggesting: Let's not be talking to Canada.

That is an important part of how we really work to build these secure supply chains. All I am suggesting is that we here in America need to also look to the strength of our resource assets.

There are some--again, the issue of mining in this country sometimes can be a controversial one. I am going to suggest to folks that if we really want to do more to build out not only our national security but if we want to build out our clean, diverse energy infrastructure, moving toward the President's vision of greater renewable opportunities, which I want to do, let's acknowledge that we are going to need these minerals. We don't really have a choice here.

The World Bank recently released a report looking at ``The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition.'' They found that ``large relative increases in demand of up to nearly 500 percent are estimated for certain minerals, especially those concentrated in energy storage technologies, such as lithium, graphite, and cobalt.'' The report also found that ``even with large increases in recycling--including scenarios where 100 percent end of life recycling is achieved--there is still likely to be strong demand for primary minerals.''

We know we are going to need it. People like Elon Musk last year said: ``Please mine more nickel.'' He promised: ``Tesla will give you a giant contract for a long period of time if you mine nickel efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way.''

I am with you on that.

Look at the analysis from Goldman Sachs, which found that increasing demand for electric car batteries is causing automakers to brace for a surge in prices in lithium, cobalt, and nickel.

In order for us to get there from here, in order to achieve a transition to renewable and cleaner technologies, we have to acknowledge that there is going to be a mineral footprint. It will be impossible to establish a robust domestic supply chain for EVs and batteries if we continue to import the raw materials from other nations, including some that continue to dramatically outcompete us in these areas every year.

I think we need a rational, clear-headed, eyes-wide-open approach to energy and mineral development. We don't want to go backward on energy, and we can't be caught flatfooted on minerals. We have the resources. We have the highest labor standards in the world and the highest environmental standards in the world. Our energy workers and our miners will hold themselves to those standards. Instead of importing more from places like Russia and China, we need to free ourselves from them to the extent that we can establish ourselves as this global alternative.

I have kind of taken that--actually, it is not something new. In the beginning of the 116th Congress, I prepared a white paper. We called it ``The American and Global''--well, what we called it was a pretty cool title. It is a great little publication that should have gotten more notice, but like a good wine, it comes with time: ``'With Powers So Disposed,' America and the Global Strategic Energy Competition.''

I outline in this a strategic energy initiative designed to sharpen and direct our tools of energy related to economic statecraft and to enhance the geopolitical position of the country.

From that or as a jump-off from that, I am introducing my Strategic Energy and Minerals Initiative Act, which we call the SEMI Act. This legislation will enable U.S. companies to better compete in global markets, and it promotes the responsible domestic production of our oil, gas, and minerals. I think these are initiatives that are good for us to be looking critically at, again, as we move forward with this administration's priorities on not only how we can build infrastructure--build it better, build it cleaner, build it with a renewable future--but we have to recognize that when we build things, we need base elements.

Know that Alaska is ready, willing, and able to play a role on all of these fronts. We have tremendous stores of resources, but equal to those tremendous stores of resources is the responsibility that I believe Alaskans feel to be good stewards as we access those resources to allow for a level of sustainability, whether it is with our fisheries or whether it is with the subsistence, the livelihoods of those who rely on the food and animals on the land. We believe that we can contribute to our national security and our global competitiveness, while at the same time working to protect the environment, but what we need is a chance to be able to do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source