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 c… - Lisa Murkowski

There are so many things we can share about John, but really when I think about his legacy going forward, whether he is "Project Maverick," as my friend from South Carolina has said, or however we choose to remember him, I do hope that history will remember John as an institutionalist in the highest tradition of the Senate. John was committed to thoughtful debate and regular order. He was an effective committee chairman, respecting the interests of members on both sides. He managed his bills on the floor working hand-in-hand with the other side. These were tough bills. The annual Defense authorization bill draws something on the order of 600 amendments. He was always protective of committee prerogatives. He was known to put his foot down when appropriators sought to muscle out the authorizers. He was always looking toward compromise and bipartisanship.

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.

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.