[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 15, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S689-S691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Ukraine

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I have asked to be recognized this 
afternoon to speak to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
  As we all know, the current situation is that it is pretty tough 
right now. Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops on or close to 
Ukraine's border and may be planning to launch a full-scale invasion 
within a matter of days. And this follows, of course, their illegal 
seizure of the Crimean Peninsula back in 2019 and a hybrid war in the 
Donbas that has been going on now for over 8 years.
  As a Senator from Alaska--the State that is clearly most proximate to 
Russia--we are all too familiar with Russia's aggressive tactics. They 
routinely fly near our airspace. They sail through our waters. They 
test our defenses and reactions.
  In August 2020, a flotilla of Russian warships and military aircraft 
encroached into our EEZ, our exclusive economic zone, there in the 
Bering Sea. They repeatedly harassed our fishermen, forcing them to 
leave their waters from which their very livelihood flows. The 
fishermen were shocked, I mean, just stunned with what they saw, and 
they literally left millions of dollars of fisheries' assets out on the 
line.
  Provocative actions, and we felt that provocation. They are 
disturbing. They are alarming. But there are also some perhaps smaller, 
maybe symbolic actions that can also be a little unsettling. It was 
several years ago now that we were at an Arctic conference, and the 
Russian delegation gave me a diplomatic gift at a conference that 
featured maps showing Alaska back as part of their territory. Maybe 
they thought it was funny; I did not take it as such.
  What is happening on the Ukrainian border is something else entirely. 
It is impossible not to be rattled by what we are seeing, worried by 
where it could lead.
  But I think we recognize in this body what we need to do, what we 
need to focus on. We need to turn these concerns into resolve, and that 
resolve needs to lead to action. I know that there are many in this 
Chamber working very, very hard--and I thank them for that--working 
toward a sanctions package.
  The bipartisan goal is to deter both--to deter Russia from invading 
Ukraine but also to impose severe sanctions if that happens. And I know 
that the joint effort has perhaps stalled out right now, but, 
hopefully, the two sides and the White House will come together to 
finalize it.
  I believe it is an imperative that we have a united front on this 
matter. A united Congress on the matter of sanctions, I think, is a 
powerful message in and of itself.
  If we can bring a sanctions package to the floor, I am going to be 
asking colleagues to consider two additions to that: one, to restrict 
imports of Russian seafood and a second related to Russian energy.
  So with respect to seafood, Russia has had an import ban on American 
seafood since 2014--since 2014. Most Americans don't know that Russia 
responded to U.S. sanctions imposed after their annexation of Crimea by 
banning U.S. seafood imports, among other goods, at that time. So that 
has been in place all these many years.
  And it is absolutely unfair that Russia has unlimited access to sell 
its seafood in the United States, while America's fishermen and our 
seafood processors, particularly those in my State of Alaska, have no 
access to markets in Russia. So this embargo either needs to end or we 
need to incorporate reciprocal measures.

[[Page S690]]

  And when it comes to energy, we simply do not need U.S. dollars to be 
financing Russia's territorial aggressions, especially--especially--
when we have everything that we need here at home.
  There is a lot to understand about the crisis in Ukraine: how Russia 
is undermining the international order and disrupting well-established 
global norms, how the potential for an invasion threatens not just 
Ukraine but European and global security, how an invasion could lead to 
catastrophic escalation and enormous loss of life, and how this 
situation impacts the United States, whether we want to involve 
ourselves or not, and how a diplomatic solution still exists if Russia 
chooses such a path.
  What I want to focus on today are two aspects of this crisis that 
have received less attention so far. And the first is how an invasion 
could destabilize the Arctic as part of a far-reaching wave of 
secondary impacts. And the second is the role that poor energy policy 
has played in actually strengthening Russia's hand.
  Now, I have come to this floor many, many times to talk about the 
importance of the Arctic. The United States is an Arctic nation because 
of Alaska. We rely on the region for everything from energy, minerals, 
seafood, shipping, national defense. And we have always worked--we have 
always endeavored to keep the High North as a region of peace, an area 
where geopolitical challenges are often compartmentalized in favor of 
collaboration and partnership. You need to work hard in remote, 
isolated, cold, dark places. You need to work together.
  So my concern today, as we are talking about Russia and Ukraine, is 
for the ripple effects that an invasion could have in the Arctic. I am 
worried that it will derail much of what we have been able to 
accomplish in the region and make it hard or impossible for the United 
States to trust and work with Russia in the region.
  I am also worried about what Russia's brinksmanship means for our 
friends in the Arctic. Certainly, if I were Finland or Sweden, I would 
be looking over my shoulder right now. This is the type of crisis that 
could convince them to join NATO.
  At the same time, however, I certainly respect those nations' rights 
and discretion to choose their alliances carefully, and discussions 
about them should include them. I also fear for the health of the 
Arctic Council, the leading governmental forum promoting cooperation in 
the Arctic. Last year, I had an opportunity to join Secretary Blinken 
in representing the United States at the Council's biannual 
ministerial. It was at that time that Iceland transferred the gavel to 
Russia, which is chairing the Council through May of 2023.

  I think it was important that Secretary Blinken attend this event in 
person to reaffirm the role of the United States in this important 
governing body, but attending the meeting did more than that. Convening 
in the Arctic provided an opportunity for Secretary Blinken to meet for 
the first time with his Russian counterpart. While there, the two 
diplomats agreed that while our countries have differences, the world 
would be safer if we worked together where our interests intersect. One 
of those areas is the Arctic, and we need to be able to continue to 
work together in that region.
  It is interesting to note that with all the ongoing diplomatic 
discussions between the United States and Russia playing out in places 
like Geneva and Paris, the first time this administration discussed the 
topic of troop movements on the Ukrainian border with Russia in person 
was on the sidelines of the Arctic Council ministerial in May.
  There are very few places in the world that a meeting like this would 
be politically palatable for either country. Yet, for decades, the 
Arctic has provided a place for the United States and Russia to convene 
even when we have our differences. All you need to do is look back to 
1986, the Reykjavik Summit between President Reagan and Premier 
Gorbachev. Inside a small, little house in a small Arctic country, the 
leaders of the two biggest powers convened and nearly agreed to ban all 
ballistic missiles. That meeting in Iceland paved the way for nuclear 
forces treaties and the eventual end of the Cold War.
  But the situation we face today begs the question, what will become 
of our relationship with Russia in the Arctic if they move forward with 
war against Ukraine?
  Last week, I participated in a virtual meeting of the Arctic 
Parliamentarians. This is a group composed of members of Parliaments 
and Congresses of the eight Arctic nations. I have been representing 
the United States on the Standing Committee for years and years, 
decades now. These are all of the Arctic countries, including Russia, 
of course. But the purpose of this body is to promote regional 
cooperation, and, as was the norm at our meetings, we focused on things 
that are impacting the people in our region. This past week's meeting 
was no different. We focused on COVID impacts, mental health, 
environmental issues, and Arctic infrastructure. While the growing 
security issue was not raised, it was kind of an unspoken shadow.
  I throw this out there because I know that while I think about the 
Arctic every day, I can guarantee you that the Arctic is not top of 
mind for most on Capitol Hill. It took us nearly a decade to secure 
funding for a new icebreaker, which won't be put to sea for another 5 
years, all while Russia launches a new one every year.
  I want the Foreign Relations and the Armed Services Committees to pay 
more attention to the Arctic and to look to the region as both a 
strategic asset and a diplomatic tool. We often talk about how valuable 
this region is, but it can only be useful if we use it. I am afraid 
that sometimes we just overlook or we neglect its importance, and I 
think it is time that we change that.
  Now, another aspect of the situation that I mentioned at the onset of 
my comments here is the issue of energy. It certainly deserves 
discussion when we look to Europe's energy policies, which have only 
served to weaken their ability to respond to Russia's aggression. This 
is a crisis for many countries in Europe, but I think it is also a 
timely warning for us here in the United States.
  Europe imports about 40 percent of its natural gas and 27 percent of 
its oil from Russia. The Nord Stream 2 Pipeline would only add to that 
total, while sidelining Ukraine as a key transit point, and 
therein lies the problem. Europe is already heavily dependent on Russia 
for energy, but they are doubling down. Their needs are particularly 
acute in the depths of winter, and that has perhaps undermined some 
European nations' willingness to respond to Russian aggression.

  I would suggest that the Biden administration is putting us on a 
similar path when it comes to our oil and gas. If they continue to shut 
down domestic resource production, we cannot magically shift to 
renewables and do this overnight. What will happen is, we will become 
more dependent on others for our supply. We have already seen some 
signs of this happening--perhaps not directly the fault of the Biden 
administration but, instead, the thinking that it has embraced.
  Look at California. California's foreign oil imports--their foreign 
oil imports--have risen significantly over the past 30 years as 
production in their State and especially Alaska has declined. For the 
last 3 years, the United States has actually imported more oil from 
Russia than we were allowed to produce in Alaska.
  So why--why--would we choose to forgo the jobs and revenues from 
domestic energy production to instead send our dollars to Russia and 
others? It is beyond me, and so are the actions the Biden 
administration has taken over its first year or so in office, which 
have been explicitly designed to limit production from States like 
Alaska even further.
  They shut down Federal oil and gas leasing for months, with an eye 
toward making that permanent until the courts intervened. They have 
refused to implement the law when it comes to the 1002 area of ANWR. 
They are taking millions of acres out of leasing in our NPR-A. They 
have stalled projects and rejected pipelines, which, of course, are the 
safest and cleanest ways to move energy to where it is needed. As 
energy prices have risen, the Biden administration has gone to OPEC to 
ask them to just produce more.
  Just as our allies and partners around the world realize they need 
and

[[Page S691]]

they want our energy, the administration has halted Federal investment 
that helps facilitate overseas LNG terminals.
  I have suggested that the President and his team really ought to be 
thankful that the provisions in Build Back Better that target the 
domestic oil and gas industry did not go through because they would 
have only made the situation worse.
  If there were ever a moment for energy realism, it is right now. The 
Biden administration and many here in Congress need to recognize the 
immense benefits of American resource production here at home and for 
the rest of the world, and they need to see clearly the immense 
consequences of refusing to allow those activities to proceed.
  I will just add one further point here. If Russia can leverage Europe 
on Ukraine over natural gas, China can do the same to the United States 
on Taiwan over minerals. We are deeply, deeply dependent on China, and 
they are well aware they can inflict massive economic consequences by 
cutting off our access to a range of raw materials and components.
  We have to address this weakness through every option we have 
available to us. We certainly have opportunities in my State of Alaska 
for mines and mine access projects to help address this very real 
situation with our minerals.
  None of us know exactly what will happen in Ukraine. We pray for 
deescalation. We take some solace from the continuation of diplomatic 
talks. But almost no one believes Russia is just going to walk away. 
All I can think is that we have to find ways to make it not worth it 
for Russia. Every little bit we can do to make this painful for Russia 
to prevent the loss of life, to punish this behavior, to call out its 
unwillingness to be a responsible global actor--all we can do at this 
point is necessary.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.