Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
***Click here to download video. Click here for audio.***
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), during a Senate Banking Committee hearing, discussed CFIUS’ shortcoming in its review of Fufeng in Grand Forks, food supply chain security, and his approach to developing a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to reward American production.
Senator Cramer reflected on the former Fufeng proposal in Grand Forks and reiterated his support for including the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a permanent member of CFIUS.
“I’m with all of my colleagues who have said the Secretary of Agriculture should be a permanent member of CFIUS. If food supply chain isn’t critical supply chain, nothing is. I think we do have strong bipartisan support for strengthening [the Department of] Agriculture’s role on CFIUS.”
“I cannot tell you how disappointing it was – and frankly, how consequential it was – for CFIUS, after not just the 45-day review, but then another 20 days added to get further information (all of which sends signals that were missed by local leaders, unfortunately), only to conclude, clumsily, non-jurisdiction over an agribusiness 12 miles from an ISR military base and a low earth orbiting satellite ground station.”
He also talked about boosting domestic energy production to reduce prices and global emissions levels. Relatedly, he explained how an effective CBAM would reward America’s excellence and pressure polluters to raise their production standards.
“One of the means I’ve been working on is a carbon border adjustment mechanism that recognizes the high price our carbon intensive companies already pay for a higher environmental standard, as well as other high standards like labor and workplace standards, and joining forces with our friends who have similar standards. Instead of punishing ourselves, punishing and manipulating the behavior of the polluters, which just so happen to be our adversaries in most cases, I favor a much simpler approach compared to a lot of others.”
Finally, Senator Cramer asked witnesses about the potential for pollution tariffs or a CBAM to recognize already-high costs of U.S. production.
“One of the means I’ve been working on is a Carbon Border Adjustment Measure that recognizes the high price our carbon-intensive companies already pay for a higher environmental standard…and joining forces with our friends who have similar standards. Instead of punishing ourselves, punishing and manipulating the behavior of the polluters.”
Senator Cramer penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal opposing a price on carbon, and at the hearing, reinforced his opposition: “Can we find something that doesn’t punish our own clean producers, but changes behavior [of the polluters]?”
“There are two approaches out there. One is, do you set the tariff by your cost of regulatory compliance? That tends to be the European approach. The one I think has more appeal is, ‘how much have you actually done to reduce your emissions as a country?’ That’s what matters,” responded Mr. Daleep Singh, former Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics. “Depending on how much progress you’ve made in reducing what actually impacts the environment, that determines the degree to which you impose a border adjustment tax. You’re right, Senator, this is a tool we need to think about and refine. In my mind, the latter approach is the way forward.”