Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) joined Larry Kudlow on Fox Business today to discuss Federal Reserve nominees and competition with China. Excerpts and the full video are below.
On Federal Reserve Nominees:
“First of all, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Mrs. Bloom Raskin, not the least of which is the strong view she has about allocating capital away from legal commerce, mainly in the fossil energy area. With regard to the issue that Senator Cynthia Lummis raised, kudos for catching it. She actually knows what she is talking about in this arena. It seems to me it should be a disqualifier on its face. It seems like a conflict of interest was breached. I think it is a serious ethics question.”
“Getting back to the allocation of capital away from legal commerce, that is just a frightening concept to me. You and I worked pretty hard actually on the Main Street Lending Program. You might recall an arbitrary date that tried to squeeze out our smaller oil and gas producers from being eligible because of a credit rating that occurred after the pandemic hit, after the demand sank, and after the Saudis flooded our markets with oil. [Mrs. Bloom Raskin] had no sympathy for that. She wrote a New York Times op-ed opposing it. I have lots of reasons to be opposed to her. Let’s remember, this is on top of Lael Brainard who has been nominated as Vice Chair and we already had a hearing for her. [Brainard] has similar views, not nearly as bad on rhetoric but similar views that raise a lot of questions as well.”
On Energy:
“This morning I met with the European Union Energy Commissioner to talk specifically about natural gas and Europe’s goal to move to all renewables. The only way to go to all renewables is with more natural gas because you also have to have resiliency and a grid that is always providing electricity to the huge demand. Let’s also not forget demand is growing around the world for natural gas. You see what democrats are doing now. Several of my colleagues want to shut down the export of liquefied natural gas.”
On China Bills:
“I absolutely oppose the House version. I am a sound thinker, but I also know China is a serious threat. They play by a different set of rules than we do. Oftentimes talking about global competition, you’re not talking about another free-market capitalist system that plays by our rules. China is such a geopolitical, economic, and humanitarian threat. I felt like we ought to forward something that sets the stage for better supply chains and better prepares our value chain in the United States to be more competitive with China. What the House has done to that bill is so atrocious I doubt a single Republican could support it. ”
“Here is our problem. If all nations were created equal and all nations were free-market capitalist systems and we hadn’t as a part of our history as a nation acquiesced so many of these things to foreign countries – remember the whole trade deal with China way back gave normalization, Favored Nation Status in the WTO, the expectation was they would be enamored with our form of economy that they would adapt to it. Of course, we know that didn’t come back to pass. In fact, they just stole from us. We are so behind them in the value chain, supply chain, and of many things that are important, including defense technologies, there is a sense we need to jump-start and enhance investment. But let’s also remember, Larry, the more important thing, if we had more regulatory reforms on mining and critical minerals, that would entice the private sector more. ”
“If we’re going to leapfrog China in some of these [areas and] particularly technology – think of the energy sector alone we’ve acquiesced uranium largely to our enemies – we need to create policies that bring the entire supply chain back to the United States or at least among our allies. ”
“I want solutions. I’m willing to discuss and negotiate. But [USICA] was a bridge too far.”
On Economics:
“I want to go on record here and now and say I always thought that the Laffer curve and supply-side economics always made sense. It has always worked and will always work.”