***Click here to download video. Click here for audio.***
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), member of the Senate Banking Committee, joined Brian Sullivan on CNBC’s Last Call to discuss why he voted in favor of the SAFER Banking Act, which passed the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday by a vote of 14 to 9.
This bipartisan legislation will secure protections for legal industries such as energy companies, gun manufacturers, and state-sanctioned marijuana companies so they have access to banking services. The banking industry and community banks across North Dakota are also in strong support of the legislation.
On the SAFER Banking Act:
“Senator Daines, Senator Lummis, and I were all three not only yes votes on the committee, we’re all three cosponsors of the bill and I have been for a couple of sessions now. […] My reason is this: I'm one of those Republicans who does not support the legalization of cannabis, but in my state of North Dakota, the citizens decided to make it legal for medicinal purposes, which I think 37 other states have done the same thing. That's called federalism in my view, and I support federalism. I think it makes no sense to have a controversial business like cannabis legalization, be a cash-only business. SAFER Banking puts cannabis in a category that allows the regulated banking industry to do the banking rather than the duffel bags full of cash, which I think it was clearly unsafe for lots of reasons, but it also is unchecked.”
“Medicinal marijuana is legal in North Dakota, and we're talking about a federal law here that doesn't coincide with the decision of various, individual states. When it comes to the precepts of cooperative federalism, or a federalism model like the United States is, I think you have to yield to the states. While I wish we didn't have any legal marijuana anywhere in the country, the reality is we do, and that horse left the barn a long time ago. Now we have a cash-only business that's a controversial business. I think we as federal lawmakers have to recognize what's going on in reality on the ground, both in our states and other states.”
On the Pending CR:
“I think the more realistic approach is to make the Senate Bill cleaner, not add more things to it, because every time you add things to it, you may get a few votes, we also run the risk of muddying the waters. I think we need more time, obviously to negotiate things like border, border money and not just the money but what would the money be used for. We need to do some more things for our national security and to fight back against despots and dictators all around the world and better prepare our military and our industrial complex. All of that though, should be done in the in a normal regular process of minibuses or individual appropriations bills or some sort of legislation just specific to the topic rather than a stopgap measure to just simply keep the government running a little longer so the appropriators can get that work done. I'd rather see it more simplified rather than more complicated, but if we're going to provide more money for Ukraine, we ought to at least have that similar amount for our own southern border.”