More stories

  • in

    Lab-Made Meat? Florida Lawmakers Don’t Like the Sound of It.

    Legislators there and in several other states want to restrict the manufacture or sale of meat made in a laboratory, even though it barely exists. The space industry disagrees.Lab grown meat.It sounds like a plotline from a sci-fi movie about test-tube chicken fingers, but it’s a real thing.Start-up companies around the world are competing to develop technologies for producing chicken, beef, salmon and other options without the need to raise and slaughter animals. China has made the development of the industry a priority. In the United States, the Department of Agriculture has given initial blessings to two producers.Now, a measure in Florida that would ban sales of laboratory-grown meat has gained widespread attention beyond state borders. The bill, which is advancing through the Florida Legislature, would make the sale or manufacture of lab-grown meat a misdemeanor with a fine of $1,000. It’s one of a half-dozen similar measures in Arizona, Tennessee, West Virginia and elsewhere.Opponents of lab-grown meat include beef and poultry associations worried that laboratory-made hamburgers or chicken nuggets could cut into their business.Supporters include environmentalists who say it would reduce animal cruelty and potentially help slow climate change. Meat and dairy together account for about 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations.Other backers of the industry include advocates for space exploration, a subject particularly relevant to Florida, which is home to the Kennedy Space Center and the site of countless launches to the moon and beyond. Elon Musk, whose company SpaceX has its own outer space ambitions, has partnered with Israel-based Aleph Farms to research lab-grown meat on a Space X flight to the International Space Station that launched from Florida.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    What’s In (and Not In) the $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill

    A big boost for the military, more aid for Ukraine, a preference for the lobster industry over whales and an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act are among the provisions in the 4,155-page bill lawmakers expect to pass this week.WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in emergency aid to war-torn Ukraine and communities ravaged by natural disasters. A bipartisan proposal to overhaul the archaic law at the heart of former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. And a divisive oceanic policy that will change federal protections for whales in an effort to protect the lobster industry in Maine.In compiling the roughly $1.7 trillion catchall spending package that will keep the government open through September, lawmakers inserted several new funding and legislative proposals to ensure their priorities and policies become law before the end of the year.It includes funding that will guarantee the enactment of policies first authorized in bipartisan legislation approved earlier in this Congress, including money for innovation hubs established in the semiconductor manufacturing law and projects in the infrastructure law. The package also includes a round of earmarks, rebranded as community project funding, that allow lawmakers to redirect funds to specific projects in their states and districts.Here is a look at some of the provisions that would go into effect if enacted.Military spending is the big winner.The Defense Department would see an extraordinary surge in spending when adding its regular 2023 fiscal year budget together with additional funds being allocated to help respond to the war in Ukraine.All together, half of the $1.7 trillion in funding included in the package goes to defense, or a total of $858 billion. It comes after lawmakers bucked a request from President Biden and approved a substantial increase in the annual defense policy bill passed this month.The 2023 budget just for the Defense Department would total $797.6 billion in discretionary spending — a 10 percent increase over last year’s budget — representing an extra $69.3 billion in funds for the Pentagon, which is $36.1 billion above the president’s budget request.Sprinkled throughout the spending bill are hundreds of high-ticket add-ons that Congress wants to make to the president’s original Defense Department budget, such as an additional $17.2 billion for procurement that the Pentagon can largely distribute to military contractors to buy new ships, airplanes, missile systems and other equipment. The overall Pentagon procurement budget with these additional funds would be $162 billion.One of the biggest chunks of that extra money is for shipbuilding — an extra $4 billion that brings the Navy’s overall shipbuilding budget to $31.96 billion. That will allow it to buy 11 new ships, including three guided missile destroyers and two attack submarines.But that is just the start. There is $8.5 billion to buy 61 F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin and another $2.5 billion to buy 15 of Boeing’s new aerial refueling planes known as KC-46 tankers.There is also an extra $27.9 billion to help cover Defense Department costs associated with the war in Ukraine, as part of an emergency aid package to the country. That includes an extra $11.88 billion to replenish U.S. stocks of equipment sent to Ukraine — money that again will largely be used to purchase products from military contractors. That supplemental appropriation also includes $9 billion to assist Ukraine with training, equipment and weapons, as well as an extra $6.98 billion to cover U.S. military operations in Europe.— Eric Lipton and John IsmayMaking it easier (for some) to save for retirement.The package also includes a collection of new rules aimed at helping Americans save for retirement. The bill would require employers to automatically enroll eligible employees in their 401(k) and 403(b) plans, setting aside at least 3 percent, but no more than 10 percent, of their paychecks. Contributions would be increased by one percentage point each year thereafter, until it reaches at least 10 percent (but not more than 15 percent). But this applies only to new employer-provided plans that are started in 2025 and later — existing plans are exempt.Another provision would help lower- and middle-income earners saving for retirement by making changes to an existing tax credit, called the saver’s credit, now available only to those who owe taxes. In its new form, it would amount to a matching contribution, from the federal government, deposited into taxpayers’ retirement accounts.People struggling with student debt would also receive a new perk: Employees making student debt payments would qualify for employer matching contributions in their workplace retirement plan, even if they were not making plan contributions of their own.What to Know About Congress’s Lame-Duck SessionCard 1 of 5A productive stretch. More

  • in

    A Fight Over Agriculture Secretary Could Decide the Direction of Hunger Policy

    An unlikely fight is breaking out over President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s choice for agriculture secretary, pitting a powerful Black lawmaker who wants to refocus the Agriculture Department on hunger against traditionalists who believe the department should be a voice for rural America.Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and perhaps Mr. Biden’s most important supporter in the Democratic primary, is making an all-out case for Representative Marcia L. Fudge of Ohio, an African-American Democrat from Ohio.Mr. Clyburn, whose endorsement of Mr. Biden before the South Carolina primary helped turn the tide for the former vice president’s nomination, has spoken to him on the phone about Ms. Fudge as recently as this week. The lawmaker has also lobbied for her with two of the president-elect’s closest advisers and discussed the matter with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.“I feel very strongly,” Mr. Clyburn said in an interview on Wednesday about Ms. Fudge, who leads the nutrition and oversight subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee.“It’s time for Democrats to treat the Department of Agriculture as the kind of department it purports to be,” he added, noting that much of the budget “deals with consumer issues and nutrition and things that affect people’s day-to-day lives.”But there are complications. Two of Mr. Biden’s farm-state allies are also being discussed for the job: Heidi Heitkamp, a former senator from North Dakota, and Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor who served as agriculture secretary for President Barack Obama.The delicate proxy clash over the post, which is usually not as coveted as more high-profile cabinet positions, has pitted Democrats eager to emphasize issues like hunger and nutrition against more traditional members of the party who believe the department should represent rural America. The sprawling agency oversees farm policy, the Forest Service, food safety and animal health, but also the food stamp program, nutrition services, rural housing and rural development.More broadly, the debate illustrates the challenge Mr. Biden faces as he builds his administration. Every appointment he makes interlocks with others, and if he does not select a diverse candidate for one position it becomes more likely he will for other posts.The Agriculture job specifically is pinching Mr. Biden between two of his central campaign themes, which he repeated in plain terms this month in his victory speech: that he owes a special debt to African-American voters, and that he wants to be a president for all Americans, including those who didn’t vote for him.And nowhere did Mr. Biden fare worse than in rural America, particularly the most heavily white parts of the farm belt.“This is a choice that only Joe Biden can make, and he will make it understanding the unique challenges of rural America and what needs to happen in rural America moving forward,” said Ms. Heitkamp, a moderate who was defeated in 2018 after serving as attorney general and then senator in one of the most sparsely populated states in the country.Recalling her campaign efforts on behalf of Mr. Biden’s “great rural plan,” Ms. Heitkamp predicted the president-elect would “pick the person who can implement that rural plan.”Mr. Clyburn, though, said the Agriculture Department had for too long seemed “to favor big farming interests” over less wealthy people, whether they be “little farmers in Clarendon County, S.C., or food stamp recipients in Cleveland, Ohio,” Ms. Fudge’s hometown.Mr. Clyburn did not mention Ms. Heitkamp, but he bridled at the prospect of Mr. Vilsack reclaiming the department he had led for all eight years of the Obama administration.“I don’t know why we’ve got to be recycling,” Mr. Clyburn said, echoing complaints that Mr. Biden only represents Mr. Obama’s third term. “There’s a strong feeling that Black farmers didn’t get a fair shake” under Mr. Vilsack, Mr. Clyburn said.Mr. Vilsack did not respond in kind. He said he had “all the respect in the world for Representative Clyburn” and that he had learned from him.The former Iowa governor, who with his wife was an early supporter of Mr. Biden in his first campaign for president and again this year, said he was not angling for the agriculture job but was careful not to disclaim interest in the position.“If there’s something I can do to help the country, fine,” Mr. Vilsack said. “But the president-elect makes that decision.”When he does, he will be fully aware of where one of his most prominent supporters stands.In addition to his conversations with Mr. Biden, Mr. Clyburn has reached out to Steve Ricchetti, who will serve as a counselor in the White House, and Ted Kaufman, Mr. Biden’s longest-serving adviser and former chief of staff.House Democratic leaders are sensitive to creating vacancies in the chamber, even in safe districts like Ms. Fudge’s, given their slender majority. Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio, a Republican, might not schedule a quick special election to replace her. But Mr. Clyburn said he was hopeful from his conversation with Ms. Pelosi that she “would greenlight” Ms. Fudge.Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, declined to comment on the discussion. But he signaled that the speaker, who appointed Ms. Fudge as the chairwoman of a subcommittee two years ago to defuse a potential rivalry for the speakership, would not object to her departure.“The speaker wants the full contribution of House Democrats to the Biden-Harris mandate and to the future represented in the administration,” Mr. Hammill said.Like other positions, the Agriculture Department decision could be settled by finding an alternate post elsewhere in the administration for whoever is passed over.A spokesman for Mr. Biden’s transition declined to comment on the appointment but said the president-elect was “prioritizing diversity of ideology and background as he builds a team of experts that looks like America to serve in his administration.”Ms. Fudge, though, has other important advocates, including Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who said he had made the case for her “with four or five top Biden transition people.” Her colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee have also been supportive.“It is time for a hunger advocate to lead the Department of Agriculture, and nobody could lead the agency better than Marcia Fudge,” said Representative Filemon Vela, Democrat of Texas.Most significant, though, are three Black House Democrats who are close to one another and Ms. Fudge. The group includes Mr. Clyburn, Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, who is leaving Congress to become a senior adviser in the White House.As for Mr. Biden, Mr. Clyburn said, “he likes Fudge a whole lot.”Recounting his conversation with the president-elect, the congressman said he wanted to let him make the decision. “I just told him I thought she’d be a very good candidate and help refocus what the department is all about.” More