INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ALONG, SLOWLY: Democrats are entering another week of negotiations on the bipartisan infrastructure framework that never reached the House floor for a vote last week and a multitrillion-dollar social spending package — two pieces of legislation that would provide billions in funding for agriculture, including conservation, forestry, research and debt relief. But all timelines, even loose ones, have been thrown out the window as Democrats struggle to reach an internal agreement on how to move forward with the two measures. View from the White House: Biden administration officials do not have a timeframe in mind for passage of President Joe Biden's legislative agenda after a House vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill was delayed last week, reports POLITICO's Quint Forgey. Dems infighting stalling progress: House moderates — buoyed by new reluctance from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) about Biden's social spending plan — are still pushing for an immediate vote in their chamber on the infrastructure bill that the Senate passed in August. But House progressives are refusing to back the infrastructure bill until they secure further assurances from their moderate colleagues on Biden's broader spending plan — and a commitment from Democratic leaders that both pieces of legislation will reach the president's desk in tandem. Biden's warning: The president took to the Hill on Friday to help broker negotiations. But he warned progressives they would likely have to accept a significantly curtailed spending plan of between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion (much less than the current price tag of $3.5 trillion). He also disappointed moderates by stressing that there was no rush to hold a vote on the infrastructure bill. "It doesn't matter whether it's six minutes, six days or six weeks," Biden told reporters. "We're going to get it done." Ag groups getting antsy: The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture sent a letter to members of the House late last week calling for a speedy passage of the infrastructure package, which includes funding for broadband expansion they say is critical to many of the organization's members. HOW TO AVERT A TRANSATLANTIC FOOD FIGHT: As Washington and Brussels plow ahead with their vastly different views on the future of farming, one trade expert says the key to quelling the emerging transatlantic food fight could be food labeling and putting "power back into the buyers' hands." "What we really need is better labeling at the very minimum, and then let the consumers decide," Christine McDaniel, a trade expert at George Mason University's Mercatus Center and former U.S. government official, told our colleagues at POLITICO Europe. More transparency in the supply chain "is going to mean a little more work for everybody along the way," she said. "If that's the cost we have to pay to avoid this transatlantic food war that could have ripple effects across the global economy, then I would think that's worth it." Worst-case scenario: "Once you have these two behemoths starting to try to strong-arm other countries and accepting their standards and not other standards," McDaniel said, "then we get into these tensions that are way outside the scope of the WTO, and that's where trade economists start to worry that this could end up really restricting trade." For example, American officials and industry groups are wary of the EU's plans to slash pesticide usage and rapidly expand organic farming across the continent — a goal that the U.S. fears would crush crop yields, raise food prices and lead to higher hunger rates. Asia could be key: "If you start to see countries like China, India, Japan, South Korea, starting to adopt the EU standards, then that I think would be a big push for the U.S. to change some of its inputs," she said. Healthy competition: At the same time, McDaniel said it's good to have a certain amount of competition and debate. "I think it's kind of healthy for the U.S. and the EU and others to be having discussions about what kind of standards we should have," she said. "But once you start wanting to set standards for the world, I would argue that's overreach on both sides of the Atlantic." |
No comments:
Post a Comment