S-179-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Sponsored by Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to add the Secretary of Agriculture as a permanent member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). It would expand CFIUS's review authority to cover foreign acquisitions of U.S. agricultural businesses and would formally classify agricultural systems and supply chains as "critical infrastructure" and agricultural supply chains as "critical technologies" under the CFIUS framework. It would also require the Secretary of Agriculture and the Comptroller General to each submit a report to Congress within one year analyzing foreign influence, investment, and espionage in the U.S. agriculture sector.
Who benefits
U.S. domestic agricultural businesses and farmers who compete with foreign-owned operations. Rural communities whose economic stability depends on domestically controlled farmland and food production. Food security advocates concerned about foreign control of supply chains. U.S. agricultural technology and intellectual property holders who would gain protection from foreign espionage. National security agencies that would gain a new tool to review and potentially block foreign agricultural acquisitions. Domestic agribusiness competitors of foreign-owned firms.
Who is hurt
Foreign investors — particularly from countries designated as foreign adversaries — who currently hold or seek to acquire U.S. agricultural assets. U.S. agricultural businesses seeking foreign capital investment, which may become harder to attract. Landowners who wish to sell farmland or agribusinesses to the highest bidder, including foreign buyers. International trading partners whose agricultural investments could face new scrutiny or rejection. Legal and compliance professionals may benefit, but the added regulatory burden would fall on businesses navigating the expanded CFIUS process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that foreign adversaries — particularly China — have dramatically increased their ownership of U.S. farmland and agricultural businesses, with USDA data showing foreign holdings of U.S. agricultural land growing from roughly 26 million acres in 2009 to over 40 million acres by 2021. They contend that food production and supply chains are as strategically vital as semiconductors or telecommunications, and that the same CFIUS framework that protects those sectors should apply to agriculture. They further argue that agricultural espionage — including documented cases of theft of proprietary seed technology — poses a direct threat to U.S. economic and national security that current law does not adequately address.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding CFIUS to cover all foreign agricultural investment is overbroad and could deter legitimate foreign capital that U.S. farmers and agribusinesses rely on to expand operations and modernize equipment. They contend that existing tools — including the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act and state-level farmland ownership restrictions — already provide oversight mechanisms, and that layering a national security review process onto routine agricultural transactions would create costly delays and regulatory uncertainty. They further argue that the bill's broad definition of covered transactions could sweep in minor investments far removed from any plausible national security threat.