Overview
Title
To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1713 wants to make sure that when other countries try to buy farms or land in the U.S., the person in charge of farms gets to help decide if that's okay, especially if the countries they're from, like China or Russia, don't always play nice.
Summary AI
H.R. 1713, titled the “Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025,” proposes to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950. It seeks to add the Secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to assess transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, and the agriculture industry. The bill mandates that the Committee reviews certain foreign transactions involving agricultural land, especially those involving countries considered foreign adversaries, such as China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. These requirements will cease if the country involved is removed from the list of foreign adversaries.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, titled the "Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025," proposes amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950. Its primary goal is to include the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The intention is to extend the oversight of foreign transactions that involve American agricultural land, agriculture biotechnology, or the agriculture industry, such as transportation, storage, and processing. Additionally, the bill mandates the review of certain agricultural land transactions involving foreign individuals from countries deemed as adversaries by the U.S., namely China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. This measure aims to protect national security interests concerning agricultural resources.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues with the bill have been identified. Firstly, the role and specific responsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture on the CFIUS are not clearly defined, which might lead to confusion or inconsistencies in decision-making. Secondly, the bill contains complex legal language and references that may not be easily understood by the general public, hindering transparency. Moreover, the terms "agricultural biotechnology" and "agriculture industry" are not clearly defined, potentially leading to differing interpretations. The concept of "foreign adversaries" is subject to interpretation, particularly when changes occur in how countries are classified, raising concerns about the bill's implementation. Lastly, the bill lacks a defined process for identifying "covered transactions," which could result in inconsistent reviews and assessments.
Potential Impact on the Public
This bill could have far-reaching implications for public policy, particularly regarding national security and agriculture. By broadening the scope of CFIUS, it aims to enhance the scrutiny of foreign investments in critical agricultural sectors, potentially safeguarding these resources from foreign control. The inclusion of the Secretary of Agriculture may bring more agricultural expertise to the assessment process.
However, the lack of clarity and complexity in the bill could lead to misinterpretations, confusion, and possible legal disputes, which might delay or obstruct foreign investments in the agriculture sector. This could impact economic activities directly related to agriculture, such as job creation, farming innovation, and trade relationships. The broader public may also be affected if these regulatory changes influence costs or availability of agricultural products.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The bill could positively impact national security interests by providing additional oversight of agricultural resources and critical technologies. Farmers and agricultural businesses may benefit from increased protection against aggressive foreign acquisitions. This safeguard could help maintain the integrity and security of domestic agricultural industries.
Conversely, stakeholders in international business and trade might view the bill negatively, as it could impose additional barriers to foreign investments, potentially hampering economic growth in the agricultural sector. Foreign investors might find the U.S. market less appealing due to increased regulatory scrutiny.
Furthermore, the lack of management for potential conflicts of interest in the Secretary of Agriculture's role could lead to ethical concerns, particularly if decisions appear to unfairly benefit certain domestic agricultural entities or individuals.
In summary, while the bill aims to fortify national security regarding agricultural acquisitions, it presents several challenges that need addressing to ensure clarity, fairness, and effectiveness in its implementation.
Issues
The amendment in Section 2 does not clarify the specific role or responsibilities of the Secretary of Agriculture on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) concerning covered transactions. This lack of clarity could lead to ambiguity in decision-making processes involving agricultural transactions.
In Section 3, the language used is complex and includes legal references, such as Section 721(b)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and other related laws, making it difficult for a layperson to understand without legal expertise. This can affect transparency and public understanding of the bill.
The amendment in Section 2 lacks a clear definition of what qualifies as 'agricultural biotechnology' or the scope of 'agriculture industry', potentially leading to inconsistencies in how transactions are interpreted and reviewed.
Section 3 includes the term 'foreign adversaries', which might be vague and subject to interpretation, particularly concerning their removal from the list in section 791.4 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations. This could cause uncertainty about when the requirements would terminate.
The bill does not specify how conflicts of interest will be managed if the Secretary of Agriculture's decisions may benefit certain agricultural entities or individuals, which can raise ethical concerns.
In Section 3, the process by which the Committee determines to initiate a review of a 'covered transaction' is not clearly defined, potentially leading to inconsistencies in handling these transactions.
The definition of 'reportable agricultural land transaction' in Section 3 is based on the Secretary of Agriculture's cooperation with the intelligence community, which may raise concerns about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act states that the official name for the legislation is the “Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025.”
2. Inclusion of the Secretary of Agriculture on CFIUS Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to the Defense Production Act includes the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, or industries like transportation, storage, and processing related to agriculture.
3. Consideration of certain agricultural land transactions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text amends a part of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include a new provision that requires the Committee to review certain agricultural land transactions involving foreign entities from specific countries, like China and Iran, when these transactions are considered to affect national security. The review obligation ends if these countries are no longer classified as adversaries by the U.S. government.