Overview
Title
To amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to prevent harm and disruption to the United States agriculture industry by protecting against foreign influence over agriculture production and supply chains, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
This bill wants to make sure that people from other countries can’t control important things like farms and food-making machines in America, by checking what they do very carefully. It even says a special farm helper gets to have a say in these checks!
Summary AI
S. 179, also known as the Foreign Adversary Risk Management Act or FARM Act, aims to protect the U.S. agriculture industry from foreign influence. The bill proposes changes to the Defense Production Act of 1950 by involving the Secretary of Agriculture in the Committee on Foreign Investment decisions and includes agriculture in critical infrastructure and technologies. It mandates scrutiny of foreign transactions in agriculture and requires reports on foreign investment impacts and potential espionage.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill, introduced as "S. 179," seeks to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to address potential foreign influence on the United States agriculture industry. Named the "Foreign Adversary Risk Management Act" or the "FARM Act," it encompasses several key components. Primarily, it emphasizes enhancing scrutiny over foreign investments in U.S. agricultural entities by involving the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). It proposes that agricultural systems and supply chains be designated as critical infrastructure and technologies. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Comptroller General to assess and report on the impact of foreign investments and espionage within the U.S. agricultural sector.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues emerge within this legislative proposal. Firstly, the definition of what constitutes "foreign control" is notably vague, posing potential challenges for effective implementation. Clear definitions are necessary to prevent varying interpretations that could complicate enforcement.
The proposal to label agricultural supply chains as "critical infrastructure" and "critical technologies" could impose substantial regulatory burdens. While intended to safeguard the industry, the broad criteria could inadvertently stifle innovation or increase operational difficulties for stakeholders within the agriculture sector.
Moreover, questions arise regarding the necessity of including the Secretary of Agriculture on the Committee on Foreign Investment. Without a clear reasoning, this measure may be perceived as bureaucratic redundancy.
The section mandating reports on foreign influence does not specify the consequent actions, risking bureaucratic delays or insufficient responses to identified threats. Furthermore, if similar analyses are already being conducted, this requirement could overlap and contribute to governmental inefficiency.
Lastly, the conversation around espionage and theft techniques requires more precise terminology to ensure enforcement agencies can effectively respond to potential threats.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The broad intention of the FARM Act is to protect the U.S. agriculture industry from foreign influences that could threaten national security or economic stability. Generally, the public might benefit from the enhanced protection of food supplies and agricultural infrastructure, which are crucial for both the economy and national well-being.
Specific stakeholders, particularly those in the agriculture sector, may find both benefits and challenges with this bill. On one hand, increased scrutiny of foreign investments could prevent hostile actors from gaining undue control over critical agricultural assets. On the other hand, the broader regulatory definitions may pose compliance challenges for agricultural businesses, potentially increasing operational costs or deterring beneficial foreign investment partnerships.
Government efficiency is also a consideration. Without clear definitions and streamlined processes, there may be an increased administrative burden, potentially leading to inefficient use of resources. Some might argue that the issues identified could be addressed through existing frameworks without additional legislation, avoiding redundancy and financial waste.
In conclusion, while the FARM Act aims to provide robust protection for the agriculture industry, the bill raises significant issues regarding definitional clarity, potential regulatory overreach, and bureaucratic efficiency. Addressing these concerns is crucial to balance national security interests with maintaining a vibrant and competitive agricultural sector.
Issues
The definition and scope of 'foreign control' in Section 2(b)(2)(vi) is vague and ambiguous, which might lead to differing interpretations and potential legal challenges. Clear definitions are necessary to implement and enforce this provision effectively.
The inclusion of agricultural supply chains as 'critical infrastructure' and 'critical technologies' in Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) respectively may be perceived as overly broad. The criteria and guidelines for these inclusions need to be clearly defined to avoid unnecessary or excessive regulatory impact on the agriculture industry.
The amendment to include the Secretary of Agriculture on the Committee on Foreign Investment, as mentioned in Section 2(a), could be considered bureaucratically unnecessary unless a clear justification is provided, leading to questions regarding the efficiency and necessity of this change.
The lack of clarity on the specific actions that will follow the submission of reports in Section 3 creates potential for bureaucratic delays and ineffective measures, undermining the goal of protecting the U.S. agriculture industry from foreign influence.
The potential for redundancy in Section 3, if similar analyses and reports are already conducted by other agencies, raises concerns about wasteful government spending.
The broad language regarding 'espionage and theft techniques' in Section 3(D) may make this provision difficult to enforce effectively, requiring more detailed specifications to ensure it is actionable and serves its purpose.
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 is its short title, which means the law can be referred to as the "Foreign Adversary Risk Management Act" or simply the "FARM Act."
2. United States agriculture included in Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950, which include adding a representative from the Department of Agriculture to a key U.S. committee, expanding the review of foreign investments in U.S. agricultural businesses, and recognizing agricultural systems and supply chains as part of the nation's critical infrastructure and technologies.
3. Reports on investments by foreign countries in United States agriculture industry Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Comptroller General to analyze and report on the influence of foreign investments in the U.S. agriculture industry. Their report must address foreign investments, potential risks to U.S. agriculture, international threats, and espionage related to agriculture.