Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6383

Bill Overview

Title: National Security Moratorium on Foreign Purchases of U.S. Land

Description: This bill requires the President to take actions necessary to bar foreign persons (individuals or entities) from purchasing public or private real estate in the United States for the five-year period beginning from this bill's enactment. The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress (1) certain information on the purchase and ownership of U.S. real estate by foreign persons; and (2) recommendations to make it easier for U.S. citizens and harder for foreign persons to purchase U.S. real estate, including farmland.

Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]

Target Audience

Population: People involved in international real estate transactions

Estimated Size: 10000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Real estate agent (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could reduce my client base since I deal with international luxury buyers.
  • I expect fewer bidding wars, which could lower turnover rates for sales.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 4 6
Year 3 4 7
Year 5 5 7
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 7 9

Software engineer (Austin, TX)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • With fewer foreign buyers, I'm hopeful housing prices will stabilize, making it easier for me to buy.
  • I'm all for policies that help locals secure homes first.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Farmer (Rural Iowa)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The moratorium may affect the marketability of the land if I decided to sell.
  • Land values might drop with a decreased buying pool, but better for local opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 7

Retired (Miami, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about my property value decreasing with reduced foreign interest.
  • However, I could also see more stable long-term renters locally.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 8
Year 20 6 8

Graduate student (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Lower competition from foreign buyers may make rentals easier to find.
  • However, not owning property means I'm not directly benefiting from this policy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 8

Corporate lawyer (Dallas, TX)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The moratorium could reduce my client base as fewer foreign buyers will need legal assistance.
  • I'm worried this could make my niche less profitable.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 4 6
Year 3 4 7
Year 5 4 7
Year 10 5 7
Year 20 5 8

Tech entrepreneur (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe the policy could open more opportunities for local tech and housing growth.
  • Restricting foreign buyers may balance local investment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 10 9

Bank loan officer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There may be fewer international clients applying for loans, which could impact my sales.
  • I might need to pivot towards local markets.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 8

University professor (Boston, MA)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is interesting academically but doesn’t directly impact my day-to-day.
  • Curious to see long-term effects and if it alters perceptions globally.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 8

Environmental activist (Portland, OR)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I see potential for this policy to enhance local opportunities for sustainable housing.
  • It may prevent overdevelopment by speculative foreign interests.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 9

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)

Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 5: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations