Bill Overview
Title: PASS Act of 2022
Description: PASS Act of 2022 This bill establishes requirements to address the national security risk to the agricultural sector of the United States. Specifically, the bill prohibits persons who are acting on behalf of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea from purchasing or investing in U.S. agricultural land and companies. The President may waive this prohibition, on a case-by-case basis, if the President determines that the waiver is vital to U.S. national security interests. The bill also places the Secretary of Agriculture on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and requires CFIUS to review certain transactions involving investments by foreign persons in the U.S. agricultural sector. Additionally, the Department of Agriculture must report on the risks that foreign purchases of U.S. businesses engaged in agriculture pose to the agricultural sector of the United States.
Sponsors: Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
Target Audience
Population: People whose national security and/or investments in agriculture are tied to US agriculture sector being secure and stable
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill targets foreign actors from China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea by prohibiting their purchase or investment in U.S. agricultural land and companies.
- Governments and investors from these countries will face restrictions that impact their ability to invest in the U.S. agriculture sector.
- U.S. agricultural businesses and landowners may experience changes in investment opportunities from these foreign entities.
- The bill could affect the global supply chain and trade relationships involving agriculture due to restricted investments from major countries.
- The CFIUS committee's expanded role to include the Secretary of Agriculture suggests a greater scrutiny of foreign investments in agriculture, potentially affecting how foreign investments are handled in general.
Reasoning
- The policy targets international entities from specific countries, leading to potential changes in investment patterns that could indirectly benefit U.S. efficiency and security, thereby enhancing wellbeing over time.
- The agricultural community is a critical part of the U.S. economy with substantial indirect effects on the overall population due to its food security implications.
- Since the policy affects foreign investment restrictions, its immediate impact on the average U.S. citizen might be low, but it could have significant long-term benefits through enhanced national security and economic stability within the agricultural sector.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for national security but worry about losing Chinese buyers.
- If we can't export as much, our income might drop.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Agricultural Equipment Supplier (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think a stable agricultural market benefits us all. Secure investments are crucial.
- The policy might reduce certain opportunities but could also stabilize the market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Agricultural Researcher (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy doesn't deter valuable international collaboration with funding.
- Research is global and should benefit from all minds and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The international restriction is more about keeping my land safe.
- I trust this law will help deter unethical foreign practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Food Scientist (Ohio)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about decreased international interest, but local focus might grow.
- Securing resources is essential, even if it means fewer international agreements upfront.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Peanut Farmer (Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Foreign investment regulations could affect how we market our produce.
- National security shouldn't overshadow economic growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Recent Agriculture Graduate (Nebraska)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stricter control may mean more opportunities for new local investors like myself.
- I hope to see more support for new farmers, down the line.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Agribusiness Lobbyist (Washington)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could curtail aggressive foreign buyouts, which stabilizes markets long-term.
- There needs to be a balance between protection and international collaboration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Agricultural Policy Analyst (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's an interesting move, setting a precedent for how America handles agriculture and national security.
- Scrutinous investment practices could lead to sustainable economic growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired Agricultural Economist (Montana)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inclusive legislation is key when dealing with foreign powers in agriculture.
- This policy could ensure our long-term security, albeit at some economic cost.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- Enforcement and oversight costs will be influenced by the frequency and complexity of foreign investment reviews.
- There are geopolitical considerations, as restricting investments from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea may lead to diplomatic responses impacting other areas of trade.