Bill Overview
Title: SOIL Act of 2022
Description: This bill expands provisions related to foreign investment in certain agricultural land transactions. For example, the bill requires the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review an investment that could result in certain foreign control of U.S. agricultural land.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by foreign investments in U.S. agricultural land
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill concerns foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land, which means it primarily affects the agricultural sector.
- Farmers and agricultural businesses in the U.S. may be directly impacted since the bill could change the landscape of foreign investment and ownership of farmland.
- Foreign investors interested in purchasing or investing in U.S. agricultural lands will be impacted by additional scrutiny and potential barriers.
- The general public may be indirectly affected if changes in land ownership influence agricultural production, prices, or land use policies.
- The bill's emphasis on security and oversight could suggest national security concerns, potentially affecting the perception and policies related to foreign investments broadly.
Reasoning
- The SOIL Act specifically targets foreign investments in U.S. agricultural lands, meaning it will have more direct effects on populations involved in agriculture such as farmers and ranchers.
- To balance impact, I'll include perspectives from foreign investors who could face barriers, as well as domestic agricultural investors.
- Those not directly involved in agriculture may not see significant changes; hence, individuals in urban settings or unrelated industries will likely report 'none' or 'low' impact.
- Considering the policy's modest initial budget, the direct impact is likely limited to regions with active foreign farmland investment interests.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful the SOIL Act will protect family farms from foreign control.
- If foreign ownership is controlled, it might help stabilize land prices, benefiting US farmers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Agricultural Investment Analyst (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase administrative work but could also create tighter U.S. market opportunities as foreign players might be deterred.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Foreign competition for land has been pushing prices beyond what local ranchers can manage. This is a welcome change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Foreign Investment Manager (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act adds complexity and uncertainty to my job, impacting my client's interest and strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It gives me some relief knowing land may stay within domestic hands, aiding local communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Real Estate Agent (Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act might slow deals, but U.S. investors might see more opportunities if foreign purchases decline.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tech Startup Founder (Urban)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems distant to my interest unless it indirectly affects broader economic conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Agricultural Policy Consultant (Kansas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SOIL Act aligns with national security interests, but its effectiveness relies on proper enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Land Developer (Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's possible the SOIL Act could limit some opportunities but generally doesn't affect my main work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Corporate Lawyer (North Carolina)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might complicate foreign transactions but could increase domestic deal activity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $105000000)
Year 3: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $110000000)
Year 5: $95000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $120000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the Committee on Foreign Investment in managing increased responsibilities.
- Potential pushback from foreign investors and international relations implications.
- The need to balance national security concerns with economic openness and investment inflows.