[Pages H5168-H5173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1215
PROTECTING AMERICAN AGRICULTURE FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES ACT OF 2024

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1430, I call up
the bill (H.R. 9456) to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 with
respect to foreign investments in United States agriculture, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). Pursuant to House
Resolution 1430, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 9456

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting American
Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ON COMMITTEE ON
FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN UNITED STATES AND
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LAND
TRANSACTIONS.

(a) Inclusion on the Committee.--Section 721(k) of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(k)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Inclusion of the secretary of agriculture.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall be a member of the Committee
with respect to a covered transaction that involves--
``(A) agricultural land;
``(B) agriculture biotechnology; or
``(C) the agriculture industry, including agricultural--
``(i) transportation;
``(ii) storage; and
``(iii) processing.''.
(b) Consideration of Certain Agricultural Land
Transactions.--Section 721(b)(1) of the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(b)(1)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(I) Consideration of certain agricultural land
transactions.--
``(i) In general.--After receiving notification from the
Secretary of Agriculture of a reportable agricultural land
transaction, the Committee shall determine--

``(I) whether the transaction is a covered transaction; and
``(II) if the Committee determines that the transaction is
a covered transaction, whether the Committee should initiate
a review pursuant to subparagraph (D), or take another action
authorized under this section, with respect to the reportable
agricultural land transaction.

``(ii) Reportable agricultural land transaction.--In this
subparagraph, the term `reportable agricultural land
transaction' means a transaction--

``(I) that the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to
believe is a covered transaction;
``(II) that involves the acquisition of an interest in
agricultural land by a foreign person of the People's
Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
the Russian Federation, or the Islamic Republic of Iran; and
``(III) with respect to which a person is required to
submit a report to the Secretary of Agriculture under section
2(a) of the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of
1978.

``(iii) Sunset.--The requirements under this subparagraph
shall terminate, with respect to a foreign person of the
respective foreign country, on the date that the People's
Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
the Russian Federation, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, as
the case may be, is removed from the list of foreign
adversaries in section 791.4 of title 15, Code of Federal
Regulations.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

General Leave

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9456, the Protecting American
Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024. This important
legislation would codify a new set of policies that were enacted under
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. H.R. 9456 would make those
measures permanent.
I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse) for offering this legislation.
The bill is straightforward. It adds the Secretary of Agriculture as
a permanent member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States, CFIUS, for any transactions related to the purchase of
agricultural land, agricultural biotechnology, or any other
transactions related to the U.S. agricultural industry.
The bill also provides a mechanism for USDA to notify CFIUS of
particularly sensitive agricultural transactions. Then, the interagency
process must determine whether a review is appropriate. This
legislation guarantees that the Secretary of Agriculture will have a
seat at the table.
Agriculture Secretary Perdue under the Trump administration and
Secretary Vilsack under this administration both agree that having a
permanent member of CFIUS is necessary. In fact, during the House
Committee on Agriculture hearing earlier this Congress, Secretary
Vilsack discussed the implications of a permanent placement of the USDA
Secretary on CFIUS, saying: ``Being a permanent member would allow us .
. . to educate the other members of CFIUS about what to look for and
what to be sensitive to when it comes to agriculture and agricultural
production.''
I agree with the Secretary. USDA has the unique expertise that can
benefit the other CFIUS members. That is why this bill is so important.
This bill is the combination of two pieces of legislation that
received unanimous recorded votes as part of a Financial Services
Committee markup last fall.
My legislation, the inclusion of the Agriculture Secretary as a CFIUS
member, and my colleague from Missouri, Blaine Luetkemeyer's
legislation, the USDA referral system, both enjoyed unanimous
bipartisan support. In addition, slightly modified versions of these
measures were enacted in the FY24 appropriations in March. I was
pleased to see the policies become the law of the land.
H.R. 9456 would permanently authorize them rather than rely on the
annual appropriations process.
The bill focuses the government's limited resources on foreign
adversaries: the People's Republic of China, Russia, Iran, and North
Korea. It is not about closing off the United States from the rest of
the world.
For decades, Congress and the executive branch have upheld our
country's commitment to an open investment climate. Foreign investment
in the United States creates millions of jobs while boosting U.S.
exports and expanding R&D budgets.
This legislation is consistent with our core American values and
consistent with the unanimous bipartisan legislation passed in the
Financial Services Committee.
Since the 1970s, USDA has been responsible for the collection of
foreign ownership in U.S. agricultural land. This piece of legislation,
as with the bipartisan committee-passed version and the provision
currently in law as appropriations language, empowers USDA to flag
foreign persons and entities for CFIUS to consider.
To object to this legislation is to object to current law, existing
practices, and bipartisan consensus.
CFIUS' mandate remains clear. It must stay focused on national
security issues, whether in agriculture or any other sector.
I am hopeful this bill will soon find its way to the President's desk
so that the growing cooperation between CFIUS and USDA can continue,
allowing CFIUS to take advantage of the subject matter expertise housed
at the Department of Agriculture. Food and agricultural security is a
critical component of our national security, and this legislation
recognizes that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take a moment to
acknowledge

[[Page H5169]]

the 23rd anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Today will
serve as a reminder that we should work hard to guard against terrorism
and always stand against hate.
Mr. Speaker, moving to the debate on H.R. 9456, I would like to start
by noting that Democrats, especially those serving on the Financial
Services Committee, have a strong record of working with Republicans to
counter threats from the People's Republic of China. In fact, just
yesterday, the House passed two bills from our committee.
Unfortunately, H.R. 9456 is not an example of that kind of
bipartisanship. In fact, this bill undermines a bipartisan law that we
passed just 6 months ago. Yes, it was 6 months ago that the House and
Senate worked across the aisle and with the Biden-Harris administration
to pass legislation that would protect our national security from
adversarial countries like China acquiring critical agricultural land
in the United States.

To help review foreign investments involving U.S. agriculture, this
bipartisan law added the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS,
which is the interagency committee that determines whether a foreign
investment in a United States company or asset could pose a threat to
our national security. That law further codified reporting and
coordination between the Secretary of Agriculture and CFIUS.
I mention this law, Mr. Speaker, because I think my Republican
colleagues have forgotten what we did only 6 months ago. In their rush
to pull together bills for the so-called China week, they appear to
have brought up a poorly drafted copy of legislation we already passed.
However, in the frenzy to bring this bill to the floor, H.R. 9456
doesn't duplicate the law. Rather, it results in the Secretary of
Agriculture having to report countless transactions to the committee
that have nothing to do with our national security.
Currently, the law provides to the Secretary of Agriculture the
support of the United States intelligence community to identify those
transactions that may pose a threat to our national security.
Inexplicably, H.R. 9456 removes that intelligence community assistance,
leaving the Secretary to guess which transactions might pose a threat
to our national security.
Further, unlike the law that was passed just 6 months ago, the bill
broadens the scope from ``foreign governments and entities of concern''
to now include ``foreign persons,'' which means all individuals and
entities of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. This means anyone with
citizenship in those countries, including refugees or people who are
here in the United States with green cards or other visas.
The bill's broad-brush approach of targeting individuals from China,
North Korea, Russia, and Iran amounts to racial profiling. This bill's
focus is similar to the restrictive, xenophobic real estate laws passed
in a number of States, like Florida, where citizens of the same
countries are banned from buying property and which has resulted in
numerous instances of discrimination.
It is for this reason that this bill is opposed by the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council,
Stop AAPI Hate, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Council
of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum, and the
American Civil Liberties Union.
The Biden-Harris administration has also put out a Statement of
Administration Policy, saying that is it inconsistent with CFIUS
process and would not be implementable as drafted.
Mr. Speaker, these deficiencies, taken together, will divert precious
resources from CFIUS' targeted national security reviews. This is a bad
bill that harms the bipartisan work we already passed this year and
would sow divisions among neighbors across America.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I will vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who not only understands the security issues
because of his involvement as a United States Congressman for the State
of Washington, but he is also a farmer from the State of Washington. He
understands the impact these issues have on farms and ranches across
the country.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the reality that we face is simple: The
CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, is planting roots in our homeland and
working around the clock to infiltrate our institutions.
In the last decade, Communist China's investment in U.S. ag land has
grown tenfold. That is a dangerous trend that we cannot overstate, but
today, we are taking an important step in keeping them out.
My bill to add the Secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States is critical in keeping the CCP
off of American soil.
Mr. Speaker, food security, as you have heard many times, is national
security. This legislation strengthens the safety of our supply chains
and opens a door to new reporting mechanisms that USDA can use to keep
us safe from this threat.

{time} 1230

With an already flawed foreign purchase reporting system within USDA,
we must be sure our ag land is protected from nefarious actors.
As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, I hear from farmers
and ranchers across the country who are concerned by the reality that
not only is the CCP in our backyard, but we cannot accurately say
where.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, my bill guarantees that the Secretary of
Agriculture can accurately monitor and report purchases not just for
land, but also for biotechnology, transportation, storage, and
processing.
This bill is a first step. It is the beginning of the effort to keep
our greatest adversaries from being able to purchase any American
farmland because, the way I see it, a group like the CCP, who has made
it their goal to cripple the United States, has no business having a
hand in our supply chains and critical lands, but, first, we must know
exactly how much they already have.
Mr. Speaker, time is not on our side here. Every moment we wait, the
CCP tightens their grip on our system, further succeeding in their
efforts.
I thank Speaker Johnson and Leader Scalise for bringing this
important piece of legislation to the floor. A vote for this bill is a
vote for our farmers, our economy, and our national security.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to highlight just how rushed the process for this bill has
been. I remind my colleagues that this bill was only introduced 5 days
ago, on Friday of last week.
The notice of the Rules Committee hearing for this bill went out the
same day that the bill was introduced, and the hearing happened the
very next Monday.
That timing didn't give Members and staff so much as a single
business day to prepare, let alone for the Treasury Department and
outside groups to conduct their own analyses. Needless to say, there
hasn't been a single hearing on this bill, nor has it ever been marked
up. To top it all off, the rule providing for consideration of the bill
gives Members no opportunity for amendment.
Considering we just passed legislation to address the very concerns
that this bill purports to tackle, I can see no policy reason as to why
we are moving ahead with this bill so hastily. Given the serious
defects with this bill, I don't understand why Republican leadership is
denying Members the opportunity to properly assess these issues.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insisted on
following regular order again and again, so I would urge them to heed
their own calls on this bill and allow this body to properly consider
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 9456 is comprised of two bills that were both marked up and
unanimously reported from the Financial Services Committee. The
administration did not send any technical assistance when both bills
were marked up in

[[Page H5170]]

the committee a full year ago. They did not send TA until 2 days before
this bill went to Rules. The edits were very technical in nature and
open to interpretation.
I repeat again: Both of the underlying bills were marked up and
unanimously reported from the committee in September of 2023. My
colleagues on both sides of the aisle voted for the language in
committee, and the Treasury gave no responses at the time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Nebraska (Mr.
Flood).
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse) for introducing this very important and long-overdue piece of
legislation.
According to the USDA, as of 2022, foreign individuals held an
interest in over 43 million acres of U.S. ag land. For context, 43
million acres is larger than the State of Florida and greater than the
total land area of 29 U.S. States.
Between December of 2021 and December of 2022, privately held foreign
ag land increased by more than 3 million acres and now accounts for 3.4
percent of all privately held agricultural lands in the U.S.
This is a real problem, and it is growing. Our Nation's land is
linked to our national security, our food supply, and energy resources.
The rising trend of foreign ownership is highly concerning. The USDA is
responsible for collecting data and reporting to Congress on foreign-
owned ag land, but that is it. In its own words, the USDA does not have
a role in reviewing the purchase or sale of ag land in our country.
Additionally, the USDA has failed to penalize improper filing of ag
land transactions by foreign nationals, further emphasizing its lack of
sufficient enforcement authority in this area.
Let me be clear: Foreign ag land ownership is a national security
issue, and it should be treated as such. Over the last several years,
we have all experienced firsthand the detrimental impact food and
energy supply chain disruptions can have on our communities. Therefore,
it is simply common sense that we pass this bill to expand CFIUS and
better address this ongoing threat.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right that the Financial
Services Committee passed language that is similar in some respects to
Representative Newhouse's bill just 6 months ago in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act.
That language reflected bipartisan work done by the Financial
Services Committee on two Republican bills that had been marked up by
our committee with unanimous votes. We continue to work in a bipartisan
manner as well as with the Senate and the Treasury Department to get
language that reflected these two bipartisan bills into the
appropriations bill, which ultimately got passed into law.

It is simply false to claim that the bill we are considering today is
somehow a harmless duplication of what we have already enacted, as I
have laid out in detail already.
This bill undermines the bipartisan work that we have done on this
issue and raises serious concerns about both national security and
racial profiling. We already did the work to strike a reasonable
bipartisan compromise on this front, but Republicans are choosing to
undermine that bipartisanship with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Takano), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9456 would expand the kind of
transactions that the Secretary of Agriculture is required to report to
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., otherwise known as
CFIUS, including any farmland transaction by foreign persons from
China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran.
This broad definition of foreign persons would encompass all legal
immigrants and refugees from these countries and require the Secretary
to report on their agricultural land transactions.
This opens the door to treating immigrants as national security
threats solely because of their country of origin and harms Asian-
American communities across the board.
I recount that my own family, my father's family, was affected by the
alien land laws that were prevalent on the West Coast of the United
States. My grandfather, Esal Takano, emigrated to this country through
the Port of Tacoma, and he married my American-born grandmother. He was
not able to purchase land in his own name. In fact, in the mid-1930s,
he purchased five acres of land in my grandmother's name because she
was an American citizen. My uncle, who was returning in uniform from
the 442nd Infantry, notified the family that there was a lien against
the property, and they couldn't pay it in time because they were in
internment camps.
It is a terrible chapter in our history that this country passed
alien land laws that affected so many of the families that my family
knows.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House Rules permitted, I
would have offered a motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would add findings regarding the scapegoating of Asian
and Iranian Americans as a long part of U.S. history and show instances
of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders nationwide who have
experienced discrimination and unfair treatment.
We must send this bill back to committee and bring forth thoughtful
proposals that help our communities without putting our national
security at risk.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text
of this amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Agriculture Foreign Investments Disclosure Act of 1978 already
requires that all foreign persons and legal entities acquiring or
transferring an interest in U.S. agricultural property submit a report
to USDA containing the information on the transaction of the parties
involved. That is present law.
CFIUS can already use this data when considering potential national
security risks in determining whether a transaction is covered by its
jurisdiction.
This bill does not change that jurisdiction. What this bill does is
formally establish a referral system between USDA's current monitoring
of land purchases and CFIUS in order to target our adversaries and
avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
The bill singles out purchases involving the People's Republic of
China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. It is the governments of these
nonfree societies that are our threats, and it is their manipulation of
their people that are the threats we try to address.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Self).
Mr. SELF. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, it is no secret that China intends to take over
America and become the world's superpower. It is all about control for
the Chinese. They want to control our prices and our supplies. For the
past few years, they have been on a spending spree, buying farmland
across the United States.

Today, one in four pigs raised in the United States is owned by the
Chinese, and 18 beef and 12 pork establishments have been given export
licenses by the Chinese Government.
Even more alarming, not only do they intend to buy this land for
their own benefit, but they also try to use these shell companies to
buy land near classified military sites. One of the attempted purchases
was in my district.
The Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act is
an important step to stop this from happening. We must pass this
legislation to permanently add the Secretary of Agriculture to the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and to take
necessary actions to prohibit the purchase of U.S. agricultural land by
foreign adversaries.
If we fail to act now, we risk more than just losing land. We risk
the Chinese Communist Party controlling our future.

[[Page H5171]]

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Several groups have come out in opposition to this bill over concerns
of racial discrimination and profiling, including the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus, the National Iranian American Council,
the Stop AAPI Hate, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National
Council of Asian Pacific Americans, the Asian American Scholar Forum,
and the American Civil Liberties Union.

{time} 1245

For example, according to the American Civil Liberties Union:

This legislation discriminates and targets individuals
solely because of their citizenship and tends to conflate
individuals from covered countries with their governments. It
does this despite the lack of any showing that it is
necessary or that passing this bill would do anything to
protect U.S. national security interests.

According to the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus:

H.R. 9456 is not an effective way to address national
security. It is a continuation of our Nation's shameful
history in enacting racist alien land laws from the 19th and
20th century that barred Chinese and Japanese immigrants from
purchasing land and which eventually laid the groundwork for
mass incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World
War II.

We cannot go back to those shameful parts of our history where we
denied equal protections and due process for entire ethnic groups
simply because of their ethnic heritage.
The bipartisan language that we already passed into law appropriately
tailors reporting from the Secretary of Agriculture to include only
those transactions that have a national security nexus, including
transactions that involve foreign governments or entities of concern,
which is defined to include foreign terrorist organizations or
sanctioned entities on the Treasury Department's economic and trade
sanctions lists.
The law also provides support to the Secretary of Agriculture from
the United States intelligence community to determine which
transactions may pose a national security concern.
This bill overturns that bipartisan compromise and would treat
refugees and legal immigrants from any of these countries in the same
manner as known terrorist groups.
This is outrageous. I hope that both sides of the aisle will do what
is right, do what is fair, and recognize the history that we are not
proud of as it relates to racial profiling.
I hope that we would do the right thing on this bill. This bill
should not be passed. We have already done what was needed in a
bipartisan way. I don't know why they would take time to undermine the
work that we did, and I certainly want a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from
Michigan, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this is a process that combines two good pieces of
legislation. This is a process that takes what we successfully did in
appropriations, which means an annual process of renewal, and it makes
it permanent law.
This is an acknowledgement that Congress recognizes the importance of
making this statute permanent, not just a part of annual funding
language. It is hard for me to imagine why we wouldn't support this. It
is just difficult to imagine.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Moolenaar).
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Madam Speaker, food security is national security. The
Chinese Communist Party understands this.
That is why Xi Jinping has labeled food security a national priority,
and CCP-aligned companies have amassed thousands of acres of American
farmland.
When the CCP looks at U.S. farmland, it sees a strategic asset. Once
acquired, it will be used to enhance Chinese national security and
undermine our own.
This is because there is no such thing as a private company in China.
Under their national security laws, private companies are required to
help the Chinese Government and military upon request. It is certainly
not a coincidence that so much of the farmland Chinese companies
acquire are next to American military bases or critical infrastructure.
China would never allow U.S. firms to buy land near Chinese military
bases. To protect our national security, we need to do the same.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Newhouse's
Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act to do just
that.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague across the aisle has pointed out that the language that
we passed into law as part of the Appropriations Act just 6 months ago
may expire along with the appropriations.
While that may be the case, it is simply false to claim that all this
bill would do is ensure that the language survives past that
expiration. If that were all this bill were doing, I would support it,
the same way I supported that language before.
In fact, I would urge Republicans to bring a bill to the floor that
would exclusively eliminate any expiration on the bipartisan language
that we have already passed so that we can continue to work in a
bipartisan manner on this issue, instead of moving this harmful bill
that we are considering here today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Baird), one of my fellow farmers, who understands these
issues from the tractor seat and the field.
Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, when we talk about land for farmers and
ranchers, we are really talking about that top eight inches of soil,
which for some of you that may not recognize, that we consider that a
living, breathing organism because of the organisms there and the
complex chemistry that takes place, the nutrient exchange that grow the
plants that rise above the surface.
I compliment our farmers and ranchers. We have spent a great deal of
time and money and effort for conservation programs to protect that top
eight inches of soil.
When we talk about land, we are also referring to a very precious
resource. Since we have invested so much time and effort to make sure
that we preserve that land, we are not interested in letting our
adversaries have access to that.

In that vein, in Indiana, foreign investors own and lease about
400,000 acres of agricultural land. When I talk about agricultural
land, I am talking about the land that either produces crops, forestry,
pasture forages, and that sort of thing.
Some of them do not pose a real threat; however, foreign adversaries,
including Communist China, are buying up farmland. Investors from Cuba,
Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela under the Maduro regime, as I
heard our speaker mention a minute ago, hold about 95,000 acres of
American agricultural land, but between 2010 and 2021, just the last
decade or so, individuals or entities affiliated with the Communist
China increased ownership of our agricultural land from 13,000 acres to
383,000 acres. That is a tenfold increase.
We need to be conscious of that, we need to be aware of that, and we
don't need to let our adversaries have that.
What is even more concerning is that the Chinese-owned entities have
purchased farmland near at least 19 of our military bases. This
strategically placed land could be used by the Chinese Communist Party
to surveil our military sites. This is a huge national security threat.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Hinson). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, our adversaries are buying up our farmland.
I mentioned that. The U.S. is currently losing 175 acres of farm and
ranchland every hour for housing and other industries. The reduction in
the amount of land for sale is contributing to the higher prices of
land as well as making it harder for young farmers to access quality
land.
We cannot keep burning the candle at both ends and allow our
adversaries to purchase land when the American

[[Page H5172]]

farmers are struggling to do so. Ultimately, food security, as has
already been mentioned, is national security. We must ensure a resource
as precious as our farmland cannot be exploited or purchased by our
adversaries.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I laid out in my opening remarks, this bill confusingly duplicates
and conflicts with existing law.
To be clear, this bill would add new language rather than amending
the existing language that is already in law. Having two conflicting
laws creates significant legal ambiguity as to how to interpret these
competing texts.
It would undoubtedly result in litigation as agencies struggle to
determine what their legal obligations are, tying up limited resources
at both CFIUS and the Department of Agriculture.
This hastily written text does not appear to have appropriately taken
into account the resulting legal ambiguities, and I would urge all of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to, at the very least,
take the time to address these legal ambiguities and provide a clear
mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa,
I will simply note that like all legislative processes with the
signature of the President on this piece of legislation, it will
supersede the appropriated law. It will be straightforward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs.
Hinson)
Mrs. HINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Protecting the American
Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act. I thank Representative
Newhouse for his continued leadership on this issue. I am proud to have
helped introduce this important piece of legislation to protect our
food supply from foreign adversaries like Communist China.
China does continue to buy up American farmland at an alarming rate.
They are aiming to gain control of our food and fuel supply chains,
stealing American intellectual property, and strategically purchasing
land near sensitive sites.
China doesn't even allow its own citizens to own land, but we have
allowed China to purchase nearly 350,000 acres of our agriculture land.
Our adversaries will stop at nothing to disrupt critical industries
like agriculture, and this bill will help us to block transactions that
are a threat to our national security.
By ensuring that the Secretary of Agriculture has a seat at the table
at CFIUS, foreign transactions involving agricultural assets will
receive proper oversight so that we can prevent our adversaries from
continuing to undermine our food supply and national security.
In Iowa, we know our land is sacred. Iowa farmers truly do feed and
fuel the world, so we cannot allow the CCP to continue buying up our
most valuable resource.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this good piece of
legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
H.R. 9456 undercuts not only a bipartisan accomplishment from 6
months ago, but also our government's ability to stop adversarial
countries like China and Russia from acquiring companies, technology,
and land that are critical to our national security.
This bill will also cause financial harm to lawful, permanent
residents and other immigrants based solely on an investor's
citizenship.
Members of this body considered this issue just 6 months ago, passing
bipartisan legislation to add the expertise of the Secretary of the
USDA to CFIUS and improving the process by which agricultural land
transactions are shared with and reviewed by the government.

{time} 1300

That bill was drafted in coordination with the Biden-Harris
administration as well as Democrats and Republicans in the House and
Senate. It was passed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2024. There is no need to rewrite this law.
H.R. 9456 is a rush job by the House Republican leadership, and it
shows how harmful this bill is to both our national security and the
people who we serve.
I would just say to my colleagues that if you are really concerned
about security, if you really want to support ag and the farmers, why
did you just pull the continuing resolution that we were supposed to
take up to continue government functioning?
Now, I guess you don't have the votes, and you are doing nothing to
protect the very people who you purport to want to protect. Wow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would note, as I conclude with my comments and yield
back also, there have been many occasions when the good lady, the
ranking member of the full committee, and I have battled over issues,
and there have been occasions when we have been in the same trenches,
fighting in the same direction on policy. I would say that she is
always a very worthwhile adversary and just a pretty viciously
effective ally on those rare occasions, but today, we disagree. We
disagree.
I believe Americans have long recognized that a resilient food supply
is essential to national security, which is why the rise of foreign
investments in our Nation's farmlands deserves increased scrutiny.
We have seen our geopolitical adversaries, China in particular, are
eager to exploit vulnerabilities in critical supply chains. Investment
from China poses a unique risk to the American economy, and the Chinese
Communist Party exercises immense control and influence over Chinese-
owned companies operating abroad.
This bill recognizes that a national security framework that excludes
agriculture is incomplete.
In my own State of Oklahoma, foreign land ownership has been against
the law for decades and decades, but my State officials tell me that
with the web of LLCs and trusts and a variety of other legal
mechanisms, they have a difficult time in enforcing that.
This piece of legislation today is one of many pieces of the puzzle
to bring this to a focus. If you care about the security of this great
Nation and if you care about building on actions that we have taken in
this Congress before, then I urge you to vote for this bill. Make
permanent law what is now an annual appropriation-type process. I think
it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
discriminatory and unnecessary legislation.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) is currently
empowered to examine foreign investments related to agriculture.
This legislation would continue to exacerbate anti-Asian hate and
xenophobia. This legislation mirrors the discriminatory real-estate
laws proposed in many States, including my home State of Texas.
As a staunch opponent of invidious discrimination, I have introduced
legislation, H.R. 3697--Preemption of Real Property Discrimination Act,
which would preempt these unacceptable State laws that seek to deny
foreign citizens the opportunity to acquire real property in the United
States.
Congress must reject all attempts to exacerbate the already
intolerable levels of xenophobia in our Nation.
Diversity is a benefit, not a detriment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Van Drew). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1430, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Tanko of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
9456 to the Committee on Financial Services.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Takano is as follows:

Mr. Takano moves to recommit the bill H.R. 9456 to the
Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Insert after section 1 the following:

[[Page H5173]]

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The scapegoating of Asian and Iranian Americans for our
nation's problems has long been part of U.S. history--and
history has shown us that heightened xenophobia creates a
cycle which leads to violence. Since the 19th century, Asian
Americans have been unjustly targeted through the Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882, the ``Yellow Peril'' era lynchings of
Chinese immigrants, exclusionary alien land laws, the
incarceration of 120,000 innocent Japanese Americans during
World War II, the murder of Vincent Chin, the mass
surveillance of Muslim, Middle Eastern, Arab, Sikh, and South
Asian communities in the aftermath of 9/11, and the racial
profiling of Chinese American scientists under the China
Initiative.
(2) Today, nearly half (49%) of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders nationwide have experienced discrimination or
unfair treatment that may be illegal.
(3) Since March 2020, over 11,500 anti-Asian hate crimes
and incidents have been reported to Stop AAPI Hate.
(4) 58% of Asian American adults say they have experienced
racial discrimination or been treated unfairly because of
their race or ethnicity.
(5) 78% of Asian adults have been treated as a foreigner in
some way, even if they are U.S. born.
(6) A majority of Iranian Americans say that they or
someone they are close to has experienced discrimination.
(7) Six in 10 Iranian Americans are concerned about
increasing discrimination against and the personal safety of
Iranian Americans.
(8) It has been widely reported that implementation of laws
restricting or prohibiting foreign persons from China,
Russia, North Korea, and Iran, including refugees and green
card holders, from purchasing property and land in 22 Sates
across the country have contributed to racial profiling,
xenophobia and discrimination lawsuits.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
racial profiling and xenophobia have no place in America,
that hate crimes against the Iranian American, Asian
American, and Pacific Islander communities have increased,
and that Congress should not pass laws that codify or
perpetuate discrimination.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________