Selected Recent Actions Involving Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

January 5, 2024 R47893

Selected Recent Actions Involving Foreign
Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and
Agriculture: In Brief
January 5, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R47893

link to page 3 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

he 118th Congress has continued to debate the appropriate role of foreign ownership and
investment in the U.S. food and agriculture sector. Some in Congress view foreign
T ownership and investment in the U.S. food and agriculture sector as a potential national
security threat and maintain that additional restrictions and monitoring may be needed to prevent
certain foreign adversaries from gaining an advantage over U.S. capabilities and resources.1 Some
Members of Congress have introduced legislative proposals to restrict foreign ownership of U.S.
agricultural land and to require additional U.S. government scrutiny and oversight of foreign
investment and ownership in the U.S. food and agriculture sector. Congress has continued to
debate a range of policy options and has enacted additional reporting requirements for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) related to foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land, as
reflected in annual appropriations directives and other congressional actions.2 Other proposed
legislative changes would enhance U.S. government oversight and expand the current
membership of the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
to include USDA and other agencies.3
Selected Legislative Efforts to Amend Existing Authorities
Some Members of Congress have introduced a series of bills that would amend existing federal
law to impose additional requirements on and review of foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural
land and/or foreign investment in the U.S. food and beverage industry. Many of these bills build
on or reintroduce legislative proposals considered in the 117th Congress. Introduced bills broadly
fall into four categories and span oversight involving USDA and other federal agencies.
Legislative proposals in the 118th Congress include the following:
• Tighten USDA Foreign Investment Disclosure Requirements. Current USDA
disclosure requirements under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure
Act of 1978 (AFIDA; P.L. 95-460; 7 U.S.C. §§3501-3508) provide that “any
foreign person who acquires or transfers any interest, other than a security
interest, in agricultural land” submit a report to USDA within 90 days after the
date of such acquisition or transfer. USDA tracks this information and reports
data annually to Congress.4 Bills in the 118th Congress that would amend AFIDA
include H.R. 344, H.R. 809, H.R. 1789, H.R. 3357/S. 926, S. 1136, S. 1066, H.R.
6469/S. 2382, and H.R. 5078/S. 2060. Generally, the bills seek to update USDA’s
disclosure requirements (including who is required to report), increase penalties
for failure to disclose, and require additional reporting and analysis by USDA,
among other changes.
• Restrict Access to USDA Farm Support Programs by Foreign Persons and
Entities. Current restrictions apply to foreign persons under some USDA

1 See, for example, comments during U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Foreign Ownership in U.S. Agriculture, hearing, 118th Cong., 1st sess., September 27, 2023.
2 For more background, see CRS In Focus IF11977, Foreign Ownership and Holdings of U.S. Agricultural Land, and
CRS In Focus IF12312, Foreign Ownership of U.S. Agriculture: Selected Policy Options.
3 For more background on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), see CRS In Focus
IF11684, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan: A First Look, CRS In Focus IF12415, CFIUS Executive Order on Evolving
National Security Risks and CFIUS Enforcement Guidelines, and CRS In Focus IF10177, The Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States.
4 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) annual reports are available at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-
services/economic-and-policy-analysis/afida/index.
Congressional Research Service

1

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

programs but not others.5 For example, current law imposes no specific eligibility
restrictions on foreign persons for crop and livestock insurance premium
subsidies; however, foreign persons are not eligible for Supplemental Disaster
Assistance. Foreign persons (other than registered aliens) must meet certain
criteria to receive USDA commodity and conservation program benefits.
Recipients of most USDA loans must be a U.S. citizen, noncitizen national, or a
qualified alien; recipients of most USDA grants must be domestic entities owned,
operated, and located within the United States and U.S. territories. Bills in the
118th Congress that would further limit access to USDA programs include H.R.
3357/S. 926 and S. 1066.
• Expand Federal Review of Foreign Investment Transactions. Current
membership of the interagency CFIUS, as governed by Section 721 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA; 50 U.S.C. §4565), does not include the
Secretaries of USDA or the Department of Health and Human Services, among
other officials.6 Bills in the 118th Congress that would expand CFIUS
membership or CFIUS review of transactions in the U.S. food and agriculture
sectors include H.R. 513/S. 68, H.R. 558, H.R. 683/S. 168, H.R. 917/S. 369, H.R.
1448, H.R. 3378, H.R. 4577, S. 1066, S. 2312, S. 3077, and H.R. 5078/S. 2060.
• Prohibit U.S. Agricultural Land Purchases by Certain Foreign Adversaries
or Establish Other Restrictions. Current federal law imposes no restrictions on
the amount of private U.S. agricultural land that can be foreign-owned. Bills in
the 118th Congress that would establish additional restrictions include H.R. 212,
H.R. 344, H.R. 683/S. 168, H.R. 809, H.R. 840, H.R. 917/S. 369, H.R. 1448,
H.R. 3357/S. 926, S. 684, and S. 1136.
In September 2023, the Senate Agriculture Committee conducted a hearing, Foreign Ownership
in U.S. Agriculture.7 The hearing highlighted a range of concerns but focused on China’s foreign
investment strategy. Some claim that China has shifted its strategy since the early 2000s to now
include the acquisition of U.S. agribusinesses, highlighting the need to monitor and evaluate
industry consolidation, further business acquisitions, and concerns surrounding intellectual
property in the agri-food sector.8 A USDA representative testified that some at USDA agree the
Department should be a CFIUS member while noting that USDA currently serves in an ad-hoc
role and shares information with CFIUS when called upon. The representative further noted that
USDA has not received funding from Congress to be able to implement its efforts to modernize
its data collection process under AFIDA.9

5 See USDA, “Foreign Persons: Frequently Asked Questions,” https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/
payment-eligibility/foreign_persons/index, and USDA, “Payment Eligibility and Payment Limitations,” fact sheet,
April 2021, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/payment-elligibility-limitations-
factsheet.pdf. See also CRS Report R46248, U.S. Farm Programs: Eligibility and Payment Limits.
6 See CRS In Focus IF10177, The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Background on CFIUS is
available at U.S. Department of the Treasury, “The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),”
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius.
7 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Foreign Ownership in U.S. Agriculture,
hearing, 118th Cong., 1st sess., September 27, 2023.
8 Ibid. Comments from Harrison Pittman, Director of the National Agricultural Law Center, University of Arkansas.
9 Ibid. Comments from Gloria Montaño Greene, Deputy Under Secretary Farm Production and Conservation, USDA.
Congressional Research Service

2

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

Opportunities for the House and Senate Agriculture Committees to take up foreign ownership of
U.S. agricultural land as part of farm bill reauthorization remain unclear. Congress may
separately consider legislative changes to USDA or other federal agency authorities as separate
stand‐alone actions outside the farm bill.
Selected Directives in Agriculture Appropriation Acts
Congress has enacted provisions in previous agriculture appropriations acts regarding foreign
ownership of U.S. agricultural land and its possible impacts on the U.S. food and agricultural
industries.
• The FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-328, §773) required
USDA to report on the impact of foreign investments in U.S. agricultural land on
“family farms, rural communities, and the domestic food supply.” It also directed
USDA to establish within three years a “streamlined process for electronic
submission and retention of disclosures,” including an “internet database” with
“disaggregated data from each disclosure submitted” under AFIDA.
• The FY2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-103) explanatory
statement directed USDA to report on trends related to land owned or partially
owned by the governments of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, as well as “the
potential impacts caused by such foreign ownership on the American agricultural
sector, food security, and rural economies.”10
The House-reported and Senate-passed FY2024 Agriculture appropriations bills also included
related provisions. The committee report accompanying the Senate-reported FY2024 bill (S.
2131) expressed congressional concerns that USDA has failed to assess penalties for a failure to
disclose foreign investments in U.S. agricultural land under AFIDA. The report also directed
USDA to report back on its efforts to “ensure that foreign investments are being accurately
disclosed, including an analysis of any barriers USDA faces in conducting oversight of these
purchases and planned steps for overcoming these challenges.”11
The House-reported FY2024 bill (H.R. 4368) included two provisions regarding foreign
ownership of U.S. agricultural land. Section 747 included language similar to that in the FY2023
act clarifying that USDA has two years to establish a “streamlined process for electronic
submission and retention of disclosures” under AFIDA. Section 765 directed USDA to “take such
actions as may be necessary to prohibit the purchase of agricultural land located in the United
States by non-resident aliens, foreign businesses, or any agent, trustee, or fiduciary associated
with Russia, North Korea, Iran, or the Communist Party of China.” These concerns were
reiterated in House committee report language that is the same as the Senate’s report language on

10 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Provisions Applying to All Divisions of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Comm. Print 47-047, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-
117HPRT47047/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT47047.pdf.
11 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2024, report to accompany S. 2131, 118th Cong., 1st sess.,
S.Rept. 118-44, June 22, 2023.
Congressional Research Service

3

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

the issue.12 The House-reported bill failed to pass the House;13 the status of the FY2024
provisions and the report language remains pending.
Proposed Changes in FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act
Congress considered but ultimately did not adopt as part of the National Defense Authorization
Act [NDAA] for Fiscal Year 2024 (P.L. 118-31) provisions that would have established additional
requirements related to potential national security threats related to foreign-owned agricultural
land. The House-passed NDAA provisions would have required the Department of Defense, in
conjunction with USDA, to submit a report to Congress on the national security threats of
foreign-owned agricultural land located within 50 miles of a U.S. military installation (H.R. 2670,
§1868). The Senate-passed NDAA provision (S. 2226, §1086) would have required review of
certain foreign-tied agriculture-related transactions by CFIUS and would have established certain
prohibitions on transactions made by certain foreign countries and entities tied to these countries
with respect to U.S. agricultural companies and real estate (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. §§4501 et
seq.).14 The conference report did not explain why the enacted law did not adopt either the House-
passed or the Senate-passed provision.15
House Select Committee Recommendations Involving Agriculture
In January 2023, the House established the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition
between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (H.Res. 11) to address concerns
about China’s “escalating aggression” and possible economic coercion. Some Members of the
House Select Committee have expressed their intention to address concerns regarding People’s
Republic of China (PRC) ownership of U.S. farmland focused on U.S. competition with China.
For example, at a February 2023 House Select Committee hearing, some Members highlighted
concerns about U.S. agricultural land purchases that are in close proximity to national security
assets and about food security as a national security concern.16
In December 2023, the House Select Committee released a series of recommendations in its
report, Reset, Prevent, Build: A Strategy to Win America’s Economic Competition with the
Chinese Communist Party.17 The report recommends that Congress enact legislation that would
codify USDA as a “voting member of CFIUS for cases that involve farmland or agriculture

12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2024, report to accompany H.R. 4368, 118th Cong., 1st sess.,
H.Rept. 118-124, June 27. 2023.
13 House of Representatives Roll Call vote number 408: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023408. See CRS Insight
IN12158, FY2024 Agriculture Appropriations: Status and Scope.
14 The Senate provision was added as a floor amendment (S.Amdt. 813 to S.Amdt. 935). Senate Roll Call vote number
197: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1181/vote_118_1_00197.htm.
15 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, conference report
to accompany H.R. 2670, 118th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 118-301, December 6, 2023, p. 1331. For other related
background, see World Trade Online, “Schumer Blasts House GOP for Blocking China-Focused Measures in NDAA,”
December 5, 2023.
16 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese
Communist Party, The Chinese Communist Party’s Threat to America, hearing, 118th Cong., 1st sess., February 28,
2023. Hearing transcript is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ZS/ZS00/20230228/115402/HHRG-118-ZS00-
Transcript-20230228.pdf.
17 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese
Communist Party, Reset, Prevent, Build: A Strategy To Win America’s Economic Competition With the Chinese
Communist Party, December 12, 2023, pp. 14-15.
Congressional Research Service

4

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

technology and allow the Secretary of Agriculture to flag potentially problematic land purchases
for CFIUS review.”18
The House Select Committee report also presents a series of recommendations related to
biotechnology, which could involve agricultural biotechnology. For example, the report
recommends Congress enact “authorities to allow the President to ban technology products and
services critical to national security from the U.S. market if they are owned, controlled, or
developed by a foreign adversary” and “prevent U.S. government funds, including loans or grant
funds, from being used to reimburse the use or purchase of biotechnology machines, products,
and services” from certain PRC- affiliated biotechnology entities and subsidiaries.19 The report
also recommends requiring the executive branch to “quickly establish general controls on critical
and emerging technology to foreign adversaries” including biotechnology, and requiring the
Department of State (through the Multilateral Action on Sensitive Technologies group, in
coordination with the Department of Commerce) to “negotiate expanded multilateral controls on
biotechnology” among other technologies.20 The report further recommends providing federal
funding for research that prioritizes “technologies that have implications for U.S. national
security and supply chain security, including but not limited to biotechnology” and other
technologies.21
Other language in the report raises concerns among some other Members and industry that such
actions, if approved by Congress, could alter the U.S. trade relationship with China because of
how the PRC might retaliate against U.S. industry in response to certain provisions.22
Specifically, in anticipation of potential PRC trade retaliation, the report notes the potential need
for USDA and the Office of the United States Trade Representative to “collaborate to determine
alternative market access for agriculture exports” that predominately rely on the China market. In
response, several farm groups sent a letter to the House Select Committee leadership expressing
concerns that the House Select Committee report language might result in Congress enacting
legislation to repeal China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations status,” which they claim would
negatively impact U.S. agriculture exports.23
Forthcoming GAO Report on AFIDA
In October 2022, Members of the House Agriculture Committee tasked the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) with conducting a review of AFIDA, of foreign investment in U.S.
agricultural land and its impacts, and of U.S. government efforts to monitor these farmland
acquisitions.24 To date, GAO’s report has not been published. The 2022 letter to GAO outlined a

18 Ibid., p. 31.
19 Ibid., p. 23.
20 Ibid., p. 29 and p. 30, respectively.
21 Ibid., p. 36.
22 See, for example, Doug Palmer and Gavin Bade, “House Select Committee Finalizes China Trade and Economic
Recommendations,” Politico, December 12, 2023.
23 Letter to Representatives Mike Gallagher and Raja Krishnamoorthi from several farm groups, December 12, 2023,
https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/2023/12/11/Farm-Groups-Warn-Impacts-PNTR-12.12.23.pdf. The letter
cites an Oxford Economics Report that estimates further People’s Republic of China tariff retaliation could reduce U.S.
agricultural sales to China by 32% (Oxford Economics, The Impact of China PNTR Repeal and Increased Tariffs on
the U.S. Economy and American Jobs: A Report Prepared for the U.S.-China Business Council, November 2023, p. 25,
https://www.uschina.org/sites/default/files/the_economic_impact_of_china_pntr_repeal.pdf).
24 Letter from several House Representatives to Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General, Government Accountability
Office, October 1, 2022, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/
20221001_GAO_foreignlandownership.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

series of questions regarding trends in foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land, USDA’s data
collection and filing procedures under AFIDA, current USDA procedures for ensuring data
reliability and disclosure accuracy, use of the AFIDA data by federal authorities for determining if
foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land poses a threat to national security, options to improve
current AFIDA-related disclosure and reporting, and whether USDA should partner with other
federal departments or agencies to ensure accurate disclosure of foreign-owned agricultural land.
GAO previously examined federal data collection on foreign investment in the United States,
including under AFIDA, in the 1980s.
USDA Request for Information on AFIDA Form Revisions
In December 2023, USDA issued a request for information (RFI) on proposed revisions to update
the AFIDA intake form (FSA-153 Form) used by foreign persons and entities to disclose
information on ownership, transfer, and investment in U.S. agricultural land.25 USDA also
prompted stakeholders to provide feedback and comment on whether any additional changes and
clarification related to the form are needed. USDA is to consider public input, which may result in
further regulatory changes and modification to the form.
Under AFIDA, coverage is defined by “any interest.” The term any interest refers to all
acquisitions, transfers, or holdings in agricultural lands by a foreign person, excluding security
interests or leaseholds of less than 10 years, contingent future interests, and noncontingent future
interests.26 Modifications proposed by USDA in December 2023 include adding information
related to long-term leases, including leaseholds involving foreign companies engaged in wind
energy and solar panels or photovoltaics. Currently, there are no specific questions about leases
on the form. USDA also asks in the RFI whether the definition of estimated value of the land
should be updated to reflect conditions related to leaseholds.
USDA’s RFI also poses a series of questions related to reporting by foreign owners, including
whether additional data should be captured beyond the third tier of ownership. As explained by
USDA, the first tier of ownership refers to a foreign person who actually holds the direct (title)
interest in the land, while the second tier refers to foreign persons holding a significant interest or
substantial control in the land.27 In turn, a second-tier entity may be required to provide
information about foreign persons who hold a significant interest or substantial share in that
entity.28 AFIDA regulations define significant interest or substantial control to mean a 10% or
more interest in the entity if held by a single foreign person or a group of foreign persons acting
in concert, or a 50% or more interest if held by a group of foreign persons not acting in concert,
none of whom individually holds a 10% or greater interest in that entity.29 However, as noted in a
1989 GAO report, the reported AFIDA data “may not always reflect the ultimate ownership of the
assets”; also, USDA “does not have legal authority to require disclosure beyond the third tier of

25 88 Federal Register 87385, December 18, 2023. The Farm Service Agency’s form is available at
https://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/FSA153.PDF. Foreign owners refer to investors who
buy, sell, or hold a direct or indirect interest in U.S. agricultural land (or who hold long-term leases on agricultural
land) and must report their holdings and transactions to USDA on the FSA–153 form.
26 48 Federal Register 35072, September 6, 1984; 7 C.F.R. §781.
27 USDA, Foreign Holdings of U.S. Agricultural Land, Through December 31, 2021, p. 3.
28 Ibid.
29 7 C.F.R. §781.
Congressional Research Service

6

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

ownership.”30 As such, there have been reports of foreign interests that are not readily tracked by
USDA under AFIDA.31
GAO notes that AFIDA data are “collected on an enterprise basis rather than an establishment
basis, meaning the parent corporation files a single report for the whole corporate family.”32
AFIDA data do not capture all individual shareholders, LLC members, or financial investors
(such as ownership under a real estate investment trust).
USDA’s RFI poses a series of questions related to the reporting by foreign owners, including
whether additional data should be captured beyond the third tier of ownership, among other
related questions. USDA further states it is “moving towards modernizing the collection of
information process, clarifying and modernizing the FSA-153 form” and “if funding becomes
available, creating an electronic submission system that will allow foreign owners to report by
filing electronically.”33
Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements
Effective January 1, 2024, businesses across all industries—including those in the food and
agricultural sectors—must file a Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report with the U.S.
Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. BOI reporting requirements
were enacted by Congress as part of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2021, which included the Corporate Transparency Act (P.L. 116-283,
Title LXIV, §6403). Given that many food and beverage businesses are privately owned, some
expect the food and beverage industry to be particularly impacted by BOI reporting
requirements.34
Under the reporting requirements, a beneficial owner is an individual who either (1) has
substantial control over a company or (2) owns 25% or more of the ownership interests of the
company.35 Foreign businesses that are registered to do business in the United States must also
report. Reporting companies include limited liability companies (LLCs, including single member
LLCs), S corporations, C corporations, limited partnerships, cooperatives, associations, and
certain trusts.36 Companies formed before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to
report their current beneficial owners. Companies created on or after January 1, 2024, must file
within 30 days of receiving notice that they are registered. Penalties for failure to report may not
exceed $500 for each day that the violation continues, up to $10,000.37

30 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Foreign Investment, Federal Data Collection on Foreign Investment in
the United States, GAO/NSIAD-90-25BR, October 1989, p. 15 (hereinafter cited as GAO/NSIAD-90-25BR).
31 See, for example, Jamie Grey et al., “Secret Acres: Foreign-owned agricultural land inaccurately tracked by
government,” WSAW-TV (Gray Media Group, Inc.), January 24, 2022.
32 GAO/NSIAD-90-25BR, p. 5.
33 Ibid.
34 See, for example, Chris Bardenhagen, “Corporate Transparency Act: Farm and Ag Businesses Must Report
Beginning January 1, 2024,” Michigan State University Extension, October 9, 2023 (hereinafter cited as Bardenhagen,
“Corporate Transparency Act”).
35 U.S. Department of Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen), “Beneficial Ownership Information
Reporting: Frequently Asked Questions,” https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs#D_1.
36 See, for example, Bardenhagen, “Corporate Transparency Act.”
37 For more background, see FinCen final regulation at 87 Federal Register 59498, September 30, 2022; 31 C.F.R.
§1010.380. FinCen rulemaking resource materials are at https://www.fincen.gov/boi/Reference-materials.
Congressional Research Service

7

Foreign Ownership and Investment in U.S. Food and Agriculture: In Brief

Author Information

Renée Johnson

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47893 · VERSION 1 · NEW
8

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jan. 5, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Agricultural Policy

Economic Policy

National Defense

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON