Foreign ownership of land in North Dakota has been a major concern recently. Learn why a North Dakota Senator has introduced a bill prohibiting foreign adversaries from owning land in our state.
Senator Bob Paulson of Minot has introduced Senate Bill 2371, which would prohibit United States adversaries from owning land in our state.
Senator Paulson is a retired Navy pilot and rancher. He served in the House from 2019 to 2022 and is serving his first term as a senator.
Several other bills pertaining to foreign ownership of land have been introduced, however, NDFB's Legislative Task Force determined that Senator Paulson's bill was the best one to support.
Other bills addressing foreign ownership include:
SB 2371 is in a committee hearing as this episode is being posted.
To see bill updates or amendments, click on the links to the bills.
Contact Senator Paulson at bpaulson@ndlegis.gov
Contact host Emmery Mehlhoff at emmery@ndfb.org
To learn more about NDFB's work in the Legislature or positions on issues, visit ndfb.org/policy/
Foreign ownership of land in North Dakota has been a major concern recently. Learn why a North Dakota Senator has introduced a bill prohibiting foreign adversaries from owning land in our state.
Senator Bob Paulson of Minot has introduced Senate Bill 2371, which would prohibit United States adversaries from owning land in our state.
Senator Paulson is a retired Navy pilot and rancher. He served in the House from 2019 to 2022 and is serving his first term as a senator.
Several other bills pertaining to foreign ownership of land have been introduced, however, NDFB's Legislative Task Force determined that Senator Paulson's bill was the best one to support.
Other bills addressing foreign ownership include:
SB 2371 is in a committee hearing as this episode is being posted.
To see bill updates or amendments, click on the links to the bills.
Contact Senator Paulson at bpaulson@ndlegis.gov
Contact host Emmery Mehlhoff at emmery@ndfb.org
To learn more about NDFB's work in the Legislature or positions on issues, visit ndfb.org/policy/
[Straight Talk theme music]
Emmery Mehlhoff: Welcome to Straight talk with NDFB. This is your host, Emmery Mehlhoff. In today's episode, I visit with Senator Bob Paulson from Minot, North Dakota. Senator Paulson represents District Three and is a retired Navy pilot. In this episode, we visit about Senate Bill 2371, a bill to prohibit our foreign adversaries from owning real property in North Dakota. We talk about what a foreign adversary is and North Dakota's state and food security. North Dakota Farm Bureau's Legislative Task Force considered all of the bills regarding foreign ownership of land in North Dakota and decided to support Senate Bill 2371. Join us for this conversation.
[Straight Talk stinger]
Emmery: Welcome to Straight talk with NDFB. Today I have Senator Bob Paulson from Minot, North Dakota. How are you, Senator?
Rep. Paulson: I'm doing well. How are you?
Emmery: I'm well. So you're retired from the Navy? Correct. And you have some cows and you represent your constituents from Minot. Go ahead, introduce yourself. Tell our listeners about who you are.
Rep. Paulson: Okay, yeah, you had that all accurate. Senator Bob Paulson, retired Navy pilot, 24 years in the Navy, and now we live on a farmstead southeast of Minot and love it there. Got some animals raising some kids and and decided to run for the House in 2018. So I served a term in the House two sessions and then ran for election to the Senate. So I'm once again the new guy.
Emmery: So you have a hearing coming up on a piece of legislation that North Dakota Farm Bureau is supporting regarding the foreign ownership of agricultural land. So could you tell us about the bill, what the bill is and what it addresses?
Rep. Paulson: You bet. So it's Senate Bill 2371, and the first thing I got to say is it's not an original thought with me from me. This was brought to me by others, but they didn't have to twist my arm very hard because it's an issue that I definitely felt needed to be addressed, just wasn't sure how to do it. So when they brought me some ideas and asked me if I'd bring them forward, I said yes. And obviously the initial target was concerns over Fufeng in Grand Forks, both from a national security and ultimately potentially a food security perspective. And so that's what the bill was written to address. So now Fufeng is apparently dead. I understand the city council voted on that last night, and by the same token, there's nothing that says the same thing couldn't happen again.
Emmery: This is a hot topic this session. You have this bill addressing the issue of foreign ownership, but it's not the only bill. There are three other bills in the Legislature, and from my experience, when there are multiple bills, especially more than two, it's evidence that there is a concern in the countryside, not just from the legislators like yourself, but from constituents who are concerned about the issue.
Rep. Paulson: Right.
Emmery: So, Senator Paulson, tell us about your bill. What makes it unique from the other ones and what it addresses.
Rep. Paulson: So we looked at a lot of different states and what they have been doing in regard to this. We're certainly not the only state that's looking at this issue. And one of the things that was, I think important that we grabbed onto was to not focus on a country per se, to not use the word China, to not use the word Communist, but simply address real property being owned by countries who have been identified as foreign adversaries. And so that comes out of the Federal Code 15 CFR. And I think for one thing, it'll continue to be updated so we don't need to worry about updating our laws if foreign adversaries change. And it's something that's been identified at the federal level. And so the bill is pretty simple. It just provides that no real property in this state can be owned by a foreign adversary or anybody who represents them.
Emmery: Is there a way in which your previous military experience shed some light on this issue?
Rep. Paulson: Well, I definitely looked at foreign adversaries on a regular basis when I was in the Navy. As far as tactically, it was not a new concept to me and I like the fact that the bill uses that language. And then there are other provisions that specifically talk about a board of county Commissioners or home rule, county or city commissioners or city council can't approve development agreements, building plans, et cetera, with a foreign adversary. And so that was specifically written toward the Fufeng issue. But I think it remains valid even in the absence of that because I think it's important that we make sure that foreign adversaries aren't buying up our land and potentially creating a national security issue or a food security issue.
Emmery: What about companies that have ownership? There's Chinese ownership or they're owned by a corporation that is housed in China? Or is it just the government that we're talking about here?
Rep. Paulson: No, that is addressed in the bill. A foreign business entity that is headquartered in a country that's a foreign adversary or directly or indirectly held or controlled by a foreign adversary owned by the majority of stock or other ownership interests of which is held or controlled by individuals who are citizens of a foreign adversary. So I think it's pretty thorough in addressing that. And you know, the the other foreign adversaries is listed in 15 CFR in addition to China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuelan Maduro regime.
Emmery: It is interesting to think about because I mean, as far as I know, we can't go buy land in their country.... [laughter]
Rep. Paulson: Right. And I understand there's going to be some pushback from another company in Grand Forks that owns property that would be affected by this bill. And from my perspective, there's all types of business arrangements that can be set up. And so I see no reason why if they do own real property, they can't sell that real property to a U.S citizen or company and then lease it back. I think the issue is when they own the real property then they call the shots and from my perspective, that's what we want to avoid.
Emmery: In the agricultural world, we talk about this quite a bit, the line that we have to dance between wanting to bring in investment and capital into our infrastructure, particularly our agricultural infrastructure and it gets pretty controversial, particularly since China in particular has such an ownership in a lot of the agricultural commodities. Like you look at the pork production... I mean what do you say to those who were saying foreign investments help build our agricultural commodity? It's supposed to bring in a soy plant. It was supposed to create a whole bunch of jobs. It was supposed to give us a better basis for our soybeans. What is your response to that?
Rep. Paulson: Right. I would say that 2371 does not in any way prevent that. They can bring their capital in. They can be involved in our commerce. They just can't own real property. And so I think that we would like them to be involved in all those things. But at the end of the day, from my perspective, I would like the real property that they conduct that business on to be owned by a North Dakota citizen.
Emmery: So do we have any property right now in North Dakota that is owned by one of our foreign adversaries? You mentioned the company that owns some real estate.
Rep. Paulson: Right. And I can't really speak to that because until I was just recently told about them I didn't know about them. Who else do I not know about? That's unknown to me but I think it's something that we need to look at ending and so if they are out there then this bill is going to create the mechanism to say we need you to do that in a different fashion.
Emmery: So we're looking at not just agricultural property here but we're looking at all real estate?
Rep. Paulson: That's correct. They can't hold title to real property in North Dakota.
Emmery: So this is retroactive, then? So if you own real estate now, this will affect you if you're China? China's listening and they own property, is this still going to disallow that?
Rep. Paulson: I don't know what the impact will be retroactively. The one Fufeng issue we did put language in here that says any ordinance previously adopted by a county or city which is contrary to this section is void. So I think that if it's something that's already developed and closed and a done deal then they won't be impacted by those sections it wouldn't seem to me, but I think that for sure it will prevent this going forward.
Emmery: So you mentioned how it affects our national security and our state security the concern of our adversaries owning property in our state and I think that has been the most prevalent in people's mind, particularly thinking about our air force base, et cetera, but you mentioned our food security. Can you touch a little bit more on what you mean by that?
Rep. Paulson: Sure. I think there are a lot of indicators by different folks buying up farmland around the country and then beginning to talk about how we need to eat, for lack of a better term, manufactured meat, or products that are not grown from the ground or animals that graze the ground, that we want to end that and replace them with something artificial. And I have a lot of concern over that. I like red meat. I have no intention of eating any manufactured meat. And so I would not want to be in a position where someone owned enough of our agricultural land, either in North Dakota or in our country where they said, "Nope! This is how we're going to do it now. This is what you're going to eat, and we're in control of that." I would rather see a lot of small farms feeding themselves and their local areas as opposed to these organizations that obviously, if they're a foreign adversary, they do not have our best interest in mind, and I certainly don't want them controlling our access to food.
Emmery: We see such a global shift in our food production, and you don't really think too much about it most of the time because it looks efficient, right? Like, why shouldn't the people who are the best at something or the fastest at something be in charge of making it? But then when you run into issues like COVID, you might stop and kind of wonder a little bit like, oh, what is our food chain look like and what's at stake there?
Rep. Paulson: I think that opened our eyes to a whole bunch of things.
Emmery: Do you have any thoughts on particularly Chinese ownership in more of our pork industry? Do you have any thoughts on that? I know that doesn't directly relate to your bill here.
Rep. Paulson: Right. Do you mean in the companies that produce it or process it, or do you mean in agricultural land?
Emmery: The companies that produce it and process it.
Rep. Paulson: Yeah, I think my main concern there would be if they get to the percentage of ownership where they control what we're able to buy in the store, that would be of concern to me. I think, like you indicated earlier, we want investment in North Dakota, and if that comes from a foreign source and that's helpful to North Dakota citizens, then I'm okay with that as long as we're careful that it doesn't get to the point where they get to call the shots on what we eat.
Emmery: I really like this clarification that you're making; the difference between the investment of money or the investment of capital into something. So whether that's a company producing pork or whether that's a company that's producing fake meat, for example, if that's doing that, distinguishing between that and land ownership is really interesting to me because we know this as ranchers and as Americans like property ownership. Land ownership, that's the fundamental thing that makes the United States so great, is that you can own property and you can produce something for yourself. And so seeing the land is directly tied to the means of production and protecting that, I really like that distinction you're making.
Well, thank you again, Senator Paulson. I really appreciate your time and thank you for representing us and taking your experience from the military and from your experience as a land and animal owner to the capitol and looking out for North Dakota's best interests.
Rep. Paulson: It's an honor to serve, and I appreciate you having me.
[Straight Talk stinger]
Emmery: You've been listening to Straight Talk with NDFB. You can find more information about Senate Bill 23 71 and other bills regarding foreign ownership of land in North Dakota in the show notes. If you're interested in getting updates on the issues NDFB is tracking during legislative sessions, visit us at ndfb.org.
[Straight Talk theme music]