Foreign Investment in U.S. Industry

F O R E I G N I N V E S T M Z N T IN U.S.

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER

INDUSTRY

IB78091

AUTHOR:

Arlene Wilson

Economics Division

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

MAJOR

ISSUES SYSTEM

D A T E O R I G I N A T E D 12/13/78

D A T E UPDATED 10/18/82

FOR ADDITIONAL

I N F O R M A T I O N CALL 287-5700

1026

CRS- 1

I S S U E DEFINITICh'

Although the tocai amount of foreign direct investment (hereinafter called

FDI) in the U.S. is small relative to U.S.

direct investment abroad, it is

growing rapidly and may have a large effect on some industries and geographic

areas of the U.S.

The two main issues raised by FDI in the U.S. are first, shall Congress

require more extensive data collection efforts than a r e already underway, and

second, Should laws be enacted to limit foreign direct investment in the U.S.

These two issues turn in substantial measure

on whether

the benefits of

additional data collection and/or restrictions on FDI in the U.S. exceed

the

costs.

The purpose of this issue brief is to inform Congress of

the legislative

history of the issue, the magnitude and distribution of FDI in the U.S.,

the

existing data collection efforts, the potential implications for the U.S.,

the motivations for FDI in the U.S., and U.S. policy regarding FDI.

The data

in this issue brief refer to all foreign direct investment in the U.S.;

to

however, the isc cuss ion excludes for the most part those issues related

FDI in U.S.

farmland, which is the topic of IB78064.

BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS

Foreign investment is often divided

into two categories, namely,

(1)

direct investment where the investor exercises considerable control over

the

enterprise in which the investment has been

made, and

(2) portfolio, or

indirect, investment where the investor has little or no such control.

The

International Investment Survey Act of

1976 defines direct investment a s

(defined a s an

ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one person

individual, association, corporation, governmental body, etc.) of 10% or more

of the voting securities of a corporation or an equivalent

interest in an

unicorporated enterprise, and portfolio investment a s any

investment

other

than direct investment, including ownership of debt

obligations.

Except

where data are not separated in the Historical Perspective section below,

this issue brief is concerned only with

direct investment and not with

portfolio investment, since direct investment is currently of most concern.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

U.S. economic development was stimulated

by

foreign capital, primarily

British, French, Dutch, and Spanish.

In the early 1800s, U.S. railroads and

canals were financed largely by federal and state securities sold abroad

and

by 1854 foreign investors held about one-half of

the

existing

federal and

state securities.

Foreign investment in U.S. real estate and private

industry

(especially

communications, utilities, and industrial

corporations) became

substantial

by

large foreign investment in

toward the end

of

the 1800s, followed

petroleum around 1900-1905.

By 1914 total foreign investment in the U.S.

(including portfolio'and direct investment as well a s loans) was estimated to

be about $7 billion, compared with

U.S.

investment abroad of about $3.5

billion.

However, because loans to foreigners increased and

total foreign

CRS- 2

IB78091

~PDA~~-10/18/

investment in the U.S. declined during World War I to about

$4 biilion

by

1919, the U.S. became a net

creditcr

(in international

investment) -a

pcsition it stil; naintains.

LEGISLATIVE EISTORY

Foreign direct investment i n the U.S. increased very

gradually

until

it

was about $7.6 billion in 1 9 6 2 , but then almost doubled in the next d e c a d e ,

reaching $14.9 billion a t the end of 1972.

By t h e early P 9 7 0 s , the

increase

i n Japanese f o r e i g n direct investment and the potentially high

l e v e l of

OPEC's investable f u n d s led to Congressional a n d public

concern a b o u t

the

extent and effect of present and future FDI in the U.S.

The previous

survey

of FDI was conducted in 1 9 5 9 and although the d a t a were annually updated

and

published in the Survey of Current Business, they were thought to be

insufficient.

In the 93rd a n d 9 4 t h Congresses, 70 bills and resolutions were

introduced ranging from those

restricting or

prohibiting

certain

foreign

direct investment a t one extreme to those authorizing studies to obtain more

information.

F o r example:

o n e g r o u p of bills established a national f o r e i g n

investment control commission to prohibit or restrict

foreign persons

from

acquiring domestic securities deemed vital

to

the

economic security and

national d e f e n s e of the U.S.

Extensive policy review by

t h e Administration

i n 1 9 7 4 a n d 1 9 7 5 and

Congressional hearings were undertaken.

In g e n e r a l , the Administration's

position was that the existing restrictions o n f o r e i g n direct investment were

sufficient.

However, both the Administration a n d C o n g r e s s agreed that m o r e

extensive, timely data were necessary t o make informed analyses of t h e issue.

While n o restrictive l a w s were passed, the F o r e i g n Investment Survey Act

of 1 9 7 4 (P.L. 93-479) became l a w on Oct.

2 6 , 1974.

Under

this A c t , the

Secretary of Commerce w a s directed to conduct a comprehensive, overall

study

o f foreign direct investment i n t h e U.S. while t h e Secretary of T r e a s u r y was

authorized to d o the same f o r foreign portfolio investment i n the U.S.

Civil

penalties

were

included f o r failure t o provide

information, a n d

the

Secretaries o f Commerce and Treasury were required t o

submit a n interim

April

1976.

Three million

report by October 1 9 7 5 a n d a f u l l report by

dollars was authorized t o be appropriated to carry o u t the Act.

S i n c e under t h e Foreign Investment Survey Act of

1 9 7 4 the C o m m e r c e and

Treasury Secretaries' authority t o collect information expired when t h e study

w a s completed, the International Investment Survey Act o f 1 9 7 6 (P.L.

94-472)

w a s enacted o n Oct. 1 1 , 1976.

Under this a c t , t h e P r e s i d e n t i s directed

to

set up a regular a n d comprehensive data collection

program

and

to

conduct

periodic benchmark surveys o n direct and portfolio

investment, both

by

foreigners i n the U.S. and by U.S. investors abroad.

T h e President

is a l s o

to

directed t o conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing a system

monitor foreign direct investment in agricultural,

r u r a l , and

urban

real

property i n the U.S. and to submit the findings to Congress by October

1978.

The President delegated the responsibility' for the d i r e c t investment studies

t o the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce,

Civil

penalties a r e included for f a i l u r e to provide information and authorizations

for appropriations of $1 million for fiscal year

1 9 7 8 and

$ 1 million

for

fiscal year 1 9 7 9 were made.

Of the 3 4 bills and resolutions introduced i n the 9 5 t h Congress regarding

1 7 focused o n foreign investment in U.S.

farmland.

O n e of

these bills, S. 3 3 8 4 , became P.L. 95-460 o n Oct.

14, 1978

(discussed more

FDI in the U.S.,

CRS- 3

IB78091

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E - 1 0 / 1

17 bllls

elther restricted

fully in Issue Brlef

78064).

The remalnlng

fCreig3 0WnersP.ip of some types o r amounts of secur;:les

or resources,

0

r

amended

the

required

~ m p r o v e d disclosure of beneflclal

owners,

Ir.~ernat;orial Scrvey A c t of 1976.

The Domestic and Foreign Investment Improved Disclosure Act (Title I 1 of

S. 305), which became

P.L.

95-213 on Dec. 1 9 , 1 9 7 7 , requires expanded

disclosure to the SEC of beneficial owners (both foreign and domestic) of

securities.

On Sept.

2 2 , 1 9 7 8 , the

more than 5% of specified kinds of

Amendments to the International Investment Survey Act of 1976

(P.L.

95-381)

were approved.

These amendments increased the appropriation authorization

from $1 million to $ 4 million for the fiscal year ending Sept.

30, 1979,

extended the date for submission of the findings of the feasibility study

regarding the monitoring of agricultural, rural, and urban real property

to

October 1979, established a requirement for an interim report on the

feasibility study to be submitted by

October 1 9 7 8 , and nade other minor

changes.

In the 96th Congress, 25 bills relating to FDI in U.S.

industry were

introduced. Of these, 1 1 pertained to equalizing tax treatment

(especially

the capital gains tax) between

foreign and domestic investors, 7 were

concerned with improved data reporting and/or restrictions on FDI, authorized

appropriations to carry out the International Investment Survey Act of 1976,

and 2 were aimed a t stimulating FDI in U.S. industry.

T w o ~ l a w swere passed relating to FDI in the 96th Congress.

Section 23 of

Public Law 96-72 (the Export Administration Act of 1979), which became law on

Sept. 2 9 , 1979, authorized appropriations of $4.4.

million

for the fiscal

year ending Sept. 30, 1980 and $4.5 million for the fiscal year ending Sept.

The

3 0 , 1981 to carry out the International Investment Survey Act of 1976.

Foreign .Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1 9 8 0 , Subtitle C of Public Law

96-499 (H.R. 7765) was passed on Dec.

5 , 1980.

Subtitle C amended the

Internal Revenue Code of 1954 so that the gain or loss of a nonresident alien

individual or a foreign corporation from the disposition of a U.S.

real

property interest is treated a s if the foreign investor were engaged in a

trade or business within the U.S. and a s if such gain or loss were connected

with such trade or business.

Reporting requirements and penalties for

failure to comply were established.

A series of hearings on the operations of Federal agencies in monitoring,

reporting, and analyzing foreign investments in the United States were held

by the Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs

Subcommittee of the House

Committee on Government Operations i n 1 9 7 8 and 1979.

In a subsequent report,

published

in 1 9 8 0 , "The Adequacy of the Federal Response to Foreign

Investment in the United

States," it i s argued that the current data

collection efforts are inaccurate and incomplete, present policies and

foreign investment restrictions are inappropriate, and the Committee on

Foreign Investment in the U.S. does not adequately perform

the functions

assigned to it.

THE DATA

Although data on FDI in the U.S.

are collected by many government

agencies, they are compiled, analyzed, and made public only by the Bureau

of

Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Office of Foreign Investment in the U.S.

(OFIUS), both of which are units of the Department of Commerce.

CRS- 4

IB78091

U P D A T E - ~ O / ~

Pour studies b y BE.& are the main

scurces for comprehensive data.

The

f i r s t , a r.:ne-volume

study "Foreign Cirect Investment in the United S t a t e s , "

the Foreign

conducted b y :he Department of Commerce i n compliance w i t h

Investment Study Act of 1 9 7 4 (P.L. 9 3 - 4 7 9 1 , contains the most comprehensive

data. This s t u d y , hereinafter calied the 1 9 7 4 Benchmark Survey, was based on

firms as of 1 9 7 4 , a n C

a c o m p l e t e s u r v e y of foreign ownership of U.S.

indicated chat foreign companies do not hold a large share of any of the

major sectors of the U.S.

economy and that PDI is generally beneficial

to

t h e U.S.

S e c o n d l y , BEA publishes a n annual article in the Survey of Current

Business which, based on a sample of f i r m s , updates the latest Benchmark d a t a

o n F D P ; the most r e c e n t article was published in the August 1 9 8 2 issue of the

Survey of Current Business. Third, selected data on the operations of U.S.

affiliates of f o r e i g n companies are given in an annual sample s u r v e y ,

beginning in the J u l y 1 9 8 0 issue of the Survey of Current Business with

the

most recent data i n the May 1 9 8 1 issue.

F o u r t h , data from a new BEA survey

on U.S. Business Enterprises Acquired

or Established by Foreign Direct

Investors were published in the January 1 9 8 1 , August 1 9 8 1 , and J u n e 1 9 8 2

issues of the Survey of Current Business.

D a t e in the third and fourth

sources are not directly comparable with each other or- with data in the f i r s t

t w o sources.

Almost a l l of the numerical data in this issue brief are from the BEA's

1 9 7 4 Benchmark Survey o r from various

issues of the Survey of Current

Business, since these a r e the only comprehensive sources for data.

As

mentioned earlier, however, the accuracy a n d completeness of some of these

d a t a have been

severely questioned by the House Government Operations

Committee in i t s r e p o r t entitled "The Adequacy of the Federal Response to

Foreign Investment i n the United States."

T h e OFIUS h a s published several studies o n foreign investment w h i ~ h , in

addition to providing lists o f FDI in t h e U.S.,

a l s o give breakdowns by

country source, i n d u s t r y , S t a t e , and t y p e of investment.

H o w e v e r , - the d a t a

a r e based on r e p o r t s of Federal agencies (often i n connection with regulatory

procedures), n e w s p a p e r s , standard business r e p o r t s , etc., and the coverage i s

not a s complete a s i n the 1 9 7 4 Benchmark Survey or the Survey of Current

Business articles.

Another source of data i s a quarterly report entitled "Announcements of

Foreign Investment i n U.S.

Manufacturing

Industries," published by

the

Conference Board i n New York City.

T h e l i s t of announcements (which i s based

o n published s o u r c e s and consequently n o t complete), includes the domicile o f

t h e foreign company, the firm undertaking t h e investment, and a description

of the investment, although n o totals f o r foreign investment i n the U.S.

are

given.

Overall magnitude a n d recent growth

As of Dec. 3 1 , 1 9 8 1 , the FDI position in the U.S. (book value of .foreign

direct investors' equity i n , and net outstanding loans t o , their U.S.

affiliates) was $89.8 billion, up from $68.4 billion at the end of 1 9 8 0 and

$54.5 billion a t the end of 1 9 7 9 -- a n n u a l growth rates of 26% in 1 9 8 0 and

31% in 1981. By comparison, the U.S.

direct investment position a b r o a d ,

which increased 1 5 % in 1 9 8 0 and 5% i n 1 9 8 1 , w a s $227.3 billion a t the end of

1981. T h u s , w h i l e FDI in the U.S.

i s small relative to U.S.

direct

investment a b r o a d , i t is growing at a higher rate.

N

w

\

0)

\

kJ

0

t-'

I

M

a

x'

'd

0

c

6

CRS-

TABLE

l

FOREIGN S I R E ? T I I N V E S T M E l i T

(Billions

of

(FCI) I N THE U. S .

dollars)

Jan. March

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

2.7

2 1

5.3

7.9

7.5

17.2

0.3

1-6

1.6

2-6

4.0

6.2

4.1

0.7

-1.2

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.1

N.A.

3.1

3.8

7.9

12.0

13.9

21.4

N.A,

FDI

position

o n Dec. 3 1

Annual P e r c e n t

increase in

FDI p o s i t i o n

Annual change

i n FDI p o s i t i o n

due t o

Net c a p i t a l

inflows

Reinvested

earnings

Valuation

adjustment

--

T o t a l Annual

Change

N.A.

Not A v a i l a b l e

Source:

N e d G. M o w e n s t i n e a n d G r e g o r y G . F o u c h .

Foreign

Direct

Investment

i n

the

United

States

i n

1981.

Zurvey

of

Current

Business,

v.

62,

August

1982,

p.

31.

Russell

C.

Krueger.

U-S.

International

Transactions,

First

Quarter

1981.

Survey

of

Current

Business,

v.

62,

June

1982,

P

45.

CRS- '7

T h e unusually large negat-ve calkatlor. aC:ustment of $-1.2 Sllllon :n 1 9 7 6

was prirnar~ly Cue to the r e c l a s s ~ f ~ c a t i o rof

. a large investment from U.K.

to

U.S. 0wnersh:p.

E x c l u d ~ n g che valuaclon adjustmect glves a

better

laea

of

foreigners.

Net

capltal lnflows increased

the ~ n v e s c m e n t declslons

of

substantially ~n 1 9 8 1 and were the maln cause of

the

lncrease ~n the FDI

posltlon ln 1981.

Which foreign countries a r e investing the most?

At the end of 1 9 8 1 , the t o t a l FDI position was $89.8 billion: parent f i r m s

in the Netherlands held the l a r g e s t amount ($20.2 billion), followed by

the

LI. K. ($15.2 billion) , Canada (12.2 billion) , Germany

($7.1

billion) , Japan

To

Switzerland

($4.4

billion)

($6.9 billion) , F r a n c e ($5.8 billion) and

discern which countries were leading when measured

by

new

investment, the

c o u n t r i e s were ranked a l s o by t h e total of

their

net

capital inflows and

reinvested earnings during 1980.

Total n e t capital i n f l o w s and

reinvested

earnings in 1 9 8 1 were $21.3 billion:

of t h i s , the Netherlands accounted

for

t h e l a r g e s t share ($3.7 billion) , followed by the U .K. ($3.3 billion) , F r a n c e

($2.9 billion) , J a p a n ($2.7 billion) and C a n a d a ($1.7 billion)

.

.

The

direct investment of members

of

the Organization

of Petroleum

Exporting Countries (OPEC) i s q u i t e small.

At

the end

of

1 9 8 1 , the P D I

position i n the U.S. by OPEC countries was $3.5 billion, a n increase of

$2.9

billion from 1980.

In t h e d a t a given i n the a b o v e two paragraphs, investments were classified

by t h e country of the f i r s t company outside t h e U.S.

In some cases, the

country of the f i r s t company outside the U.S. differs from t h e country of the

ultimate beneficial owner.

T h e r e s u l t s of a r e c e n t survey by B E A , published i n the J u n e 1 9 8 2 i s s u e of

t h e S u r v e y of Current Business, indicate that when

investment outlays a r e

Classified by the country of ultimate beneficial o w n e r , a somewhat different

d i s t r i b u t i o n emerges.

By far t h e most i m p o r t a n t difference

is that, when

the

Classified by ultimate beneficial o w n e r , 1981 investment outlays by

Netherlands

and

t h e Netherlands Antilles were

far

smallerrthan

when

classified by the. country of f i r s t foreign parent.

Also,

classification by

u l t i m a t e beneficial

owner

resulted i n

substantially greater

investment

0u.tlays by Canada a n d the U.K.

In which industries a r e foreigners investing?

Of total FDI i n t h e U.S. of $89.8 billion a t the end of 1 9 8 1 , by

f a r the

largest industrial category w a s manufacturing ($29.5 billion),

followed by

petroleum ($17.8 billion), and trade ($17.7 billion).

When measured

by

new

i n v e s t m e n t during

1 9 8 0 , the

ranking of

industries remained

t h e same;

investment in manufacturing was $4.3 b i l l i o n , investment i n petroleum

$3.1

billion and investment in trade $2.4 billion.

Of the manufacturing

category

in 1 9 8 1 , the chemical and allied products industry

is by

far the l a r g e s t

s u b g r o u p when ranked by the a m o u n t of F D I , but machinery is first when ranked

by n e w investment.

CRS-

8

W h e r e , geographically, in the U.S. d o foreigners prefer to invest?

The most recent data available cn the geograp?,ical dis+'ibut'

,.

ilon cf foreign

direct investment are glven in an article by

Jane Snedden

Little

entitled

"Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: Recent Locational Choices of

Foreign Manufacturers," in the November/December

1 9 8 0 issue of

the New

England Economic Review.

Regions were ranked by several different

criteria

for 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 , such a s number of foreign

constructions and acquisitions per

thousand manufacturing employees.

By this criteria, a n d a l s o when ranked by

the number of foreign constructions per thousand manufacturing employees, the

New England region ranked f i r s t , followed

by

the Southeast region.

This

represents a change from the 1975-77 p e r i o d , when the Mid-Atlantic region was

f i r s t , the Southeast second, and New England third, when ranked by the number

of foreign constructions and acquisitions per

thousand

manufacturing

employees.

L

T h e New England and Southeast regions a r e attractive to foreign

investors

mainly because of their proximity to U.S. markets and to

the home

country,

the availability, cost, quality and attitude of l a b o r , and their

pleasant

environments.

It appears that degree of unionization, financial a i d a n d tax

incentives a r e not important factors i n choice of location.

Another finding o f this study i s that in making

locational

decisions,

foreign investors put more

emphasis on certain characteristics, such as

relatively l o w wage rates and proximity to the home country, than d o domestic

investors.

T o some extent, foreign investors tend to invest where o t h e r s of

their nationality have either migrated o r invested earlier.

Sources of Funds for FDI in U.S.

in 1979

A s reported by BEA in the August 1981 issue of the Survey of

Current

Business, U.S. f u n d s financed $3.7

billion, or 3 7 % , of total

investment

outlays of $9.9 billion by foreign investors i n 1980.

This compares with

acquisition

U.S. financing o f 48% in 1 9 7 9 , which included a large petroleum

by a U.S. affiliate with U.S.-source funds.

O f U.S.-source funds of $3.7 billion, the largest amount

($2.3

billion)

w a s borrowed from unaffiliated U.S.

persons.

Second in importance was

internally generated funds of U.S.

affiliates making

investments of

$0.7

billion.

billion

were obtained

mostly

from the

F o r e i g n source funds of $6.2

following:

$1.9 billion from internally generated funds of foreign direct

investors making investments, $3.3 billion from funds supplied by

foreign

direct investors to U.S. affiliates making investments and $0.8 billion

from

f u n d s borrowed from unaffiliated foreigners.

I t should be noted that all funds were classified by the i m m e d i a t e . source

and not the ultimate source.

D a t a on U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Companies

S i n c e data on U.S.

affiliates of foreign

companies

include

transactions

CRS- 9

IB78091

UPDATE-10/18/82

and positions between the U.S.

affiliates

and

both

the forelgn parent

thaz ~ n c l u d e s

zompany a c e o t 3 e r s , zhey are nor comparaSle tc data f o r FDI

t r a n s a c t ~ o n sand posit2or.s Setween the U.S. a n e forelgr residents.

As of Dec. 3 1 , 1 9 7 9 , assers of U.S. affiliates of foreign companies were

$241.2 billion.

T h e s e affiliates accounted for a relatively l a r g e share of

the total U.S.

economy

when

U.S. merchandise t r a d e , but a small share of

employment and landownership were the criteria.

T h e distribution

of assets

of U.S. affiliates by foreign countries of parent f i r m s and by industries is

Of the 1.6 million persons employed

by

U.S.

very similar to that f o r FDI.

a f f i l i t a t e s n a t i o n a l l y , California, New York and New Jersey had

the largest

number.

Liabilities Of U.S. affiliates were $152.7 billion a t the end of 1979.

of

$49.3 billion i n long-term debt, $38.4 billion, o r 7 8 % , was to U.S. firms and

banks.

Why d o foreigners i n v e s t in the United States?

According to the 1 9 7 4 Benchmark S u r v e y , the large market

size and

the

economic stability of the United States a r e two of the most important reasons

why f o r e i g n e r s invest'in the U.S.

T h e large U.S. m a r k e t , unified by a common

l a n g u a g e and t a s t e s , i s perceived a s offering better o p p o r t u n i t i e s for future

growth and profits than the European market, where the l a r g e growth rates

of

the post-war era a r e

slowing down.

Also,

the trend

toward government

participation i n the economy i s thought t o be progressing slower in the U.S.

than a b r o a d , and o v e r a l l , the private enterprise system preferred by

foreign

investors i s regarded a s healthier here.

T w o other important reasons mentioned i n the 1 9 7 4 Benchmark Survey a r e the

growth i n corporate capacity t o f i n a n c e FDI in the U.S.

through

retained

e a r n i n g s , borrowing, o r issuing equities and the d e s i r e t o d i v e r s i f y , both by

product l i n e a n d geographically.

R e c e n t l y , u n i t l a b o r cost developments, adjusted f o r c h a n g e s i n exchange.

r a t e s , h a v e become more favorable i n the U.S. than in many c o u n t r i e s abroad.

A l s o , l a b o r unions i n the United States a r e considered more f l e x i b l e and l e s s

interested in participating i n management decisions than they a r e abroad.

Another

important

factor i s t h e desire t o gain

access

to

U.S.

technological developments, managerial skills, a n d marketing techniques.

The

proximity

to l a r g e U.S.

capital markets

for future financing

needs,

relatively l o w prices for shares of U.S.

c o m p a n i e s , the elimination

of

transportation c o s t s

(particularly important i n the

chemical and heavy

machinery industries), the possibility of vertical integration to secure raw

material s u p p l i e s , a n d relatively l o w U.S.

tax

rates a r e a l l of varying

significance to different in8ustries.

Although avoiding tariff and

non-tariff

barriers has

a l w a y s b.een a n

important motivation, the more r e c e n t trend toward

increasing protectionism

within the United States may be encouraging more

foreign

investment.

For

was

probably

a

e x a m p l e , U.S. restraints on Japanese TV exports to the U.S.

f a c t o r i n the J a p a n e s e TV-manufacturing investment in the United States.

T h e non-discriminatory attitude of the U.S. government regarding

foreign

investment as well as the incentives offered by many s t a t e governments may be

rmportant.

A l s o , t h e U.S.

1s c o n s i d e r e d p o l i t i c a l l y more

stable,

and

f f z r o f t e r r o r ; s m , a c o r n m o ~ f a c z o r a S r o a 5 , 2 s L a r g e l y a S s e n t i n t h e U.S.

the

The 1977-79 d e p r e c i a z i o r . of

rhe

U.S.

doliar

i n

the

forei.gn exchange

investment

in

the

U.S.

m a r k e t s p r o v i d e d a n a d d e d s t i m u l u s to f o r e i g n

BY

making i n v e s t m e n t i n t h e U . S . c h e a p e r

in

terms

of

foreign

currencies,

a

d o l l a r d e p r e c i a t i o n i n c r e a s e s t h e p u r c h a s i n g power of f o r e i g n f i r m s t h a t want

t o invest here.

Also, i f the d o l l a r appreciates i n t h e

future,

the

future

units

i n c o m e e a r n e d o n FDI i n t h e U.S. a n d s e n t a b r o a d w i l l b e w o r t h m o r e i n

sf f o r e i g n

currencies;

thusi

if

foreigners,

perceive

the

dollar

as

u n d e r v a l u e d , t h e y s e e t h i s a s a n a d d e d i n c e n t i v e t o i n v e s t i n t h e U.S.

I S FDL BENEFICIAL O R HARMFUL T O THE UNITED STATES?

I t i s v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o e s t i m a t e t h e n e t e f f e c t o f FDI o n

t h e

U.S.

For example, t h e e f f e c t depends on

e c o n o m y , s i n c e many f a c t o r s a r e i n v o l v e d .

(1) w h e t h e r t h e f o r e i g n i n v e s t m e n t r e s u l t s i n a n e t a d d i t i o n t o U . S .

domestic

whether

or

not

investment o r s u b s t i t u t e s f o r U.S. domestic investment; (2)

investment

t h e U.S. i s o p e r a t i n g a t o r n e a r f u l l e m p l o y m e n t when t h e f o r e i g n

i s undertaken: (3) whether t h e funds f o r t h e

investment

are

obtained from

a b r o a d o r i n U.S. f i n a n c i a l m a r k e t s : a n d ( 4 ) w h e t h e r

the

short-run

effects

a r e being considered.

I n t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n , a f o r e i g n i n v e s t m e n t i s d e f i n e d as t h e amount

o f m o n e y i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f U.S.

productive f a c i l i t i e s o r

the

by

foreign

c o n s t r u c t i o n o r expansion of p r o d u c t i v e f a c i l i t i e s i n

the U-S.

U.S.

domestic investment

is defined

as t h e

construction

or

entities.

e x p a n s i o n o f p r o d u c t i v e f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e U.S.

by

both

U.S.

and f o r e i g n

entities.

E f f e c t o n i n v e s t m e n t , GNP, j o b s a n d p r i c e s

Probably t h e most important e f f e c t of f o r e i g n d i r e c t

investment

on

GNP,

U.S. e c o n o m y i s i t s i m p a c t o n U.S. d o m e s t i c i n v e s t m e n t , j o b s , r e a l

prices.

the

and

resources

in

the

economy,

an

I n g e n e r a l , a s l o n g as t h e r e a r e u n u s e d

foreign

sources)

i n c r e a s e i n U.S. d o m e s t i c i n v e s t m e n t ( w h e t h e r f r o m U . S . o r

r e s u l t s i n a n i n c r e a s e i n U.S.

p r o d u c t i v e c a p a c i t y , new j o b s , h i g h e r

local,

S t a t e , a n d F e d e r a l t a x r e v e n u e s , a n d a n i n c r e a s e i n r e a l GNP b y m o r e t h a n t h e

to

the

"ripple"

e f f e c t s on

the

increase i n U.S. domestic investment due

domestic

economy.

I f t h e e c o n o m y i s a t f u l l e m p l o y m e n t , a n i n c r e a s e i n U.S.

i n v e s t m e n t w i l l t e n d t o i n c r e a s e p r i c e s m o r e t h a n j o b s a n d r e a l GNP, a t l e a s t

i n t h e short run.

Whether o r n o t a f o r e i g n i n v e s t m e n t

ultimately

increases

U.S.

domestic

in

the absence

of

the

foreign

i n v e s t m e n t beyond what i t would have been

investment (i-e., r e s u l t s i n a net

addition

t o U.S.

domestic

investment)

of

a

depends p a r t i a l l y on whether t h e f o r e i g n investment i s an a c q u i s i t i o n

U.S. f i r m ,

or represents

new

construction

or

expansion

of

facilities.

F o r e i g n i n v e s t m e n t s t h a t i n v o l v e new c o n s t r u c t i o n o r e x p a n s i o n o f

facilities

a l w a y s r e s u l t i n a n e t a d d i t i o n t o U.S. d o m e s t i c i n v e s t m e n t ; h o w e v e r , i n some

firm

to

c a s e s , c o n s t r u c t i o n o r e x p a n s i o n b y a f o r e i g n f i r m may c a u s e a U . S .

reduce its planned investment expenditures and

consequently

the

i n f l o w of

f o r e i g n i n v e s t m e n t i s u l t i m a t e l y o f f s e t by a d e c l i n e i n p l a n n e d i n v e s t m e n t by

On t h e o t h e r h a n d , a f o r

a U.S. f i r m

a d e .- t:~?? t~ C.S.

domesti

i t s e l f a ne

Is e ; l i n g company

U.

r e r e i v eC E y +L,ie

=he U.S., a n e t adCitioc

e l s e w h e r e I.

o c c u r s . On b a i a n c e , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t

U . S . d o m e s t c i n v' e s t m e n t b e y o n d w h a t i

f o r e i g n i n v s t m e n. t , w i t h a b e n e f i c i a l

not

gn a c q u l s i t i o n 0 f a U.S. f i r m i s

f

u

nds

how

e

v

e

r

,

i

f

t

h

e

investmect;

i

p

m

eRt

n

t

a

n

9

e

q

u

e reinvestea i n pla

m

a

t

eiy

uiti

U.S.

d o m e s zit i n v e s t m e n t

r

e

a

s

es

investment

inc

oreign

d i re c t

o

f

t

h

e

wouid have been i n t h e a b s e n c e

d

t

a

x

an

r ea l GNP,

fect

on

jobs,

.

t o

is beneficial

I n g e n e r a l , a f o r e i g n d i r e c t i n v e s t m e n t i n t h e U.S

b a l a n c e o f PaYm e n t s a n d t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l V a l u e o f t h e d o l l a r i f t h e

in

increase

e f f e c t of a l l t r a n s ac t i o n s conne c t e d w i t h it r e s u l t s i n an

causing

the

d o liar

d e m a n d f o r d o 1l a r s o n t h e f o r e i g n e x c h a n g e m a r k e t ,

a foreign d i

i f

However,

l e ss rap i d l y .

depre c i a t e

appreciate, or

i n v e s t m e n t l e a d s t o a n e t o u t f l ow o f U . S . d o l l a r s , i t i s h a r m f u l t o t h e

b a l a n c e o f p a y m e n t s a n d t h e d o 1 l a r , s i n c e i t a d d s t o t h e s u p p l y o f d o liar

the

d o 1. l a r t o d e p r e c i a t e ,

and causes

t h e f o r e i g n exchang e market

appreciate less rapidly.

U.S.

.

the

net

the

to

ect

.S.

on

or

In t h e s h o r t r u n , a f o r e i g n d i r e c t i n v e s t m e n t i s b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e U.S.

to

the

balance of payments i f t h e funds f o r t h e investment a r e t r a n s f e r r e d

United S t a t e s from abroad.

However, if t h e f u n d s a r e borrowed

i n t h e U.S.

f i n a n c i a l m a r k e t s , o r r e p r e s e n t r e i n v e s t m e n t of e a r n i n g s , t h e r e i s n o e f f e c t

on t h e U.S. b a l a n c e of payments o r t h e d o l l a r .

to

the

I n t h e l o n g r u n , t h e f o r e i g n d i r e c t i n v e s t m e n t w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l

imports

U . S . b a l a n c e o f p a y m e n t s a n d t h e d o l l a r t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t (1) U . S .

a r e d i s p l a c e d b y g o o d s p r o d u c e d i n t h e U.S. b y f o r e i g n i n v e s t o r s o r ( 2 )

U.S.

e x p o r t s i n c r e a s e d u e t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e U.S.

and

shipment abroad

of

On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,

g o o d s t h a t were f o r m e r l y p r o d u c e d i n t h e f o r e i g n c o u n t r y .

t h e l o n g - r u n e f f e c t o n t h e b a l a n c e o f p a y m e n t s a n d t h e d o l l a r w i l l be h a r m f u l

dividends,

interest,

t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t (1) p a y m e n t s a r e m a d e a b r o a d o f

sales o u t l e t

for

a

r o y a l t i e s , and f e e s o r (2) t h e foreign investment i s a

f o r e i g n f i r m ( w h i c h r e s u l t s i n h i g h e r U.S. i m p o r t s ) .

U.S.

imports

increase

if c a p i t a l e q u i p m e n t f o r u s e i n t h e new p l a n t i s

imported

into

t h e United

for

by

the

S t a t e s from abroad.

However, if t h e c a p i t a l e q u i p m e n t i s p a i d

f o r e i g n p a r e n t c o m p a n y ( i n s t e a d o f t h e U.S.

subsidiary) the import

increase

i s o f f s e t b y a n i n v e s t m e n t i n f l o w a n d t h e r e i s n o n e t e f f e c t o n t h e U.S.

balance of payments.

Technology T r a n s f e r s

Foreign d i r e c t investment leads t o both technology inflows and technology

o u t f l o w s ; some

f o r e i g n i ' n v e s t m e n t may

introduce

superior

technology

or

invigorate an old firm, while i n

other

cases foreign

firms acquire U.S.

companies p r i m a r i l y t o o b t a i n t h e b e n e f i t of t h e i r technology.

According

t o

t h e 1974 Benchmark S u r v e y , t h e n e t e f f e c t of t e c h n o l o g y t r a n s f e r s h a s been a n

of

inflow i n t h e a r e a of product and process technology, while i n t h e

realm

management

and marketing

techniques,

technology

outflows have

exceeded

technology inflows.

Other f a c t o r s

O t h e r p o s s i b i e imp1:ca:lons

o f P P I i n c l u d e i t s e f f e c t o n competition a m o n g

oc

U.S.

capltal

markets,

the

natlonal

f l r m s w i t h i n t h e U.S., ~ t esf f e c t

s e c u r i t y , t h e c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g foreigners' g a a n l n g c o n t r o l o i r a w

materials

o r o t h e r strategic s u p p l i e s , a n d ~ t esf f e e z o n s o m e l o c a l l t l e s ~n t h e U . S .

In general, foreign d i r e c t investment i s l i k e l y t o enhance competition

by

This is especially

true

i f

t h e

U.S.

b r i n g i n g new f i r m s i n t o a n i n d u s t r y .

is both

i n d u s t r y i s d o m i n a t e d b y a f e w l a r g e f i r m s a n d t h e new f o r e i g n f i r m

industry

l a r g e and dynamic.

H o w e v e r , a s m a l l f o r e i g n f i r m e n t e r i n g a U.S.

i n d u s t r y which

already has

a large

d o m i n a t e d by a f e w l a r g e f i r m s o r a n

number

of

f i r m s would have a

negligible

i n f l u e n c e on

the

degree of

competition.

D o m e s t i c b o r r o w i n g by f o r e i g n - o w n e d f i r m s h a s

the

same e f f e c t

o n U.S.

c r e d i t m a r k e t s a s d o e s d o m e s t i c b o r r o w i n g b y U.S. f i r m s ; t h e d e m a n d f o r f u n d s

markets

become

tighter,

interest

increases and, t o the extent t h a t

money

A t p r e s e n t and i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , t h e amount

of

rates tend t o rise.

the

size of

d o m e s t i c b o r r o w i n g by f o r e i g n - o w n e d f i r m s i s small r e l a t i v e t o

And, i f

domestic borrowing

U.S. c a p i t a l m a r k e t s a n d i t s i m p a c t i s m i n i m a l .

S y f o r e i g n - o w n e d f i r m s i n c r e a s e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y , i t may n o t c r e a t e a d d i t i o n a l

problems s i n c e presumably t h e F e d e r a l R e s e r v e System c o u l d t a k e t h i s as w e l l

a s o t h e r f a c t o r s i n t o a c c o u n t when

determining

its

policy

regarding

the

s u p p l y of money.

Concern i s sometimes expressed t h a t

FDI

threatens

the

U.S.

national

strategic

supplies.

s e c u r i t y and might

i m p e d e U.S.

access

t o i t s own

H o w e v e r , f o r e i g n - o w n e d f i r m s h a v e t o o b e y t h e same U.S.

laws a s

domestic

assets i n

firms.

S t r i c t f e d u r a l c o n t r o l s o v e r management of

foreign-owned

and i n an extreme c a s e e x p r o p r i a t i o n of

foreign-owned

assets,

is

the U.S.,

always possible.

PDI o f t e n a t t r a c t s a t t e n t i o n , a n d s o m e t i m e s h o s t i l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f

it

i s an a c q u i s i t i o n of an e x i s t i n g

firm

(most people

f e e l more

hospitable

toward foreign d i r e c t investment i f it involves t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r expansion

of f a c i l i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y by former f o r e i g n c o m p e t i t o r s ) .

This might r e f l e c t

a f e a r of f o r e i g n e r s t h e m s e l v e s , a f e a r t h a t f o r e i g n e r s a r e b u y i n g d o m e s t i c

making i t h a r d

for local

f i r m s a t uneconomic p r i c e s (perhaps overpaying)

firms t o compete, o r a f e a r t h a t f o r e i g n

firms w i l l

not

understand

local

l a b o r o r community n e e d s .

U.S.

P O L I C Y R E G A R D I N G FDI

is

t o accord

it

equal

W i t h a f e w e x c e p t i o n s , t h e U.S. p o l i c y

o n FDI

domestic investment,

i.e.,

neither

to

encourage nor

to

treatment with

F o r e x a m p l e , P r e s i d e n t F o r d made t h e f o l l o w i n g

statement a t

discourage it.

t h e s i g n i n g of t h e F o r e i g n I n v e s t m e n t S t u d y Act of 1 9 7 4 :

I sign t h i s act, I reaffirm that it i s intended t o

I t i s n o t i n any s e n s e a s i g n of

gather information only.

a change i n America's t r a d i t i o n a l open door p o l i c y towards

foreign investment.

We c o n t i n u e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e

o p e r a t i o n of f r e e market f o r c e s w i l l d i r e c t w o r l d w i d e

i n v e s t m e n t f l o w s i n t h e m o s t p r o d u c t i v e way.

Therefore

A s

my Administration will oppose any new restriction

on foreign investment in t h e United States except where

2Ssolutely necessary on national security grcunds cr

to protect a n essential national i n ~ e r e s t .

This policy was reaffirmed in extensive administrative reviews of FDI in

1975 and 1 9 7 7 that resulted i n the establishment of a n int eragency C ommittee

the

on Foreign Investment i n the U.S. (CFIUS), under

the ch airmanship of

foreign

Treasury Department.

The CFIUS was created to cons ult with

foreign

governments Concerning potential investments i n the U.S. , monitor

investment trends a n d make recommendations to the National Security Council

a n d the Economic P o l i c y Group.

Another administrativ'e action w a s the

i n the c o m m e r c e

creation of the O f f i c e of Foreign Investment i n the U.S.

Department to collect a n d analyze data on FDI in the U.S.

The "open-door" policy

is consistent with the bilateral

treaties of

f r i e n d s h i p , commerce and navigation between the U.S. any many of its trading

partners, and with U.S. obligations under t h e Code of Liberalization of

Capital Movements

of the Organization f o r

Economic

Cooperation

and

D e v e l o p m e n t , adopted in June 1976.

O n e reason for U.S. pclicy toward FDI i s t h e traditional belief that only

i n a f r e e market environment (with a f r e e f l o w of investment funds)

can

maximum economic efficiency be achieved.

Related to this is the recognition

economy.

Also, s i n c e U.S. residents a r e

Of the benefits of FDI f o r the U.S.

large direct investors a b r o a d , t h e principle of equitable treatment f o r a l l

investors i s i n the interest of t h e U.S.

L a s t l y , restrictions o n FDI i n the

U.S. might have a d v e r s e foreign policy implications.

T h e exceptions t o the "open-door1' policy a r e federal l a w s t h a t restrict

foreign ownsrship of f i r m s in national defense i n d u s t r i e s , certain natural

resource sectors of the economy, coastwise a n d freshwater shipping, domestic

radio communications, domestic a i r t r a n s p o r t , acquisition of federal mineral

l a n d s , a n d hydroelectric power.

I t should a g a i n be noted t h a t f o r e i g n f i r m s

have to obey t h e s a m e laws and regulations a s domestic f i r m s

(such a s

anti-trust l a w s a n d S E C regulations).

Although there a r e some state laws restricting foreign ownership i n r e a l

estate, banking, a n d insurance, most states a r e eager to a t t r a c t foreign

investors.

T h e wide range of incentives to f o r e i g n

(as well a s domestic)

i n v e s t o r s by many

s t a t e s includes initial financing a s s i s t a n c e , working

capital l o a n s , t a x exemptions o r holidays, technical h e l p ,

and

the

availability of industrial development bond

issues.

At l e a s t 24 states

maintain offices in Europe and seven states maintain offices in J a p a n to

persuade manufacturers to locate plants i n their state.

In the spring of 1 9 8 0 , the Carter Administration announced a new policy of

encouraging foreign investment i n distressed U.S. areas. T h i s policy, which

i s administered by

the International T r a d e Administration and Economic

Development Administration of the Department of Commerce and by

the

Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, d o e s not reflect any change fzom the

previous policy of neutrality toward foreign investment generally

in the

U.S., b u t , instead s e e k s to encourage foreign i n v e s t o r s , once they have

decided to invest in the U.S., t o consider lecating in distressed U.S. areas.

Among other t h i n g s , under this policy the F e d e r a l Government, in cooperation

with

State and l o c a l governments, provides information to

foreigners

regarding existing incentives to invest in distressed areas.

U.S. pollcles toward lnternational Investment a r e currently belng revlewed

tke Reagar. Adml~rs:razlon.

An ~nter-aqer.cy study headed by

tne Treascry

t9e Unlted

S t a t e s , whlch

l~cludes a

3epart~e1-1:or. forelgn lrvestmect ; n

r e v ~ e wof the role of C F I U S , 2 s underway.

ky

LEGISLATION

Amends the International Investment Survey Act of 1 9 7 6 t o require

States

benchmark s u r v e y s of (1) f o r e i g n direct investment i n the United

covering 1 9 8 0 and 1 9 8 7 and every fifth year thereafter; and (2) U.S.

direct

investment abroad covering 1 9 8 2 and 1 9 8 9 and every fifth year thereafter.

Requires a n a n n u a l compilation of current data on U.S.

portfolio

investment

abroad. Requires a report o n the cost of compiling data on legislation

enacted by certain foreign nations which regulates f o r e i g n inward investment

in such nations.

Authorizes appropriations to carry out

such

Act.

Introduced on May 4 , 1981; referred to S e n a t e Committee on C o m m e r c e , Science

and Transportation, which reported f a v o r a b l y , with a n amendment, to S e n a t e ,

Report No. 97-68, o n May 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 ; passed S e n a t e with amendment o n J u n e 6 ,

1981; passed H o u s e o n July 2 7 , 1 9 8 1 , became P u b l i c L a w 97-33 on Aug. 7 , 1981.

P.L.

97-3-45, H.R.

3567

Section 6 o f H.R. 3567 amends section 9 of the International S u r v e y Act of

1 9 7 6 to a u t h o r i z e appropriations o f $ 3 , 8 4 2 , 0 0 0 f o r each of the f i s c a l years

1 9 8 2 a n d 1983 to carry out the provisions t o this Act.

Introduced on May 1 3 ,

1 9 8 1 a s clean bill i n lieu of H.R. 3134.

Referred to House C o m m i t t e e on

Foreign Affairs, which held mark-up on May 1 3 , 1981; a n d reported to H o u s e ,

Report No. 97-57, o n May 1 9 , 1981; passed House o n J u n e 8 , 1 9 8 1 ; passed

Senate i n l i e u of S. 1 1 1 2 with amendment by voice v o t e o n Nov.

1 2 , 1981;

House unanimously disagreed with Senate a m e n d m e n t s a n d requested a conference

Conference Report no. 97-401 issued Dec. 11, 1981.

Became

on Nov. 2 0 , 1981.

P.E. 97-145 o n Bec. 2 9 , 1 9 8 1 with Section 6 omitted.

H. Con. Res. 49 (Brown, C.)/H.

Con. Res. 5 9 (Brown, C.,

et.al.)

Requests t h e Securities and Exchange Commission a n d t h e S e c r e t a r y sf

Commerce each t o report to the Congress on t h e impact o n the U.S.

economy of

H.Con.Res.

49 was

the acquisition o f U.S. companies by foreign nationals.

1981.

introduced on Feb. 3 , 1 9 8 1 a n d H.Con.Res. 5 9 w a s introduced o n Feb. 5 ,

Both bills w e r e referred t o the House Committee o n F o r e i g n Affairs a n d the

Subcommittee o n International Economic Policy a n d Trade which held hearings

on H.Con.Res. 49 on Feb. 2 3 , 1 9 8 2 , and t h e House Committee on Energy and

Commerce a n d t h e Subcommittee o n Telecommunication, Consumer Protection and

Finance, which held hearings on H.Con.Res. 5 9 o n Feb.

26, 1981 and April 2 ,

1981.

H.Con.Res.

1 7 7 (Fithian)

Urges the President to negotiate with Japan concerning the establishment

of Japanese a u t o production facilities i n the United States and the use of

U.S. parts in Japanese cars.

Introduced on Sept. 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 ; referred

to the

House Committee o n Ways and Means and the Subcommittee on Trade.

H.R.

1 2 9 4 (Brooks, et.al.)/S.

289 ( T o w e r , et-al.)

Amends the Security Exchange Act of 1 9 3 4 to provide uniform margin

requirements in traccactlccs involving = h e acquisition of securities of

or non-U.S.

persons where

such

cerzain U.S. corporations >y either U.S.

lenders. E.R.

1 2 9 4 was

a c q u i s i t i o ~ is financed S y eicher U.S. or non-U.S.

introduced on Jan. 2 7 , 1981and referred to the House Committee on Energy and

Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunication, Consumer protection

and

F i n a n c e , which held hearings on Feb. 2 6 , 1 9 8 1 and April 2 , 1981. S. 289 was

introduced on Jan.

2 7 , 1 9 8 1 and referred to the Senate Committee on B a n k i n g ,

and the Subcommittee o n S e c u r i t i e s , which held hearings on March

3 1 , 1981.

F o r further a c t i o n , see H.R. 4145.

H.R.

2826 (Emerson, et al.)

Mineral L a n d s Leasing Amendment of 1981. Amends the Mineral Lands Leasing

Act to prohibit any foreign person from acquiring more than 25% of the voting

securities i n a U.S. mineral resource corporation and directs the Secretary

Of the Interior to undertake a study of indirect foreign investment in

land.

Introduced o n Mar. 2 5 , 1981; referred to

mineral resources o n U.S.

Committee o n Interior and Insular Affairs and Subcommittee on Mines a n d

Mining, which held hearings on May 7 , 1 9 8 1 and markup on July 1 6 , 1981.

Clean bill H.R. 4 1 8 6 reported i n lieu.

H.R.

2879 (Collins)/S.

1 4 3 6 ( D q A m a t o et al.)

Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1 9 3 4 to provide uniform margin

requirements in transactions involving the acquisition of securities of

certain U.S. corporations by foreign persons where such acquisition is

H.R. 2879 was introduced on Mar.

26, 1981;

financed by a foreign lender.

referred to Committee on Energy and

Commerce

and

Subcommittee

on

Telecommunications, Consumer Protection a n d F i n a n c e , which held hearings on

April 2 , 1981. S. 1 4 3 6 was introduced on J u n e 2 5 , 1 9 8 1 ; referred to the

Senate Committee o n Banking Housing and Urban Affairs and the Subcommittee on

Securities, which held hearings o n July 8, 1981. S. 1 4 3 6 with amendments w a s

F o r further a c t i o n , s e e

referred t o t h e f u l l committee on July 3 0 , 1981.

H.R. 4145.

H.R.

3 1 3 4 (Bingham)

Section 4 a m e n d s the International Investment Survey Act o f 1 9 7 6 to

authorize appropriations to carry o u t such Act.

Introduced on Apr. 8, 1 9 8 1 ;

referred t o House Committee o n Foreign Affairs and

Subcommittee

on

International Economic Policy and T r a d e , which held hearings on Apr. 1 4 , 1 9 8 1

a n d mark-up o n Apr. 2 8 , 1981.

(For further a c t i o n , s e e H.R. 3567.)

H.R.

3310 (Roe)

Foreign Investment Control Act of 1981. Establishes a National Foreign

Investment Control Commission to prohibit o r restrict foreign ownership

control or management c o n t r o l , through direct purchase, in whole o r part;

from acquiring securities of certain domestic issuers of securities; from

acquiring certain domestic issuers of securities, by merger, tender of.fer, or

any other means; control of certain domestic corporations or industries, real

estate, or other natural resourced deemed to be vital to the economic

security and national defense o f the United States.

Introduced on Apr.

29,

1981; referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the

Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Cons6mer Protection and Finance.

H.R.

3311 (Roe)

C r e a t e s a Joint Congressional C c m m ~ t t e eor F o r e ~ g n I n v e s t m e n t C O R t r o i

~i-1

z 5 e U n ~ t e d S t a z e s u p z n e n a c z m e n t of t n e Pore:gn

Investmenz Concrol

Act

of

1961.

D ~ r e c t st n e c o m m i t t e e c o

study

the

manner

~n whlch

the

National

F o r e l g n investment C o n t r o i C o m m l s s l o n , e s t a b l l s h e c by s u c h A c t , f u l f l l i s l t s

Introduced on Apr. 29, 1 9 8 1 ; r e f e r r e d to t h e

House

Committee

on

purposes.

Rules.

H.R.

4033 (Whittaker et al.)/S.

1 4 2 9 (Kassebaum et ab.)

T i t l e I , the Margin Requirements Fairness Act of 1981.

Amends the

Securities Exchange Act of 1 9 3 4 t o make the margin requirements f o r domestic

purchasers of securities applicable to foreign purchasers of securities in

certain significant transactions involving the United S t a t e s securities

markets Title 1 1 , the Foreign Energy Investment Act of 1981, establishes a

moratorium from J u l y 1 , 1 9 8 1 through March

3 1 , 1 9 8 2 o n certain Canadian

investments in U.S.

energy resource corporations, and directs that a

U.S.

energy

resource

comprehensive study on foriegn investment

in

corporations be undertaken and compieted by March 1 , 1982.

Introduced J u n e

25, 1 9 8 1 ; referred to the House Committee on Energy a n d Commerce; the

Subcommittee o n Telecommunications, Consumer Protection a n d F i n a n c e , the

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, a n d the Subcommittee

on Securities, which held hearings o n J u l y 8 , 1989.

H.R. 4 1 4 5 ( W i r t h , et al.)

Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1 9 3 4 to provide uniform margin

requirements i n transactions involving the acquisition of securities of

certain U.S. corporations by non-U.S. lenders.

Introduced July 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 ;

referred t o the Committee o n Energy and Commerce; reported t o House with

a m e n d m e n t , R e p o r t no. 97-258 o n Sept. 3 0 , 1 9 8 1 ; passed H o u s e , amended O c t .

1 3 , 1 9 8 1 ; referred t o Senate Committee o n B a n k i n g , Housing a n d Urban Affairs

o n Oct. 1 4 , 1981.

H.R.

4 1 7 7 (English)

Amends t h e Communications Act of 1 9 3 4 t o

authorize

the

Federal

Communications Commission to r e g u l a t e t h e entry of foreign telecommunications

services and carriers into U.S.

markets.

Introduced on J u l y 1 6 , 1981;

referred t o H o u s e Committee o n Energy a n d Commerce.

H.R.

4186 (Santini, et al.)

Mineral L a n d s Leasing Amendment of 1981.

Amends the Mineral L a n d s Leasing

Act o f 1 9 2 0 t o prohibit foreign acquisitions o f more than f i v e percent of the

voting

securities i n a U.S.

mineral resource corporation

(except for

agreements prior t o July 1 5 , 1981) beginning o n July 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 and ending

April 1 5 , 1 9 8 2 a n d directs the Secretary of t h e Interior to undertake a study

of indirect f o r e i g n investment i n mineral resources on lands owned by the

U.S.

Introduced July 1 6 , 1 9 8 1 in lieu of H.R. 2826; referred to the House

Committee o n Energy and C o m m e r c e , the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,

Consumer Protection and Finance and the House Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs.

H.R.

4 2 2 5 (Walgreen)

Amends the Communications Act of 1 9 3 4 to establish certain limitations

certain foreign

relating to the ownership of c a b l e television franchises by

entities.

Introduced July 21, 1981;

Enerqy and Commerce.

H.R.

referred

to

the

House

Committee

on

4407 (Schulze)

Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to restrict direct investment within the U.S.

by foreign countries that discriminate against U.S.

investment abroad.

Introduced Aug. 4 , 1981; referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means

and the Subcommittee on Trade.

H.R.

4 9 3 0 (Brown)

Amends the Energy Policy a n d Conservation Act to provide f o r a n evaluation

o f the effects of acquisitions of domestic petroleum

companies by major

international energy concerns on the exploration, d e v e l o p m e n t , production,

r e f i n i n g , transportation, distribution, a n d marketing of d o m e s t i c petroleum

supplies and to impose a moratorium on such acquisitions until completion a n d

consideration of the evaluation.

Introduced Nov. 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 ; referred to House

Committee o n Energy and Commerce and Subcommittee 0.n F o s s i l and Synthetic

F u e l s which held hearings o n Dec. 1 0 , 1981. Subcommittee markup held o n Dec.

1 5 , 1 9 8 1 and bill was forwarded t o Full Committee

(Amended).

For further

a c t i o n , see H.R. 5274.

M.R. 5 2 7 4 (Brown, C.)

Provides f o r congressional evaluation of energy policy by

imposing a

moratorium o n certain acquisitions involving major

energy c o n c e r n s a n d

domestic petroleum companies until June 3 0 , 1982. Introduced Dec.

1 6 , 1981;

referred to the House Committee on Energy and C o m m e r c e and the House

C o m m i t t e e on t h e Judiciary a n d Subcommittee o n Monopolies and Commercial Law.

Passed House Dec. 1 6 , 1981; received in S e n a t e and referred to t h e C o m m i t t e e

o n t h e Judiciary Dec. 2 2 , 1981.

H.Res.

4 3 3 (Rosenthal)

Declares that the House of Representatives concurs in t h e public r e l e a s e

of certain classified documents dealing with foreign i n v e s t m e n t s and country

surpluses of members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting C o u n t r i e s

(OPEC).

Introduced Apr.

2 1 , 1982; referred to Committee o n Government

Operations and Subcommittee o n Commerce, Consumer a n d Monetary Affairs, which

held mark-up sessions Apr. 2 9 a n d May 6, 1982. Amended r e s o l u t i o n forwarded

to f u l l committee May 6, 1982.

S. 1 6 8 7 (Pressler)

Makes a technical a-mendment to the International Investment Survey Act o f

1 9 7 6 (deletes the word "calendarw). Introduced on Sept. 3 0 , 1 9 8 1 ; referred

t o House Committee on Foreign Affairs; passed House on Oct. 1 4 , 1 9 8 1 ; passed

S e n a t e on Oct. 1 6 , 1981; became Public Law 97-70 on Oct. 2 6 , 1981.

S. 1 9 2 6 (Metzenbaum et al.)

Amends the Clayton Act t o direct the Secretary of Energy

t o undertake a

comprehensive study of the effects of acquisitions of domestic petroleum

companies by major international energy concerns and to r e p o r t the f i n d i n g s

to Congress.

Prohibits, between Jan. 1 , 1 9 8 2 , and Sept. 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , any major

international energy concern from acquiring more

than 5 % of a domestic

petroleum company.

Introduced Dec. 9 , 1 9 8 1 ; referred to S e n a t e Committee o n

the Judiciary.

Amends t h e T r a d e Act of 1 3 7 4 to authorize the P r e s i d e n ~ to restrict direct

investment within the U.S. by a foreign cocntry that unfaily discriminates

against U.S. investment or by

c i t i z e n s , nationals, or persons who a r e

organized o r existing under the l a w s of such country.

Changes the definitian

of "commerce" t o include investment.

Introduced Feb. 4, 1 9 8 2 ; referred t o

Committee o n Finance.

S. 2469 (Goldwater et a l e )

International Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1982.

Amends t h e

Communications Act of 1934 (with a n e w T i t l e VI)

to provide for improved

international telecommunications, and f o r other purposes.

Section 6 0 6 f o f

Title V I a u t h o r i z e s the Secretary o f Commerce to collect information o n ,

among

other

things,

foreign

direct

investment

in

the

domestic

telecommunications industry.

Introduced May 3 , 1982; referred to Committee

o n Commerce a n d Subcommittee o n C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , which held hearings J u n e 15

a n d 1 7 , 1982.

Ordered to b e reported with a n amendment in the nature of a

substitute favorably Oct. 1 , 1982.

S.Res.

3 1 7 (Cannon et al.)

Declares it the sense o f the Senate that the Interstate C o m m e r c e

Commission should temporarily refrain from granting applications for motor

carrier operating authority filed by

foreign companies o r by companies

controlled by foreign nationals.

Introduced o n Feb. 1 0 , 1 9 8 2 ; referred t o

Senate C o m m i t t e e o n Commerce, S c i e n c e , a n d Transportation.

HEARINGS

U.S.

Congress.

House.

Committee o n Agriculture.

S u b c o m m i t t e e on Family F a r m s , Rural Development, a n d

S p e c i a l Studies.

Impact o n foreign investment in farmland.

H e a r i n g s , 9 5 t h Congress, 2nd s e s s i o n , on H.R. 1 3 1 2 8 a n d

r e l a t e d bills.

J u n e 2 0 , July 1 9 a n d July 2 8 , 1978. 4 3 3 p.

----- C o m m i t t e e o n Energy and Commerce.

Subcommittee o n

Telecommunication, Consumer Protection and Finance.

Acquisition of U.S. Companies by Foreign Nationals.

9 7 t h Congress

o n H. Con. Res. 5 9 a n d H.R. 1294.

1 s t s e s s i o n , Feb. 2 6 , a n d April 2 , 1981. 277 p.

Hearings

----- C o m m i t t e e on Foreign Affairs.

Subcommittee on International

Economic Policy and Trade.

International Investment

Survey Act Authorization for Fiscal Years 1 9 8 0 and 1981.

Hearing and markup on H.R. 3 6 5 3 , 96th Congress, 1st

s e s s i o n , Apr. 2 6 , 1979. 46 p.

----- C o m m i t t e e on Foreign Affairs.

Subcommittee on International

E c o n o m i c Policy and Trade.

Hearing on H.R. 3134. 9 7 t h

C o n g r e s s , 1 s t session, Apr. 1 4 , 1981. Unpublished.

----- S u b c o m m i t t e e on International Economic Policy and Trade.

Hearing on foreign investment in the United States:

current

issues, 97th Congress, 2d s e s s i o n , Feb. 2 3 , 1962.

Unpublished.

- - - - - Cornrn~~teeon Governmert Operat~0r.s. S u b c o m m ; = ~ e e oz C o m m e r = e ,

Consumer and Monecary hifalrs. Federal response tc O P E C lnvestrnents

ln the Unlted Stares. Hearings, 97ch Congress, Ist a n e

2nd sessions.

Part 1 - Overview, hearlngs on Sept. 22 and 2 3 , 1981.

1165 p.

Part 2 - Investment i n S e n s ~ t l v e Sectors of the U.S.

Economy:

Kuwalt Petroleum Corp.

Takeover

of Santa F e International Corp., hearings on

Oct. 2 0 and 2 2 , Nov. 2 4 and Dec. 9 , 1981.

693 p.

P a r t 3 - Saudl Arabian Influence in Wnlttaker Corp.,

hearlngs o n Apr. 6 , 1982. 293 p.

----- The operations of federal agencies in monitoring, reporting o n , and

analyzing foreign investments in the United States

Hearings, 95th Congress, 2nd session,

531 p.

Part 1 - Hearing on Sept. 1 9 , 20 and 2 1 , 1978.

Part 2 - O P E C investment in the United S t a t e s , hearings on

J u l y 1 6 , 1 7 , 1 8 and 2 6 , 1979. 4 7 6 p.

Part 3 - Examination of the committee o n foreign investment in

United States, federal policy toward foreign

investment, and federal data collection efforts,

hearing on July 30, 1979. 1 0 6 2 p.

Part 4 - Foreign investments in U.S. banks, hearings on July

31 and Aug. 1 , 1979.

3 3 6 p.

253 p.

Part 5 - Appendixes.

----- Subcommittee on C o m m e r c e , Consumer and Monetary Affairs.

Hearing o n Saudi Arabia influence i n Whittaker Corporation.

97th Congress, 2 6 s e s s i o n , Apr. 1 , 1982.

Unpublished.

----- Committee o n Interior a n d Insular Affairs.

Subcommittee o n

Mines and Mining.

Hearing on H.R. 2 8 2 6 , to provide f o r a r e v i e w

of the policy relating t o mineral leases o n public lands (alien

ownership).

97th Congress, 1st session, May 7 , 1981.

Unpublished.

----- Committee o n International Relations.

Subcommittee on

International Economic Policy and Trade.

Hearing a n d

Markup on H.R. 1 2 5 8 9 , 9 5 t h Congress, 2nd s e s s i o n , Apr.

33 p.

2 5 , May 4 and 1 0 , 1978.

----- Committee o n Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Subcommittee

on Consumer Protection a n d Finance. Reciprocity i n

investment. Hearings, 9 6 t h Congress, 2d s e s s i o n , o n H.R.

7791 and H.R. 7750. Aug. 1 9 and Sept. 9 , 1980. 2 2 5 p.

----- Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

Subcommittee

on Census and Population. Data o n foreign ownership of

property within the U.S.

Hearing, 95th Congress, 1 s t

session on H.R. 7411. July 1 5 , 1977. 4 8 p.

----- Committee on Ways and Means.

Taxation of foreign investor

direct and indirect ownership of property in the

United States. Hearing, 96th

Congress, 1 s t session, Oct. 2 5 , 1979. 84 p.

U.S.

Congress.

Senate. Committee on E a n k l n g , H c u s ~ n g ,and Urban

hffzlrs.

Su3cor~m;ttee on S e c u r ~ t ~ e s .H e a r ~ n g on S. 289, a

blli to amenc tne S e c u r l x ~ e sExchange Act of 1934 to p r o v ~ a e

the

margln requirements ~n t r a c s a c t ~ o n s lnvo1v:ng

acqulslclon of securlcles of certaln U.S. c o r p o r a t ~ o n s by

non-U.S. persons where such acqulsltlons are f ~ n a n c e dby

non-U.S. leaders. 9 7 t h Congress, 1st s e s s ~ o n . March 3 1 ,

1981. Unpublished.

----- Committee o n Banking, Mousing a n d Urban Affairs.

Subcommittee on Securities. Hearing o n S. 1 4 2 9 and S. 1 4 3 6 ,

bills imposing uniform margin requirements o n loans obtained

for the purchase of U.S. securities by foreign persons or

corporations.

97th Congress, 1 s t s e s s i o n , J u l y 8 , 1981.

Unpublished.

----- Committee o n Commerce, Science and

Transportation.

Authorization for the International

Investment Survey Act.

Hearing on S. 2928, 95th Congress,

2nd session, Apr, 1 9 , 1978. 1 1 4 p.

----- Committee o n Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Authorize

appropriations under the International Investment Survey Act

of 1976. Hearing on S. 7 5 8 , 9 6 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n ,

Apr, 1 9 , 1979. 48 p.

- - e m -

Subcommittee on Business, Trade a n d Tourism.

International Investment Survey Act Reauthorization.

97th Congress, 1st session, April 9 , 1981. 1 7 p.

Hearing,

----- Committee o n Finance.

Subcommittee o n Taxation and Debt

Management.

Taxation o f Foreign Investment in the United

States Hearing in S.192 a n d S.268.

J u n e 25, 1979. 2 6 0 p.

----- Committee o n Foreign Relations.

Subcommittee on International

Economic Policy. U.S. policy toward

international investment. Hearings, 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n ,

July 3 0 , Sept. 2 8 , a n 8 Oct. 2 8 , 1981. 600 p.

----- Committee o n Foreign Relations.

Subcommittee on International

Economic Policy. U.S. policy towards international investment.

H e a r i n g , 9 7 t h Congress, 1 s t session, J u l y 3 0 , 1981. Unpublished.

A l i s t of hearings on foreign direct investment i n the United

S t a t e s in

t h e 9 3 r d a n d 9 4 t h Congresses can be obtained by calling the author

(287-7752).

REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS

U.S.

Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Uniform

Margin Requirements; Report to accompany H.R. 4 1 4 5 (97th C o n g r e s s ,

1st session, Report no. 97-258) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1981.

3 1 p.

----- Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Export Administration

AmendmeRts Act of 1981 (97th Congress, 1st session,

rep or^ nc. 97-57) Washlngtcc, U.S. Govt. Trint. Off., 1911.

15 p .

- - - - - Committee on Foreign Affairs.

SuScommittee on Foreign Economic

Policy. Direct foreign investments i n the U.S.

July 7 , 1974.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. i 4 p.

At head of title: 93rd Congress, 2nd session.

Committee print.

----- Committee on Government Operations.

The adequacy of the

federal response to foreign investment in the United States

(96th Congress, 2nd session, Report No. 96-1216)

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 217 p.

----- Committee on International Relations.

Amendments to

International Survey Act of 1976; report to accompany

H.R. 12589 including cost estimate of the Congressional

Budget Office (95th Congress, 2nd session, Report no.

95-1154) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978.

6 p.

U.S.

Congress.

Joint Committee on Taxation.

Description

of S. 192 and S. 208 relating to tax treatment of foreign

investment i n the United States, scheduled for a hearing

before the Subcommittee on Taxation and Debt Management

Generally of the Committee on Finance on June 2 5 , 1979;

prepared for the use of the Committee on Finance.

Washington,

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 1 0 p.

U.S.

Congress. Conference Committees. Export Administration

Act of 1979; conference report to accompany S. 737

(96th Congress, 1st session, House Report no. 96-482)

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979.

5 9 p.

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Authorization for

the International Investment Survey Act of 1970 (97th Congress,

1st session, Report no. 97-68) Washington, U.S. Govt.

Print. Off , 1981. 8 p.

.

----- Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Authorizing appropriations for the International

Investment Survey Act for fiscal years 1980

and 1981; report t o accompany S. 7 5 8 (96th Congress, 1st session,

Report no. 96-129) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979.

5 p.

----- Committee on Commerce, Science and

Transportation.

International Survey Act of 1976

authorization report to accompany S. 2928 (95th Congress,

2nd session, Report no. 95-863) Washington, U.S. Govt.

Print. Off., 1978. 9 p.

U.S.

General Accounting Office.

Office of the Comptroller

General of the United States. Are OPEC financial holdings

a danger to U.S. banks or the economy? June 1 1 , 1979.

EMD-79-45.

51 p .

U.S. General Accounting Office. Office of the Comptroller

General of the United States. Controlling foreign

investment in national interest sectors of the U.S.

economy.

U.S.

Oct. 7 , 1977. . ID-77-18.

8 2 p.

General Bccountinq Ofilce.

Office zi tne Comptroller

Ger-era1 of the Unlted States.

Fcrelgn dlrec: ~ n v e s t m e n c i n

the UnlteC Staces - zne federai role.

June 3 , 1980.

ID-80-24. 8 3 p.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

-- A Technical Amendment to the International Investment

10/26/81

Survey Act of 1 9 7 6 (P.L. 97-70) became law.

-- T h e Amendments to the International Investment Survey

08/07/81

Act of 1 9 7 6 (P.L. 97-33) became law.

-- The Foreign Investment i n Real Property Tax Act of 1 9 8 0 ,

12/05/80

Subtitle C of P.L.

96-499, became law.

-- Section 23 of the Export Administration Act of 1 9 7 9

09/29/79

(P.L. 96-72), which authorized appropriations for

F Y 8 0 a n d FYS1 t o carry o u t the International Investment

Survey Act of 1 9 7 6 , became law.

-- The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act

%0/b4/78

(P.L. 95-460) became law.

-- T h e Amendments to the International Investment

09/22/78

.

12/19/77

Survey Act of 1 9 7 6 (P.L.

95-381) became law.

-- T i t l e I1 of P.L. 95-213 (The Dcmestic and F o r e i g n

Investment Improved Disclosure Act) became law.

10/11/76

-- T h e International Investment Survey Act of 1 9 7 6

(P.L.

10/26/74

94-472) became law.

-- T h e Foreign Investment Study Act of 1 9 7 4

(P.L. 93-479) became law.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES

Announcements of foreign investment i n U.S. manufacturing industires.

T h e Conference Board, Inc., New York, published quarterly.

K r u e g e r , Russell C.

U.S. international transactions, f i r s t

quarter 1982.

Survey of Current Business, v. 6 2 ,

J u n e 1 9 8 2 , p. 36-72.

U.S. business enterprises acquired or established

B e l l i , R. David.

by foreign direct investors in 1981.

Survey of Current Business,

v. 6 2 , August 1 9 8 2 , p. 27-31.

H o w e n s t i n e , Ned G. and Gregory Fouch.

Foreign direct investment

in the United States i n 1981.

Survey of Current B u s i n e s s ,

v , 6 2 , August 1 9 8 2 , p. 30-41.

H o w e n s t i n e , Ned G.

Selected data on the operations of U.S.

affiliates of foreign companies, 1977. Survey of

Current Business, vol. 60, July 1 9 8 0 , p . 3 2 - 4 4 , 5 5 .

- - - - - Selected data on the o p e r a ~ i o n s of U.S. affliiares cf

foreign cornpanles, 1978 and 1979.

vol. 6 1 , May 1 9 6 1 , p. 35-52.

Survey of Current Business,

The Impact of incentives on foreign investors' site selections.

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Economic Review, December 1981.

p. 36-42.

Little, Jane Sneddon. Foreign Direct Investment in the United

States:

Recent Locational Choices of Foreign Manufacturers.

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

New England Economic Review.

Nov./Dec. 1980. p. 5-22.

----- The Impact of Acquisition by Foriegners on the Financial Health

of U.S. Firms. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

Economic Review, July/August 1982.

p. 40-53.

New England

United States. Department of Commerce.

Foreign direct investment

in the United States:

report of the Secretary of Commerce

to the Congress in compliance with the Foreign Investment

Study Act of 1974, Public law 93-479. Washington, U.S.

Department of Commerce:

for sale by the Supt. of Docs.,

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 9 volumes.

----- International Trade Administration.

Foreign direct investment

in the United States; 1979 transactions.

Sept. 1980. 4 0 p.

----- Office of Foreign Investment i n the United States.

Foreign direct investment in the United States;

1976 transactions -- all forms; 1974-76 acquisitions,

mergers and equity increases.

Washington, for sale

by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977.

43 p.

U.S.

Library of Congress.

Congressional Research Service.

Foreign investment in U.S. farmland [by] Karla Perri.

(Archived -- 12/22/80)

Issue Brief 78064

----- Foreign ownership of property in the United States:

federal and state restrictions [ b y ] Howard Zaritsky.

Washington, July 1 1 , 1978 (Updated June 23, 1980). 42p.

Report No. 80-105A

----- Reciprocity in foreign trade [ b y ] Alfred Reifman and Raymond

Ahearn.

Washington, Mar. 23, 1 9 8 2 (Updated periodically).

Issue Brief 82043

20 p.