Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the National Security Land topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate hearing examines bill to bar certain foreign principals from buying land near military sites
Summary
Senate Bill 162 would bar agents or entities tied to specified foreign powers from buying or leasing property within 10 miles of designated military installations in New Hampshire. Sponsors said the restriction addresses national‑security concerns; opponents and some lawmakers urged care over constitutional limits and implementation logistics.
Senate Bill 162 would prohibit purchases and leases of real property within a 10‑mile radius of six designated military installations by employees or agents of specified foreign governments and by entities with principal places of business in those countries.
Senator Regina Birdsell (prime sponsor) told the Commerce Committee the bill is a narrowed version of legislation she filed previously and grew out of national examples such as land purchases near a North Dakota facility. "Land purchases by our adversaries near our military bases, airports and other critical infrastructures are a national security threat," she said, listing China, Russia, Syria, Iran and North Korea among the covered countries.
The proposed law would require a notarized affidavit from purchasers or lessees within the 10‑mile zone attesting they are not agents of those foreign powers; violations could be a Class A misdemeanor for a natural person and a Class B felony for an entity, and could lead to forfeiture referrals to county attorneys, the attorney general’s office said. The bill was amended in committee to clarify responsibilities for realtors and to mirror existing notice procedures for other transactional affidavits.
Committee members pressed sponsors and the attorney general's office about constitutional limits and enforcement. Associate Attorney General Christopher Bond said the statute is drafted to target individuals and entities acting as agents of a foreign power and that a broad ban on foreign nationals would raise constitutional issues. Bond said the state must show an individual is acting as a foreign agent rather than relying on citizenship alone.
Lawmakers also asked whether the bill would affect students or short‑term renters; Bond and the sponsor said ordinary foreign nationals such as students who are not agents of a foreign power would not be swept into the prohibition. Members discussed implementation logistics — notarization, timing of filings, 60‑day cure periods in the draft, and whether short‑term vacation rentals should be treated differently for notary requirements — and several committee members asked the sponsor to consider narrower or clarified language.
Industry and municipal stakeholders, including the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, testified in opposition or with concerns about administrative burdens, the number of transactions affected and the potential for confusing compliance obligations. The attorney general’s office and federal interlocutors were represented in committee to answer legal and security questions.
Sponsors said the bill responds to evolving national security concerns and that other states have taken related steps; opponents urged caution and careful tailoring to avoid constitutional or practical problems. The committee closed the public hearing after extended testimony and public comment and will consider amendments and implementation details in subcommittee work.
