[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 24 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S783-S784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Paul, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. 
        Merkley):
  S. 359. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude 
industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Paul, 
McConnell, and Merkley in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act 
of 2013.
  As some folks will recall, I introduced a similar bill as an 
amendment to the Senate Farm Bill last year in an attempt to empower 
American farmers and increase domestic economic activity. 
Unfortunately, this amendment didn't receive a vote. Doubly unfortunate 
is the fact that a senseless regulation that flunks the common-sense 
test is still on our nation's books.
  Members of Congress hear a lot about how dumb regulations are hurting 
economic growth and job creation. The current ban on growing industrial 
hemp makes no sense at all, and what is worse, this regulation is 
hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit.
  If my colleagues take the time to learn about this outrageous 
restriction on free enterprise, I am sure most senators would say that 
what I am talking about is the poster child for dumb regulation.
  The only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this 
profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. The bill 
my colleagues and I have filed will end this ridiculous regulation.
  Right now, the United States is importing over $10 million in hemp 
products to use in textiles, foods, paper products, and construction 
materials. We are importing a crop that U.S. farmers could be 
profitably growing right here at home, if not for government rules 
prohibiting it.
  Our neighbors to the north certainly see the potential for this 
product. In 2010, the Canadian government injected over $700,000 into 
their blossoming hemp industry to increase the size of their hemp crop 
and fortify the inroads they have made into U.S. markets. It was a good 
bet. U.S. imports have consistently grown over the past decade, 
increasing by 300 percent in 10 years, and from 2009 to 2010 they grew 
35 percent. The number of acres in Canada devoted to growing hemp 
nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. So it should come as no surprise that 
the United States imports around 90 percent of its hemp from Canada.
  Now, I know it is tough for some members of Congress to talk about 
hemp and not connect it to marijuana. I want to point out that even 
though they come from the same species of plant, there are major 
differences between them.
  You know, the Chihuahua and St. Bernard come from the same species, 
too, Canis lupus familiaris, but no one is going to confuse them. Also, 
the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and no 
one is going to confuse those two either. So let's recognize the real 
differences between hemp and marijuana, and focus on the benefits from 
producing domestically the hemp we already use.
  Under our bill, the production of industrial hemp would still be 
regulated, but it would be done by States, not the Federal Government.
  Pro-hemp legislation has been introduced in eight states, and several 
others have already removed barriers to industrial hemp production. 
Under our bill, industrial hemp is defined as having extremely low THC 
levels: it has to be 0.3 percent or less. The lowest commercial grade 
marijuana typically has 5% THC content. The bottom line is that no one 
is going to get high on industrial hemp. To guarantee that won't be the 
case, our legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to take action 
if a state law allows commercial hemp to exceed the maximum 0.3 percent 
THC level.
  Hemp has been a profitable commodity in many other countries. In 
addition to Canada, Australia also permits hemp production and the 
growth in that sector helped their agricultural base survive when the 
tobacco industry dried up. Over 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North 
and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp, and China is 
the world's largest producer.
  In fact, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that prohibits 
farmers from growing hemp. This seems silly considering that we are the 
world's leading consumer of hemp products, with total sales of food, 
health and beauty products exceeding $52 million in 2012, with 16.5 
percent growth over 2011.
  My home State of Oregon is home to some major manufacturers of hemp 
products, including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp foods 
producers in the country. Business has been so brisk there that the 
Portland Business Journal recently rated them as one of the fastest-
growing local companies.
  There are similar success stories in many states. One company in 
North Carolina has begun incorporating hemp into building materials, 
reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. 
Another company in California produces hemp-based fiberboard.
  No country is better than the U.S. at developing, perfecting, and 
expanding markets for its products. As that market grows, it should be 
domestically-produced hemp that supplies its growth.

[[Page S784]]

  I would like to share with colleagues an editorial by one of the 
leading newspapers in my state, the Bend Bulletin. Here's what they had 
to say about legalizing industrial hemp: ``producers of hemp products 
in the United States are forced to import it. That denies American 
farmers the opportunity to compete in the market. It is like 
surrendering the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be 
grown legally.''
  The Bend Bulletin's editorial went on to say: ``Legalizing industrial 
hemp does not have to be a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. 
It can be a start toward removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon 
farmers from competing in the world market.''
  The opportunities for American farmers and businesses are obvious 
here. Let's boost revenues for farmers and reduce the costs for 
businesses around the country that use this product. Let's put more 
people to work growing and processing an environmentally-friendly crop, 
with a ready market in the United States. For all the reasons I just 
described, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Paul, McConnell, and 
Merkley and me by cosponsoring this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 359

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Industrial Hemp Farming Act 
     of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF 
                   MARIHUANA.

       Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (16)--
       (A) by striking ``(16) The'' and inserting ``(16)(A) The''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The term `marihuana' does not include industrial 
     hemp.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(57) The term `industrial hemp' means the plant Cannabis 
     sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, 
     with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more 
     than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.''.

     SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION BY STATES.

       Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     811) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Industrial Hemp Determination.--If a person grows or 
     processes Cannabis sativa L. for purposes of making 
     industrial hemp in accordance with State law, the Cannabis 
     sativa L. shall be deemed to meet the concentration 
     limitation under section 102(57), unless the Attorney General 
     determines that the State law is not reasonably calculated to 
     comply with section 102(57).''.
                                 ______