-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the original intent of the 2018 farm bill's Federal hemp legislation and the need to restore it.

Earlier this year, a report from the University of Kentucky found that cannabis-related poisonings among Kentuckians under 18 rose by 43 percent between 2023 and 2024. As you can see here, emergency room visits are rising steadily as well: ``Cannabis-Related Emergency Department Visits Climb in Kentucky, Especially Among [Young People].''

Calls to poison control centers in Kentucky regarding cannabis have doubled in the last 5 years, and more than 40 percent--listen to this-- have been about children under 12.

Children all over the Commonwealth, from Laurel County to Jefferson County, are facing serious health and safety concerns due to THC poisoning from hemp-derived products, and so are children all across the country. It is not just a Kentucky problem.

How did we get here? Let's go back to the beginning.

Back in 2014, I lead the effort to secure pilot programs for industrial hemp, and I led the effort to legalize the crop in 2018. This industry has seen tremendous growth, especially in Kentucky. Hemp is used in food, clothing, paper, plastic, and many of our consumer products. Its versatility gave farmers hope for a new and profitable cash crop.

Unfortunately, some companies looking to make a quick buck have been exploiting a loophole in the 2018 farm bill by taking legal amounts of THC from hemp and turning it into intoxicating substances. They take these synthetic chemicals and use them as ingredients in appealing snack and candylike products and distribute them in familiar packaging.

Here, it gives you an example of how these hemp-related, THC-related factors are packaged in candy that looks very much like candy being consumed by kids all over the country. This is, by definition, a real problem.

Children love candy. They can recognize well-known brands of candy before they can even read. As you can see from the chart that we were just talking about, the packaging on these snacks is nearly identical to Oreos, Doritos, or Skittles. Little do kids know that these products are laced with intoxicating synthetic chemicals. Young children are consuming these snacks thinking they are candy, not poison.

On top of that, these products are easily accessible and can be purchased at convenience stores. Some of them are even more intoxicating than actually smoking marijuana. Let me repeat that. Products more potent than marijuana can be bought off the shelf of a gas station.

Look, for years, I have called on the FDA to regulate these products. They have not taken the initiative to do so, which has certainly been an ongoing disappointment.

That is why we are here today. The language I recently attempted to secure in the Agriculture appropriations bill would have kept these products out of the hands of children while preserving the hemp industry for farmers.

For the sake of those misguided by my opponents on this issue, let me clarify a few things: You will hear from some that this language would have meant the total destruction of the hemp industry. Well, obviously, that is wrong. Under my language, industrial hemp, and CBD would have remained legal, period. Period.

Some predicted there would be widespread economic downturn to farmers should this language become law. Wrong again.

Hemp makes up less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of all farmed acres in the United States. I want the number to grow and to grow a lot. That is why I secured the legalization of hemp production back in the first place.

As long as I have been a Senator from Kentucky, I have supported our farmers. I am proud to have served on the Agriculture Committee my entire career in the Senate because of its importance to Kentucky. From the tobacco buyout program to tax relief for the sale of farmland, I have made sure our farmers have the tools they need to be successful in volatile markets. My language would not have changed that.

This language would have remained in the appropriations package had one Senator not derailed the process. You know, it is one thing to call yourself an advocate for hemp farmers, but if you didn't support the 2014 pilot program and you didn't support the 2018 farm bill that legalized hemp production and you would have blocked a major step forward on this appropriations package if it had included my language to close the bad-actor loophole, then what does being an advocate actually mean?

This package funds a significant portion of the Federal revenue, from Agencies that provide critical resources to our farmers to law enforcement, military, and our veterans, just to name a few.

We need the appropriations process to function. Congress needs to do its job and fund the government. And I, for one, do not intend to be an obstacle. So in order to move the package forward, I allowed my language to be stripped from the bill. But my effort to rule out bad actors, protect our children, support farmers, and reaffirm our original legislative intent will continue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source