H.R. 5485House115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

Hemp Farming Act of 2018

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 15, 2026 at 9:13 PM UTC

The Hemp Farming Act of 2018 amends the 1946 Agricultural Marketing Act to let states and Indian tribes take primary responsibility for regulating hemp production. It defines hemp as Cannabis sativa with no more than 0.3% THC and sets up a system for states or tribes to submit regulatory plans for USDA approval. The bill also adds hemp to federal research, crop‑insurance, and Controlled Substances Act programs, and requires the USDA to study the economic viability of domestic hemp.

Key Provisions

Creates a legal definition of hemp (≤0.3% THC) and clarifies that hemp is not “marihuana” under the Controlled Substances Act.
Allows each state or Indian tribe to submit a hemp‑production plan covering land tracking, THC testing, disposal of illegal product, and enforcement procedures; the USDA must approve or reject the plan within 60 days.
Sets enforcement mainly at the state or tribal level, with penalties for negligent violations and a five‑year production ban after three repeat violations.
Gives the Secretary of Agriculture sole authority to issue federal hemp regulations and guidelines.
Includes hemp in federal agricultural research funding, critical agricultural materials designations, and mandates a USDA study on hemp’s economic viability with a report to Congress within 120 days.
Adds hemp to the list of crops eligible for federal crop‑insurance programs and allows waivers of marketability requirements for hemp‑related policies.
Amends the Controlled Substances Act to exclude hemp from the definition of marijuana and from Schedule I restrictions on tetrahydrocannabinols.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

HouseIntro Referral Latest Action

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Agriculture Committee

April 12, 2018

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

April 12, 2018

HouseIntro Referral

Agriculture Committee

April 12, 2018

Floor Debate

5 members

What members said about H.R. 5485 on the floor

2 Republicans3 Democrats

Rep. Daniel M. Donovan, Jr.R-NY-11 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2182) to require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to Congress on the alternatives for the final…

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2182) to require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to Congress on the alternatives for the final disposition of Plum Island, including preservation of the island for conservation, education, and research, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2182, the Plum Island Preservation Act, sponsored by my colleague from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

This bill requires the Government Accountability Office to review the alternatives for the final disposition of the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate's Plum Island Animal Disease Center, commonly known as Plum Island.

Since 1954, Plum Island, located in Suffolk County, New York, has served the Nation in defending against accidental or intentional introduction of foreign animal diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease. However, Plum Island's facilities are aging and nearing the end of their life cycle.

That is why in 2005, DHS announced that the work being conducted on Plum Island would be moved to a new Federal facility in Kansas. Plum Island will continue to operate until the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility is fully operational and a complete transition has been made in 2022 or 2023.

This raises the question of what will happen to Plum Island once its activities are fully transferred over to the

new facility. The Department looked at this issue and, in June of 2016, released a report that reviewed several options for the final disposition of Plum Island.

This bill simply requires GAO to review and analyze these alternatives to ensure all necessary information was taken into account before the Department decides how to move forward with the final disposition of Plum Island. Specifically, GAO is to analyze the effects, possible implications and issues, and potential costs and revenue for each disposition.

Finally, H.R. 2182 suspends the sale of Plum Island until GAO completes this thorough review and analysis of alternatives.

My friend, Representative Zeldin, introduced H.R. 2182 with strong bipartisan support. H.R. 2182 is very similar to a bill that passed the House by voice vote last May.

In conclusion, this bill ensures that there is adequate consideration of all the options for the disposition of the island.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2017.

Hon. Michael McCaul,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCaul: I write concerning H.R. 2182, the

Plum Island Preservation Act. This legislation includes

matters that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In order to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 2182, the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will forgo

action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our

mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill

would not prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or to any future jurisdictional

claim over the subject matters contained in the bill or

similar legislation that fall within the Committee's Rule X

jurisdiction. I request you urge the Speaker to name members

of the Committee to any conference committee named to

consider such provisions.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest in the

Congressional Record during House Floor consideration of the

bill. I look forward to working with the Committee on

Homeland Security as the bill moves through the legislative

process.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, once again, urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2182.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. Lee M. ZeldinR-NY-1 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Donovan for his support. I rise today in support of H.R. 2182, to prevent the sale of Plum Island by the Federal Government to the highest bidder. Situated at the gateway of…

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Donovan for his support.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2182, to prevent the sale of Plum Island by the Federal Government to the highest bidder.

Situated at the gateway of the Long Island Sound, I personally had the pleasure of visiting this treasured island.

In addition to being a critical resource for research, approximately 90 percent of the land on Plum Island has been sheltered from development, offering Long Island a diverse wildlife and ecosystem and critical habitat for migratory birds, marine mammals, and rare plants.

Plum Island is also an essential cultural and historical resource as well, with recorded history dating back to the 1700s.

The island held the U.S. military's Fort Terry, a coastal defense fortification, which was used through the end of World War II.

Since then, Plum Island has been utilized as a research laboratory and has since grown to become what is known today as the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.

In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security, which currently has jurisdiction over the island, announced that the Animal Disease Center research would be moved to a new Federal facility, the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, NBAF, in Kansas.

To offset the cost of this relocation, a law was enacted that called for the private sale of Plum Island by the Federal Government to the highest bidder.

However, because of the costs associated with the cleanup and closure of Plum Island, and because of local zoning restrictions, the Federal Government would receive little compensation for the sale of Plum Island.

Also, in the 12 years since the move to Kansas was approved, the new facility in Kansas is already fully paid for by a combination of Federal appropriations and State and private funds.

Allowing for continued research, public access, and permanent preservation of the island, H.R. 2182 will suspend the laws passed in 2008 and 2011 that mandated the public sale of Plum Island.

This bill will commission the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, which currently owns the island, to formulate a comprehensive plan for the future of the island.

It requires the plan focus on conservation, education, and research and include alternative uses for the island, including a transfer of ownership to another Federal agency, the State or

local government, a nonprofit, or a combination thereof.

In the 114th Congress, this bill passed the House unanimously with bipartisan support as H.R. 1887.

My amendment to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2017, H.R. 5485, which would have prohibited any of the funding within the appropriations bill to market or sell Plum Island, also passed the House as well.

I would like to thank the other Members of Congress who have cosponsored this legislation and lent their support to this cause, especially my colleagues from Connecticut, Congressman Joe Courtney and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.

I would also like to thank House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for bringing this bill to the floor, House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, and all of the local elected officials, groups, and concerned residents on Long Island who have taken an issue on this important issue.

This bill is endorsed by the Preserve Plum Island Coalition, an alliance of over 65 community and environmental groups in New York and Connecticut, focused on the conservation of this island.

I am proud to work alongside all of these great individuals and groups as we strive to save Plum Island.

Since taking office in 2015, one of my highest local priorities has been to protect Plum Island. Preserving this island's natural beauty, while maintaining a research mission, will continue to provide important economic and environmental benefits for Long Island.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of this critical bill, as well as for the Senate to pass this legislation, so it may be signed into law this year.

Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr.D-NJ-10 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2182, the Plum Island Preservation Act. Mr. Speaker, since 1954, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center…

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2182, the Plum Island Preservation Act.

Mr. Speaker, since 1954, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York's Long Island has served as the Nation's principal laboratory responsible for research on foreign animal diseases of livestock, such as foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases.

At Plum Island, the Department of Homeland Security works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to research and develop new vaccines and diagnostic tests for animal disease outbreaks and to defend against international or accidental introduction of animal diseases into the United States.

On September 11, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to develop the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, or NBAF, as a state-of-the-art biocontainment laboratory for the study of diseases that threaten both America's animal agricultural industry and public health.

As envisioned by DHS, the 580,000-square-foot facility would replace the Plum Island laboratory.

Following an extensive selection process, DHS selected a site in Manhattan, Kansas, for the new lab, and the site is slated to be fully operational by December of 2022.

What H.R. 2182 aims to answer is what will happen to Plum Island when DHS vacates the facility.

DHS is currently studying the range of options for disposition of the property, including transferring it to another Federal agency, a State or local government, or a nonprofit organization for the purposes of education, research, or conservation.

In doing so, DHS is expected to assess the full implications of each option, including cost, cleanup, and hazard mitigation.

H.R. 2182 requires the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to assess whether the forthcoming study is satisfactory to support a decision. In the event that the study is lacking in a key area, GAO would be required to conduct its own study.

Importantly, H.R. 2182 ensures that Plum Island cannot be sold by the Federal Government to the highest bidder.

Under this bill, the sale of Plum Island is prohibited until at least 180 days after the required reports in the bill have been submitted to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2182 has broad support on both sides of the aisle, as we can see. Plum Island has a history dating back to the 1700s and has been owned by the Federal Government since 1899. This bill takes steps to ensure that this culturally and historically important site is not sold until all relevant questions are answered regarding the final disposition of Plum Island and that a satisfactory comprehensive plan has been developed.

I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. Joe CourtneyD-CT-2 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Payne for his leadership on the Homeland Security Committee and also for his hard work on this legislation, which, again, has been closely watched back home in Connecticut…

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Payne for his leadership on the Homeland Security Committee and also for his hard work on this legislation, which, again, has been closely watched back home in Connecticut and on the other side of Long Island Sound, as Mr. Zeldin indicated as well, in the State of New York.

Again, I rise in strong support, with my colleague, for passage of H.R. 2182, the Plum Island Preservation Act. This has been an effort that has been ongoing since Congress, unfortunately, took, I think, a wrong turn when they enacted legislation in 2009, with the goal of trying to create funding for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Kansas; but in the process of doing that, it set up a truncated sale of this property, which really deviated from the normal GSA process of trying to exhaust other beneficial uses before putting it up for sale to the highest bidder.

Again, that has been the struggle for people on both sides of the Long Island Sound, who have been frustrated by the fact that, because Congress mandated a sale without any other options, the incredible, pristine environmental quality of this precious piece of property was basically pushed down the food chain in terms of, again, the way the Federal Government was operating.

Again, I think it is important to recognize--and my colleagues from New York, Mr. Donovan and Mr. Zeldin, understand this--this still is the most densely populated area of America. The boat traffic, the maritime traffic that flows through Long Island Sound, again, is the busiest in the country. And to have a piece of property that is this precious and this pure--which Mr. Zeldin visited, and I think he can attest to that personally, and I have sailed past it--is really an opportunity that really we just cannot possibly allow to go to a developer that would make that quality forever lost.

So this legislation, which stops the 2009 process in its tracks, has GAO step in and do a full complete analysis across the board in evaluating all options. In particular, the options of preserving this unique environmental asset is the right move for our country, and, again, it will be to the benefit of generations to come.

Again, I want to congratulate Mr. Zeldin for his persistence. Again, we did get it through the last Congress, the 114th.

I think getting this done early in the 115th Congress will hopefully allow us the opportunity to get some bandwidth in the Senate's floor schedule to finally get this to the President's desk, and, again, forever protect an asset for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge strong support for this measure.

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauroD-CT-3 · Jul 25, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It is very simple. It directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the Congress on alternative uses for Plum…

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in HouseIssued April 12, 2018

115th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5485

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 12, 2018

Mr. Comer (for himself and Mr. Polis) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to provide for State and Tribal regulation of hemp production, and for other purposes.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Hemp Farming Act of 2018.

Hemp production

The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

Hemp Production

297A.

Definitions

In this subtitle:

(1)

Hemp

The term hemp means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

(2)

Indian tribe

The term Indian tribe has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).

(3)

Secretary

The term Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture.

(4)

State

The term State means—

(A)

a State;

(B)

the District of Columbia;

(C)

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and

(D)

any other territory or possession of the United States.

(5)

State department of agriculture

The term State department of agriculture means the agency, commission, or department of a State government responsible for agriculture in the State.

(6)

Tribal government

The term Tribal government means the governing body of an Indian tribe.

297B.

State and Tribal plans

(a)

Submission

(1)

In general

A State or Indian tribe desiring to have primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp in the State or territory of the Indian tribe shall submit to the Secretary, through the State department of agriculture (in consultation with the Governor and chief law enforcement officer of the State) or the Tribal government, as applicable, a plan under which the State or Indian tribe monitors and regulates that production as described in paragraph (2).

(2)

Contents

A State or Tribal plan referred to in paragraph (1)—

(A)

shall only be required to include—

(i)

a practice to maintain relevant information regarding land on which hemp is produced in the State or territory of the Indian tribe, including a legal description of the land, for a period of not less than 3 calendar years;

(ii)

a procedure for testing, using post-decarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration levels of hemp produced in the State or territory of the Indian tribe;

(iii)

a procedure for the effective disposal of products that are produced in violation of this subtitle; and

(iv)

a procedure to comply with the enforcement procedures under subsection (d); and

(B)

may include any other practice or procedure established by a State or Indian tribe, as applicable, to the extent that the practice or procedure is consistent with this subtitle.

(3)

Relation to State and Tribal law

(A)

No preemption

Nothing in this subsection preempts or limits any law of a State or Indian tribe regulating the production of hemp, to the extent that law is consistent with this subtitle.

(B)

References in plans

A State or Tribal plan referred to in paragraph (1) may include a reference to a law of the State or Indian tribe regulating the production of hemp, to the extent that law is consistent with this subtitle.

(b)

Approval

(1)

In general

Not later than 60 days after receipt of a State or Tribal plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

(A)

approve the State or Tribal plan if the State or Tribal plan complies with subsection (a); or

(B)

disapprove the State or Tribal plan only if the State or Tribal plan does not comply with subsection (a).

(2)

Amended plans

If the Secretary disapproves a State or Tribal plan under paragraph (1)(B), the State, through the State department of agriculture (in consultation with the Governor and chief law enforcement officer of the State) or the Tribal government, as applicable, may submit to the Secretary an amended State or Tribal plan that complies with subsection (a).

(c)

Technical assistance

The Secretary may provide technical assistance to a State or Indian tribe in the development of a State or Tribal plan under subsection (a).

(d)

Violations

(1)

In general

A violation of a State or Tribal plan approved under subsection (b) shall be subject to enforcement solely in accordance with this subsection.

(2)

Negligent violations

(A)

In general

A hemp producer in a State or the territory of an Indian tribe for which a State or Tribal plan is approved under subsection (b) shall be subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph if the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, determines that the hemp producer has negligently violated the State or Tribal plan, including by negligently—

(i)

failing to provide a legal description of land on which the producer produces hemp;

(ii)

failing to obtain a license or other required authorization from the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable; or

(iii)

producing Cannabis sativa L. with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

(B)

Corrective action plan

A hemp producer described in subparagraph (A) shall comply with a plan established by the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, to correct the negligent violation, including—

(i)

a reasonable date by which the hemp producer shall correct the negligent violation; and

(ii)

a requirement that the hemp producer shall periodically report to the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, on the compliance of the hemp producer with the State or Tribal plan for a period of not less than the next 2 calendar years.

(C)

Result of negligent violation

Except as provided in subparagraph (D), a hemp producer that negligently violates a State or Tribal plan under subparagraph (A) shall not be subject to any criminal or civil enforcement action by the Federal Government or any State government, Tribal government, or local government other than the enforcement action authorized under subparagraph (B).

(D)

Repeat violations

A hemp producer that negligently violates a State or Tribal plan under subparagraph (A) 3 times in a 5-year period shall be ineligible to produce hemp for a period of 5 years beginning on the date of the third violation.

(3)

Other violations

If the State department of agriculture or Tribal government in a State or the territory of an Indian tribe for which a State or Tribal plan is approved under subsection (b), as applicable, determines that a hemp producer in the State or territory has violated the State or Tribal plan with a culpable mental state greater than negligence—

(A)

the State department of agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable, shall immediately report the hemp producer to—

(i)

the Attorney General; and

(ii)

in the case of a State department of agriculture, the chief law enforcement officer of the State; and

(B)

paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to the violation.

(e)

Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.

(f)

Effect

Nothing in this section prohibits the production of hemp in a State or the territory of an Indian tribe for which a State or Tribal plan is not approved under this section in accordance with other Federal laws (including regulations).

297C.

Authority to issue regulations and guidelines

The Secretary shall have sole authority to issue Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to the production of hemp, including Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to the implementation of section 297B.

Funding for hemp research

(a)

Supplemental and alternative crops

Section 1473D(c)(3)(E) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3319d(c)(3)(E)) is amended by inserting (including hemp (as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)) after material.

(b)

Critical agricultural materials

Section 5(b)(9) of the Critical Agricultural Materials Act (7 U.S.C. 178c(b)(9)) is amended by inserting , and including hemp (as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946) after hydrocarbon-containing plants.

Legitimacy of industrial hemp research

(a)

In general

Section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating subsections (a) and (b) as subsections (b) and (a), respectively, and moving the subsections so as to appear in alphabetical order;

(2)

in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), in the subsection heading, by striking In general and inserting Industrial hemp research; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(c)

Study and report

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study of agricultural pilot programs—

(A)

to determine the economic viability of the domestic production and sale of industrial hemp; and

(B)

that shall include a review of—

(i)

each agricultural pilot program; and

(ii)

any other agricultural or academic research relating to industrial hemp.

(2)

Report

Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1).

(b)

Repeal

Effective on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940) is repealed.

Federal crop insurance

(a)

Definition of hemp

Section 502(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (11) as paragraphs (9) through (12), respectively; and

(2)

by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

(8)

Hemp

The term hemp has the meaning given the term in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

(b)

Insurance period

Section 508(a)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(a)(2)) is amended by striking and sweet potatoes and inserting sweet potatoes, and hemp.

(c)

Submission of policies and materials to board

Section 508(h) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(h)) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (1)(B)—

(A)

by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as subclauses (I) through (III), respectively, and indenting appropriately;

(B)

in the matter preceding subclause (I) (as so redesignated), by striking The Corporation shall and inserting the following:

(i)

In general

The Corporation shall

;

(C)

in clause (i)(I) (as so redesignated), by inserting subject to clause (ii), before will likely; and

(D)

by adding at the end the following:

(ii)

Waiver for hemp

The Corporation may waive the viability and marketability requirement under clause (i)(I) in the case of a policy or pilot program relating to the production of hemp.

; and

(2)

in paragraph (3)(C)—

(A)

in clause (ii), by striking and at the end;

(B)

in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and

(C)

by adding at the end the following:

(iv)

in the case of reviewing policies and other materials relating to the production of hemp, may waive the viability and marketability requirement under subparagraph (A)(ii)(I).

(d)

Agricultural commodity

Section 518 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1518) is amended by inserting hemp, before aquacultural species.

(e)

Research and development authority

Section 522(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1522(b)) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:

(K)

Waiver for hemp

The Board may waive the viability and marketability requirements under this paragraph in the case of research and development relating to a policy to insure the production of hemp.

; and

(2)

in paragraph (3)—

(A)

by striking The Corporation and inserting the following:

(A)

In general

Subject to subparagraph (B), the Corporation

; and

(B)

by adding at the end the following:

(B)

Waiver for hemp

The Corporation may waive the marketability requirement under subparagraph (A) in the case of research and development relating to a policy to insure the production of hemp.

Conforming changes to Controlled Substances Act

(a)

In general

Section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended—

(1)

by striking (16) The and inserting (16)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the; and

(2)

by striking Such term does not include the and inserting the following:

(B)

The term marihuana does not include—

(i)

hemp, as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; or

(ii)

the

(b)

Tetrahydrocannabinol

Schedule I, as set forth in section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)), is amended in subsection (c)(17) by inserting after Tetrahydrocannabinols the following: , except for tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946).

Rule of construction

Nothing in this Act authorizes interference with the interstate commerce of hemp (as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as added by section 2).