H.R. 10655House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a study and clinical trials on the effects of cannabis on certain health outcomes of veterans with chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byJ. Luis CorreaD-CA-46Introduced Oct 1, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 1, 2026) — on Veterans' Affairs.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

6 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Nay4d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
9
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Yea5d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
8
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay4d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
5
kbmontroseDemoNM-2voted Yea5d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
3
kwame.ibarraDemoLA-2voted Nay4d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Nay4d ago
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
Your position on H.R. 10655No positions yet