PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10471 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10471 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10471 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10471 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed CLAIM Act would protect insurers from specified federal penalties and liability for insuring qualifying cannabis businesses and related policyholders where cannabis activity is permitted under the laws described in the bill. Insurers could still choose whether to offer coverage. The bill would also require a federal study of barriers facing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis businesses, including access to financial services.
This Act may be cited as the Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana Act or the CLAIM Act.
A Federal agency may not— (1) prohibit, penalize, or otherwise discourage an insurer from engaging in the business of insurance in connection with— (A) a cannabis-related legitimate business
Nothing in this Act shall— (1) require an insurer to engage in the business of insurance in connection with a cannabis-related legitimate business
The Comptroller General of the United States shall carry out a study on the barriers to marketplace entry, including in the licensing process, and the access to financial services for potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.
A qualifying cannabis business would have to operate under state or local law, as determined by that government. Covered activities range from growing and manufacturing cannabis to selling, transporting and purchasing it. Cannabis products would include concentrates, edibles, tinctures, infused products and topical products.
The term cannabis-related legitimate business means a manufacturer, producer, or any person or company that— (A) engages in any activity described in subparagraph (B) pursuant to a law established by a State or a political subdivision of a State, as determined by such State or political subdivision; and (B) participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling cannabis or cannabis products, including cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling, transporting, displaying, dispensing, distributing, or purchasing cannabis or cannabis products.
The term cannabis product means any article which contains cannabis, including an article which is a concentrate, an edible, a tincture, a cannabis-infused product, or a topical.
The bill's references to states would also cover the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions.
The term State means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
Federal agencies could not prohibit, penalize or discourage insurers from providing insurance connected with qualifying cannabis businesses or state, local or tribal governments exercising jurisdiction over those businesses. Agencies also could not terminate, cancel or limit an insurer's policies solely because of its insurance business with a qualifying cannabis business.
A Federal agency may not— (1) prohibit, penalize, or otherwise discourage an insurer from engaging in the business of insurance in connection with— (A) a cannabis-related legitimate business; or (B) a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian Tribe that exercises jurisdiction over cannabis-related legitimate businesses; (2) terminate, cancel or otherwise limit the policies of an insurer solely because the insurer has engaged in the business of insurance in connection with a cannabis-related legitimate business
Federal agencies could not encourage insurers to withhold coverage or downgrade or cancel coverage solely because a policyholder manufactures or grows cannabis, or owns, operates or works for a qualifying cannabis business. This would also cover policyholders who later take those business roles and cases where the insurer did not know about the role.
recommend, incentivize, or encourage an insurer not to engage in the business of insurance in connection with a policyholder, or downgrade or cancel the insurance and insurance services offered to a policyholder solely because— (A) the policyholder is— (i) a manufacturer or producer; or (ii) the owner, operator, or employee of a cannabis-related legitimate business; (B) the policyholder later becomes an employee, owner, or operator of a cannabis-related legitimate business; or (C) the insurer was not aware that the policyholder is an employee, owner, or operator of a cannabis-related legitimate business
Federal agencies could not take adverse or corrective supervisory action on covered policies solely because of the specified cannabis-business relationships. These protections would extend to policies for qualifying businesses, specified employees, owners and operators, and owners or operators who lease real estate or equipment to qualifying cannabis businesses.
take any adverse or corrective supervisory action on a policy to— (A) a cannabis-related legitimate business, solely because the owner or operator owns or operates a cannabis-related legitimate business; (B) an employee, owner, or operator of a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider, solely because the employee, owner, or operator is employed by, owns, or operates a cannabis-related legitimate business, as applicable; or (C) an owner or operator of real estate or equipment that is leased to a cannabis-related legitimate business, solely because the owner or operator of the real estate or equipment leased the equipment or real estate to a cannabis-related legitimate business, as applicable.
The federal liability protection would apply to insurance activity in states, local jurisdictions or Indian country where the relevant government permits the listed cannabis activities. It would cover insurers dealing with qualifying cannabis businesses or service providers, or otherwise conducting cannabis-related transactions permissible under state law. Insurers and their officers, directors and employees could not be held liable under federal law or regulation solely for that insurance activity, or for further investing income from it.
With respect to engaging in the business of insurance within a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian country that allows the cultivation, production, manufacture, sale, transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, or purchase of cannabis pursuant to a law or regulation of such State, political subdivision, or Indian Tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country, as applicable, an insurer that engages in the business of insurance with a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider or who otherwise engages with a person in a transaction permissible under State law related to cannabis, and the officers, directors, and employees of that insurer may not be held liable pursuant to any Federal law or regulation— (1) solely for engaging in the business of insurance; or (2) for further investing any income derived from such business of insurance.
Insurers would remain free to decline cannabis-related business. The bill also states that it would not interfere with insurance regulation under the McCarran-Ferguson Act or the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Nothing in this Act shall— (1) require an insurer to engage in the business of insurance in connection with a cannabis-related legitimate business; or (2) interfere with the regulation of the business of insurance in accordance with the Act of March 9, 1945 (59 Stat. 33, chapter 20; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) (commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
The Comptroller General would have to study barriers to entering the cannabis marketplace, including licensing barriers, and access to financial services for prospective and existing minority-owned and women-owned qualifying cannabis businesses. Congress would receive the findings and any recommendations for regulatory or legislative changes to remove barriers and expand access.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall carry out a study on the barriers to marketplace entry, including in the licensing process, and the access to financial services for potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.
The Comptroller General shall issue a report to the Congress— (1) containing all findings and determinations made in carrying out the study required under subsection (a); and (2) containing any regulatory or legislative recommendations for removing barriers to marketplace entry, including in the licensing process, and expanding access to financial services for potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.
The study's financial-services scope would extend beyond insurance. The bill's definition includes payment processing and transfers, qualifying money-transmission services using a deposit-taking institution, and specified armored-car processing and deposit services.
the access to financial services for potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses
(B) includes— (i) the business of insurance; (ii) whether performed directly or indirectly, the authorizing, processing, clearing, settling, billing, transferring for deposit, transmitting, delivering, instructing to be delivered, reconciling, collecting, or otherwise effectuating or facilitating of payments or funds
(iii) acting as a money transmitting business which directly or indirectly makes use of a depository institution in connection with effectuating or facilitating a payment for a cannabis-related legitimate business or service provider in compliance with section 5330 of title 31, United States Code, and any applicable State law; and (iv) acting as an armored car service for processing and depositing with a depository institution or a Federal reserve bank with respect to any monetary instruments (as defined under section 1956(c)(5) of title 18, United States Code).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 2, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Financial Services on September 16, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-02T22:00:36Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out beyond the main policy's intended coverage was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI