PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8] · D–MD
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 Oversight and Government Reform.
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: Sep 29, 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.10504 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.10504 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.10504 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.10504 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 · 2026-09-17 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 Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility Act, or CURE Act, would prohibit using past marijuana use when deciding whether covered people qualify for a security clearance or are suitable for federal employment. It would also require agencies to establish a process for reviewing certain earlier denials, with a review available on request. The text requires reconsideration but does not expressly require restoring a clearance or granting employment.
This Act may be cited as the Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility Act or the CURE Act.
Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, past use of marihuana by a covered person may not be used in any determination with respect to whether such person is— (A) eligible for a security clearance; or (B) suitable for Federal employment, including under any suitability determination pursuant to part 731 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).
Upon receiving a request from any individual who was so denied a security clearance or employment (as the case may be), not later than 90 days after the date such request is so received, the Federal agency that denied such clearance or employment shall review the decision and determine if such decision was based solely on past marihuana use.
Section 2(a) would add an exclusion for marijuana to section 3002(a)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The existing provision is not reproduced, so the supplied text does not establish the full scope of that exclusion.
Subsection (a)(1) of section 3002 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 3343) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: , but does not include marihuana notwithstanding such section 102..
Within one year after enactment, every federal agency would have to establish a process to review decisions made on or after January 1, 2008, denying a security clearance or denying federal employment because of an adverse suitability determination—an assessment that someone is unsuitable for federal employment.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of the CURE Act, each Federal agency shall establish a process to review decisions, made on or after January 1, 2008, to deny an individual— (i) a security clearance; or (ii) Federal employment as a result of an adverse suitability determination.
Each agency would have to make its review process available on its public website.
Any process established pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be made available on the public website of the agency.
When a person covered by the review process requests reconsideration, the agency responsible for the denial would have 90 days after receiving the request to review its decision and determine whether it was based solely on past marijuana use.
Upon receiving a request from any individual who was so denied a security clearance or employment (as the case may be), not later than 90 days after the date such request is so received, the Federal agency that denied such clearance or employment shall review the decision and determine if such decision was based solely on past marihuana use.
The proposal would use the Controlled Substances Act's definition of marijuana, spelled “marihuana” in the bill. That referenced definition is not reproduced in the supplied text.
In this section, the term marihuana has the meaning given that term in section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 29, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on September 17, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T17:18:33Z. 2026-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2026-09-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-17. 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; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit warranting a separate finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Its protections concern access to generally available employment and clearance consideration. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI