2016: Schweikert Voted To Schedule 22 Synthetic Drugs To Be Schedule One Of The Controlled Substances Act. In September 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "place[d] 22 synthetic drug compounds, including three synthetic opioid substances, on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House agreed to the motion, passing the bill, by a vote of 258 to 101, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 557, 9/26/16; Congressional Quarterly, 9/26/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3537]
2021: Schweikert Voted For Repealing A Law That Authorizes Higher Penalties For Crack Cocaine Offenses Compared To Powder Cocaine, Which Would Eliminate Cocaine Sentencing Disparity. In September 2021, Schweikert voted for the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "eliminate the federal sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine by repealing a law that authorizes higher penalties for crack cocaine offenses compared to powder cocaine offenses, with the repeal effective retroactively. It would authorize sentencing courts to impose reduced sentences under the new guidelines for individuals convicted prior to the bill's enactment." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 361-66. [House Vote 297, 9/28/21; Congressional Quarterly, 9/28/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1693]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Eliminating Disparity In Federal Sentencing Between Drug Offenses Involving Crack Cocaine And Powder Cocaine. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, which would "eliminate the federal sentencing disparity between drug offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 329-101, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the legislation. The FY 2023 Defense Authorization was passed with H.R. 7776. [House Vote 350, 7/14/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/14/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 7900]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment To The Six-Bill FY 2021 Appropriations Package That Prevented The Justice Department From Interfering With State Marijuana Legalization Programs. In July 2020, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the FY 2021 six-bill appropriations package that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds provided by the bill to prevent states, tribes or territories from implementing laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of marijuana." The vote was on adoption. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 254-163. [House Vote 174, 7/30/20; Congressional Quarterly, 7/30/20; Congressional Quarterly, H.Amdt.864; Congressional Actions, H.R.7617]
2019: Schweikert Voted For Protecting Financial Services Institutions That Provide Services To Marijuana-Related Businesses And Service Providers. In September 2019, Schweikert voted for a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit federal banking regulators from penalizing financial service institutions for providing services to marijuana-related businesses and service providers operating in accordance with state law. It would protect all ancillary businesses that provide services to marijuana-related businesses from criminal liability." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 321-103. [House Vote 544, 9/25/19; Congressional Quarterly, 9/25/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1595]
The Bill Countered Financial Firms' Hesitance Towards Working With Marijuana Dispensaries And Growers, Resulting In A Largely Cash-Only Industry. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The cultivation and sale of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, which means the proceeds are subject to anti-money laundering laws. As a result, most financial firms have been hesitant to work with state-authorized dispensaries and growers, forcing them to run cash-only businesses. That makes it harder for cannabis entrepreneurs to get the startup funds to launch new businesses and makes those that do manage to get going a target for robbers." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/15/19]
Marijuana Legalization Advocates Were More Concerned With The Criminal Justice Aspect Of Marijuana Policy And Were Disappointed With The Bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, "some legalization advocates who have focused on the criminal justice aspects of marijuana's criminalization are disappointed that such a narrowly tailored bill might suck up all the political oxygen. 'People don't have any substantive objection to banking legislation, but they do have a concern that if the House moved something that doesn't have that racial justice lens, then you end up in an 'one and done' situation,' said Michael Collins, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/15/19]
Republicans Opposed The Bill Because It Didn't Expand Protections For Banks From Operating With Other Controversial Industries Such As Firearms Dealers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Some GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee who voted against Perlmutter's bill have said they'd be more willing to back it if it expanded protections to all legal entities operating in accordance with federal law --- language intended to prevent the revival of "Operation Choke Point," an Obama-administration program that discouraged banks from doing business with controversial industries like firearms dealers and payday lenders." [Congressional Quarterly, 4/4/19]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing Appropriations Bill That Allowed States To Authorize Use, Distribution, And Possession Of Marijuana. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds made available for the Justice Department under the bill for the purpose of preventing 46 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, from implementing laws relating to the authorized use, distribution, possession or cultivation of marijuana." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 267-165. [House Vote 370, 6/20/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.398; Congressional Actions, H.R.3055]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Defund A VA Prohibition On Its Medical Staff From Completing Forms That Issue Recommendations Regarding A Veteran's Participation In A Medical Marijuana Program. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] use of appropriated funds to implement a Veterans Health Administration directive with respect to the prohibition on department providers completing forms that issue recommendations or opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a state marijuana program." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 233 to 189. The House later passed the underlying legislation, which included this provision, but the Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 221, 5/19/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/19/16; Congress.gov, H.R. 4974; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1062; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4974]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting The Use Of Federal Funds To Legalize Or Reduce Penalties For Marijuana And Continued To Attempt To Ban DC's Legalization As Part Of The 2016 Omnibus And Tax Extender Bill. In December 2015, Schweikert voted against prohibiting the states to use federal funds to legalize or reduce penalties for marijuana. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation "Prohibits the use of federal funds (but not of local funds) to legalize or reduce penalties associated with the possession, use or distribution of any Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative). Marijuana (cannabis) is listed under Schedule I. The agreement further prohibits the use of any federal or local funds to legalize or reduce penalties associated with the possession, use or distribution of any Schedule I substance for recreational purposes (medical purposes are not prohibited). The agreement also [...] prohibits D.C. from using federal funds to decriminalize marijuana." The legislation was, according to Congressional Quarterly, a FY 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill with an amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 316 to 113. The legislation was later combined with a tax extender bill. The Senate passed the larger measure and the president signed it. [House Vote 705, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/15/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/15; Congressional Quarterly, 12/16/15; Washington Post, 12/16/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
2014: DC Voters Legalized Certain Amounts Of Personal Use Marijuana. According to USA Today, "Nearly two thirds of D.C. voters approved Initiative 71 in November. Under Initiative 71, people ages 21 or older will be allowed to possess two ounces or less of marijuana, use marijuana on private property and give one ounce or less to another person as long as no money, goods or services are exchanged. Residents will also be permitted to cultivate up to six marijuana plants --- although no more than three mature plants--- in their primary home." [USA Today, 2/26/15]
Congress Attempted To Overturn DC's Legalization, But DC Officials Argued That They Could Not. According to USA Today, "Congress has final say over the laws in the District of Columbia, and the two sides disagree about whether Congress acted quickly enough to block an initiative legalizing pot. Congress passed legislation in December that aimed to block Initiative 71 by banning the use of appropriated funds to 'enact any law, rule, or regulation to legalize' marijuana. District officials argue that the law was enacted when voters approved the initiative in November and that it merely takes effect Thursday. Chaffetz disagrees with that interpretation and says the mayor and other District employees who move forward with legalization could face criminal penalties. [USA Today, 2/26/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Block The Federal Government From Using Funds To Block States That Have Implemented Laws That Make It Legal To Possess, Distribute Or Use Cannabidiol. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] funds made available by the bill from being used to prevent a state from implementing any law that makes it legal to possess, distribute or use cannabidiol or cannabidiol oil." The underlying legislation was the FY 16 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 297 to 130. The House later passed the underlying bill, but it but died in the Senate after an attempt at becoming a vehicle for a different appropriations bill [House Vote 286, 6/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/3/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 335; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 335; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Block The DOJ From Using Funds To Block States That Have Implemented Laws That Authorize Use, Distribution, Possession, Or Cultivation Of Marijuana. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] funds made available by the bill for the Justice Department from being used with respect to 39 states - Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin - to prevent them from implementing their own laws that authorize use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana on non-federal lands within their respective jurisdictions." The underlying legislation was the FY 16 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 206 to 222. [House Vote 285, 6/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/3/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 334; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 334; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Block The DOJ From Using Funds To Block States That Have Implemented Medical Marijuana Laws. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] funds made available by the bill for the Justice Department from being used with respect to 39 states - Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin - or with respect to either the District of Columbia or Guam to prevent them from implementing their own laws that authorize use, distribution, possession of cultivation of medical marijuana." The underlying legislation was the FY 16 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 242 to 186. The House later passed the underlying legislation, but it died in the Senate after an attempt at becoming a vehicle for a different appropriations bill [House Vote 283, 6/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/3/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 332; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 332; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Prohibiting VA Providers From Seeking Recommendations Or Opinions Regarding A Veteran's Participation In A State Marijuana Program. In April 2015, Schweikert voted against prohibiting VA providers from seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a state marijuana program. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have "prohibit[ed] funds from being used to implement, administer or enforce the Veterans Health Administration directive that prohibits VA providers from seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a state marijuana program." The underlying measure was the FY 2016 Military Construction-VA Construction appropriations act. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 210 to 213. [House Vote 188, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 130; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2029]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR): Amendment Will Not Encourage Doctors Or Patients To Recommend Or Use Medical Marijuana. In a floor speech, Rep. Blumenauer said, "The amendment I am offering ensures that no funds made available to the VA can be used to implement this prohibition. The amendment will not encourage doctors or patients to recommend or use medical marijuana. It would not authorize the possession or use of marijuana at VA facilities. It would simply free up VA providers to have an honest conversation about treatment options and recommend medical marijuana in accordance with State law if they think it is appropriate. It would not force veterans to not work with their primary care provider. I am joined in offering this bipartisan amendment by Congressman Heck from Nevada, Congressman Rohrabacher, and a series of other Members, some of whom you will hear from." [Congressional Record, 4/26/15]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR): 20 Percent Of Iraq And Afghanistan War Veterans Have PTSD Or Depression. In a floor speech, Rep. Blumenauer said, "Over 20 percent of the 2.8 million American veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD and depression. They should not be forced outside the VA system to seek a simple recommendation about a treatment that might help them manage these conditions." [Congressional Record, 4/26/15]
Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA): Standing Policy Does Not Prohibit Veterans From Participating In State Marijuana Programs, But Cannot Posses Marijuana At A VA Facility Due To Federal Law. In a floor speech, Rep. Dent said, "The standing VA policy does not deny veterans who participate in State marijuana programs from also participating in VA substance abuse or clinical programs. It simply prohibits VA clinicians from completing forms for their participation in such State programs or for providing or paying for marijuana authorized by a State program. Veterans are able to participate in State programs. They just cannot possess marijuana at VA facilities. Changing the VA directive does not change the DEA's interpretation of Federal law on marijuana. DEA has advised VA that its doctors cannot issue anything that could be construed as a prescription or endorsement of medical marijuana, so the amendment won't change the situation for veterans unless the VA physicians are willing to risk prosecution." [Congressional Record, 4/26/15]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Bar Penalizing Financial Institutions That Provide Financial Services To Marijuana Businesses. In July 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] the use of funds in the bill to penalize a financial institution for providing financial services to an entity solely because it is a manufacturer, producer or person that participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling marijuana or marijuana products and engages in such activity pursuant to state or local law." The underlying legislation was an FY 2015 financial services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 231 to 191. The underlying bill later was passed by the House, but died in the Senate. A CR, that did become law, did not include the policy. [House Vote 418, 7/16/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/14; Congress.gov, H.R. 5016; Public Law, 113-235; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1086; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5016]
2014: Schweikert Voted For Issuing Guidance To Financial Institutions On Marijuana-Related Businesses. In July 2014, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] the use of funds in the bill to implement guidance to financial institutions on providing services to marijuana-related businesses." The underlying legislation was an FY 2015 Financial Services appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186 to 236. [House Vote 415, 7/16/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/16/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1078; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5016]
In February 2014, The Treasury Department Issued Guidance To Banks On How To Provider Services To The Marijuana Industry. According to a floor speech by Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), "On February 14, 2014, the Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, issued compliance guidance for 'Bank Secrecy Act, BSA, expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses.'" [Congressional Record, 7/15/14]
Federal Regulations Classifying Marijuana As Illegal Prevent The Industry From Using Certain Financial Services. According to USA Today via the Congressional Record, "Federal regulations, which still classify pot as an illegal drug, make it difficult for marijuana producers to deposit their profits into traditional bank accounts." [USA Today via the Congressional Record, 7/13/14]
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA): Marijuana Industry Still Excluded By Federal Law. In a floor speech, Rep. Fleming said, "I am concerned that Treasury forgot one detail: the Bank Secrecy Act and Federal anti-money laundering laws are explicitly clear that banks and financial institutions may not engage in marijuana-related transactions. Despite trending State laws, Federal law remains unchanged. The Controlled Substances Act prohibits the manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana. Anything but compliance with the CSA, the law of the land, will trigger criminal anti-money laundering penalties, fines, and possible incarceration for perpetrators." [Congressional Record, 7/15/14]
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY): Amendment Is Actually About The Fact That Numerous States Have Legalized Marijuana In Some Way; Secretary Law Has Noted That Without Guidance, This Industry Will Be A Cash-Only Business. In a floor speech, Rep. Serrano said, "This really has very little to do with the substance that we are talking about, or that appears to be marijuana. It is about the fact that, whether we like it or not, there are States that have already legalized either recreational use, in two cases, or medical use in 22 States, and those situations require banking decisions and banking abilities. Jack Lew, Secretary of the Treasury, said at our hearing: Without any guidance there will be a proliferation of cash-only businesses, and that would make it impossible to see when there are actions going on that violate both Federal and State law." [Congressional Record, 7/15/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Block The Justice Department From Blocking Medical Marijuana In States That Have Allowed Its Use. In May 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] bar[red] the Justice Department from using funds provided by the [underlying FY 2015 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations] bill to prevent certain states from implementing their own laws that would authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana." The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 219 to 189; and later passed the underlying bill. The bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 258, 5/30/14; Congressional Quarterly, 5/30/14; Congressional Actions, S. 2437; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 748; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4660]