Senate committee advances CLARITY Act

The Senate Banking Committee voted 15-9 on May 14 to advance the CLARITY Act, moving the crypto market-structure bill to the Senate floor after a markup that exposed both bipartisan support and unresolved Democratic objections. Chairman Tim Scott said the measure would create “clear rules of the road” for digital assets, while committee Republicans described it as the product of months of negotiations. Two Democrats — Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland — joined all Republicans on the panel to support the bill. The legislation is H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, which the House sent to the Senate in September 2025. ### Which bill did the committee actually move? H.R. 3633 is the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, a House-passed bill that was received in the Senate on September 18, 2025 and referred to the Banking Committee. The Senate committee marked up that House bill rather than a separate Senate-numbered measure. The Congressional Research Service said the bill would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission a central role in regulating “digital commodities” and related intermediaries, while preserving parts of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority over some primary-market crypto transactions. (banking.senate.gov) CRS said the bill also creates a limited exemption from SEC registration requirements for certain fundraising tied to digital commodities. (congress.gov) ### Why is the CFTC at the center of this bill? The Congressional Research Service said the bill’s framework turns on the category of “digital commodity,” which excludes securities, derivatives and stablecoins. Under that structure, the CFTC would regulate digital commodities and related trading venues, brokers and dealers, while the SEC would keep authority in areas the bill continues to treat as securities activity. (congress.gov) The House-passed text lists expedited registration for digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers, treatment of investment contract assets, exempted primary transactions in digital commodities, and SEC anti-fraud authority over certain transactions and permitted payment stablecoins. Those provisions show the bill is dividing responsibilities rather than removing the SEC from crypto oversight altogether. (congress.gov) ### What did senators say changed before the vote? Tim Scott, Cynthia Lummis and Thom Tillis released updated bill text on May 12 and said it reflected negotiations with Democratic colleagues as well as input from regulators, law enforcement, financial institutions, innovators and consumer advocates. Scott said the bill had been “strengthened,” and Tillis called the updated language a “bipartisan compromise.” (congress.gov) Angela Alsobrooks was identified by the ABA Banking Journal as leading a bipartisan effort to craft compromise language, and the same report said she and Gallego voted with Republicans to advance the bill. CNBC reported that several Democrats who had worked on the measure said they wanted negotiations to continue on illicit-finance controls and ethics language tied to elected officials’ crypto interests. (banking.senate.gov) ### Who opposed the bill, and over what? Several committee Democrats objected during the markup after Scott ruled some proposed amendments out of order, according to the ABA Banking Journal. CNBC reported that Democratic concerns also included how to address bad actors using digital assets and whether the bill should contain stronger ethics provisions related to public officials profiting from crypto. (bankingjournal.aba.com) Bank trade groups also pressed for changes. The American Bankers Association and other financial associations said after the vote that the bill should do more to tighten restrictions on interest-like rewards tied to stablecoins, even as they called the committee action “an important step” toward a regulatory framework. (bankingjournal.aba.com) ### How did the committee vote break down? The committee approved the bill 15-9, according to the Banking Committee majority and multiple news reports. Scott’s office called the vote bipartisan, and CNBC said Gallego and Alsobrooks supplied the two Democratic votes needed to produce that margin. (bankingjournal.aba.com) That tally matters because Republicans did not move the bill strictly on a party-line basis, even though most Democrats opposed it. The committee vote now clears the way for Senate floor consideration, where the bill will face a broader test of support. (banking.senate.gov) ### What happens next in the Senate? The Banking Committee said on May 14 that the bill now moves to the Senate floor. CNBC reported that the measure would still need to clear the full Senate and then the House before it could go to President Donald Trump. (banking.senate.gov) The next milestone is a Senate floor vote on H.R. 3633, with Scott, Lummis, Tillis, Gallego and Alsobrooks among the senators who have already taken public positions as negotiations continue. (banking.senate.gov)