The CLARITY Act’s path to the Senate floor hit a major snag as lawmakers scramble to resolve sharp policy fights and a high-stakes Sept. 15 procedural vote looms. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) publicly blamed Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s team for delaying the bill, accusing Democrats of trying to “run Bitcoin and crypto out of the country.” Scott made the comments during an Aug. 18 appearance—captured in footage from the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium and the SALT Conference—where he argued that without firm federal rules passed in Washington, crypto activity will migrate offshore. His remarks came as negotiations over H.R. 3633 have stalled on several contentious issues. Why Sept. 15 matters Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 before the Senate’s August recess. That motion is scheduled to “ripen” at 2:15 p.m. ET on Sept. 15, one day after senators return. If cloture is invoked, the Senate can formally begin debating the bill; but cloture itself requires 60 votes and is not final passage. If the Senate’s eventual text differs from the House-passed measure, the House must act again before the bill would reach the president’s desk. Where the votes stand Republicans lack 60 votes on their own, leaving supporters dependent on a mix of Democrats and independents. The House approved its version in July 2025 by 294–134 (78 Democrats joined Republicans). The Senate Banking Committee advanced its portion by 15–9 in May, with Democrats Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks among the yes votes—providing a sliver of bipartisan momentum but nowhere near the 60 votes needed on the floor. What’s in the bill H.R. 3633 seeks to create a dual-regulatory framework for digital assets: - The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would have primary authority over spot markets for qualifying digital commodities. - The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would retain jurisdiction over securities and some investment contracts. - Both agencies would share roles on registration, disclosure, and market conduct. - Covered exchanges, brokers, and dealers would face new federal registration and consumer-protection rules, plus anti-money-laundering requirements and enhanced disclosures. - Developers of certain non-custodial software could receive protection from being classified as money transmitters solely for publishing or maintaining code—a provision that originally alarmed law enforcement but was revised in later drafts. Major sticking points Negotiators combined work from the Senate Banking and Agriculture committees into a 616-page merged draft in late July, but several issues remain unresolved: - Ethics and elected-official restrictions: Democrats want limits on crypto ventures tied to the president, senior officials, and their families—fueled in part by concerns about Trump-linked projects and conflicts of interest. Republicans have pushed alternative language; Sen. Thom Tillis has been working on a bipartisan ethics compromise, but negotiators have not released a final text. - Developer safe-harbor vs. law enforcement: Some law enforcement groups initially warned that a broad developer exemption could hinder digital asset investigations. After lawmakers revised the language, the National Fraternal Order of Police and a coalition of police chiefs endorsed the update, but other prosecutors still want changes. - Stablecoin rewards: Banks want restrictions preventing yield or rewards on payment stablecoins—arguing such features could siphon deposits from regulated banks. Crypto firms contend a sweeping ban would stifle competition and exceed prior Congressional limits on stablecoin issuers. Negotiators have yet to agree on final language. - DeFi and AML: Democrats, led in part by Warren, are pressing for stronger anti-money-laundering controls and safeguards tied to national security. Crypto advocates warn against applying intermediary-style obligations to decentralized protocols and developers. Political dynamics Scott has accused Democrats of repeatedly “moving the goalposts,” saying Republican pressure is needed to force a vote. That rhetorical escalation came just as Sen. Ruben Gallego—one of the two Senate Democrats who backed the Banking Committee’s measure—warned a rushed floor vote could jeopardize bipartisan negotiations. Gallego also said the White House hadn’t provided detailed feedback on bipartisan ethics language sent by Senate negotiators. Market and expert odds Outside observers are skeptical about near-term passage. Miller Whitehouse-Levine, CEO of the Solana Policy Institute, estimated roughly a 10% chance the bill would pass before the November midterms; prediction markets on Polymarket priced the chance of H.R. 3633 becoming law during 2026 at about 20% as of Aug. 19. Those estimates differ in scope—pre-midterms versus through the end of 2026—but both signal long odds without a compromise. What’s next Sept. 15 will be a key test of whether negotiators have secured enough votes to open debate. Even if cloture is invoked, the Senate can still amend the bill, and unresolved issues—ethics language, stablecoin rewards, DeFi protections and certain Agriculture Committee provisions—are likely to return to the table. Lawmakers are also reported to be engaging with industry and the White House as they try to bridge gaps. Bottom line H.R. 3633 remains the most comprehensive U.S. bill to date attempting to split regulatory authority over crypto between the SEC and CFTC, while adding consumer protections, AML rules, and operational requirements. But sharp disagreements over ethics restrictions, developer protections, stablecoin rules and enforcement scope mean the CLARITY Act could stall—or be substantially reshaped—before it ever reaches a final vote. Expect high drama and intense bargaining as Sept. 15 approaches. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news