The U.S. House of Representatives today hosted a field hearing titled “Building the Future of Finance: How the CLARITY Act Unlocks Innovation.” Republican Representative William Timmons of South Carolina said the CLARITY Act is crucial to keeping the U.S. economy at the center of the global financial system.
“We’re on the one-yard line; we just have to score the touchdown,” Timmons said, signaling that the legislation has reached its final stage.
The witnesses included Nova Labs Chief Legal Officer Sarah Aberg, Bullish executive Randi Abernethy, WisdomTree’s Ryan Louvar and Coin Center’s Jason Somensatto. The agenda also included H.Res. 111 and H.R. 8957, known as the American Reserve Modernization Act, which became the hearing’s main focus.
Senate faces a narrowing window
Speaking at a summit in Washington, Timmons reiterated that the legislation remains one of the president’s top priorities and has attracted work from members of both parties. He acknowledged that the process could face setbacks but said lawmakers would ultimately get it done.
The congressional calendar leaves little room. The House and Senate have only recently returned to Washington following the July 4 recess. The House is scheduled to leave again on July 24, while the Senate will remain in session until August 7.
The House passed its version of the legislation a year ago, but the proposal has remained in the Senate since then. Senate Majority Leader John Thune wants to bring the measure to the floor before the August recess, while lawmakers are expected to release an updated draft this week.
Even if the Senate approves its own version, the legislation would have to return to the House. That step could prevent Congress from completing the process before the recess. Timmons said the negotiations might continue over the coming months, although lawmakers aim to finalize the bill before the November elections.
Five key figures discuss ethics provisions involving Trump
The Senate has largely moved past disputes between banks and the crypto industry over stablecoin rewards, as well as the debate surrounding legal protections for software developers. One major issue remains unresolved: how lawmakers should regulate potential conflicts of interest connected to President Donald Trump’s crypto activities.
Bipartisan negotiators have spent months drafting ethics provisions that would restrict how presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress and federal officials can earn income from digital assets while in office.
Trump is expected to meet on Thursday afternoon with Republican Senators Bernie Moreno and Cynthia Lummis, White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. The group will try to resolve the dispute and secure the president’s approval.
Nevada Representative Steven Horsford said he hoped the debate would focus on digital asset users instead of the administration or the Trump family. In his view, lawmakers should prioritize voters, users and small businesses that stand to benefit from clear regulation.
Gallego: Democrats will not vote for the bill without strong ethics rules
Reports published ahead of the meeting suggest that the current proposal lacks sufficient Democratic support. Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego said Republicans were taking their own ethics language to the president instead of presenting provisions negotiated with Democrats.
Gallego made clear that the bill would not secure Democratic votes without strong ethics safeguards.
Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger also described the ethics debate as the central issue in the negotiations. She said most Democratic offices she had contacted remained concerned about the ethics language and were unwilling to move forward without an agreement.
Mersinger nevertheless remained optimistic. She said the appropriate officials were involved in the talks and added that she had yet to meet anyone who did not want Congress to complete the legislation.
Meanwhile, gambling companies are lobbying lawmakers to add rules governing prediction markets, particularly those involving sports betting. Mersinger described such an amendment as a “poison pill.” Horsford argued that Congress should address prediction markets through separate legislation rather than including the issue in the CLARITY Act.
