Senator Ruben Gallego raised concerns on August 19 about the potential consequences of rushing the CLARITY Act to a Senate floor vote. Speaking at the SALT Wyoming Blockchain Symposium, Gallego cautioned that hastening the legislative process could complicate rather than facilitate the establishment of a comprehensive U.S. crypto market structure law.
As the Senate gears up for a procedural cloture vote scheduled for September 15, which requires 60 votes to proceed, Gallego urged stakeholders in the crypto industry to support ongoing negotiations instead of advocating for an immediate vote. His warning highlights the delicate balance needed to ensure that bipartisan discussions continue without being derailed.
In his address, Gallego stated, “Don’t go for a fast vote. A fast vote gets you a fast result, but I’m not sure it’s the result you want.” This sentiment underscores the complexities involved in crafting legislation that can garner both Democratic and Republican support.
The upcoming cloture vote, initiated by Senate Majority Leader John Thune before the August recess, will determine whether the Senate formally begins deliberation on H.R. 3633. It is important to note that this vote will not pass the legislation itself; rather, it sets the stage for future debates and amendments.
Supporters of the bill face a significant challenge, as they will need to secure bipartisan backing to reach the necessary 60 votes. This means that Republican senators will need to garner Democratic support even before any discussions on amendments or final passage can take place.
White House Response Pending on Ethics Proposal
Gallego also expressed frustration regarding the lack of response from the White House concerning bipartisan ethics language he and Republican Senator Thom Tillis submitted prior to the recess. This proposal aims to address concerns surrounding public officials profiting from digital asset businesses.
As of August 20, the administration had not provided a detailed response. Gallego noted that previous offers have either come back without substantial feedback or have hindered negotiations further.
“We’ve been sending offers over and over again to the White House, and they’ve been coming back either blank, or slightly further back, or we’ve heard nothing,” Gallego remarked.
The absence of a clear reply from the White House has raised concerns among proponents of the CLARITY Act, emphasizing the need for transparency and collaboration.
Disputes Over Stablecoin Rewards Intensify
In addition to ethics concerns, ongoing disputes between banks and crypto companies regarding stablecoin rewards are adding to the pressure surrounding the bill. Banks argue that allowing platforms to offer rewards tied to stablecoin balances could siphon deposits away from regulated lenders. Conversely, crypto companies contend that imposing broad restrictions would limit competition and consumer choice.
Furthermore, lawmakers must finalize the Agriculture Committee’s section of the bill, which addresses the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, before merging it with the Banking Committee’s version into a complete package.
The Senate Banking Committee previously passed its version of the bill with a 15 to 9 vote in May, featuring support from Gallego and Senator Angela Alsobrooks alongside Republican members. However, this support is conditional and may not hold if significant changes are made.
President Trump has also weighed in, urging Congress to pass a “fair version” of the bill during a recent meeting with crypto executives. The House had previously passed an earlier iteration of the legislation with a vote of 294 to 134 in July 2025. Any amendments by the Senate will require the House to concur with the revised text or necessitate a reconciliation process before the bill can reach the President’s desk.
Should the September 15 cloture vote fail, Senate leaders may consider another attempt; however, the approaching November midterm elections may complicate further legislative action.
