Foreign media reports that the US Senate temporarily suspended the CLARITY bill, a cryptocurrency market structure bill, this week, prioritizing federal personnel appointments and the Russian sanctions agenda. With the August recess approaching, the likelihood of the bill being voted on this summer has significantly decreased, and market expectations for its passage have also declined.
The article argues that the most realistic window of opportunity now is only about three weeks in September. However, this window coincides with the campaign schedule leading up to the midterm elections, and if the Senate passes the revised version, it will have to be sent back to the House for review. Given the ongoing divisions within the House Republican Party, pushing forward will be quite difficult.
Senate deadline has squeezed the summer window.
The report points out that the Senate had limited time to advance legislation after reconvening in July. Majority Leader John Thune did not schedule a full Senate vote on CLARITY before the August 8 recess, but instead pushed forward a package of personnel appointments and turned to the Russia sanctions bill.
According to Senate procedure, a controversial bill typically requires a full closing debate, which consumes a significant amount of agenda time. The article argues that while CLARITY's scheduling appears to be squeezed, it also reveals that the bill itself has not yet garnered enough votes.
The vote count remains a bigger obstacle.
On July 22, Senate Republicans released an updated text that included ethics clauses negotiated with the White House. However, several Democratic senators involved in the negotiations quickly stated that the new version was still insufficient to support their views.
The article states that without the support of approximately seven Democratic senators, the bill will struggle to cross the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. This means that even if a suitable "piggyback" bill is found by the end of the year, it will only alleviate the time constraint and will not automatically resolve the issue of insufficient bipartisan support.
The year-end bill is not a sure thing.
The so-called year-end path involves attaching all or part of a CLARITY to a bill that Congress must pass, such as a government appropriations bill, an annual national defense authorization bill, or tax extension measures. This practice is not uncommon in Washington, as lawmakers are often unwilling to let an entire key bill fail due to an appended clause.
However, the article points out that this approach usually requires prior coordination between the leadership of both parties. Currently, publicly available information only indicates that lobbyists are pushing this idea; no senator has officially confirmed it. In other words, this is more like a still-circulating alternative than a finalized legislative plan.
If CLARITY is ultimately passed with supplementary clauses, the text will likely be condensed. Less contentious sections such as classification criteria and transitional arrangements are more likely to be retained, while more contentious sections, such as ethical clauses, are more likely to be cut. The article argues that this could result in a version of the bill, even if it passes, that is narrower in scope and more open to interpretation.
