Can the CLARITY Act still pass before Democrats take control?

The Senate can return to the bill before January 3, but its September vote left supporters 11 short of the number needed to advance it.

The CLARITY Act has fallen 11 votes short of advancing in the Senate, a gap its supporters can still try to close before Democrats take control of Congress in January.

The Senate’s September 15 record shows 49 votes in favour and 50 against ending debate on the motion to proceed, which required 60. Democrats won both chambers in the November 3 midterms, while Republicans retain their majorities for the rest of the term.

LATEST: Six major crypto projects urge SEC for clear digital commodity rules

Stellar, Hedera, Aptos, Avalanche, Cardano and Chainlink are calling for clearer cryptocurrency classifications as the CLARITY Act debate advances. pic.twitter.com/D5p3ap4OtO

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) October 21, 2026

The September roll call gives negotiators a starting point

As crypto.news reported, the House vote in July 2025 and the Senate vote in September 2026 measured different things. The House passed H.R. 3633 by 294 votes to 134, a margin that included 78 Democrats. In September, senators were asked to cut off debate on taking up the bill. The House numbers show that a market structure proposal can draw votes across party lines. They provide little guidance on how individual senators would vote on a version that changed through months of negotiations.

The Senate Banking Committee’s 15–9 vote in May was another distinct step. Committee members considered the proposal as part of a markup, where senators could propose amendments and decide whether to send the measure forward. The committee vote recorded support for moving work to the next stage, and its smaller membership meant the coalition did not have to include senators from every state with an interest in bank deposits, technology companies or consumer finance.

The September roll call gives a baseline for thinking about the Senate’s options. The calculation starts at 49 because that is how many senators supported cloture. Each of the 50 no votes could turn into an additional yes. The senator who did not vote could add another. An absence among the original yes voters would reduce the starting number, so the exercise also depends on attendance and on negotiators retaining the support they already had.

Tillis’s vote needs to be read in conjunction with his motion to reconsider. His procedural move is an identifiable reason to count him separately from senators whose only recorded action was a no vote. If he and Coons supplied two additional votes, the supporters’ best starting point under that assumption would be 51. A public pledge from either would change the status of the calculation. Until then, it remains a scenario with two assumptions.

The three other Republican no votes give a second way to test how far a party-led negotiation could go. If Collins, Hawley and Moran all joined Tillis in changing their votes, the tally would rise to 53 with the other positions held constant. A yes from Coons would make it 54. Even this scenario, which assumes every one of those changes, leaves six votes to find elsewhere.

The arithmetic helps identify where a bargain has to work. A proposal focused exclusively on winning back the Republican dissenters would still need another source of votes. A proposal aimed exclusively at the Democratic side would give up a possible route through the Republican senators who voted no. A cross-party agreement can draw on both groups, but its language would have to survive scrutiny from members whose objections concern different parts of the bill.

Negotiators would also have to hold onto the original supporters as they make concessions. A senator who voted to start debate may oppose a new restriction on stablecoin rewards or a change to a provision governing software developers. Each lost vote raises the number of gains the new coalition needs. A count of endorsements on individual issues can therefore overstate the support for a single finished text.

A second procedural vote would matter even if it were the only step the Senate took immediately. It would show that leadership had found a coalition willing to take the measure up and give senators a vehicle for debate. Passage would still depend on the text that emerges and the subsequent votes. If the Senate version differs from the House version, the two chambers would need to agree on the same language before the president could act.

The hardest votes to count are the ones that would come after a compromise starts taking shape. A senator might support opening debate because amendments are expected, then vote against the final product. Another might withhold support on the first procedural vote until leaders agree to allow a particular amendment. The September roll call records a decision on a specific motion. It provides a place to begin reporting on negotiations, while the terms of a subsequent vote determine how much of that coalition is transferable.

How a stablecoin reward provision can change a product

The September dispute centred in part on what counts as a return for holding a stablecoin. Banking associations objected to wording in Section 10404 and sought changes to the terms that describe payments based on balances and the comparison with interest-bearing bank deposits. Their concern was that a product could satisfy the wording of an exception while still offering a return economically linked to the amount of stablecoin a customer leaves with the provider.

Consider two customers who each keep $1,000 in stablecoins. One receives a reward because the balance remains on a platform for a month. The other gets a rebate after making purchases during that month. A rule can distinguish the two by tying the permitted reward to a genuine transaction. Harder cases arise if the platform requires only a small transaction and calculates the rest of the reward on the full balance.

The placement of a few words can decide which of those arrangements survives. If the rule prohibits interest paid solely for holding a balance, the operator may argue that a small activity requirement puts its programme outside that prohibition. If the rule examines the basis used to calculate the reward, it can reach products that depend on the size or duration of the balance even when users have to do something to qualify.

From a bank’s perspective, the economic comparison is with a deposit the customer might otherwise keep. From the platform’s perspective, some rewards function as a way to subsidise payments, attract liquidity or encourage customers to try a product. The difficulty for lawmakers is writing a rule that can be applied to changing product designs and that leaves enough senators comfortable with the consequences for businesses in their states.

The issue also cuts across the boundaries of the bill. A stablecoin issuer, an exchange and a separate rewards provider can play different roles in the same product. A provision covering only the issuer may leave room for another firm to pay the reward. A rule that extends to affiliated or unaffiliated intermediaries would need to specify when they become responsible and what the regulator would look at in deciding whether a payment qualifies.

If legislators narrow the rewards exemption, they may attract senators concerned about competition for deposits. If the language is too restrictive for payments platforms, the change could cost support from lawmakers who view those products as one reason for passing the bill. The votes have to be counted against the specific language on offer, including what the provision would require of platforms that already run rewards programmes.

Why a committee victory did not carry over to the Senate floor

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the CLARITY Act in May with bipartisan support. Its work gave negotiators a version to build on, but the September vote showed how much larger the coalition needed to be once the bill reached the full Senate. The committee and floor decisions also answered different questions. One sent the measure forward. The other would have opened the way for senators to take it up.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott backed the bill as a way to establish federal standards for digital asset markets. A central issue is which assets and trading activities the Securities and Exchange Commission would oversee and where the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would take responsibility. The choice can determine where a platform registers and what rules it follows when it lists or handles an asset.

For a company that wants to offer spot crypto trading to US customers, the appeal of a market structure law lies in having rules it can build around. Congress can specify what the regulator supervises and give businesses a path to registration. Regulators would then have to turn much of that framework into operational requirements through rulemaking.

The same prospect makes the text consequential for senators concerned about consumer protection. Where the bill draws its boundaries can determine whether an existing safeguard continues to apply and whether a different agency has the authority and resources to enforce its own rules. Senate Banking Committee minority staff outlined five areas in which they believed the bill left gaps.

The House vote gives the Senate a negotiating partner

The House margin matters most as evidence that members once saw enough common ground to pass a market structure bill. It also gives a starting point for identifying a potential House coalition if the Senate sends back a revised measure. That work would have to account for members who might support the House approach but object to changes made to secure Senate votes.

One way to see the difficulty is to follow a provision through both chambers. House members can vote for a version that sets a particular boundary for the SEC and CFTC. Senators can agree on a different boundary to secure support from members concerned about registration or enforcement. The vote to advance the Senate text then tells the House very little about whether its earlier coalition will accept the change.

The reverse is also possible. Negotiators could keep much of the House language and change only the provisions necessary to secure support in the Senate. That can reduce the number of differences House members have to consider. It still requires a decision about which terms are essential and how much a change to one section affects the operation of the rest of the bill.

The September record can be organised by observable commitments. A vote in favour of cloture is evidence of willingness to proceed on that occasion. A filed reconsideration motion is evidence that a senator preserved a procedure. A proposal for new language identifies a potential negotiation. None of those actions can substitute for the votes on the finished text.

September scenario	Votes to advance	Short of 60
Recorded result	49	11
Tillis switches and Coons votes yes	51	9
All four Republican no votes switch and Coons votes yes	54	6

The scenarios hold the original 49 votes constant. They show why a negotiation that deals only with one part of the Senate cannot be assumed to produce the required result, and why the next public document worth reading is a proposed text alongside named commitments to support it.

A senator’s state can make the issue especially concrete. Community banks may worry about funding sources, while companies building payments products may want access to users and room to offer incentives. A member can hear both positions and favour legislation in general while deciding that a particular provision needs more work. The federal bill therefore reaches a collection of distinct interests, even when it appears in public debate as a single question about whether Congress supports crypto.

The distinction between negotiations and votes also matters for the calendar. Leaders could hold talks while other bills are on the floor. An announced agreement would still have to compete for the time and attention needed to move a text through the legislative process. If supporters decide that they cannot finish the entire measure, the remaining work can inform another attempt in the new Congress.

For an exchange or custodian planning its next year of operations, the dates to track are the actual votes and the terms of any enacted law. An agreement among negotiators can help the company anticipate changes. Statutory requirements, agency deadlines and any transition period would depend on the version that passes. That is where a new committee majority can exert influence long after election night.

There is also a difference between an agreement among senators and one that can clear the House quickly. A revision small enough to fit on a few pages can still change the economics of a customer-facing product or the legal position of software developers. If the Senate deal relies on a provision that House negotiators oppose, the resulting dispute would arrive late in the legislative calendar. The closer the process gets to January, the greater the practical value of agreement across both chambers before a new floor attempt.

JUST IN: 51 senators across 31 states are pro-crypto after the midterms

19 states now have two pro-crypto senators, according to Bitwise Head of Research Ryan Rasmussen pic.twitter.com/NBD2iesqg0

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) November 5, 2026

Ethics and software liability create separate votes to negotiate

The September draft included restrictions on the ability of public officials and some family members to issue or sponsor digital assets. Democratic objections went beyond whether the text used a prohibition. Senate Banking Committee minority staff had questioned whether earlier July language would capture ways in which an official could continue earning money through licensing or intermediaries.

A restriction on issuing a token would apply at one identifiable event. A rule on receiving proceeds has to address where the economic benefit ends up over time. A business can earn money from licensing a name, sharing revenue with a partner or retaining assets whose price changes with demand. Whether the legislation reaches each arrangement depends on its definitions and its treatment of relationships established before the law took effect.

Ethics negotiations can also be separated into disclosure and conduct. Disclosure tells the public that an interest exists. A conduct rule can limit the activity that produces the interest or require an official to take action to remove it. A compromise based on disclosure alone could have a different effect on the vote count from one that limits certain income or ownership arrangements.

Software liability presents a different problem. Lawmakers need to decide when writing or publishing software should be treated differently from running a financial business that uses the software. A team can publish code and have little practical control over what third parties do with it. Other operators can control a front end, collect fees or retain permissions that let them change the system.

The regulatory significance of those roles depends on the duties Congress assigns to intermediaries. An obligation to identify customers or block specific transactions is easier to apply when a firm controls access to a service. It becomes harder to apply to software that people can run on their own. A rule that rests on control has to say what counts as control when several entities share different permissions.

That dispute gives negotiators a possible source of both gains and losses. A revision that narrows developer protections could win over senators concerned about enforcement, while costing support from those who believe the obligations would reach open-source contributors. A revision that broadens protections could have the opposite effect. The same senator may assess that provision and an ethics rule separately before deciding whether to vote for the package.

Floor time is a constraint even after negotiators agree

The period between the election and January 3 gives the sitting Congress time to work, but it does not give each bill an equal share of that time. Leaders have to choose what to schedule while handling government funding and other year-end business. A deal announced late would leave less time to circulate the text, address objections and arrange votes in both chambers.

A procedural opening also does not tell the House when it would receive a measure. If the Senate works from the House-passed bill and adopts changes, House members would need an opportunity to review the revised text and agree to it. A Senate vote held with little time left in the session could therefore improve the bill’s position without leaving enough time for the final steps.

A narrower agreement could move some provisions independently. It might give agencies a more limited set of directions or deal with a particular concern such as a registration route. The gain would be fewer unresolved subjects to negotiate. The cost would be that the pieces omitted could stay unresolved, including provisions some senators regarded as necessary conditions for the rest of the package.

A year-end funding agreement is another potential vehicle only if leaders are willing to include the language and can keep the votes needed to pass the larger measure. Adding a contested crypto provision would make it part of a negotiation with priorities that reach far beyond the industry. The existence of a bill that must move gives negotiators a procedural option. Its viability would depend on the consent of people whose main objective is keeping the government funded.

What regulators can do while Congress negotiates

Existing agency authority provides another route for decisions about particular trading and custody practices. Agencies can explain how they interpret the laws they already enforce and develop rules within their statutory powers. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Scott called for regulators to work on rules after the September vote.

A regulatory action can give a business a clearer answer about a specific activity. The same action may leave questions about other products or about how two agencies share responsibility. A statute can address those boundaries directly and set requirements for regulators to implement. The distinction matters to an exchange deciding whether to seek relief for a particular listing or invest in a registration programme for an entire line of business.

The political transition does not change the September record or erase the work done on the bill. It changes the people who decide which issues receive committee time and which text goes forward. A new Congress could draw from the same market structure provisions, rewrite their relationship to existing securities law or take up a narrower proposal. Any version that advances would generate a new legislative record and new votes.

For a business weighing how soon the bill could affect it, passage and implementation are separate events. A provision that instructs an agency to adopt rules generally leaves further work after enactment. A provision that takes effect on a date specified in the statute has a different timetable. The effective dates and transition clauses would show whether a final bill gives companies time to register, wind down a service or change the way it is offered. Those details matter more to a firm preparing a compliance budget than the timing of a press conference announcing agreement.

January brings a new set of negotiations

A successful procedural vote would allow the Senate to take up the measure. Senators would still have to agree on a text and pass it, and any changes to the House-passed version would need the House’s agreement before the bill could go to President Donald Trump.

Time is part of the negotiation. Lawmakers also face year-end government funding talks, which compete for floor time and leadership attention. A motion to reconsider gives Senate leaders an option, but bringing it up would require a decision to spend some of that remaining time on the bill.

If H.R. 3633 expires at the end of this Congress, lawmakers can reuse its language in a new bill. They would have to introduce it again and secure passage in both chambers. Democratic leaders would control committee and floor priorities, giving them more say over which provisions form the basis for a new agreement.

The first sign of a year-end push would be a revised text backed by senators who opposed the September motion. Tillis’s reconsideration motion remains the procedural step already on the Senate record.

The next chair would inherit a distinction that the election itself cannot settle. Some provisions concern which agency oversees a transaction, while others determine whether a firm has to change the way it operates. The first can look like a jurisdictional compromise in Washington. The second can determine whether a platform continues to list a token, offers a customer a particular reward or keeps software functions under its control. A new committee can reopen both sets of questions, even if it starts with language negotiated this year.

For now, the public record gives readers three different tests of support. The House’s 294 votes were cast for a specific text in 2025. The Senate Banking Committee’s 15 votes moved committee text forward. The Senate’s 49 votes in September were for ending debate on taking up H.R. 3633. Each records a different decision by a different group of lawmakers. The last one is the vote that would have to change for the Senate to advance the bill through the route Tillis kept open.

A decision to act in the remaining weeks would put the focus on the motion already entered and the text available when it returns. Once the new Congress begins, committee action on any successor would create the first new record of support. Until one of those steps happens, the motion to reconsider remains the concrete opening recorded by the Senate.

What to watch

• Floor action. A scheduled reconsideration or cloture vote on the motion to proceed.
• Public commitments. Named September opponents announcing support for specific new language.
• Stablecoin language. A published version of the rewards provision that senators and banks can respond to.
• House path. Leadership indicating when the House would take up a revised Senate bill.
• Calendar. Time reserved for market structure before the 119th Congress ends.

FAQ

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of November 5, 2026. Legal questions should be discussed with qualified counsel.