Senato Bankacılık Komitesi, Warren ve Cumhuriyetçilerin CLARITY Yasası Değişiklikleri Üzerinde Tartışmasıyla Tarihi Kripto Yasa Tasarısı İşaretlemesine Başladı

Prefer us on Google Download App Download App

The Senate Banking Committee convened a landmark markup session Thursday morning concerning H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, advancing the most comprehensive effort to regulate cryptocurrencies at the federal level in American history toward a committee vote. 

The proceedings — characterized by heated partisan disagreements, debates over procedure, and deliberate attempts by Republicans to court potential support from Democrats — were up against a critical deadline: if the bill fails to pass the committee before the recess for Memorial Day, the entire legislative timeline will be reset.​

Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) initiated the session by presenting the bill as a corrective measure for years of regulatory shortcomings. 

“For an extended period, the digital realm operated within a regulatory ambiguity,” he stated. “Creators, innovators, and financiers faced uncertainty and confusion, along with enforcement actions, when the government ought to have been establishing clear guidelines.” 

Scott outlined the legislation’s focus on three main areas: safeguarding consumers, preserving American innovation, and ensuring national security.

He acknowledged that the bill had undergone significant expansion through negotiation — “Since June of the previous year, we have incorporated 33,000 words and 219 pages to render this legislation as bipartisan as feasible” — and admitted that Republicans had not achieved all their objectives.​

Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) launched a direct critique. She began not by discussing digital assets, but by referencing the cost of groceries, bank overdraft fees, and credit card interest rates — consumer issues she contended the committee should be prioritizing.

“Our focus is currently on a bill drafted by the crypto sector, for the crypto sector,” Warren asserted.

“Every provision in this bill received approval from the crypto industry.” She pointed to a CoinDesk survey indicating that cryptocurrency was ranked lowest among voter priorities, with a mere 1% of participants identifying it as their primary concern.​

Warren then presented five objections to the bill: that it would undermine securities laws enacted to protect investors since 1929; authorize widespread consumer fraud by overriding state-level safeguards; replicate the errors of 2008 by permitting banks to accumulate risky crypto assets; exacerbate national security risks; and fail to address what she termed the Trump administration’s crypto-related corruption.

“Since assuming office last year, the president and his family have realized profits totaling at least $1.4 billion solely from cryptocurrency transactions,” she stated.​

A procedural debate precedes the initial vote

Prior to the commencement of amendment discussions, a contention regarding which amendments would be considered occupied the initial moments. Warren indicated that over a dozen proposed amendments from Democrats had been deemed inadmissible before the session commenced — including one requested by the National Sheriffs Association to close a loophole enabling money laundering by cartels, and another from community banks aiming to prevent deposit outflows.

“You alone have determined which amendments are accepted and which are rejected,” she stated directly to Scott, urging him to overturn these decisions on the floor.

Scott countered, attributing the situation to Warren’s own staff, whom he claimed had raised objections to a Republican amendment on a technical drafting basis, leading to a comprehensive review of all submitted amendments. He acknowledged discarding at least one Republican amendment in the process.

“I endeavored to ensure both sides had an opportunity,” Scott remarked. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) sought formal clarification on the ruling, engaging in a procedural exchange with Scott that highlighted the precarious nature of a markup where over 130 amendments had been filed.​

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) offered a concise counterpoint: “The essence of collaboration in a markup involves allowing amendments to be presented and voted upon.”

Lummis: ‘The most challenging legislative undertaking I have ever been involved in’

Lummis, a staunch advocate for the bill in the Senate, delivered a defense that was a blend of policy exposition and personal testimony.

“I have served 14 years in the Wyoming Legislature, eight years as State Treasurer, and now 14 years in Congress,” she stated. “This is unequivocally the most difficult piece of legislation I have ever tackled.” 

She mentioned that former Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand had expressed a similar sentiment.

Lummis detailed the bill’s provisions against illicit finance extensively: risk-based examination standards, enhanced Treasury special measure authority, mandatory annual evaluations of foreign jurisdictions’ anti-money laundering compliance, recurring Treasury reports on offshore stablecoins, restrictions on insider resales, and a federal regulatory framework for crypto kiosks — the latter receiving endorsement from AARP, which cited FBI data indicating over 13,460 complaints of crypto kiosk fraud and $389 million in losses in 2025 alone.​

She reframed Warren’s national security concerns. “The very risks she mentioned are currently present because there is no regulatory structure in place,” Lummis argued. “Currently, this industry lacks the capacity to protect legitimate participants, identify, vet, and penalize illicit actors.” 

She concluded with an appeal based on humanitarian grounds: asserting that the bill would enable ordinary individuals to transfer funds more rapidly and affordably, establish a level financial playing field irrespective of location, and offer protection to survivors of domestic abuse and political refugees who could safeguard their assets through Bitcoin.

“This represents an innovation that fosters individual autonomy and personal savings,” she remarked.

Both Scott and Lummis utilized their speaking time to acknowledge specific Democrats — Warner, Cortez Masto, Gallego, Warnock, Alsobrooks — who had contributed to the bill’s nine-month development process.

These acknowledgments were strategic: with 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats on the committee, and requiring a 60-vote majority on the Senate floor, securing bipartisan backing was essential.​

Amendment deliberations thus far

An proposal by Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) to establish an AI regulatory sandbox for financial entities was approved by a vote of 15-9, with Democratic Sens. Mark Warner and Andy Kim joining Republicans in support, indicating early signs of potential Democratic willingness to compromise.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren was unsuccessful in her attempts to modify the legislation on multiple occasions. Her proposed amendments concerning tokenized asset disclosures, DeFi sanctions related to terror financing, and bank cryptocurrency activities were all defeated with votes of 11-13, largely along party lines. 

During the discussion on DeFi sanctions, Warren referenced the Treasury’s 2022 sanctions against Tornado Cash and cautioned that Iran might exploit cryptocurrency to collect fees for tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), perceived as a potential swing vote, ultimately voted against the measure.

A separate amendment introduced by Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), instructing the SEC and CFTC to re-evaluate portfolio margin rules, passed with broad bipartisan endorsement by a vote of 18-6.

The markup is ongoing and can be monitored via this link. 

According to the portal: bitcoinmagazine.com