CLARITY Act Moves Closer to a Senate Vote Before Congress’s July Recess

The CLARITY Act (H.R.3633) has moved onto the U.S. Senate Legislative Calendar after being reported by the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, June 2. For crypto businesses and the payment providers that service them, the practical question is no longer whether the bill gets floor attention, but how Senate leadership schedules the debate and whether it can clear the 60-vote threshold.

1. The bill was reported by the Senate Banking Committee and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Tuesday (June 2), according to Congress.gov. Seeking Alpha said those steps put the CLARITY Act in line for consideration by the full Senate.
2. Next, Senate leadership will decide when debate and a vote happen. The bill will need 60 votes to pass the Senate and would then go through the House, per the report.
3. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., said in a Tuesday post on X: “We are closer to a functioning digital asset market structure than we have ever been. Now is not the time to flinch.” Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal wrote: “Step. By. Step. We. Are. Getting. Closer. This is what legislating looks like.”
4. Gemini said in a Tuesday post: “JUST IN: CLARITY Act enters a 4 week window to advance before Congress’ July recess.” That gives the bill a short procedural runway before lawmakers break.
5. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said the U.S. digital asset market has faced regulatory uncertainty for too long, pushing innovation overseas and making law enforcement’s job harder. He said the CLARITY Act would change that by “protecting consumers, keeping innovation in the U.S., and safeguarding our national security.”

The stakes are not small. PYMNTS reported on May 14 that the Senate Banking Committee’s 15-9 vote was the most significant congressional movement yet toward a comprehensive federal framework for digital assets. JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon also said on May 29 that banks will fight the bill because it would let digital asset companies pay interest on deposits without the protections and without AML/BSA requirements.