Senator Cynthia Lummis is pressing the Senate to vote on the CLARITY Act before its August recess as bipartisan negotiations continue over several unresolved provisions.
Summary
- Lummis said lawmakers are negotiating the bill daily as the Senate’s legislative window narrows.
- Talks remain focused on CFTC authority, ethics rules, illicit finance and stablecoin yield.
- The legislation needs 60 Senate votes to overcome the chamber’s cloture threshold.
- Senate records had not confirmed a CLARITY Act cloture filing, leaving the vote timing uncertain.
Lummis says CLARITY Act talks continue daily
Lummis said Senate negotiators were still working toward an agreement after nearly 11 months of talks. During a Fox Business interview, the Wyoming Republican argued that lawmakers should consider the crypto market structure bill before leaving Washington.
The senator said Majority Leader John Thune had reserved time for the legislation on the Senate agenda for several weeks. However, her comments reflected her expectation about the bill’s path rather than confirmation of a scheduled procedural vote.
Lummis also said she had worked on provisions overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as negotiators tried to resolve differences between Republicans and Democrats.
“I am continuing to work with Democrats every day on the Clarity Act.”
She urged lawmakers to establish clear rules and prevent digital-asset companies from moving their operations outside the United States. In a separate Fox Business appearance, Lummis warned that regulatory uncertainty could push more crypto activity toward jurisdictions such as Switzerland and Singapore.
Ethics and CFTC provisions remain unresolved
Negotiations continue around ethics restrictions, illicit-finance safeguards, stablecoin rewards and the division of regulatory authority between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Democrats have sought stronger restrictions preventing senior government officials from profiting from crypto ventures. They have also raised questions about who would enforce those restrictions and whether the bill provides sufficient anti-money-laundering protections.
The latest Senate proposal would place exchanges, brokers and dealers under Bank Secrecy Act requirements. It would also restrict passive stablecoin rewards while allowing incentives connected to transactions, according to a summary of the Senate bill.
Lummis said the package includes an ethics agreement covering the president, vice president, members of Congress and the federal judiciary. Still, Democrats have not publicly committed enough votes to guarantee that the legislation can advance.
Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, meaning the bill would likely require support from at least seven Democrats if every Republican votes for cloture.
Hagerty calls for a Senate floor vote
Senator Bill Hagerty has also urged Senate leaders to bring the CLARITY Act to the floor rather than extend negotiations indefinitely.
“We have to pass the CLARITY Act,” Hagerty said. “I think we should put it through a vote on the floor of the United States Senate and find out where Democrats stand.”
The pressure follows months of shifting expectations over the bill’s timing. The House passed the CLARITY Act in July 2025 by a 294–134 vote, including support from 78 Democrats. The Senate Banking Committee advanced its version in May 2026 with two Democratic votes, although those committee votes did not guarantee support on the floor. Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks said negotiations remained fluid after the markup.
No cloture filing confirms a CLARITY Act vote
Despite lawmakers’ public calls for action, an official cloture filing remained the key procedural signal needed to confirm that a vote was approaching.
Senate records showed that Thune had filed cloture on other business, including a continuing-resolution vehicle. The Senate Daily Press also recorded Lummis speaking in support of H.R. 3633 but did not list a CLARITY Act cloture filing.
Without that step, claims of an imminent vote remain expectations rather than a confirmed floor schedule. Continued negotiations could still produce an agreement, but the shrinking calendar increases the risk that consideration slips beyond the August recess.
