[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6170494,"mediaKeyId","5397744-7c0afb5d93c6723d7673b547aa8a297c","parentId",5397744,"title","House rules panel advances floor consideration of three major crypto bills amid ethics and national‑security debate","audioSeconds",11400,"startMs",4620000,"endMs",16020000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5397744-7c0afb5d93c6723d7673b547aa8a297c&start=4620&end=16020","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5397744-7c0afb5d93c6723d7673b547aa8a297c/thumbnail_4620000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6170494/House-rules-panel-advances-floor-consideration-of-three-major-crypto-bills-amid-ethics-and-nationalsecurity-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170494-0c31cd7b74c5a82d5daceb595eb404f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861490&Signature=LTlFVQQVsu1qiBpwHHHeTcKZYM~q2LThGB3~hKiuI14p33Vgz7wM0xDMtagDhqsl6ThOAurhUvx6mawIY-qvMYGhV5YhsWXm8QVysUkaP~r6RSEcl7apN5cJ0xIXRrepEBqLwZFQfmiNUvrPa09dWSpdhViAb39fGOBbZSMzDaTtGo3fd-rlyk9OPLLADJcxdqElXrLu7KvPYnEYEODzTKtfaFTIy4ZKpZ~U5kKsN4hmWu82XGgzwNMLuLRpmHn7Q~Dh677siMZ6Jv-uOuY12jAjADcxSA73xaJ14PiVq5liY-BZ-b5WE5nMrGxz9VMNa6~T2wVRALDBC8plQ7jZDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on Rules","date","2025-07-15T01:42:48Z","article","The House Rules Committee on Thursday advanced a rules package that clears the House floor to consider three high‑profile digital‑asset measures — HR 36 33 (the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act), HR 19 19 (Anti‑CBDC Veil State Act) and S 15 82 (the Genius Act on payment stablecoins) — after a multihour panel of witnesses and lawmakers debated where authority should sit, the protections the bills provide, and potential conflicts of interest involving elected officials.

What the committee did: the Rules Committee reported a resolution that makes the floor consideration of HR 36 33 subject to a structured rule (with an amendment in the nature of a substitute treated as adopted), HR 19 19 under a closed rule, and S 15 82 under a closed rule. Those procedural steps now allow the House to debate and vote on the measures on the floor subject to the time limits and amendment rules reported by the panel.

Who testified: witnesses included House Financial Services Chairman Patrick McHenry’s panel colleagues and the lead authors of the bills — Representative French Hill and Representative Bennie Thompson’s surrogates — and key witnesses included Representative Hill’s senior staff and committee chairs from Financial Services and Agriculture. Chairman French Hill and Chairman Garret Graves (sic: Chairman Hill and Chairman Thompson participated) and other members of the Financial Services and Agriculture Committees argued for a statutory framework to close regulatory gaps and to provide clarity to market participants.

Key provisions and debates

- HR 36 33, the Clarity Act: Sponsors said the bill closes gaps between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission by drawing clearer lines of authority — with the SEC overseeing capital‑raising and disclosures and the CFTC supervising spot markets for “digital commodities” and intermediaries in those markets. Chairman Hill told the committee the bill “imposes strict consumer and market protections” including segregation of customer funds, capital and recordkeeping requirements and provisional registration for market participants pending rulemaking.

- S 15 82, the Genius Act (stablecoins): Supporters described the bill as creating a “fit for purpose” federal framework to allow dollar‑backed payment stablecoins to be issued under U.S. rules and to preserve the dollar’s international role. Witnesses said the bill requires one‑for‑one backing with short‑term U.S. Treasuries, insured deposits or other short‑term high‑quality assets, monthly attestations and oversight by bank regulators or the Federal Reserve depending on issuer type.

- HR 19 19, the Anti‑CBDC Veil State Act: The measure would prohibit the Federal Reserve from offering certain products directly to individuals and would bar use of a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) for monetary policy; sponsors framed it as an assertion of congressional authority under Article I and a protection of financial privacy.

Points of contention

Consumer protections and enforcement: Democrats on the panel criticized aspects of the Clarity and Genius bills as creating loopholes that would allow issuers to circumvent securities laws or commingle customer funds in limited exceptions. Ranking member Maxine Waters and other Democrats argued the bills do not provide enough anti‑fraud and anti‑money‑laundering resources to assure meaningful enforcement and pointed to prior collapses, including FTX, as examples of what they say is at stake.

Conflicts of interest and ethics: Several Democratic lawmakers pressed whether the reforms or exceptions in the stablecoin bill could benefit sitting federal officials who have financial ties to crypto ventures. Representative Jim McGovern and Representative Maxine Waters repeatedly asked why the bills did not explicitly bar the president, vice president, and members of Congress from issuing or owning crypto while in office — proposals the committee later voted not to make in order as amendments to the rules package. Witnesses and sponsors responded that existing federal ethics, disclosure and campaign‑finance laws apply and that the rules and bills preserve enforcement authorities.

National‑security and illicit finance concerns: Republicans and Democrats agreed on the need to keep illicit‑finance defenses in place. Witnesses noted Treasury and FinCEN authorities and the Bank Secrecy Act remain applicable; committee discussion also covered proposed targeted authorities to sanction and restrict mixer services used to obfuscate provenance of stolen digital assets (witnesses referenced section 311 of the PATRIOT Act as a precedent for such action).

Process: multiple members criticized the pace and closed nature of the rules process; several members who serve on House committees of jurisdiction said they were not given additional amendment opportunities and urged that the floor debate allow more time for votes. Dozens of proposed committee amendments were offered on the floor rule and most were rejected by the Rules Committee in recorded votes.

Quotes from witnesses and members

\"We have a multitrillion dollar industry, the majority of which is subject to limited, not fit‑for‑purpose federal oversight,\" said Representative French Hill (referring to the Clarity Act), arguing for a statutory framework to provide regulatory certainty and protect consumers. Representative Bennie Thompson (via testimony) described the Clarity Act as granting the CFTC authority to address spot markets and to impose segregation and oversight standards.

\"The only new feature a CBDC possesses is increased surveillance and control over Americans' financial lives,\" Representative Hill summarized for HR 19 19 supporters, arguing that retail CBDCs would risk privacy.

\"If we fail to lead, America will see the future of capital markets and the next generation of the Internet go to other jurisdictions,\" Chairman Hill said in testimony.

Votes and outcome: The Rules Committee approved the rules package that allows floor consideration of HR 36 33, HR 19 19 and S 15 82; the package was reported to the floor after recorded votes on several proposed amendments to the rule that were mostly defeated. The committee’s report and the rule text specify debate time, which amendments were made in order, and reservation of motions to recommit.

Why this matters: The bills together seek to define federal jurisdiction over tokenized markets, prevent a retail CBDC absent explicit congressional authorization, and set standards for dollar‑backed payment stablecoins. The measures would reconfigure which federal agency has oversight of various parts of the crypto ecosystem and how market participants must operate if they wish to do business within U.S. law — with implications for consumer protection, international competitiveness and national security.

Provenance: testimony from Financial Services and Agriculture committee witnesses, exchanges with members including Representative Patrick McHenry, Representative French Hill, Representative Bennie Thompson, and Representative Maxine Waters during the House Rules Committee hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 1919, 3633, 4016, and S. 1582","oneSentenceSummary","The House Rules Committee cleared the way for floor consideration of three major digital‑asset bills — the Clarity Act, the Anti‑CBDC Veil State Act and the Senate’s Genius Act on stablecoins — after testimony and extended questioning over enforcement, consumer protections and ethics concerns.","taxTitle","Rules: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1984,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6170498,"House rules panel advances rule for FY2026 Defense spending bill after hourlong debate over process, troop policies",3789,955000,4744000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5397744-7c0afb5d93c6723d7673b547aa8a297c&start=955&end=4744","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5397744-7c0afb5d93c6723d7673b547aa8a297c/thumbnail_955000.jpg","/articles/6170498/House-rules-panel-advances-rule-for-FY2026-Defense-spending-bill-after-hourlong-debate-over-process-troop-policies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170498-b6cc8caddf7e14f17106a2570ad3d044/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861490&Signature=TxnJzhsVIMIgO9FPaei8FYPiJW2rQ40Uee9CRW03w7cQRcKCfw5DMwn4Q5MjeXguF7F4cQY2cALYz28u3YCxaM1741diACWGiEI3b3TY49DtukIiMlXCDFyhhjpqY9QnW2-u-ma~ZpWq8z23~GOF54C3h28IQzItEsJsVjC~KZiw5uH6fCey5GDrD8zxz3UTBSBtV14f17luc-VRArXlwKpVbnK9k3mirciw11av1TS5dGoGL437egJ5mun1pDxQl8cbfceJTV4Xp39HU-6hSOdipP8uMsoP1jy3B~8-RaEWH0NfONWyRYkzUoZcTVEPUYGrd6PesDmxLMloj8uNjg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Rules Committee on Thursday approved a structured rule to bring HR 4016, the fiscal year 2026 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, to the House floor after extended testimony and back-and-forth questioning about the bill’s funding allocations and drafting process.

The measure provides a total discretionary allocation of $831,500,000,000 for Defense Department accounts, the rule text and witnesses testified, and includes a 3.8% basic pay increase for all military personnel effective Jan. 1, 2026. Representative Ken Calvert, chair of a Defense appropriations subcommittee, told the panel the bill “provides nearly $1 trillion to modernize and sustain our armed forces” (Representative Ken Calvert, Subcommittee Chair, Committee on Appropriations).

Why this matters: lawmakers on both sides said they support troop pay and readiness investments but criticized the process used to draft the bill and the inclusion of partisan policy riders. Democrats warned the bill contains riders that would limit service members’ reproductive-health options and could reduce access to care for military families who also rely on Medicaid-based services in civilian communities.

Most members who questioned witnesses focused on process and oversight. Representative Betty McCollum, the panel’s witness from the Appropriations Committee, said the Defense bill was drafted “without the full budget request” and warned that the administration failed to provide “J‑books,” the detailed justification materials appropriators normally receive. “The fact is the Trump administration gave us no information to make decisions on programs funded in this bill, and that’s completely unacceptable,” McCollum said (Representative Betty McCollum, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations).

Several committee members also probed the bill’s “reprogramming” language. Members asked whether the bill’s direction to the Defense Department to reallocate roughly $7.75 billion could be used to shift funds across procurement, personnel or operations lines. Representative Joe Neguse asked whether the provision left the secretary of defense “a blank check” without meaningful restrictions; witnesses said reprogramming remains subject to statutory limits and congressional oversight but acknowledged the language gives the department flexibility to reprioritize funds.

Lawmakers also raised operational details covered in the text: investments in “Golden Dome” industrial-base initiatives, $13 billion for missile defense and space programs, and tens of billions for modernization platforms including next‑generation aircraft and Columbia‑class submarines were cited by witnesses. Calvert told the committee the bill includes a combined $1.3 billion across DIU, the Office of Strategic Capital and APFIT, and $1.5 billion for maritime industrial base programs. McCollum and other Democrats pressed for more granular documentation to justify those figures and asked how the large, multi‑year Golden Dome proposal — which has been described as a concept by some witnesses — would be implemented.

Members pressed witnesses on the effects of unrelated budget and legislative actions on military families. Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez entered into the record studies and advocacy materials warning that recent federal Medicaid changes could harm military family members who rely on Medicaid or Medicaid‑like coverage for specialty care. She said roughly 850,000 military family members may rely on Medicaid benefits for specialized services that TRICARE does not always cover locally. Witnesses agreed TRICARE does not replace some Medicaid‑funded specialty services and that the department and state systems interact in complex ways that warrant further review.

The hearing included additional back‑and‑forth on force structure, recruiting, and the Defense Department’s audit record. Witnesses repeatedly urged the committee to approve the appropriation but acknowledged it was produced “under unprecedented circumstances” without standard budget detail.

What the Rules Committee did: the committee’s rule for HR 4016 waives points of order, provides one hour of general debate as described in the rule text, makes certain amendments in order and preserves a single motion to recommit. The committee approved that ruling and forwarded it to the floor after a roll‑call vote on the rules package.

Looking ahead: The rules adopted by the committee open the bill for floor debate under a structured rule; if the House proceeds to passage, the bill will go to the Senate for consideration. Appropriators and members noted additional oversight and technical detail will be needed in conference if the bill advances.

Sources: Witness testimony from Representative Ken Calvert and Representative Betty McCollum at the House Rules Committee hearing; rule text reported by the Rules Committee.","The House Rules Committee reported a rule to allow floor consideration of HR 4016, the fiscal 2026 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, after members from both parties debated funding priorities, missing budget justification materials, and policy riders affecting service members’ health care and benefits.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6170489,"Rules Committee rejects member amendments on crypto ethics, consumer protections and document releases; reports rules package to floor",1959,17531000,19490000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5397744-7c0afb5d93c6723d7673b547aa8a297c&start=17531&end=19490","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5397744-7c0afb5d93c6723d7673b547aa8a297c/thumbnail_17531000.jpg","/articles/6170489/Rules-Committee-rejects-member-amendments-on-crypto-ethics-consumer-protections-and-document-releases-reports-rules-package-to-floor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170489-ae94c8826cbead33fe90c41a429c482a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770861490&Signature=lOgufcllG4itGw1C6ULq6hRjV8mMqOeyWJIg6~FhFQqQ5OHSB0wLwTVN0d~kxSWkHDQc1L6TzQwMmQm814dd2JOY84ZYDfYKfKGtpIvEXSNq8IQnHTcNDiXEO3V3Nmq12ZyUYG6p8nCs4KxNVueyzBSXIPSdcJdqwsy1KlLq3Qbrc-Cx7~yclC6BpHb8-iOODBayUcJgKc2nSvVvGOjdDCt5gm37Q94FOFvoIEZAliGnt2PmW~x3Cy~TTdcCudtdTJtVfg3JLtD5vXHFf5jc36oP1wEapgaESUXwNDxobrVsK1wqNVpKcGMx7SopZIM5A9qXT613g38gGrmEKfqmfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Rules Committee on Thursday approved a rules package to allow floor consideration of four measures — HR 4016 (Department of Defense appropriations FY26), HR 36 33 (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act), HR 19 19 (Anti‑CBDC Veil State Act) and Senate S 15 82 (Genius Act) — but members repeatedly offered and lost amendments on a range of policy and transparency items.

What passed: the committee approved the rules package in a recorded vote after considering many member‑proposed amendments. The motion to report the rule was offered by Representative Jack; committee minutes show the rules package was approved by the committee and the committee proceeded to transmit the rule to the House floor.

Notable defeated amendment votes (committee roll call results per committee record):
- Self‑custody (Rep. Davidson): proposed language to protect individuals’ right to maintain a hardware or software wallet (self custody). The committee recorded a tie/close tally in voice and roll calls before the amendment was not made part of the reported rule (recorded tallies in committee minutes showed 6 yeas, 6 nays in one recorded count).
- Prohibit elected officials from issuing stablecoins (Rep. Neguse): an amendment that would bar members of Congress and senior executive officials from issuing payment stablecoins during their public service was defeated on a committee roll call (committee recorded result: 4 yeas, 8 nays on the roll call request).
- Requirement to release Epstein‑related files and oversight reporting (Rep. Khanna & others): committee rejected a proposal urging the administration to make certain files public and requiring DOJ/FBI reporting on any suppression or delays. A roll call on the related effort recorded 4 yeas and 8 nays.
- Consumer “bill of rights” for crypto (Rep. Scanlon): an amendment proposing a list of consumer protections and additional funding for SEC/CFTC enforcement was rejected (roll‑call result 4 yeas, 8 nays).

Committee debate and context: Members on both sides criticized the closed nature of some of the procedural steps; several members of the committees of jurisdiction argued for broader opportunity to offer, debate and vote on amendments on the floor. Advocates of the defeated amendments argued they would add consumer protections (customer service, SIPC‑like coverage, proof of reserves, anti‑front‑running and withdrawal access) or would remove conflicts of interest for public officials; proponents of the rules package and sponsors said the bills already include statutory protections for consumers and preserve existing ethics laws and enforcement authorities.

Outcome and next steps: With the rules package adopted, the bills named in the rule are now available for House floor consideration under the debate times and amendment structure laid out in the Rules Committee report. Members who pressed for additional amendments indicated they plan to pursue their proposals on the floor where possible or in conference with the Senate.

Why this matters: The committee vote sets the House floor’s procedural path for a set of measures with high policy stakes — defense funding and a suite of digital‑asset bills that will shape how the United States regulates tokenized markets and payment instruments. The committee’s rejection of several member amendments highlights enduring tensions between closed procedural rules and individual members’ efforts to place targeted protections or ethics limits into the final legislation.","The House Rules Committee approved a rules package sending four measures to the floor but rejected several member proposed amendments — including bids to require self‑custody protections, bar elected officials from issuing stablecoins, and to require release of the so‑called Epstein materials — in recorded committee votes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House rules panel advances floor consideration of three major crypto bills amid ethics and national‑security debate

House rules panel advances rule for FY2026 Defense spending bill after hourlong debate over process, troop policies

Rules Committee rejects member amendments on crypto ethics, consumer protections and document releases; reports rules package to floor