A September 15, 2026, statement from House Financial Services Chairman French Hill and House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson called for Congress to enact lasting crypto rules and said regulators should use their existing authority in the meantime. It does not say that regulators’ actions “fall short” of the CLARITY Act. The bill had not cleared the Senate, according to the statement.
What did French Hill say about the CLARITY Act?
In a joint statement issued September 15, 2026, Hill and Thompson said Congress should establish a lasting statutory framework for digital assets. They also supported federal regulators developing rules and issuing guidance under existing authority while Congress considers legislation.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The statement’s central point was: “Only Congress can provide the lasting legal certainty that consumers and businesses need to participate in these markets with confidence and necessary protections.” That is a call for legislation alongside interim regulatory work—not a finding about whether any specific regulator action is adequate.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsDoes the statement say regulators’ actions “fall short”?
No. The located September 15 statement does not use that wording or make that claim. The phrase appears in the supplied headline, but the originating item and the regulator actions it may refer to are not established by the available committee materials. It should not be treated as a verified quote or paraphrase of Hill.
#1 Best Overall
- Used Book in Good Condition
Did the Senate pass the CLARITY Act?
No. The House chairmen’s September 15 release said the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the CLARITY Act. Cloture is a Senate procedure for limiting debate; failing to invoke it is not passage of the bill. The same release described H.R. 3633 as having passed the House in July 2025, while Senate action remained unresolved in the committee’s account. The bill was not enacted based on these statements.
The committee had marked July 17, 2026, as the one-year anniversary of the House’s bipartisan passage of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The later Senate setback left the proposed statutory framework short of enactment.
What would the CLARITY Act change?
At a July 17, 2026, field hearing, lawmakers and witnesses described the proposal as dividing responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Participants also discussed registration, customer-asset protection, recordkeeping, and anti-money-laundering obligations for intermediaries. These were descriptions and arguments about proposed legislation, not a neutral determination of its effects or a summary of requirements already in force.
Supporters presented the bill as a way to make regulatory responsibilities clearer. Sarah Aberg, Nova Labs’ chief legal officer, told the committee: “The CLARITY Act does not ask for deregulation. It asks for the right regulation, applied by the right regulator, under clear rules that market participants can understand and follow.”
Jason Somensatto, Coin Center’s director of policy, described regulatory clarity as rules that identify “who is responsible for what, which risks they create, and which regulator has authority to supervise those risks.” Those remarks reflect witnesses’ views; the proposal’s design and protections remain contested.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why do lawmakers disagree about the bill?
Hill and Thompson’s position was that Congress should provide lasting statutory rules, with regulators using existing authority in the interim. The hearing’s supporters emphasized clearer SEC and CFTC boundaries and obligations for intermediaries.
Rank #4
On September 17, 2026, House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters offered a different criticism. She argued that the bill failed to advance because it did not sufficiently restrict President Trump’s crypto activities. That is Waters’ stated interpretation, not a neutral account of all reasons for the Senate outcome.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The disagreement therefore reaches beyond whether crypto markets need clearer rules. It also concerns how oversight should be divided, what protections a market-structure law should require, and whether it adequately addresses ethics and potential conflicts of interest.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
