Republican sponsors have released what they describe as the final draft of the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act ahead of a Sept. 15 Senate vote, adding state-level enforcement provisions for ethics rules and making other changes sought by Democrats during negotiations.

Sens. Cynthia Lummis, John Boozman and Tim Scott announced the revised text on Sept. 14. The sponsors said it contains 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats. The accompanying change memo summarizes the package, while the legal scope of its provisions would depend on the statutory text enacted by Congress and subsequent implementing rules.

Lummis described the release as the result of “a year of intense daily bipartisan negotiations” and said “this bill is ready.” The sponsors are presenting the draft as a basis for advancing the legislation, but it remains unresolved whether it can secure the Democratic votes required for cloture.

Senate vote would begin consideration, not pass the bill

The Senate is scheduled to vote Tuesday, Sept. 15, on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633. Sixty votes would allow the Senate to begin formal consideration of the CLARITY Act. The procedural vote would not enact the legislation or resolve its remaining amendments.

If the motion succeeds, the sponsors say the revised text would be offered as a substitute amendment. Senators would therefore consider a single negotiated package covering ethics provisions, stablecoin language and developer protections rather than voting separately on those issues.

Republicans had previously warned that the vote could fail. The new draft is intended to give senators a defined package to debate instead of asking them to advance a bill while its most sensitive provisions remained unsettled.

Ethics provisions add state enforcement

The revised ethics language would allow state attorneys general to enforce certain prohibitions involving covered individuals who issue or sponsor digital assets or maintain a significant financial interest in them. The memo also describes enforcement involving exchanges that list an asset issued or sponsored in violation of the restriction.

Covered individuals would be required to divest significant interests or place them in a qualified blind trust consistent with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Penalties could exceed $500,000 per violation. The eventual statutory definition of “covered individual” would determine which officials and relationships fall within the rule.

The ethics provisions would take effect 360 days after enactment, or 60 days after the final rule implementing section 10102, whichever comes first.

The provisions became central to negotiations over whether the bill would meaningfully address conflicts connected to President Donald Trump’s crypto businesses. Trump’s reported meeting with advisers reflected White House involvement in the discussions, while questions about proceeds connected to Trump’s memecoin intensified calls for enforceable restrictions.

Republican sponsors said the package incorporates substantially all of the Tillis-Gallego ethics proposal. The release does not establish that enough Democrats will support cloture.

Stablecoin reward limits would be conditional

The draft would give the Treasury secretary limited authority to restrict rewards available to holders of payment stablecoins. It would not create a permanent ban on stablecoin rewards.

Under the sponsor memo, the Treasury secretary would first have to issue a written finding that payment stablecoins were causing deposit flight from community banks on a substantial scale. Treasury would then be directed to impose restrictions, with the authority expiring 18 months after enactment.

The measure is therefore conditioned on a defined banking concern and limited in duration. Rulemaking would still address issues such as the evidence needed to establish substantial deposit flight and which reward arrangements would be covered.

Protections would extend to miners and validators

Changes to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act address whether non-custodial blockchain infrastructure could be treated as money-transmitting activity. According to the sponsor memo, the draft preserves protections for qualifying developers against money-transmitter registration and certain Bank Secrecy Act classifications.

The protections would also extend to miners and validators who were not previously covered. The provision is not a general exemption from financial law and is aimed at people who develop, validate or maintain blockchain infrastructure without taking custody or control of users’ assets.

The Agriculture Committee section would add stronger affiliate-trading and conflict-of-interest safeguards for digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers. The memo also says the draft clarifies how state consumer-protection laws apply.

Vote will test the compromise

The revised bill presents senators with a package combining state participation in ethics enforcement, a temporary and conditional stablecoin-reward mechanism, and defined protections for non-custodial blockchain participants.

Tuesday’s vote will determine whether the package can attract the 60 votes needed to begin Senate consideration. It will not determine whether the CLARITY Act becomes law, but it will indicate whether the ethics compromise is sufficient to move the market-structure legislation past its immediate procedural obstacle.

For the sponsors’ official announcement, see Lummis, Boozman and Scott release final CLARITY Act text.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. Legislative text, votes and implementing rules may change.