Using search = Digital Asset Market Clarity Act tom emmer -- you get an early return list item:
https://emmer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/emmer-reintroduces-legislation-to-provide-regulatory-clarity-for-digital-assets -- dated March 2025 followed by https://emmer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-emmer-voices-support-for-the-clarity-act -- dated June 2025
Emmer being a very active cryoto booster in the U.S. House.
In session, he reads, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skj0tK_gk7M wherein he argues against certain liability exposure as bad policy.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr3633/text/ih is an online bill trcker.
search = clarity act cloture vote -- provides links reporting the recent cloture vote. Readers can find links to read there.
Quoting Gizmodo - the source Crabgrass first read of the cloture vote:
The Crypto Industry Wasn’t Able to Buy Congress After All
The crypto industry’s top legislative priority fell short of the 60 votes needed to even reach the Senate floor.
By Kyle Torpey
The Senate voted 49-50 on Tuesday against cloture on the motion to proceed to the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, better known as the CLARITY Act. The bill needed 60 votes to reach the floor for debate and a later vote on passage, but it couldn’t even get that.That outcome is a setback for an industry that has become one of the largest lobbying forces in Washington. Crypto groups spent the past two years pushing for a federal market-structure law, and the Trump administration made digital assets a policy priority from the very start of the president’s second term in office. However, the bill still stalled, and many closely tracking or involved with the legislation argued that ethics concerns around the president’s own crypto businesses were a major reason it failed.
As a quick review, the CLARITY Act is mostly a framework for how crypto assets and tokens would be treated. It would split oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, largely based on how decentralized an asset is perceived to be. Protections for non-custodial developers in the bill would also matter to those who mostly just care about Bitcoin; however, the non-profit crypto public policy research and advocacy center Coin Center indicated those protections were weakened at the last minute. The revised Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act language “would still provide important protections for non-controlling blockchain developers under the Bank Secrecy Act,” the group wrote, “but it removes the BRCA’s explicit protection against criminal liability.”
How CLARITY Fell Apart
Passage looked close to guaranteed at the start of the year. The House had already approved the bill, and the Senate Banking Committee advanced it 15-9 in May. But the coalition did not hold. Banks spent months fighting over how stablecoin rewards might pull deposits out of the traditional system. Democrats, and even some Republicans, spent those same months circling ethics language tied to the billions of dollars the Trump family has made from crypto during the president’s second term.
[...]That said, Trump signed off on last-minute ethics provisions before the vote. A GOP aide told Crypto In America’s Eleanor Terrett that the president had agreed to “80%” of a Tillis-Gallego ethics proposal, [...] The same revised text also stripped explicit criminal-law protections for developers and added a “circuit breaker” that would let Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent intervene if banks faced widespread deposit flight to stablecoins (as they feared).
On the Senate floor, Democrat Elizabeth Warren argued the bill would put the country “at risk of a crypto-fueled economic crash.” She said it would “blow a massive hole in our nearly century-old securities laws” and “drain billions of dollars out of our stock market that families depend on to fund their retirement savings.”
Republican Tim Scott made the opposite case. “If you want everyday, hardworking Americans to have more access to their resources, more options on the table, and you want America to be the leading financial country on the planet, you vote yes,” the South Carolina Republican told Fox Business. Without market structure written into law, he said, “you have the wild, wild West.”
When the roll was called, every participating Democrat voted no, and so did Republicans Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran, and Thom Tillis. The 18 Democrats who had backed last year’s GENIUS Act stablecoin bill, including original Senate CLARITY co-sponsor Kirsten Gillibrand, voted against this one. Gillibrand had reportedly been gathering yes votes hours before she flipped to no.
Curious behavior from one seemingly image conscious New York Dem Senator (Schumer being the other). That detail about Gillibrand is indicative of something readers can chew on.
The report continuing:
According to Terrett, Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks, who helped negotiate both GENIUS and CLARITY, also accused Republican leadership of “playing a game” by forcing the vote while refusing to hold Trump accountable for crypto “corruption.”
Senator Mark Warner pointed to the same problem: “The president should not be able to use the power and influence of his office to benefit his own crypto holdings while his administration makes decisions that could directly affect their value,” the Virginia Democrat said.
Self-described progressive Bitcoiner Trey Walsh put the politics more bluntly. “Dems are laser focused on Trump corruption. And they know it resonates with voters,” he wrote on X. “So they are a hell no on Clarity as written — there is no ‘crypto voter’ in their minds for the midterms. There is the American voter pissed about affordability, corruption, and AI.”
NYU Stern professor Austin Campbell made a similar point. “I’ve been predicting Clarity would fail for a long time because all of the issues inside of the bill were solvable, but the ethics issue and Trump vs. Democrats were not.”
There is much more to the report, and Crabgrass urges readers to use the source to read it all. Breifly, there is this skeleton outline -
Crypto Industry Will Still Be Happy for Now
To be clear, the bill is not formally dead. It remains on the Senate calendar, and Tillis switched his vote to no so he could move to reconsider. “This is not the end for the Clarity Act,” Tillis said. “We’ve made substantial bipartisan progress in large part because of the White House. This procedural motion allows us to continue working towards a positive outcome.” Ted Cruz used a similar line. [...]
For now, the calendar is the problem. Congress is heading into midterm recess, and another cloture attempt may wait until a lame-duck session or the next Congress. If Democrats do well in November, they will have even more leverage [...]
[...] Crypto companies have already poured $189 million into the 2026 midterm elections, and crypto-industry affiliated PACs like Fairshake won 48 of 48 races they backed in the last election. [...]
[...] It’s clear the industry will still get favorable treatment for the next couple of years under the Trump administration’s rule. [...]
So Tillis was influential in allowing things "to continue working toward a positive outcome." But Trump and offspring's grift tanked things for now.
Ethics and legal liability considerations clearly exist and the Crypto Industrial Complex wants free rein if it can lobby successfully.
Emmer's reaction? Not covered in this report. Crabgrass expects he will not be too loud in opining.
Readers are urged to use the earlier mentioned search to find other reporting.
UPDATE: Know that a nonprofit watchdog exists: https://coincenter.org/ They have posted a detailed analysis https://coincenter.org/the-proposed-brca-changes-are-a-tough-pill-to-swallow/ noting early -
The Senate is scheduled for a pivotal vote on the Clarity Act tomorrow, and in an effort to secure the 60 votes needed for passage, the drafters have made last-minute revisions to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA). The revised language would still provide important protections for non-controlling blockchain developers under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), but it removes the BRCA’s explicit protection against criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1960.
That is an important change to a provision Coin Center has championed for years and that has now, incredibly, reached the point of potential passage into law.
As a reminder, the BRCA would proactively protect developers and service providers like validators against being treated as “money transmitters” when they do not take control of user funds.
In fairness to Emmer, that seemed to echo his concerns in the above linked video segment.