The U.S. Senate is on the verge of a historic vote on stablecoin regulation, marking a significant step forward for cryptocurrency legislation in Congress. However, Representative French Hill has highlighted some crucial differences between the Senate’s bill and a similar proposal in the House of Representatives. These disparities will need to be addressed before any legislation can become law.
During an Atlantic Council event, Hill, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee and has been a key player in stablecoin negotiations, explained, “The bills are substantially similar. There are some differences that are not insurmountable but do need to be rectified and clarified.”
One major distinction lies in the House’s stricter stance on international regulation reciprocity. The House’s version imposes more rigorous requirements on foreign stablecoin issuers, such as Tether, to register either in the U.S. or in jurisdictions with substantially similar regulatory regimes. Hill noted, “You can either be registered in the U.S. and be a U.S. company and fully compliant, or operate in a recognized jurisdiction with a similar enforcement regime.” He pointed out that the House bill, which has bipartisan support but hasn’t yet gone to a floor vote, appears to be more stringent than the Senate’s.
Hill also mentioned that the House’s approach offers a clearer process for determining which agencies at the state or federal level oversee stablecoin issuers, depending on their business models. Additionally, the two chambers have taken different routes regarding non-financial companies issuing stablecoins. The House’s bill permits tech giants to issue stablecoins under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s regulation, while the Senate’s draft proposes banning certain public companies from doing so. Hill emphasized that the Senate still needs to clarify its position on this matter.
Despite the complexities, Hill remains optimistic about the progress of stablecoin legislation. He referenced recent Senate actions, including the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which he believes are “really important” steps toward advancing the bill. He also expressed confidence that the House will contribute to this momentum.
Hill pointed out the political challenges, noting that the narrative around passing stablecoin laws might be simpler than the broader crypto market oversight efforts, which have faced delays despite passing related legislation. He expressed hope that both chambers will work together to meet President Trump’s goal of having stablecoin and market-structure bills signed into law before the August congressional recess.
In the legislative process, both the Senate and House must agree on identical bill language before it can be sent to the President for approval. If the Senate passes its stablecoin bill shortly, the House can choose to adopt that version or push forward with its own. Divergent versions would require negotiations to produce a compromise bill.
Recently, bipartisan support has helped the Senate’s stablecoin legislation advance through early procedural votes and the Senate Banking Committee. However, debates over safeguards against illicit activities and the participation of public officials, including the President, have caused some delays.
Hill also acknowledged that the political landscape has been complicated by President Trump’s personal involvement with crypto businesses, including stablecoins. “It has made the legislative process more political than I would like,” he admitted, emphasizing that such distractions hinder the core work of establishing clear and effective regulation.
As Congress moves closer to potentially historic legislation, the path toward comprehensive stablecoin regulation remains complex but promising. With continued bipartisan cooperation and clarity in the bills’ language, the future of crypto regulation in the U.S. looks set to reach a new milestone.
