Key Gaps Remain Despite Shared Goals, Says House Financial Services Chairman
As momentum builds in Washington for regulating stablecoins, Rep. French Hill, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, warned that differences between House and Senate versions must still be resolved before a final law can emerge.
Speaking at an Atlantic Council event, Hill acknowledged that the Senate’s GENIUS Act and the House’s own stablecoin bill are “substantially similar” but highlighted a few critical divergences:
1. Foreign Oversight Requirements
Hill emphasized the House bill has stricter rules on reciprocity—meaning foreign issuers of stablecoins like Tether (USDT) must either be registered in the U.S. or come from jurisdictions with “substantially similar regimes and enforcement.” This provision is meant to close regulatory gaps that could be exploited by foreign stablecoin issuers operating in the U.S. market.
2. Regulatory Pathway Clarity
He noted that the House legislation offers a “cleaner” framework for determining whether federal or state regulators oversee stablecoin issuers, based on the structure and business model of the companies involved.
3. Big Tech Issuers
One of the most sensitive issues involves whether non-financial companies (like major tech firms) can issue stablecoins. The House bill permits it under OCC supervision, while the Senate version bans public companies from issuing stablecoins—a point Hill says still needs clarification.
Senate Nears Vote on GENIUS Act
The Senate’s Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act is reportedly close to a final vote, marking one of the most significant steps toward comprehensive crypto legislation in years. It has received broad bipartisan support, though some Democrats have expressed concerns about anti-money laundering provisions and public official involvement in stablecoin businesses.
Outlook and Political Undertones
Hill voiced optimism that both chambers could come to terms, suggesting the House is ready to “deliver on President Trump’s promises” to advance crypto legislation by the August recess.
However, he acknowledged that Trump’s direct ties to crypto firms, including stablecoin ventures, have complicated the discourse, making it more politically charged than expected.
Ultimately, both chambers must agree on identical language before the bill can be sent to the President’s desk for signing. If either side passes a different version, a reconciled draft must be negotiated and re-approved.