House Democrats and Republicans appear to be split on how stablecoins should be regulated, but are finding consensus that some sort of legislation is needed.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, RNC, and former chair of that committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., worked together on a bill last year, but before Thursday’s hearing, there were two stablecoin bills. emerged,
Lynch said there have been “important lessons” from bank failures and other collapses in crypto over the past year.
“It appears that we have drifted from bipartisan agreement and are now considering two separate pieces of proposed legislation,” Lynch told a House Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion on Thursday.
House Democrats said their Republican counterparts walked away from stablecoin talks ahead of the election in a tweet posted during the hearing criticizing McHenry’s bill.
Difference
Both bills look to regulate stablecoins, but have key differences.
For example, Waters’ bill calls for a report on central bank digital currencies and differs from McHenry’s bill on the roles of state regulators approving stablecoin issuers.
“I worry about giving states sole authority because it risks the prospect of states joining the race to the bottom,” Lynch said, adding that crypto companies may seek jurisdictions with the weakest legislation. Can
However, Lynch said she believed MPs could find “alignment”.
Subcommittee Chairman French Hill, R-Ark. noted the differences during Thursday’s hearing.
“But from my seat as chair of this subcommittee, I am confident that members on both sides of the aisle are actively working to find consensus on these key points,” Hill said.
Hill also appeared to take a dig at Rep. Waters, who said last month the lawmaker was “starting from scratch.”
“So, I want to be clear that when we looked at two separate legislative proposals today, we are not starting from scratch,” Hill said.