← Laws

Federal · U.S. House · H.R. 3633

To provide for a system of regulation of the offer and sale of digital commodities by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy, and for other purposes.

119th Congress

Plain-language summary

A plain-language summary hasn't been written yet. Read the full text at the official source.

Official bill page ↗

Constitutional baseline

AI-drafted, not yet reviewed

Limited: based on the first 400,000 of 632,018 characters of the bill text.

What the bill does

The text provided is a Senate committee substitute for H.R. 3633. It strikes the original House text (shown as deleted) and inserts a new "Digital Asset Market Clarity Act." The visible sections define terms such as "ancillary asset," "network token," and "decentralized governance system." They direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to require periodic disclosures from originators of certain digital assets, with a certification path that ends those duties. They also direct the Commission to adopt an exemption from registration (“Regulation”) of up to the greater of $50,000,000 per year for up to 4 years or 10 percent of outstanding units, with a $200,000,000 lifetime cap per originator, and to set resale limits for related persons. The visible sections treat qualifying network tokens as non-securities under the federal securities laws and certain state laws, and bar the Commission and private plaintiffs from bringing registration claims over pre-effective-date distributions if conditions are met. Later titles (illicit finance, decentralized finance, banking, software developers, bankruptcy customer property, and others) appear only as a table of contents in the text provided.

Provisions it touches

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

The bill regulates offers, sales, and trading of digital assets through interstate markets and intermediaries, which is the kind of activity this clause addresses.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”

The bill creates certification, exemption, and enforcement machinery (for example, exemptive orders and anti-evasion rules) that supports the commerce regulation it sets up.

Article I, Section 1
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”

The bill leaves many key terms and thresholds to Commission rulemaking (for example "entrepreneurial or managerial efforts," "coordinated control," and resale amounts), which raises the question of how much rule-defining authority is conferred.

Article VI, Clause 2
“shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

Section 4B(b) would treat network tokens as non-securities for purposes of certain state-law requirements that are functionally equivalent to the federal securities provisions, which engages the relationship between federal and state law.

Amendment X
“are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

The state-law treatment provisions, and the Title I definitions that may narrow state securities regulation of network tokens, bear on the balance of federal and state authority.

Amendment V
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Section 4B(k) would bar pending and future Commission and private actions over certain pre-effective-date distributions, and the rebuttable presumption and certification-denial processes involve notice, hearing, and vote steps.

Article III, Section 1
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court”

The bill designates Commission denials as final agency action reviewable under applicable law and bars certain pending actions and appeals, which bears on the courts' role.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
“uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States”

Title VII (customer property protections in bankruptcy) is listed in the table of contents, but its text is not in the portion provided, so its relevance to this clause cannot be assessed.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin”

The bill's title mentions a central bank digital currency, and the struck original text addressed it; the substitute's table of contents lists no such title, so any monetary-power question is unresolved on the provided text.

Where it aligns

  • The bill operates through federal statutory amendments and agency rulemaking on interstate financial markets, an area Congress has historically legislated under the commerce power.
  • Statutory text sets many standards and procedures (a 60- or 90-day certification review, a required Commission vote that may not be delegated, notice and comment, a cost-benefit analysis requirement), which supplies express procedural guidance for the agencies.
  • Anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authorities are repeatedly preserved (for example sections 4B(b)(4)(B), 4B(k)(2), and 104(h)), and Commission denials are described as final agency action reviewable under applicable law.

Where it may be in tension

  • Does leaving terms such as "entrepreneurial or managerial efforts," "coordinated control," and the resale amounts to Commission rules give the agency sufficient statutory guidance?
  • Does treating network tokens as non-securities for state-law requirements that are "functionally equivalent" to the federal provisions stay within federal authority, or does it reach areas a reader might see as reserved to the States?
  • Does section 4B(k)(1), which bars the Commission and private plaintiffs from pursuing or maintaining any action or appeal over pre-effective-date distributions if disclosure conditions are met, raise questions about congressional direction of pending judicial matters or about due process for existing claimants?
  • Does deemed approval of a certification when the Commission does not act within a set period (for example section 4B(d)(3)(B)(iv)) shift a statutory status change to agency inaction in a way a careful reader could question?
  • Because the bill's title mentions prohibiting use of a central bank digital currency for monetary policy but the substitute's table of contents lists no such section, how should the reader treat that title language?

Why this might still serve the public

  • The bill would set a federal statutory category (network token) that departs from the case-by-case investment-contract inquiry, which could give market participants advance clarity about which regime applies.
  • The pre-effective-date bar in section 4B(k) departs from ordinary exposure to claims for past conduct, and could reduce litigation over distributions made under earlier legal uncertainty, subject to the disclosure conditions and the fraud carve-outs.
  • Deemed-approval timelines depart from open-ended agency review, and could give applicants predictable timing while the Commission keeps authority to deny or stay within the stated windows.

Article V: Not indicated: the visible portions are ordinary statutory amendments and rulemaking directions, and nothing in them requires a change to the constitutional text to be carried out. Because Titles II through IX are not in the text provided, this is uncertain for those titles.

How different approaches read it

For contested questions only. Each reading is described in its own terms; none is presented as correct.

Does directing the Commission to define key statutory terms and set numeric thresholds by rule stay within permissible delegation?

Original meaning

This reading looks to how the founding generation understood vesting "legislative Powers" in Congress and asks whether the statute itself makes the central policy choices, with agencies filling in details. It would examine whether terms like "entrepreneurial or managerial efforts" carry enough content, alongside the statutory ranges and criteria supplied, or whether they leave the agency to make the basic policy choice.

Precedent

This reading applies the intelligible-principle framework from decided cases, under which Congress may confer rulemaking authority if it states a guiding standard. It would compare this bill's stated considerations (protecting investors, fair and orderly markets, capital formation) and specified ranges with standards the courts have upheld.

Evolving interpretation

This reading considers how the pace of technological change and the practical need for expert agencies inform how much detail a statute can specify. It would weigh the bill's use of rulemaking, notice and comment, and cost-benefit requirements as a modern way of keeping legislative choices accountable.

Does the bar on pending and future Commission and private actions over pre-effective-date distributions raise a separation-of-powers or due-process question?

Original meaning

This reading asks whether Congress is changing the governing law prospectively, which is a legislative function, or dictating outcomes in specific cases, which would intrude on the judicial power. It would look at the text of the bar, which is framed by category of conduct and conditioned on compliance with disclosure duties, rather than naming cases.

Precedent

This reading looks to decided cases on changes in law affecting pending litigation and on congressional direction of judicial results, and to cases on retroactivity and due process. It would ask whether the bar amends applicable law or only directs a result under an unchanged law.

Evolving interpretation

This reading considers how legal certainty for a developing market, fairness to persons with existing claims, and the fraud carve-outs fit together today. It would weigh whether the conditions on the bar preserve meaningful remedies for the affected parties.

Cases cited

Each case was found in CourtListener under the same name. Cases that couldn't be verified were removed.

What this analysis can't tell you

Only the first 400,000 of 632,018 characters were provided, and the text ends partway through section 108. Titles II through IX (illicit finance, decentralized finance, banking, regulatory innovation, software developers, bankruptcy customer property, customer protection, and other matters) appear only in the table of contents, so their operative language could not be analyzed. Whether the substitute keeps any central bank digital currency provision is unknown; the title mentions it, the struck original text contained it, and the substitute's table of contents lists none. Several provisions delegate definitions to future Commission rules, so their practical scope depends on rules that do not yet exist. This analysis also does not predict how agencies or courts would apply the provisions.

Mapped, not ruled: this is not a finding on whether the bill is constitutional. Based on Reported to Senate, 2026-06-01 ↗. Drafted Sep 29, 2026 with claude-sonnet-5-5.
How this is made

How your reps voted

Every recorded vote on this bill by officials who represent Calaveras County, newest first. Each links to the official record.