Crypto assets were under scrutiny in the U.S. Congress on March 11. The House of Representatives Financial Services Committee debated the merits of stablecoins and a central bank digital currency (CBDC) in a hearing titled “Navigating the Digital Payments Ecosystem: Examining a Federal Framework for Payment Stablecoins and Consequences of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency.” Two bills were discussed at the hearing : the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy Act of 2025, or STABLE Act , and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act , which was reintroduced from the last Congress. The anti-CBDC bill passed a House vote in May but stalled in the Senate Banking Committee. Everyone at the hearing supported stablecoins A pro-stablecoin position was taken by all in the hearing. “Stablecoins’ adoption beyond the digital asset ecosystem reflects broader modernization effort in the United States and the global payment infrastructure,” committee chair French Hill said as he opened the hearing. The controversy around stablecoins came from the fact that the STABLE Act, introduced by Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence Subcommittee Chair Bryan Steil, is competing with the bipartisan Waters-McHenry bill on stablecoins introduced in the last Congress. Maxine Waters has taken on the role of ranking member of the committee in the new Congress. The bill’s other author, Patrick McHenry, has retired from Congress. In her opening speech, Waters suggested that the STABLE Act and other crypto legislation were meant to “enrich the crypto-billionaire class.” Unlike the Waters-McHenry bill, the STABLE Act allows fintechs to issue stablecoins. Steil said the goal of current policy in relation to stablecoins “is to make sure the next wave of crypto and Web3 businesses emerges in basements and dorm rooms, not in boardrooms and law firms.” Subcommittee ranking member Stephen Lynch objected that the bill removes the separation between banking and financial commerce. Moreover, it allows uninsured deposits, which are vulnerable to systemic runs, and does little to prevent money laundering and illicit finance. Finally, Lynch said, “Allowing a state registration pathway without sufficient prudential oversight creates a race to the bottom.” The witnesses at the hearing were from The Bank of New York, infrastructure provider and stablecoin issuer Paxos, payment processor Stripe, Davis Polk & Wardwell law firm and think tank Atlantic Council. None of them opposed the introduction of stablecoins, although comments on details of stablecoin issuance abounded. The hearing showed old divides on CBDCs Not all the witnesses mentioned CBDCs in their prepared statements. Among the politicians, feelings were divided by party lines. “A government-controlled digital currency would put the Federal Reserve in direct competition with the private sector,” Hill said. Waters called the ban on CBDC research “un-American” and said it “ helps China win the digital currency space race and undermines the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.” Lynch said, “As every major economy races ahead of the U.S in developing a central bank digital currency, discussions in the U.S. have been obscured by disinformation and political ideology.” The Atlantic Council’s House was the sole voice defending CBDCs. She said, “This bill’s title and corresponding messaging, unfortunately, present an inaccurate picture that CBDCs must inherently intimate an authoritarian “surveillance state.” CBDCs do not have to mean ‘Big Brother’ just as cryptocurrencies do not have to mean anarchy.” She also recommended renegotiating the Waters-McHenry bill rather than passing the STABLE Act. Cryptopolitan Academy: Want to grow your money in 2025? Learn how to do it with DeFi in our upcoming webclass. Save Your Spot
