House of Representatives Fails to Override Presidential Veto on Crypto RegulationHouse of Representatives Fails to Override Presidential Veto on Crypto Regulation A resolution to overturn the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121), which requires publicly traded companies to disclose crypto asset risks, was unsuccessful in the U.S. House of Representatives. Veto and House Vote Earlier this year, President Joe Biden vetoed a bipartisan effort by Congress to eliminate SAB 121. The House attempted to override the veto, but fell short with a vote of 228-184. A two-thirds majority was required. Attempts to Eliminate SAB 121 Introduced in February, the resolution was aimed at quashing SAB 121 due to concerns within the crypto industry that it could hamper banks from protecting digital assets. The motion passed the House in May with support from mostly Republicans and 21 Democrats. The Senate also approved the resolution, with several Democrats siding with Republicans. Votes in Favor and Against To override the veto, 290 House representatives and 67 senators were required to vote in favor. The vote ended with 21 Democrats and 207 Republicans supporting the measure, while 183 Democrats and one Republican opposed it. Criticism and Implications Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, criticized the veto override attempt, arguing that the crypto industry was dissatisfied with the regulation. The ongoing debate over SAB 121 reflects the division among U.S. policymakers regarding crypto regulation. Some critics view the regulation as overly burdensome, while opponents believe it’s necessary to protect investors in the evolving digital economy.
While a strong majority of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to veto a SAB 121 resolution, the votes were not enough to override it. The effort was unsuccessful, as U.S. lawmakers voted 228-184, which was not enough to override President Joe Biden’s veto.
Attempts to erase SAB 121
Earlier this year, Biden vetoed Congress’ bipartisan effort to gut the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) policy known as Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121). SAB 121 requires publicly traded companies to provide transparency about the management and potential risks of protecting customers’ crypto assets. However, it has generated controversy over the past year amid concerns in the crypto industry that it could prevent banks from protecting digital assets.
The resolution to quash the bulletin was introduced in February. The full House later voted 228-182 in favor of the measure to quash the bulletin in May, with mostly Republicans signing on, along with 21 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass legislation that quashed SAB 121.
The motion passed the Senate, 60 to 38, as several Democrats sided with Republicans. That resolution was then vetoed by President Biden.
A two-thirds majority could not be achieved
To override the veto, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress was required, meaning 67 of the 100 senators in the Senate and 290 lawmakers in the House voted. Notably, 21 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted in favor, while 183 Democrats and one Republican voted against. The only Republican to vote against was Congressman Drew Ferguson of Georgia. However, after the vote, Rep. Ferguson’s office said he had submitted an improper ballot to Speaker Mike Johnson, when he had intended to vote in favor.
“The industry didn’t like the answer”
On Wednesday, Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, D-Calif., was critical of the quashing of SAB 121, saying the crypto industry was “not happy with the response they got.”
The ongoing debate over SAB 121 highlights just how divided U.S. policymakers are on the topic of crypto. While some crypto advocates and lawmakers have attempted to paint the regulation as harsh and restrictive, the outcome is indicative of how slow changes are to alleviate industry concerns.
Supporters of the resolution criticize Biden’s veto as a missed opportunity to reform regulations that were seen as too burdensome. Opponents argue that it is necessary to keep the regulations clear and protect investors in a changing digital economy.
