Nancy Pelosi Urged to Amend ‘Harmful’ Cryptocurrency Provision in Infrastructure Bill

Nancy Pelosi Urged to Amend "Harmful" Cryptocurrency Provision in Infrastructure Bill

U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo has asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to amend the crypto provision in the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that the Senate passed this week. She urged the House to adopt the bipartisan amendment supported by the Treasury Department that provides a solution. Rep. Eshoo Asks Pelosi to Amend ‘Harmful Language’ on Crypto in Infrastructure Bill

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo from California announced Thursday that she is fighting “to fix potentially harmful language on cryptocurrency in bipartisan infrastructure bill.”

Eshoo wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday “to express concern regarding the tax reporting requirements for cryptocurrency brokers in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the bipartisan infrastructure legislation recently passed by the Senate,” the announcement details, adding: The legislation uses a broad definition of ‘broker’ that could encompass miners, validators, and developers of wallets who are unable to comply with reporting requirements.

Many people have criticized the crypto provision in the bill, with Senator Patrick Toomey calling it “unworkable.” Senator Ted Cruz said: “This infrastructure bill has in it a portion that is designed to obliterate crypto. That would be a tragic mistake.” Some have warned that if this law is adopted, it will drive innovation overseas.

The Senate passed the infrastructure bill Tuesday. It is now waiting for the House of Representatives to approve. However, the House is in recess until Sept. 20.

In her letter to Pelosi, Eshoo wrote: “When the House takes up the Senate bill, I encourage you to amend the problematic broker definition in Section 80603 of the legislation.”

She explained: A bipartisan group of Senators offered an amendment to this effect that Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen supported, however, the amendment was not included due to procedural concerns rather than substantive ones.

The compromise crypto amendment needed a unanimous consent agreement. It failed to pass in the Senate due to an objection by Senator Richard Shelby from Alabama after he failed to get support for his own amendment.

Immediately after the crypto amendment failed to pass in the Senate, four members of the House of Representatives — Tom Emmer, Darren Soto, David Schweikert, and Bill Foster — sent a letter to every single representative in the House raising concerns about the Senate infrastructure bill being paid for by the crypto industry. The four are co-chairs of the bipartisan Blockchain Caucus.

Rep. Emmer wrote: “The House must consider amendments to this provision that exempt entities that don’t conduct crypto transactions and keep blockchain software development, cryptocurrency mining, and more in the United States.”

Do you think the House will successfully amend the crypto provision in the infrastructure bill? Let us know in the comments section below. Iranian Tax Authority Urges Regulators to Legalize Cryptocurrency Exchanges REGULATION | 22 hours ago SEC Asking for Jurisdiction Over All Crypto Exchanges Is "a Blatant Power Grab," Says Lawmaker REGULATION | 1 day ago Tags in this story Anna Eshoo, Anna Eshoo bitcoin, Anna Eshoo crypto, Anna Eshoo cryptocurrency, bipartisan bill, Congressman, infrastructure bill, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, nancy pelosi crypto, nancy pelosi cryptocurrency

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Read disclaimerShow comments