Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 18, S. 331.

Mr. President, the U.S. Coast Guard is essential to protecting our Nation's maritime borders from threats like illegal drugs, illegal immigration, and transnational crime. The Coast Guard saves American lives and ensures that commerce flows smoothly at our ports.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 is bipartisan legislation that Senator Cantwell and I negotiated and agreed to with House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves and Ranking Member Rick Larsen.

It authorizes funding to bolster the Coast Guard's critical missions for border security, facilitating maritime commerce, and enforcing the rule of law in domestic and international waters.

I want to draw attention to several key provisions in this bill. Last year, the Coast Guard seized over 106 metric tons of cocaine. Unfortunately, cartels are now using technology like miniature remote control drone ships to

smuggle drugs across our maritime border.

Without this legislation, the Coast Guard would remain unable to prosecute criminals who are using these remote control autonomous vessels.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025 also expands the Coast Guard's and Customs and Border Protection's use of cutting-edge tools, like tactical maritime surveillance systems, which are blimp-based radar systems to find and interdict drug runners, poachers, and human traffickers at the Texas-Mexico border in the Gulf of America, in San Diego, in Key West, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

I ask my colleagues to stand with me and support President Trump's vision of protecting our borders from drugs and illegal immigrants and of building ships to revitalize the Coast Guard's fleet. And I urge my colleagues to support the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025.

With that, I yield to my colleague Senator Cantwell.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell and her staff for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank my staff on the committee as well who have put in many hours. This bill is important to the men and women of the Coast Guard and is important to our national security.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 524 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following detailees in my office to be granted floor privileges until the end of this Congress: Joel Coito, Dean Legidakes, and Thomas Hastings.

Mr. President, the decentralized finance industry is in its infancy. It is a new technology in the digital asset space which enables two individuals to exchange cryptocurrencies without a third party sitting in between them. Although that sounds straightforward, the technology holds potential for technological and financial innovation that we are just beginning to explore. In that sense, DeFi is a microcosm of the crypto revolution, which is unleashing innovation and economic growth and, indeed, personal liberty.

I think of my home State of Texas when it comes to cryptocurrencies. Texas is becoming an oasis for Bitcoin and for cryptocurrency worldwide. In Texas, we have abundant, low-cost energy, and as the energy capital of the world, Texas has both the expertise and the ethos of Texas.

The Lone Star State was founded by a bunch of wildcatters who were guys with fourth grade educations who began drilling holes in the ground. One after the other, they became the richest men on Earth. That is Texas, the spirit of Texas, and that is the spirit of crypto as well.

So what is the rule that Congress is in the process of repealing? At its core, DeFi was designed to allow individuals to freely buy, sell, and exchange digital assets without reliance on third-party intermediaries. It is ironic, therefore, that in the final hours of the Biden administration, the IRS finalized a new rule attacking America's cryptocurrency industry and more specifically DeFi.

Under the gross proceeds reporting by brokers that regularly provide services effectuating digital asset sales--that is a mouthful--the Biden administration expanded the definition of ``broker'' to include the software developers who create DeFi software, protocols, technology, and so on. They define ``coders''--computer programmers--as ``brokers.''

The IRS rule is untenable on its face. These software developers-- they never touch any of the cryptocurrency being exchanged. DeFi interfaces are neutral technological tools, not financial intermediaries. They do not facilitate transactions. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act could not have been intended for software developers to be classified as financial intermediaries for the simple reason that their software never holds or controls user funds.

In fact, the rule is not just ironic, but it is incoherent. The software these developers are creating is designed to facilitate crypto exchanges between two individuals without a third party in between. What we have here are software developers--not brokers--developing software to facilitate peer-to-peer exchanges without brokers. That is the entire point.

If left in place, this rule would undermine innovation by turning developers into brokers and through reporting requirements that are incredibly onerous for crypto startups to meet. Those developers would inevitably go overseas instead.

If we were to allow this rule to stand, we would be handing China the opportunity to tighten its grip on the digital asset industry, stifling innovation, economic freedom, and financial sovereignty.

In that sense, this issue isn't just about crypto; it is about stopping unchecked Federal overreach. The Federal Government can do a lot of damage to crypto if the government screws it up.

The requirements, in turn, would risk the privacy of millions of Americans because software developers would be required to collect personal information and pass it on to the IRS.

Just for emphasis, this rule would compel DeFi developers--people who are creating cutting-edge technology to enhance the privacy of Americans--to collect, to store, and to report the personal identifying information of tens of millions of Americans and then hand it over to the IRS--an Agency with a long and well-documented history of mishandling sensitive taxpayer information.

These are serious privacy and surveillance risks. The IRS has already proven to the American people that it cannot be trusted, and it has already demonstrated its reckless disregard for privacy. Just last year, a former IRS contractor was sentenced to 5 years in prison for disclosing thousands of tax returns and return information for high- ranking government officials and related entities and individuals. These private taxpayer files were stolen and subsequently leaked to the press.

Indeed, DeFi is a powerful technology precisely because it undermines bureaucrat control over American citizens. The foundation of financial freedom is the right to engage in financial transactions without unnecessary government interference. The American people should be free to spend their money the way they see fit.

Far too often, we are increasingly seeing and hearing the opposite: threats to individual freedom, enforced through financial control. Banks are denying services to Americans because of their political beliefs or their line of work. We saw it first under Obama with Operation Choke Point, and we saw it again, tragically, under the Biden administration.

These actions aren't just abuses of power; they strike at the very foundation of a free society.

DeFi isn't controlled by Washington bureaucrats. Indeed, by design, it can't be. That is one of the many things I love about it. DeFi's noncustodial technology lets citizens hold and spend their own money, securely, without needing permission from some government-backed institution.

It is no wonder the Chinese Communist Party hates crypto in general and DeFi in particular. China has already banned cryptocurrency within its borders because it operates beyond government control, and central governments hate that. And, of course, the Chinese Government is one of the most dystopian, authoritarian regimes in the world, and so they have made cryptocurrency transactions illegal because they view those transactions--they rightly view those transactions--as threats to their authoritarian power.

So, yes, every time we create a new ecosystem using something like DeFi, that is an ecosystem insulated from China, and it is an ecosystem that China views as a threat. That is exactly why we must ensure that Americans have access to this technology. We should make sure it thrives right here in the United States.

There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about supporting cryptocurrency. We now have an opportunity to deliver results for the American people. Earlier this afternoon, we cast the initial vote on moving to proceed to the CRA to repeal this rule. I have to say, I was incredibly heartened that 70 Senators voted together in support of my legislation, and 18 Democratic Senators crossed the aisle and voted in support of repealing this ridiculous and abusive rule.

That is a powerful statement. It is a powerful statement to bitcoin and crypto that Congress is not going to let Washington crush the innovation that is driving so much prosperity. I thank the 18 Democratic Senators who crossed over, and on this final vote I urge even more: Come join us.

I will say--it is an interesting note--if you look at the list of the Democratic Senators who voted with us, it is almost every single Democratic Senator under the age of 60. There is a clear delineating line, and I think there is a reason for that.

Let's stand on the side of innovation. Let's stand on the side of jobs. Let's stand on the side of prosperity. Let's stand on the side of freedom. Let's foster innovation, cut government overreach, and unleash the full potential of the American economy. Let's rescind this rule, and let's unleash the future.

Mr. President, I yield back all time on Calendar No. 11, S.J. Res. 3.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Howard Lutnick to be Secretary of Commerce.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Lutnick appeared before the Commerce Committee, where he received a warm reception from Senators. The following week, he was reported out with bipartisan support, underscoring that many Commerce Committee members see Mr. Lutnick as highly qualified to serve as Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. Lutnick has demonstrated great resilience and grit throughout his life. As he revealed at the hearing, growing up with some real personal adversity has given him a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by ordinary working Americans.

He lost both of his parents before his 18th birthday, and he put himself through college and helped to raise his younger siblings.

On 9/11, Howard personally witnessed the fall of the Twin Towers. On that day, he lost two-thirds of his staff, including his own brother. Few men can recover from an experience like that, but Howard not only rebuilt Cantor Fitzgerald, but he made it into an international powerhouse with 13,000 employees and operations in more than 20 countries.

Just as importantly, he has dedicated his rebuilt company to helping support the families who lost loved ones on 9/11. He created the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund to ensure that the families of employees who were killed received healthcare and millions in financial support. And he continues to serve as a board member of the National September 11th Memorial.

Over the next few years, Mr. Lutnick will lead on key issues vital to the success of America's economy: expanding commercial access to midband spectrum, keeping the gulf open for oil and gas exploration, and spurring a resurgence of manufacturing in America.

Mr. Lutnick will ensure that American taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and that Congress gets ``the benefit of the bargain'' on legislation like the Chips and Science Act.

Mr. Lutnick has earned the support of nearly 50 organizations and associations. From agriculture to aviation, broadband to manufacturing, companies across the spectrum support President Trump's selection of Howard Lutnick to serve as Secretary of Commerce.

As the Wireless Association put it, ``Mr. Lutnick's leadership will bring a fresh, innovative approach to the Department of Commerce.'' He will ``advance policies that promote innovation, foster economic growth, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in wireless technology and digital transformation.''

Mr. President, it is my hope that, given the bipartisan support Mr. Lutnick received in committee, the full Senate will follow suit and agree that he is the forward-looking leader focused on jobs who we need at the Department.

I urge my colleagues to support Howard Lutnick's nomination for Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled rollcall votes begin immediately.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my brief remarks before the vote that is scheduled tonight.

Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of Sean Duffy to be Secretary of Transportation.

Last week, Congressman Duffy was reported favorably out of the Commerce Committee without a single ``no'' vote. All 28 members of the Commerce Committee--Republicans and Democrats--voted in favor of Congressman Duffy.

Two weeks ago, Congressman Duffy appeared before the Commerce Committee for nearly 3 hours for two rounds of questions, his family seated behind him, and he thoughtfully and ably answered the questions put forth by all of the members of the committee.

The resounding bipartisan support for his nomination demonstrates that Republicans and Democrats believe Congressman Duffy is eminently qualified to serve as the Secretary of Transportation.

Transportation is not Republican; it is not Democrat. Transportation is for all Americans, from roads to bridges to waterways to airspace. All Americans depend on the Department of Transportation to help ensure a safe and sufficient transportation system. Congressman Duffy understands this.

He is a five-term Congressman who reached across not just the aisle but across Chambers to bring home needed infrastructure to his district.

To quote his home State Senator, Senator Baldwin, a Democrat, who spoke glowingly of Congressman Duffy:

Sean is the right person for this job.

I agree with Senator Baldwin. As a father of nine children, Congressman Duffy told committee members:

I think about transportation quite a bit, and about

transportation safety a lot.

He understands what American families care about: making sure that when they get in their cars or on a plane or are with their families, they know they will get to their destinations safely.

He embodies the ``revolution of common sense'' that President Trump has called for.

Not only has Congressman Duffy earned the support of the entire Commerce Committee, but there are over 60 stakeholders in support of his nomination. Congressman Duffy has received wide support from labor, from airlines, from railroads, from manufacturers, from energy providers, and many more.

It is my hope that, given this unanimous support that Congressman Duffy received on Wednesday from the Commerce Committee, the entire Senate can follow suit, that we can all agree he is the kind of consensus-driven leader we need at the Department of Transportation.

Therefore, I urge all of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to come together and vote in support of the confirmation of Sean Duffy to be the next Secretary of Transportation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3360 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, everyone is here tonight voting on a provision to treat fairly our retired police officers, firefighters, and teachers. We should do that. The windfall elimination provision treated them unfairly. I have been fighting to correct this since 2017. We can correct this. We can treat our retired cops and firefighters and teachers fairly.

However, the provision on the floor of the Senate tonight would add to the Social Security trust fund $200 billion in debt. Every Member of this Senate--Republican and Democrat--has promised to our voters we will protect Social Security. The bill on the floor of the Senate tonight would accelerate the insolvency of Social Security by 6 months.

My amendment fixes the inequity of the windfall elimination provision but does so at a cost of only $25 billion instead of $200 billion. The amendment on the floor accelerates the insolvency of Social Security; my amendment has a negligible effect on Social Security.

Let me urge everyone: Let's support our cops and firefighters and teachers, but let's also not throw our seniors down the river. I urge you to vote yes.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from West Virginia for his hard work on this very important matter.

I support the objective of this legislation. I also appreciate the commitment that the Senator from West Virginia has made and also that Congressman Westerman has made to--if this bill were to pass today-- incorporate the changes that have been negotiated to improve it in the next Congress. In particular, these are changes dealing with the deployment of resources for broadband. Those negotiated changes would significantly improve and ensure that it operates the way it is intended to operate. I appreciate that commitment.

As the Senator from West Virginia knows, I am pressing very hard right now to pass legislation that is very important to me and very important to Texans. It is legislation called the TAKE IT DOWN Act. The TAKE IT DOWN Act is bipartisan legislation that I authored, along with Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, to protect women and to protect teenage girls and young girls from a growing epidemic of nonconsensual intimate images online, both actual photographs and also a dramatically escalating problem of deepfake AI images that target real people.

We are seeing every day more and more women and more and more teenage girls targeted with false deepfakes made using AI that appear to be explicit photographs, explicit videos. They are victimized. The TAKE IT DOWN Act makes the publication of those nonconsensual, intimate images a crime, a Federal felony. Critically, it puts a Federal obligation on the tech platform to remove those images, remove those videos when notified by the victim.

You have a right to protect your privacy and not to be victimized. The women have a right.

That legislation, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, passed the U.S. Senate unanimously 100 to nothing. Every Senator, Republican and Democrat, agreed with the bill. That legislation is now at the House, and House leadership placed the TAKE IT DOWN Act in the continuing resolution that was introduced earlier this week. It is in the bill. I am grateful for that.

As the Presiding Officer knows, as the Senator from West Virginia knows, the path to passing the continuing resolution has proven to be challenging, and House leadership right now is actively negotiating and trying to find a path forward.

I very much want the TAKE IT DOWN Act passed by whatever vehicle gets it to the President's desk because we have an obligation to protect women and to protect teenage girls.

I have asked the House, as an alternative, to take up the TAKE IT DOWN Act on the suspension calendar. If it gets a vote on the floor of the House, it will pass. All it needs is a vote. So from my perspective, I am fine with it passing as part of the CR--if a CR passes with anything on it--or I believe it should pass on the suspension calendar and go to the President's desk.

The Senator from West Virginia and Congressman Westerman have both committed to me to use their full force and persuasion and leverage to ensure that, one way or another, the TAKE IT DOWN Act will pass out of the House and get to the President's desk, because all of us want to protect our constituents. We have an obligation to do so.

Because the gentlemen in question are my friends and I trust their good-faith representations and because we are about to lose the good graces of the Senator from West Virginia, who has decided to ride off into the sunset and leave us to the nonsense of the swamp--both Senator Manchin and Congressman Westerman have asked for a personal favor, that I not object, and therefore I do not object.

I do not.

Mr. President, I thank my friend the Senator from West Virginia who is standing here--we are standing here together--with a bipartisan plea to the Senate to act in a reasonable, fiscally responsible way.

Senator Manchin and I are also, in a bipartisan way, asking the Senate: Don't sell seniors down the river.

Look, we all know the U.S. Congress spends like drunken sailors. And, frankly, that is not fair to the sailors because at least they are spending their own money. But even in that context, what we saw earlier today was tragic.

The vote earlier today was designed to solve a real problem: the windfall elimination provision, the WEP provision. It was enacted in an effort to ensure Social Security benefits are paid fairly, and they recognized the amount that is actually paid into Social Security.

However, when the WEP was enacted, it got the formula wrong, and the result is, for thousands upon thousands of retired police officers and retired firefighters and retired teachers, they got shortchanged. A very significant number of those cops and firefighters and teachers are in my home State of Texas. I have heard from countless firefighters and cops and teachers who have raised that issue.

Since 2017, I have been fighting to fix the WEP problem. In 2017, I introduced legislation to fix the inequity and to treat our retired cops and firefighters and teachers fairly.

My legislation I have worked on very closely with Kevin Brady, a Republican in the House, then the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He initially had an agreement with the Democrat ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee to get this resolved, but, unfortunately, House Democrats backed out of that agreement. So we didn't fix the WEP in 2017. We didn't fix it in 2018. We didn't fix it in 2019, or 2020, or 2021, or 2022, or 2023.

And now, just days before Christmas, we step in with this bill designed to fix the inequities for retired police officers, firefighters, and teachers.

So what is the problem? The problem is this current bill simply repeals the WEP across board, which is a massive cost to Social Security. This bill imposes a cost on the Social Security Trust Fund of $190 billion--nearly $200 billion.

What else does this bill do that we just voted on? It accelerates the insolvency of Social Security by 6 months. The Social Security system right now is scheduled to be insolvent within 9 years--by 2033. As a result of this vote, if the same 73 Senators who just voted for this provision stick with it, Social Security goes broke 6 months earlier.

What does that mean? When Social Security--if Social Security goes insolvent, there is an automatic benefits cut of over 20 percent that goes into effect automatically by operation of law.

So what did 73 Senators vote to do today? To throw Granny over the cliff, to hurt Social Security for every senior citizen in America.

Now, if that was our only choice, if our only choice was to treat the cops and firefighters and retired teachers fairly or do harm to Social Security and to seniors, I could understand people making that tradeoff. It is an ugly tradeoff, but I could understand it because we absolutely need to treat retired cops and firefighters and teachers fairly.

But there is another choice. The legislation that I introduced in 2017 and have been fighting to pass ever since, it is bipartisan legislation that I have introduced. I have it as an amendment to this bill right now. Senator Manchin, who is a Democrat, is a cosponsor.

What does my amendment do? It fixes the WEP problem--it fixes the windfall elimination problem--which means it corrects the unfairness for retired cops, for retired firefighters, and for retired teachers. But it does so at a much, much more affordable pricetag.

The Cruz-Manchin amendment would cost $25 billion over the next 10 years--$25 billion compared to $190 billion. And, critically, the Cruz- Manchin amendment has been scored that over 75 years--which when you are dealing with Social Security, you typically look at the longer window--over 75 years, the scoring shows it has a negligible impact. It doesn't speed up the insolvency of Social Security by a single day.

The Senate has an option right in front of it: Take care of the cops. Take care of the firefighters. Take care of teachers. But at the same time, don't hurt the seniors.

I am confident that every Member of this body goes home to our States, and we tell senior citizens we are going to protect Social Security. Well, do you know what? If 73 Senators in this body continue charging ahead to blow a $200 billion hole in the Social Security trust fund, every Senator who votes that way is breaking their promise to the seniors in their State.

Every Senator who votes to impose $200 billion of costs on the Social Security trust fund, you are choosing to sacrifice the interests of seniors who paid into Social Security, who have earned those benefits, and who deserve to have them protected.

What is so frustrating is this should be easy, and this should be simple.

I could tell you, in the Republican conference, I urged my colleagues, I said: Listen, let's take this up and finally pass it early next year in the brand new conference. John Thune, the incoming majority leader, committed, if the Senate did not proceed on this bill today, to take up my amendment on the floor within the first 3 months of next year.

Listen, I understand the frustration of the people who have been fighting to get this problem fixed because they have been fighting and fighting and fighting, and it has never gotten there. So people are understandably frustrated by being treated unfairly. But we have a way to fix this problem, to put more money in the pockets of retired cops and retired firefighters and retired teachers but do so in a way that is fiscally responsible and that doesn't hurt every senior in America.

It saddens me that only 27 of us were willing to stand up and say we are going to keep our promise to protect Social Security. We are going to keep our promise to protect the seniors in West Virginia and Texas. We are not going to sell Granny down the river.

There is still a chance for this Senate to reconsider. It would be very simple to take this up. It would be very simple to schedule a hearing in the Finance Committee early next year. The incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Mike Crapo, committed to having a hearing on this legislation early next year. We could fix this problem without blowing a $200 billion hole in the Social Security trust fund.

I would happily yield to my friend from West Virginia.

I thank my friend from West Virginia, and I urge the body to listen to the very reasonable words from the Senator from West Virginia.

I will say, the Senator from West Virginia is retiring in just a few days. We are going to miss Joe Manchin in this body. We are going to miss a voice of reason on both sides of the aisle.

We have in front of this body a bipartisan amendment that fixes the WEP problem, that treats retired cops and firefighters and teachers fairly, but it does so while being responsible and not blowing a hole in the Social Security trust fund.

You know, my dad is 85 years old. My mom is 90 years old. Both of them rely on Social Security.

We have a solemn obligation to honor the promises we made to seniors. There is not a Senator in this body who hasn't promised seniors: I am going to protect Social Security.

Well, if the Senate goes forward and passes this bill, 73 Senators will be breaking their word. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Do the right thing. Do the responsible thing. Keep your word to the seniors in your State.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.