Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy (FULL HOUSE) Act

Madam President, the World Series of Poker is currently underway in my hometown of Las Vegas, NV, where tens of thousands of Americans have converged around one of the largest and most prestigious gaming events across the globe.

This world-renowned tournament and the visitors who flock to Nevada to witness it help drive my State's economy. Anyone who has ever heard of Las Vegas knows that our gaming industry is a massive contributor to our State's GDP. Unfortunately, tucked into the Republicans' tax bill was a provision that puts the industry at risk not just in Nevada but across the country.

Until last week, the law of the land was that gamblers could deduct 100 percent of their losses from their annual taxes. For example, if a gambler won $500,000 and lost $500,000 in a year, that gambler would be able to deduct $500,000 from their taxes and break even. But under the new law that was recently passed by the Republicans and signed into law by the President, gamblers will only be able to deduct 90 percent of their losses on their annual taxes; so that same taxpayer would now have $50,000 in taxable income even though they lost everything they won that year. They would literally be paying taxes on money they don't have.

This makes no sense, and it will do irreparable harm to our country's gaming industry if it takes effect, especially in Nevada. It will disincentivize professional gamblers, like players at the World Series of Poker, from doing what they do best and contributing to our economy. It will move major events that drive our economy offshore and push wagering into illegal markets, and it could punish tourists who come to Vegas to win big.

Let me be clear: The Republican tax bill is full of provisions that are bad for

Nevada and this country. That is why I didn't vote for it. And while it will take years to undo the damage that bill will cause, this ridiculous gaming tax is something we can fix today. That is largely because this provision being included in that tax bill was as a result of Republicans haphazardly inventing new budget rules to ram their debt-busting bill through Congress. These new rules they made up forced them to make changes to existing policy even if it made that policy worse for Americans. And that is what happened here.

Nobody thinks this is a good idea, and I am not sure many of my Republican colleagues even knew this was in the bill that they passed. So I am proposing a simple solution, which is a return to the previous policy. My legislation would allow taxpayers to once again deduct 100 percent of their losses from their yearly taxes. We must make this fix. Nevadans take pride in our gaming industry, and the current law could cause serious damage to my State and to our country as a whole.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and as if in legislative session, the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 2230 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I have to say, it is a shame that we cannot pass this commonsense fix, S. 2230, because the Republicans want to weigh it down with unrelated measures that they voted to support.

I appreciate my colleague from Indiana, and I hope we can work together, because I know he supports S. 2230, to try to get this passed and fix this. This is something that--my understanding is--many Republicans, along with Democrats, did not even know was part of that process. And now I hope we can. But I hope it doesn't get caught in this constant churn now that Republicans, when they vote for a bill, they are trying to undo some of those votes because of things they didn't like in the bill. If they didn't like it, they should have voted against the bill.

It really is doing a disservice to so many across the country. It is not just a unique thing for Nevada. This is gaming. Gaming exists across the country, almost in every State. There are so many people who are going to be impacted by this, and it just does not make sense. This is a Republican piece of legislation that is actually causing people to pay taxes on money they lost. It makes no sense.

That is all this is. It is trying to fix it and put us back to the status quo.

I will say this--and, again, I really appreciate my colleague from Indiana, but the Byrd process is not partisan. It is a Senate process we have. It is a bipartisan process. Democrats have used it in the past. Republicans have used it in the past. It is a Senate process that is part of the procedure that we have here.

If--if--my colleagues wanted to protect qualified religious institutions' exemption, they shouldn't have put it in the bill they passed or they should have introduced an amendment to knock it out. They should have done something to show that they were there.

I am hopeful this legislation that I am trying to pass on behalf of so many--so many--across this country, Americans, that it does not now get caught up in a Republican loop of trying to protect the very provisions that they voted to support in that Republican ``Big Betrayal Bill.''

I am disappointed, but I am not done. And I can promise you this: We will continue to work to try to get S. 2230 passed. It is just common sense, and it has bipartisan support here in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in reserving the right to object, as my distinguished colleague is very much aware, a number of important and impactful provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act were challenged and, unfortunately, stricken during Byrd challenges. There are also a number of provisions that had to be written in a very specific way to comply with this Byrd rule. The underlying bill is an effort to fix one of those instances, and I am supportive of this policy change. I want to make that clear.

Another provision that was, unfortunately, not included in the final bill as a result of the Byrd rule was an exemption for qualified religious institutions from the excise tax on investment income of certain private colleagues and universities, also known as the university endowment tax. The qualified religious institution provision would exempt any institution that, in short, is longstanding and has substantive ties to a religious organization.

Religious institutions have served a very important purpose in our country throughout our history and have, by and large, not been offenders of the woke and DEI problems that are rampant at many other major universities with large endowments.

As long as my Democratic colleagues are keen on fixing provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that were the result of this Byrd process, I think it is only fair that we fix this one as well. Again, I strongly support the underlying bill, but we will have to object, unless the Senator can agree to my request.

Accordingly, I ask that the Senator modify her request to include my amendment, which is at the desk; that the amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I object.

It is understandable that my colleagues would want to characterize this imminently reasonable request as something that is parochial in nature. I will say, however, that when we advanced the largest tax cut for middle- and working-class Americans in American history, when we advanced this broader initiative to make Medicaid more sustainable for all Americans and take Medicaid back to its original purpose, when we invested in critical resources in our military--at a time when the world is not becoming less dangerous; it is becoming more dangerous-- when we beefed up border security, we also thought it right and proper to ensure that our religious institutions were cared for, that we continued to incentivize their critical investments in education and other important causes.

Unfortunately, it was through a Democratic Byrd process. It was a partisan effort to initiate a process to strip out the provisions that would have exempted religious institutions from attacks that should not be applied to them.

So I seek an exemption on behalf of all these religious institutions across the country that are broadly supported, at the same time that I seek relief for the Senator from Nevada, in the interest of her State, for gambling purposes.

Madam President, I want to start out by thanking my dear friend and colleague Senator Cortez Masto for leading the effort to fix this terrible provision.

I have to say I am extremely disappointed in what just happened. Senate Republicans are, once again, showing that they couldn't care less about the impacts of their new extreme law.

Last week, President Trump signed into law Republicans' disastrous ``Big Beautiful Betrayal,'' which, among all the terrible cuts to healthcare, to food assistance, and all of the rest, the ``Big Beautiful Betrayal'' included a damaging provision that will impose a higher tax burden for people who play games at casinos--casinos not just in Nevada but all around this country--and lose money.

You heard that right. Under Republicans' new law, individuals who play blackjack or poker while they are on vacation or wherever they are at--any other games at casinos--will now owe taxes to the government on the money that they lost. That is because Republicans' extreme law placed a new limit on the amount of gaming losses that Americans can deduct.

What does this actually mean? It means if someone wins a big jackpot in Las Vegas and then loses that jackpot later on, they would still be liable for paying 10 percent in taxes on gaming ``income,'' even though they hadn't brought home anything.

Their loss equaled their win. They had no winnings at all.

How can that be right? How does it make sense? I don't know. It is Senate Republican math. That is what they seemed to use in their ``Big Beautiful Betrayal Bill.'' It is not just bad math; it is bad policy.

What makes it even worse is that Senate Republicans snuck in this provision in this terrible bill so they can collect more money from people so that they can pay for more tax giveaways to billionaires. This is exactly what is happening, and it is shameful.

This is going to hurt people who visit casinos. It is going to hurt Nevada's gaming industry more broadly, which supports nearly a third of the jobs in our State. It generates billions of dollars for our local economy.

That is why Senator Cortez Masto and I agreed that we must pass our FULL HOUSE Act and eliminate this new tax burden.

I am extremely disappointed that Washington politicians are refusing to fix the terrible policy they enacted that is going to hurt my State--our State--and our economy.

We need to restore the full wagering loss deduction and bring fairness back to our tax system. I won't stop working and won't stop pushing until this gets done.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I want everybody to understand what is going on here on the floor of the Senate.

Last week, the Republicans passed a gigantic bill that was full of massive cuts to healthcare and food assistance as well as huge tax handouts to big corporations and the ultrawealthy. It also included a lot of smaller scale policies that didn't get a lot of notice. In a lot of cases, they were just half-baked, poorly written, and now I see Republican Senators walking all over the Capitol, saying they didn't even know anything about this policy and this process.

The Republican bill is full of special carve-outs for some groups and new taxes on others. The fact is, when you rush a process like this in this way and cram in all of these policies that you haven't really thought about, you risk some consequences for people back home, and that is what is going on here in this attempt by our colleague to pass this special tax carve-out for one institution--just one--in his home State.

The Finance Committee's Democratic staff already litigated this issue in bipartisan meetings with the Parliamentarian. We knocked this proposal out of the Republican bill specifically--specifically--for one reason: It is a special carve-out, and it is plain and simple that that is what is going on.

My own view is, if my Republican colleagues want to exempt their home State colleges and universities from the endowment tax, they shouldn't have passed this deeply flawed bill in the first place. So I strongly support our colleague from Nevada's efforts. I oppose the amendment proposed by our Finance Committee colleague Senator Young.

I close by way of saying: It is just not right to give a special home State tax carve-out a free ride on an entirely separate proposal. Therefore, I object.

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