[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 119 (Thursday, July 10, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4306-S4308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2230
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. 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
[[Page S4307]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the modification?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original proposal?
Mr. YOUNG. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. 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.
[[Page S4308]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). Without objection, it is so
ordered.