John Ensign: “I have several contentions with this bill. First of all, I have heard testimony over the last year about that this bill…”

“I have several contentions with this bill. First of all, I have heard testimony over the last year about that this bill is just a study, and what is wrong with a study? One of the reasons for this study is just to give States the information so that they can make the decision about whether they should have gambling legalized or not, because there is the assertion made that the States do not have the proper information to make that decision at this point. The sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], his own State defeated a State measure that would have legalized gaming in Virginia, even though they were outspent, I think it was something like 16 to 1, by the casino industry to try to legalize it in that State. State after State after State is defeating legalized casino gaming. It seems that they do have the information to make the decision that is proper for their own State. And that is my biggest contention with this bill. Where in the Constitution can anyone point out to me that this body has oversight over legalized casinos that are regulated by a State? Nowhere in the Constitution. Now, if one wants to regulate Indian gaming or regulate Internet gaming, that is interstate commerce, we certainly have the constitutional jurisdiction to do that. But we do not have the jurisdiction in this body over regular casinos.…”