John Juanda, wearing Full Tilt Poker clothes, plays Tuesday during the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas. People can play poker online at Full Tilt's Web site. Photo by John Locher. Click image for enlargement.

WASHINGTON -- The House on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban Internet gambling, leaving it up to the Senate to decide whether the $12 billion online wagering industry with more than 2,300 Web sites will be outlawed this year.

The 317-93 vote is likely to add momentum to efforts by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., to push the ban through the Senate, but there are only 22 legislative days scheduled for the rest of this session of Congress.

The White House signaled that President Bush would sign an Internet gambling ban into law if it is approved by both chambers of Congress.

The bill's supporters also cited backing from Major League Baseball, the National Football League, U.S. financial services firms and 48 of 50 state attorneys general.

"This important legislation is intended to enhance the ability of law enforcement and financial institutions to identify and prevent illegal Internet gambling and will update the existing prohibitions against interstate gambling," officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.

Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association, which represents Nevada casinos, said his organization will continue to support an 18-month study of Internet gambling and remain neutral on a ban.

"It's no surprise what happened in the House," Fahrenkopf said. "Even if Internet gambling became illegal today in the United States, I'm not sure that would stop offshore (online wagering) companies that do not have to submit to taxation and regulation in the United States."

The ban approved by the House would prohibit the use of bank instruments such as credit cards to pay for Internet gambling. The legislation also updates a 1961 federal statute that bans the use of phone lines to wager across state lines so the law would apply to the Internet and other new technology.

Kyl praised the House vote but expressed caution about the ban's prospects in the Senate.

"The Senate procedures make it very difficult to get legislation passed in the time periods that we have here," Kyl said.

Supporters say Internet betting can create problem gamblers.

"The Internet is addictive for many people anyway, and online gambling can be doubly addictive," said Rep. John Duncan Jr., R-Tenn.

Critics of the ban disagreed.

"You can't just turn off the faucet on a $12 billion industry," said Mike McComb, director of marketing for Betmaker.com, an online gambling company based in Costa Rica.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the bill restricted individual rights.

"What kind of social, cultural authoritarianism are we practicing here?" Frank asked during the debate. "The fundamental principle of the autonomy of the individual is at stake today."

While Nevada lawmakers in the House sought to block an Internet gambling ban, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "I'm going to vote to ban it (online wagering)."

Reid, a former chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, has said he does not think Internet gambling can be effectively regulated.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., will review the legislation before deciding how he will vote, according to spokesman Jack Finn.

The House debate of almost two and a half hours included heated exchanges between Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who co-authored the bill, and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., who opposed it.

At one point, Berkley was admonished for questioning Goodlatte's motivation in proposing the bill. She accused Goodlatte of gaining the support of the horse racing industry by exempting it from the ban.

"Well, hypocrisy is certainly rampant here on the House today," Berkley said. "Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, apparently wants it both ways. He wants to tell us that the Department of Justice is opposed to horse race gambling, but on the other hand, the horse race industry is happy as a clam (with the Goodlatte-Leach bill)."

Berkley offered an amendment to remove exemptions for the horse racing industry and state lotteries from the Internet gambling ban. The House rejected Berkley's amendment by a vote of 297-114.

Goodlatte said his bill, which was merged with another Internet gambling ban proposed by Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, does not exempt the horse racing industry. The bill does not address a federal statute which the Justice Department says prohibits horse racing bets on the Internet, a view the horse racing industry disputes.

Goodlatte charged Berkley's amendment was a "poison pill" aimed at weakening the coalition of state attorneys general, religious organizations and professional sports leagues supporting the ban. This was the method used by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff to defeat the bill six years ago, Goodlatte said.

"The gentlewoman from Las Vegas, who has here on the floor lauded the merits of gambling or gaming as she calls it, now offers an amendment to make this bill that we have fought for (for) eight years tighter and tougher on gambling?" Goodlatte said. "I don't think so. I will tell you this was all about undoing what was done before."

But Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who co-sponsored Berkley's amendment, argued the Goodlatte-Leach ban is "Jack Abramoff's revenge" because it includes an exemption he sought for state lotteries.

Rep. Jon Porter, who introduced a bill in May calling for the 18-month study of Internet gambling by a federal commission, voted against the online wagering ban and also voted against Berkley's amendment.

"There is so much confusion," Porter said. "This complex issue needs review."

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., voted against the Internet gambling ban and against Berkley's amendment.

The Associated Press and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.