PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 245 - 159 (Roll no. 404). (text: CR H6057-6061)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 21, 1999
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person engaged in a gambling business to knowingly use the Internet or any other interactive computer service (service) to: (1) place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager; or (2) send, receive, or invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager. Prescribes penalties.Grants the district courts original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this Act. Provides enforcement authority for violations taking place on Indian lands.Exempts from liability under this Act any service provider who, after being properly notified by a Federal or State law enforcement agency that a particular online site of such provider is being used to violate this Act, removes or disables access to such site. Requires a provider, in order to receive such immunity, to: (1) maintain an electronic or written policy that requires the provider to terminate the account of a violating subscriber following receipt of a notice of violation; and (2) not knowingly permit its service to be used for such prohibited purposes.Authorizes alternative injunctive relief against such a provider, under certain limitations and considerations.Exempts providers from liability for content, furnished by another person, that advertises or promotes non-Internet gambling activities, unless the provider is engaged in the business of such gambling. Requires such providers, in order to receive such immunity, to maintain the termination policy and to not knowingly permit the use of their services for such activities as required under the exemption above. Requires the provider to take appropriate action after notice from a Federal or State law enforcement agency that the provider's service is being used for such prohibited purposes. Authorizes alternative injunctive relief against such a provider under certain limitations and considerations.Exempts from liability a provider who takes any action required under this Act. States that nothing in this Act shall otherwise require a provider: (1) to monitor material or use of its service; or (2) except as required by notice, to gain access to, remove, or disable access to material. Lists exceptions to the prohibitions under this Act, including certain State and multi-State lotteries and authorized horse or dog racing. Directs the Attorney General to submit to Congress: (1) an analysis of the problems associated with enforcing this Act; (2) recommendations for the best use of Department of Justice resources for enforcement; and (3) an estimate of the amount of activity and money being used to gamble on the Internet.
People & committees
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 245 - 159 (Roll no. 404). (text: CR H6057-6061)
House roll call 404 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Failed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 245 - 159 (Roll no. 404).(text: CR H6057-6061)
House roll call 404 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6088-6089)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Conyers objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3125.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6057-6068)
Mr. Goodlatte moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 389.
Committee on Commerce discharged.
Committee on Commerce discharged.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Commerce for a period ending not later than June 23, 2000 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-655, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-655, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 8.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Hearings Held by Subcommittee on Crime (March 9, 2000).
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 5 - 3.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2153)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3125 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3125 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3125 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3125 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.