PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 556.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 29, 2000
Internet Non-discrimination Act - Amends the Internet Tax Freedom Act to permanently extend provisions which prohibited a State or political subdivision from imposing, during the period beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date of the enactment of such Act: (1) taxes on Internet access, unless such tax was generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998; and (2) multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.
People & committees
Rep. Cox, Christopher [R-CA-47] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 556.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 352 - 75 (Roll no. 159).
House roll call 159 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 352 - 75 (Roll no. 159).
House roll call 159 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 177 - 250 (Roll no. 158).
House roll call 158 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House is debating the motion for ten minutes.
Mr. Conyers moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary.
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. (text: CR H2801)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 3709.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that proceedings would now resume on the amendments debated earlier and on which recorded votes had been postponed.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on agreeing to the Istook amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. A recorded vote was demanded and pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 496, further proceedings were postponed until later in the legislative day.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on agreeing to the Chabot amendment to the Delahunt amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 496, the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of agreeing to the Chabot amendment and to the Delahunt amendment, as amended or not, until later in the legislative day.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 3709.
The Speaker designated the Honorable John E. Sununu to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 496 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3709 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments. The time for amendment under the five-minute rule is limited to two hours.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 496. (consideration: CR H2787-2821)
UNFUNDED MANDATE POINT OF ORDER - Mr. Conyers raised a point of order, pursuant to Sec. 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, against consideration of the bill. Mr. Conyers stated that the bill imposed an unfunded intergovernmental mandate in excess of $50 million. The Chair subsequently held that Mr. Conyers had met the threshhold required under the rule and the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the point of order. At the end of debate, the Chair will put the question on the consideration of the bill.
Rule H. Res. 496 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 496 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3709 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 332.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-609.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-609.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 8.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.3709 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.3709 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.3709 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.3709 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.