PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 11, 2000
Electronic Commerce Enhancement Act of 2000 - Requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish an Advisory Panel to report on the challenges facing small and medium-sized manufacturers and other such businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies and business practices. Requires the Panel to provide an interim and final report to the Director and specified congressional committees. Requires the final report to include: (1) a three-year planning document for NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program in the field of electronic commerce; and (2) recommendations for NIST to address interoperability issues in electronic commerce.Requires the MEP program to: (1) establish a pilot program to assist such manufacturers and businesses in integrating and utilizing electronic commerce technologies and business practices through a competitive grants program; and (2) consult with the Panel and utilize the Panel's reports.
People & committees
Rep. Barcia, James A. [D-MI-5] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H8079-8080)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8079-8080)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4429.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8079-8081)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 528.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 106-877.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 106-877.
Ordered to be Reported Without Recommendation (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Technology Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Science.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E720)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.4429 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.4429 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.4429 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.4429 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.