PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Nov 15, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses the sense of Congress that the Bayh-Dole Act (amending federal patent and trademark law) and its subsequent amendments have: (1) made substantial contributions to the advancement of scientific and technological knowledge; (2) fostered dramatic improvements in public health and safety; (3) strengthened higher education; (4) led to the development of new domestic industries and private sector jobs; and (5) benefitted economic and trade policies of the United States.
Reaffirms the support of Congress for such Act and the role of innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation in the future of the United States.
Expresses the gratitude of Congress for the bipartisan leadership of specified former Members on the 30th anniversary of enactment of such Act.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · 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 referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 385 - 1 (Roll no. 568). (text: CR H7410)
House roll call 568 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 385 - 1 (Roll no. 568).(text: CR H7410)
House roll call 568 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7416-7417)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 328.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7410-7411)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.Con.Res.328 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.Con.Res.328 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.Con.Res.328 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.Con.Res.328 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.