PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 21, 1994
Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 1994 - Authorizes appropriations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for FY 1995. Prohibits a reduction in the number of full-time equivalent employees in the Office during the five-year period beginning on October 1, 1994, unless: (1) a law is enacted that specifically requires reductions in personnel or positions in such Office; or (2) the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks determines that such reduction is in the best interests of the Office and the public. Exempts the Office, during such five-year period, from any law imposing a restriction on hiring by the executive agencies or reductions in force by executive agencies to achieve reductions in the Federal work force.
People & committees
Rep. Hughes, William J. [D-NJ-2] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as Failed by recorded vote (2/3 required): 146 - 251 (Roll no. 458).
House roll call 458 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as Failed by recorded vote (2/3 required): 146 - 251 (Roll no. 458).
House roll call 458 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10610-10611)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Rohrabacher 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10465-10466)
Mr. Hughes moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 425.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-777.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-777.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Jan 16, 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.4608 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.4608 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.4608 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.4608 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.