[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 14, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H889-H893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1100
MADRID PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 741) to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide for
the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, in
order to carry out provisions of certain international conventions, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 741
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Madrid Protocol
Implementation Act''.
SEC. 2. PROVISIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE
MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL
REGISTRATION OF MARKS.
The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the registration
and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out
the provisions of certain international conventions, and for
other purposes'', approved July 5, 1946, as amended (15
U.S.C. 1051 and following) (commonly referred to as the
``Trademark Act of 1946'') is amended by adding after section
51 the following new title:
``TITLE XII--THE MADRID PROTOCOL
``SEC. 60. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this title:
``(1) Madrid protocol.--The term `Madrid Protocol' means
the Protocol Relating to the
[[Page H890]]
Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of
Marks, adopted at Madrid, Spain, on June 27, 1989.
``(2) Basic application.--The term `basic application'
means the application for the registration of a mark that has
been filed with an Office of a Contracting Party and that
constitutes the basis for an application for the
international registration of that mark.
``(3) Basic registration.--The term `basic registration'
means the registration of a mark that has been granted by an
Office of a Contracting Party and that constitutes the basis
for an application for the international registration of that
mark.
``(4) Contracting party.--The term `Contracting Party'
means any country or inter-governmental organization that is
a party to the Madrid Protocol.
``(5) Date of recordal.--The term `date of recordal' means
the date on which a request for extension of protection that
is filed after an international registration is granted is
recorded on the International Register.
``(6) Declaration of bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.--The term `declaration of bona fide intention to
use the mark in commerce' means a declaration that is signed
by the applicant for, or holder of, an international
registration who is seeking extension of protection of a mark
to the United States and that contains a statement that--
``(A) the applicant or holder has a bona fide intention to
use the mark in commerce;
``(B) the person making the declaration believes himself or
herself, or the firm, corporation, or association in whose
behalf he or she makes the declaration, to be entitled to use
the mark in commerce; and
``(C) no other person, firm, corporation, or association,
to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, has the right
to use such mark in commerce either in the identical form of
the mark or in such near resemblance to the mark as to be
likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of such
other person, firm, corporation, or association, to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
``(7) Extension of protection.--The term `extension of
protection' means the protection resulting from an
international registration that extends to a Contracting
Party at the request of the holder of the international
registration, in accordance with the Madrid Protocol.
``(8) Holder of an international registration.--A `holder'
of an international registration is the natural or juristic
person in whose name the international registration is
recorded on the International Register.
``(9) International application.--The term `international
application' means an application for international
registration that is filed under the Madrid Protocol.
``(10) International bureau.--The term `International
Bureau' means the International Bureau of the World
Intellectual Property Organization.
``(11) International register.--The term `International
Register' means the official collection of such data
concerning international registrations maintained by the
International Bureau that the Madrid Protocol or its
implementing regulations require or permit to be recorded,
regardless of the medium which contains such data.
``(12) International registration.--The term `international
registration' means the registration of a mark granted under
the Madrid Protocol.
``(13) International registration date.--The term
`international registration date' means the date assigned to
the international registration by the International Bureau.
``(14) Notification of refusal.--The term `notification of
refusal' means the notice sent by an Office of a Contracting
Party to the International Bureau declaring that an extension
of protection cannot be granted.
``(15) Office of a contracting party.--The term `Office of
a Contracting Party' means--
``(A) the office, or governmental entity, of a Contracting
Party that is responsible for the registration of marks; or
``(B) the common office, or governmental entity, of more
than 1 Contracting Party that is responsible for the
registration of marks and is so recognized by the
International Bureau.
``(16) Office of origin.--The term `office of origin' means
the Office of a Contracting Party with which a basic
application was filed or by which a basic registration was
granted.
``(17) Opposition period.--The term `opposition period'
means the time allowed for filing an opposition in the Patent
and Trademark Office, including any extension of time granted
under section 13.
``SEC. 61. INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS BASED ON UNITED STATES
APPLICATIONS OR REGISTRATIONS.
``The owner of a basic application pending before the
Patent and Trademark Office, or the owner of a basic
registration granted by the Patent and Trademark Office,
who--
``(1) is a national of the United States;
``(2) is domiciled in the United States; or
``(3) has a real and effective industrial or commercial
establishment in the United States,
may file an international application by submitting to the
Patent and Trademark Office a written application in such
form, together with such fees, as may be prescribed by the
Director.
``SEC. 62. CERTIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION.
``Upon the filing of an application for international
registration and payment of the prescribed fees, the Director
shall examine the international application for the purpose
of certifying that the information contained in the
international application corresponds to the information
contained in the basic application or basic registration at
the time of the certification. Upon examination and
certification of the international application, the Director
shall transmit the international application to the
International Bureau.
``SEC. 63. RESTRICTION, ABANDONMENT, CANCELLATION, OR
EXPIRATION OF A BASIC APPLICATION OR BASIC
REGISTRATION.
``With respect to an international application transmitted
to the International Bureau under section 62, the Director
shall notify the International Bureau whenever the basic
application or basic registration which is the basis for the
international application has been restricted, abandoned, or
canceled, or has expired, with respect to some or all of the
goods and services listed in the international registration--
``(1) within 5 years after the international registration
date; or
``(2) more than 5 years after the international
registration date if the restriction, abandonment, or
cancellation of the basic application or basic registration
resulted from an action that began before the end of that 5-
year period.
``SEC. 64. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTION SUBSEQUENT TO
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION.
``The holder of an international registration that is based
upon a basic application filed with the Patent and Trademark
Office or a basic registration granted by the Patent and
Trademark Office may request an extension of protection of
its international registration by filing such a request--
``(1) directly with the International Bureau; or
``(2) with the Patent and Trademark Office for transmittal
to the International Bureau, if the request is in such form,
and contains such transmittal fee, as may be prescribed by
the Director.
``SEC. 65. EXTENSION OF PROTECTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL
REGISTRATION TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
MADRID PROTOCOL.
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of section 68,
the holder of an international registration shall be entitled
to the benefits of extension of protection of that
international registration to the United States to the extent
necessary to give effect to any provision of the Madrid
Protocol.
``(b) If United States Is Office of Origin.--An extension
of protection resulting from an international registration of
a mark shall not apply to the United States if the Patent and
Trademark Office is the office of origin with respect to that
mark.
``SEC. 66. EFFECT OF FILING A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
PROTECTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION TO
THE UNITED STATES.
``(a) Requirement for Request for Extension of
Protection.--A request for extension of protection of an
international registration to the United States that the
International Bureau transmits to the Patent and Trademark
Office shall be deemed to be properly filed in the United
States if such request, when received by the International
Bureau, has attached to it a declaration of bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce that is verified by the
applicant for, or holder of, the international registration.
``(b) Effect of Proper Filing.--Unless extension of
protection is refused under section 68, the proper filing of
the request for extension of protection under subsection (a)
shall constitute constructive use of the mark, conferring the
same rights as those specified in section 7(c), as of the
earliest of the following:
``(1) The international registration date, if the request
for extension of protection was filed in the international
application.
``(2) The date of recordal of the request for extension of
protection, if the request for extension of protection was
made after the international registration date.
``(3) The date of priority claimed pursuant to section 67.
``SEC. 67. RIGHT OF PRIORITY FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
PROTECTION TO THE UNITED STATES.
``The holder of an international registration with an
extension of protection to the United States shall be
entitled to claim a date of priority based on the right of
priority within the meaning of Article 4 of the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property if--
``(1) the international registration contained a claim of
such priority; and
``(2)(A) the international application contained a request
for extension of protection to the United States; or
``(B) the date of recordal of the request for extension of
protection to the United States is not later than 6 months
after the date of the first regular national filing (within
the meaning of Article 4(A)(3) of the Paris Convention for
the Protection of Industrial Property) or a subsequent
application (within the meaning of Article 4(C)(4) of the
Paris Convention).
``SEC. 68. EXAMINATION OF AND OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF PROTECTION; NOTIFICATION OF
REFUSAL.
``(a) Examination and Opposition.--(1) A request for
extension of protection described
[[Page H891]]
in section 66(a) shall be examined as an application for
registration on the Principal Register under this Act, and if
on such examination it appears that the applicant is entitled
to extension of protection under this title, the Director
shall cause the mark to be published in the Official Gazette
of the Patent and Trademark Office.
``(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c), a
request for extension of protection under this title shall be
subject to opposition under section 13. Unless successfully
opposed, the request for extension of protection shall not be
refused.
``(3) Extension of protection shall not be refused under
this section on the ground that the mark has not been used in
commerce.
``(4) Extension of protection shall be refused under this
section to any mark not registrable on the Principal
Register.
``(b) Notification of Refusal.--If, a request for extension
of protection is refused under subsection (a), the Director
shall declare in a notification of refusal (as provided in
subsection (c)) that the extension of protection cannot be
granted, together with a statement of all grounds on which
the refusal was based.
``(c) Notice to International Bureau.--(1) Within 18 months
after the date on which the International Bureau transmits to
the Patent and Trademark Office a notification of a request
for extension of protection, the Director shall transmit to
the International Bureau any of the following that applies to
such request:
``(A) A notification of refusal based on an examination of
the request for extension of protection.
``(B) A notification of refusal based on the filing of an
opposition to the request.
``(C) A notification of the possibility that an opposition
to the request may be filed after the end of that 18-month
period.
``(2) If the Director has sent a notification of the
possibility of opposition under paragraph (1)(C), the
Director shall, if applicable, transmit to the International
Bureau a notification of refusal on the basis of the
opposition, together with a statement of all the grounds for
the opposition, within 7 months after the beginning of the
opposition period or within 1 month after the end of the
opposition period, whichever is earlier.
``(3) If a notification of refusal of a request for
extension of protection is transmitted under paragraph (1) or
(2), no grounds for refusal of such request other than those
set forth in such notification may be transmitted to the
International Bureau by the Director after the expiration of
the time periods set forth in paragraph (1) or (2), as the
case may be.
``(4) If a notification specified in paragraph (1) or (2)
is not sent to the International Bureau within the time
period set forth in such paragraph, with respect to a request
for extension of protection, the request for extension of
protection shall not be refused and the Director shall issue
a certificate of extension of protection pursuant to the
request.
``(d) Designation of Agent for Service of Process.--In
responding to a notification of refusal with respect to a
mark, the holder of the international registration of the
mark shall designate, by a written document filed in the
Patent and Trademark Office, the name and address of a person
resident in the United States on whom may be served notices
or process in proceedings affecting the mark. Such notices or
process may be served upon the person so designated by
leaving with that person, or mailing to that person, a copy
thereof at the address specified in the last designation so
filed. If the person so designated cannot be found at the
address given in the last designation, such notice or process
may be served upon the Director.
``SEC. 69. EFFECT OF EXTENSION OF PROTECTION.
``(a) Issuance of Extension of Protection.--Unless a
request for extension of protection is refused under section
68, the Director shall issue a certificate of extension of
protection pursuant to the request and shall cause notice of
such certificate of extension of protection to be published
in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark Office.
``(b) Effect of Extension of Protection.--From the date on
which a certificate of extension of protection is issued
under subsection (a)--
``(1) such extension of protection shall have the same
effect and validity as a registration on the Principal
Register; and
``(2) the holder of the international registration shall
have the same rights and remedies as the owner of a
registration on the Principal Register.
``SEC. 70. DEPENDENCE OF EXTENSION OF PROTECTION TO THE
UNITED STATES ON THE UNDERLYING INTERNATIONAL
REGISTRATION.
``(a) Effect of Cancellation of International
Registration.--If the International Bureau notifies the
Patent and Trademark Office of the cancellation of an
international registration with respect to some or all of the
goods and services listed in the international registration,
the Director shall cancel any extension of protection to the
United States with respect to such goods and services as of
the date on which the international registration was
canceled.
``(b) Effect of Failure To Renew International
Registration.--If the International Bureau does not renew an
international registration, the corresponding extension of
protection to the United States shall cease to be valid as of
the date of the expiration of the international registration.
``(c) Transformation of an Extension of Protection Into a
United States Application.--The holder of an international
registration canceled in whole or in part by the
International Bureau at the request of the office of origin,
under Article 6(4) of the Madrid Protocol, may file an
application, under section 1 or 44 of this Act, for the
registration of the same mark for any of the goods and
services to which the cancellation applies that were covered
by an extension of protection to the United States based on
that international registration. Such an application shall be
treated as if it had been filed on the international
registration date or the date of recordal of the request for
extension of protection with the International Bureau,
whichever date applies, and, if the extension of protection
enjoyed priority under section 67 of this title, shall enjoy
the same priority. Such an application shall be entitled to
the benefits conferred by this subsection only if the
application is filed not later than 3 months after the date
on which the international registration was canceled, in
whole or in part, and only if the application complies with
all the requirements of this Act which apply to any
application filed pursuant to section 1 or 44.
``SEC. 71. AFFIDAVITS AND FEES.
``(a) Required Affidavits and Fees.--An extension of
protection for which a certificate of extension of protection
has been issued under section 69 shall remain in force for
the term of the international registration upon which it is
based, except that the extension of protection of any mark
shall be canceled by the Director--
``(1) at the end of the 6-year period beginning on the date
on which the certificate of extension of protection was
issued by the Director, unless within the 1-year period
preceding the expiration of that 6-year period the holder of
the international registration files in the Patent and
Trademark Office an affidavit under subsection (b) together
with a fee prescribed by the Director; and
``(2) at the end of the 10-year period beginning on the
date on which the certificate of extension of protection was
issued by the Director, and at the end of each 10-year period
thereafter, unless--
``(A) within the 6-month period preceding the expiration of
such 10-year period the holder of the international
registration files in the Patent and Trademark Office an
affidavit under subsection (b) together with a fee prescribed
by the Director; or
``(B) within 3 months after the expiration of such 10-year
period, the holder of the international registration files in
the Patent and Trademark Office an affidavit under subsection
(b) together with the fee described in subparagraph (A) and
an additional fee prescribed by the Director.
``(b) Contents of Affidavit.--The affidavit referred to in
subsection (a) shall set forth those goods or services
recited in the extension of protection on or in connection
with which the mark is in use in commerce and the holder of
the international registration shall attach to the affidavit
a specimen or facsimile showing the current use of the mark
in commerce, or shall set forth that any nonuse is due to
special circumstances which excuse such nonuse and is not due
to any intention to abandon the mark. Special notice of the
requirement for such affidavit shall be attached to each
certificate of extension of protection.
``SEC. 72. ASSIGNMENT OF AN EXTENSION OF PROTECTION.
``An extension of protection may be assigned, together with
the goodwill associated with the mark, only to a person who
is a national of, is domiciled in, or has a bona fide and
effective industrial or commercial establishment either in a
country that is a Contracting Party or in a country that is a
member of an intergovernmental organization that is a
Contracting Party.
``SEC. 73. INCONTESTABILITY.
``The period of continuous use prescribed under section 15
for a mark covered by an extension of protection issued under
this title may begin no earlier than the date on which the
Director issues the certificate of the extension of
protection under section 69, except as provided in section
74.
``SEC. 74. RIGHTS OF EXTENSION OF PROTECTION.
``An extension of protection shall convey the same rights
as an existing registration for the same mark, if--
``(1) the extension of protection and the existing
registration are owned by the same person;
``(2) the goods and services listed in the existing
registration are also listed in the extension of protection;
and
``(3) the certificate of extension of protection is issued
after the date of the existing registration.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date on which the Madrid Protocol (as defined
in section 60(1) of the Trademark Act of 1946) enters into
force with respect to the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H892]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 741, the Madrid Protocol
Implementation Act, and urge the House to pass the measure.
H.R. 741 is the implementing legislation for the Protocol Related to
the Madrid Agreement on the Registration of Marks, commonly known as
the Madrid Protocol. This bill is identical to legislation introduced
in each of the preceding four Congresses and will again send a signal
to the international business community, U.S. businesses and trademark
owners that the 107th Congress is determined to help our Nation and
particularly our small businesses become a part of an inexpensive,
efficient system that allows the international registration of marks.
As a practical matter, Mr. Speaker, the ratification of the Protocol
and the enactment of H.R. 741 will enable American trademark owners to
pay a nominal fee to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which will
then register the marks in the individual countries that comprise the
European Union. Currently, American trademark owners must hire
attorneys or agents in each individual country to acquire protection.
This process is both laborious and expensive and discourages small
businesses and individuals from registering their marks in Europe.
A final comment on an issue peripheral to this bill, Mr. Speaker.
While there is no opposition to the bill, I note that two companies,
Bacardi and Pernod, are in the process of attempting to settle a
dispute over rights to a mark which each wishes to market. At least one
of these companies believes that the implementing language should be
amended to reflect its position on the matter. It is also my
understanding that talks between the two companies are fluid and
ongoing and that a resolution to this problem may be forthcoming in the
near future.
I therefore urge my colleagues to pass this legislation today and to
allow these talks to continue. Once a compromise is reached I am
confident that the other body will shortly ratify the Protocol and pass
the implementing language.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 741 is an important and noncontroversial bill that
will greatly help those American businesses and other individuals who
need to register their trademarks overseas in a quick and cost-
effective manner. I urge the House to support this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I support the bill. It has been described very adequately by the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I might remind our colleagues that we passed the bill by voice vote
twice under suspension of the rules. It is an important measure because
it implements the provisions of the 1989 Madrid Protocol, which creates
a low-cost and efficient system for registering marks internationally.
The most important aspect of the Protocol is that it allows entities to
file for mark protection with all member countries through one fee and
one application. And so this international concept is an important one
as we expand the understanding of the principles of copyright,
trademark, and patent law around the world. I am very happy to join in
support with the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Michigan have
pretty clearly laid out what this entails, Mr. Speaker. The World
Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, administers the Protocol,
which in turn operates the international system for the registration of
trademarks. This system would assist our businesses in protecting their
proprietary names and brand name goods while saving cost, time and
effort. This is especially important to our small businesses which may
only be able to afford worldwide protection for their marks through a
low-cost international registration system.
Unfortunately, and as the gentleman from Wisconsin alluded to in his
remarks, Senate ratification of the Protocol and passage of the
implementing language were derailed the last term as a result of a
private dispute over a mark between Bacardi, the rum distiller, and
Pernod, a French concern which formed a joint venture with the Cuban
government. Although negotiations to develop an acceptable compromise
failed, it is my understanding that the Senate and trademark community
will redouble their efforts to resolve this problem during the present
term.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to move this legislation forward as a
way of encouraging all parties involved in the Bacardi dispute to
intensify their negotiations. House consideration of the Protocol will
also assure American trademark holders that the United States stands
ready to benefit imminently from its ratification. As the chairman
pointed out and as the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, this matter
has been before this House, and I think we have approved it three times
before.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time.
H.R. 741 is an important piece of legislation because it implements
the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Marks. It will allow U.S. businesses and trademark
owners to become part of a low-cost, efficient system to
internationally register trademarks. U.S. membership in the Protocol
would assist American businesses in protecting their proprietary names
and brand name goods while saving money, time and effort. That is
especially critical to small businesses that may otherwise lack the
resources to acquire worldwide protection for their trademark.
This is the fourth Congress in which the Committee on the Judiciary
has favorably reported, and I hope the House will pass this
implementing legislation. In 1999, H.R. 769 passed by voice vote under
suspension. While the Senate has failed to follow suit in the past,
there is a reason to believe that this Congress will be different. A
previous dispute over representation of the European community and its
constituent nations has been resolved to the satisfaction of the State
Department. Further, rum manufacturers embroiled in an unrelated
trademark dispute have agreed not to interfere with House passage of
this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 741.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 741, legislation known as the Madrid Protocol. I was pleased to
support this legislation during a Judiciary Committee markup on March
8. The legislation concerning the Madrid Protocol advances U.S.
interests in a bipartisan manner, and I urge my colleagues to support
the bill.
As with many intellectual property rights, there are international
agreements relating to the registration and protection of trademarks.
Since 1891, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Marks (``Madrid Agreement'') has provided an
international registration system operated under the auspices of the
International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO). The United States has never been a signatory to the Madrid
Agreement.
On June 27, 1989, at a Diplomatic Conference in Madrid, Spain, the
parties to the Madrid Agreement signed the Madrid Protocol. The United
States was an observer and advisor to these talks. Practically
speaking, there have been revisions to the original Madrid Agreement,
in many respects by conforming its contents to existing provisions in
U.S. law.
H.R. 741 represents implementing legislation for the Protocol. It is
virtually identical to measures passed by the Congress over the past
four Congresses, including H.R. 769, which was passed by voice vote
under suspension of the rules on April 13, 1999, and reported favorably
by the Judiciary Committee on March 24, 1999. In fact, the Clinton
administration forwarded the treaty to the Senate for the ratification,
thereby allowing the United States to become a member of the Protocol.
The passage of the bill will allow businesses and trademark owners to
become part of a low-cost, efficient system to promote the
international registration of marks. U.S. membership in the Protocol
would also assist American businesses in protecting their proprietary
names and brand-names while saving money, time, and effort. This is
important for small businesses which may otherwise lack the resources
to acquire worldwide protection for
[[Page H893]]
their trademarks. Mr. Speaker, we must do everything we can to
encourage small business to grow in this New Economy.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 741.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________