[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3404-H3407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




LIMITING JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS WITH RESPECT TO PRISON RELEASE 
                                 ORDERS

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3718) to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts with 
respect to prison release orders.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3718

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PRISONER RELEASE ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1632. Limitation on prisoner release orders

       ``(a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding section 3626(a)(3) of 
     title 18 or any other provision of law, in a civil action 
     with respect to prison conditions, no court of the United 
     States or other court listed in section 610 shall have 
     jurisdiction to enter or carry out any prisoner release order 
     that would result in the release from or nonadmission to a 
     prison, on the basis of prison conditions, of any person 
     subject to incarceration, detention, or admission to a 
     facility because of a conviction of a felony under the laws 
     of the relevant jurisdiction, or a violation of the terms or 
     conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or a 
     diversionary program, relating to the commission of a felony 
     under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the terms `civil action with respect to prison 
     conditions', `prisoner', `prisoner release order', and 
     `prison' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     3626(g) of title 18; and
       ``(2) the term `prison conditions' means conditions of 
     confinement or the effects of actions by government officials 
     on the lives of persons confined in prison.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``1632. Limitation on prisoner release orders.''.

       (c) Consent Decrees.--
       (1) Termination of existing consent decrees.--Any consent 
     decree that was entered into before the date of the enactment 
     of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that is in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and that provides for remedies relating to prison 
     conditions shall cease to be effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
       (A) the term ``consent decree'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 3626(g) of title 18, United States Code; and
       (B) the term ``prison conditions'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 1632(c) of title 28, United States Code, 
     as added by subsection (a) of this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).


                             General Leave

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 3718.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
author of the bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the 
distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3718. This 
bill is simple. It ends forever the early release of violent felons and 
convicted drug dealers by judges who care more about the ACLU's 
prisoners rights wish-list than about the Constitution and the safety 
of our towns and communities and fellow citizens.
  Under the threat of Federal courts, states are being forced to 
prematurely release convicts because of what activist judges call 
``prison overcrowding.'' In Philadelphia, for instance, Federal Judge 
Norma Shapiro has used complaints filed by individual inmates to gain 
control over the prison system and established a cap on the number of 
prisoners. To meet that cap, she ordered the release of 500 prisoners 
per week.
  In an 18 month period alone, 9,732 arrestees out on the streets of 
Philadelphia on pretrial release because of her prison caps were 
arrested on second charges, including 79 murders, 90 rapes, 701 
burglaries, 959 robberies, 1,113 assaults, 2,215 drug offenses and 
2,748 thefts.
  How does she sleep at night? Each one of these crimes was committed 
against a person with a family dreaming of a safe and peaceful future, 
a future that was snuffed out by a judge who has a perverted view of 
the Constitution.
  Of course, Judge Shapiro is not alone. There are many other examples. 
In a Texas case that dates back to 1972, Federal Judge William Wayne 
Justice took control of the Texas prison system and dictated changes in 
basic inmate disciplinary practices that wrested administrative 
authority from staff and resulted in rampant violence behind bars.
  Under the threats of Judge Justice, Texas was forced to adopt what is 
known as the ``nutty release'' law that mandates good time credit for 
prisoners. Murderers and drug dealers who should be behind bars are now 
walking the streets of our Texas neighborhoods, thanks to Judge 
Justice.
  Wesley Wayne Miller was convicted in 1982 of a brutal murder. He 
served only 9 years of a 25 year sentence for butchering a 18-year-old 
Fort Worth girl. Now, after another crime spree, he was rearrested.
  Huey Meaux was sentenced to 15 years for molesting a teenage girl. He 
was eligible for parole this September, after serving only 2 years in 
prison.
  Kenneth McDuff was on death row for murder when his sentence was 
commuted. He ended up murdering someone else.
  In addition to the cost to society of Judge Justice's activism, Texas 
is reeling from the financial impact of Judge Justice's sweeping order.
  I remember back when I was in the State legislature, the State of 
Texas spent about $8 per prisoner per day keeping prisoners. By 1994, 
when the full force of Judge Justice's edict was finally being felt, 
the State was spending more than $40 every day for each prisoner. Now, 
that is a five-fold increase over a period when the State's prison 
population barely doubled.
  The truth is, no matter how Congress and State legislatures try to 
get tough on crime, we will not be effective until we deal with the 
judicial activism. The courts have undone almost every major anti-crime 
initiative passed by the Legislative Branch. In the 1980's, as many 
states passed mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the judges checkmated 
the public by imposing prison caps.

                              {time}  1345

  When this Congress mandated the end of consent decrees regarding 
prison overcrowding in 1995, some courts just ignored our mandate.
  There is an activist judge behind each of the most perverse failures 
of today's justice system: violent offenders serving barely 40 percent 
of their sentences; 3\1/2\ million criminals, most of them repeat 
offenders, on the streets, on probation or parole; 35 percent of all 
persons arrested for violent crime on probation, parole, or pretrial 
release at the time of their arrest.
  The Constitution of the United States gives us the power to take back 
our streets. Article III allows the Congress of the United States to 
set jurisdictional restraints on the courts, and my bill will set such 
restraints.
  I presume we will hear cries of court-stripping by opponents of my 
bill. These cries, however, will come from the same people who voted to 
limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in the 1990 civil rights bill.
  Let us not forget the pleas of our current Chief Justice of the 
United States, William Rehnquist. In his 1997 year-end report on the 
Federal judiciary, he said, ``I therefore call on Congress to consider 
legislative proposals that would reduce the jurisdiction of Federal 
courts.'' We should heed Justice Rehnquist's call right here, right 
now, today.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is identical to the amendment that I offered 
several weeks ago to H.R. 1252, the Judicial Reform Act. My amendment 
passed at that time 367 to 52. That is right, 367 yeas and 52 nays.
  While that is an overwhelming victory, it is not enough. I am 
saddened, I am saddened that 52 Members of this body could so callously 
vote against protecting the families they represent.

[[Page H3405]]

  Despite the fact that the liberal legal establishment will fight 
against my bill and the families it will help protect, many of my 
liberal Democrat colleagues voted for my amendment, and I greatly 
appreciate their vote. They could not afford not to. How can any Member 
of this body go home to their district and face a mother whose son or 
daughter has been savagely beaten and killed by some violent felon, a 
felon let out of prison early to satisfy the legal community's liberal 
agenda, to satisfy prison overcrowding or prison conditions? Nothing in 
my bill takes away the ability to change prison overcrowding and prison 
conditions. We are just saying, one cannot use early release to satisfy 
that condition.
  Judicial activism threatens our safety and the safety of our children 
if, in the name of justice, murderers and rapists are allowed to prowl 
our streets before they serve their time. I say it is time to return 
some sanity to our justice system and keep violent offenders in jail.
  I strongly urge my colleagues, for the sake of the families they 
represent, to support my bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3718, which would 
unconstitutionally limit the authority of Federal judges to remedy 
inhumane prison conditions. This bill also improperly interferes with 
the work of the judicial branch of our constitutional system of 
government.
  H.R. 3718 is a radical and dangerous proposal with two impermissible 
goals. First, it would terminate ongoing consent decrees in prison 
condition cases. Second, it would prohibit judges from issuing prisoner 
release orders to remedy unconstitutional overcrowding.
  The effort to terminate consent decrees is totally unwarranted. This 
amendment only affects those consent decrees that State and local 
governments want to remain in effect or that are necessary because of 
current and ongoing violations of Federal rights. The Prison Litigation 
Reform Act of 1995 eliminated all other consent decrees, so the only 
ones left are those that State and local governments want to remain in 
effect or are necessary because of current and ongoing violations of 
the Constitution.
  A consent decree is a voluntary contract between two parties to end 
the active phase of litigation. This legislation does not close the 
case; it simply prohibits States from negotiating a resolution of the 
case. Therefore, it requires States to expend substantial sums of money 
to litigate issues for which there is no dispute and for which there is 
an agreement for the proper resolution of the case.
  Congress has no business dictating to States how they should resolve 
litigation involving State institutions. If a State has decided that a 
consent decree meets the State's needs and is preferable to costly 
litigation, Congress should stay out of it.
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the Federal termination of prisoner 
release orders is unnecessary. Most court orders in jail and prison 
cases do not include prison population caps, and the 1995 Prison 
Litigation Reform Act already requires a three-judge court before any 
population cap is imposed. And even if there is a cap, prisoners are 
released only if State officials elect to meet the cap through releases 
rather than building new facilities or adopting sentencing 
alternatives.
  This bill will effectively prohibit courts from enforcing 
constitutional rights of prisoners by agreement and will only be able 
to enforce those rights with a full-blown court trial that may result 
in even more draconian resolutions than a consent decree would have 
resulted in.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation is a recipe for chaos. We passed a 
Prison Litigation Reform Act less than 2 years ago. It eliminated all 
consent decrees without ongoing violations. The courts are only 
beginning to address the complicated, practical and constitutional 
issues raised by this act. Hundreds of cases are pending in trial and 
appellate courts. The Supreme Court is likely to have a review in the 
near future. The passage of this bill will only add confusion, delay 
resolution of pending cases, raise difficult issues of retroactivity, 
and actually create new litigation.
  This amendment is counterproductive for all of those who want to 
streamline prison lawsuits. The 1995 act already strips courts of 
authority to enforce the Constitution in certain cases. H.R. 3718 takes 
us further down that dangerous path.
  Court-stripping threatens the role of the judiciary and our system of 
checks and balances and should not be expanded. Today, court-stripping 
hurts prisoners, but tomorrow, it may affect others in our society who 
rely on courts to administer justice and enforce their rights.
  I strongly oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Madam Speaker, there are a few cases that I just want to cite that 
may be affected by this legislation. It has already been pointed out 
that we passed legislation creating more prisoners, and if we are going 
to pass that legislation, it is incumbent upon us to build the prisons 
to accommodate those prisoners. Let me just list a few consent decrees 
that this bill will terminate.
  A consent decree was entered in the Virgin Islands in 1994 because 
prisoners were locked up for 23 hours a day in overcrowded, filthy, 
rat- and roach-infested cells. One-man cells were used to house four or 
five prisoners with mattresses on the floor, frequently soaked by 
overflowing toilets; drinking water was contaminated with sewage.
  The consent decree remains in effect today, because an evidentiary 
hearing found many of the problems still persisted. There is no 
screening for new prisoners for tuberculosis, and mentally ill 
prisoners are still being housed with the general population and 
suffering abuse. Several of the mentally ill were badly beaten, and one 
died. That consent decree would be set aside by this legislation.

  Another in Hawaii, 1987, to remedy dangerously inadequate medical and 
mental health care and environmental conditions. The consent decree 
remains in effect today because the problem still exists. Today, the 
facility is very overcrowded, with men sleeping on the floor in cells 
where there are backed-up toilets spilling sewage. Because of the 
overcrowding, mentally ill and dangerous populations are mixed together 
with potential risk to both groups.
  Madam Speaker, there are other cases that would be affected by this. 
The consent decrees would be eliminated if this bill were to be passed.
  Prison staff in Louisiana, a Louisiana case, 1995, prison staff were 
found to be engaging in sexual abuse of women prisoners ranging from 
vulgar and obscene sexual comments to forcible sexual rape. Prison 
staff were not only accused of participating in the sexual misconduct 
but allowing male prisoners to enter female prisons to engage in 
forcible intercourse with women prisoners. That consent decree would be 
set aside by this legislation.
  Juveniles held in New Orleans. Juveniles held in Conchetta facility 
in New Orleans Parish Prison lack such supplies as sheets, underwear 
and shoes. They are at risk because of inadequate mental, dental and 
mental health care facilities and unsafe environmental conditions. 
Children are regularly beaten by staff. That consent decree would be 
set aside by this legislation.
  In the State of Georgia, more than 200 women, some as young as 16 
years old, were coerced into having sex with prison guards, maintenance 
workers, teachers and even a prison chaplain. The sexual abuse comes to 
light when women became pregnant and were required to undergo 
abortions. That consent decree would be set aside.
  So, Madam Speaker, I would hope that we would not expand the prison 
litigation court-stripping that we passed in 1995, and that we would 
defeat this bill.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me strongly support the efforts of the 
Majority Whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to pass this 
legislation. We supported it as an amendment to the Judicial Reform 
Act, and I would hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support it as a 
free-standing measure.
  This bill goes right to the heart of a horrible situation we in 
Florida have faced. In 1993, the Florida Department of Corrections 
reported that between January 1, 1987, and October 10, 1991, some 
127,486 prisoners were released early from Florida prisons. Within a

[[Page H3406]]

few years of their early release, they committed over 15,000 violent 
and property crimes, including 346 murders and 185 sex offenses.
  Now, Florida tried to stop the early release program last year, the 
``gain time'' provision, which was a tool used by the legislature back 
in the 1980s to avert overcrowding, but the judge said, no, cannot do 
it. It is part of their sentence now. Even though it was not applied at 
the beginning of their sentence, the ``gain time'' provision now acts 
as a part of their sentence and reduces the amount of time that the 
prisoner is held in custody.
  Now, let me ask all in America who are listening to think about this 
for a minute. Who is paying for the kind of policy that we are trying 
to prevent? One involves a 21-year-old convicted burglar who got out of 
prison last October on early release. A month later, he was charged 
with kidnapping and murdering a 78-year-old woman in Avon Park near my 
district. He abducted her from her home, forced her into the trunk of 
her car, and killed her in an orange grove about 20 miles away.
  Then there is the 30-year-old man jailed in 1989 on grand theft and 
armed burglary charges who was released early in 1992 because of prison 
overcrowding. Four years later, he was charged with murdering the owner 
of a convenience store in West Palm Beach, Florida.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, last month a 30-year-old drifter jailed in 1986 for 
kidnapping and brutally beating a British tourist in Hollywood, 
Florida, was released early in 1986, was charged with first degree 
murder of a teenager after her partially mutilated corpse was found in 
a bathtub in Miami Beach.
  In 1991, and it is sad that I have to continue to report these 
statistics, but it goes to the heart of the argument that I just heard 
a moment ago. In St. Lucie County, which I represent, a Fort Pierce 
police officer, Danny Parrish, was murdered by an ex-convict who had 
been released after serving less than a third of a prison term for auto 
burglary. Officer Parrish stopped him for driving the wrong way on a 
one-way street. The ex-convict, who admitted later he did not want to 
go back to prison for violating probation, disarmed Officer Parrish and 
killed him with his own gun.

                              {time}  1400

  When are we going to wake up in America to the problems that are 
occurring in our community because of this type of behavior?
  The gentleman who argues against the bill suggests the problems that 
are in prison today, and suggests rape in prison, dirty conditions; 
they suggest a lot of things. But what happens when they are out on the 
streets? Who speaks for the victims? Who speaks for the families?
  I often think at times maybe we should encourage a judge who has 
provided an early release waiver for a prisoner who ultimately causes a 
family member to be killed, maybe the judge should come to the funeral 
and give condolences to the family, to recognize what is going on.
  Time and time again I hear in our prison systems that a judge has 
intervened and allows cigarette smoking, video machines, weight 
lifting, because we have to coddle and provide for the criminal. What 
about the victim? Is it not a prison, after all? Is it not a prison 
sentence? Is it not serving time for bad behavior?
  But somehow, through this debate, it is all about the prisoner. It is 
all about somebody who has devastated another family, another life, who 
has raped another individual. So we tell our society and we tell our 
children, do not worry about it, because if you are sentenced to 10 
years, with early release and gained time, you will be out in 2. There 
is no crime you will ever pay for. There is no serious consequence for 
your behavior. There is no serious consequences for your action. Some 
person's loved one has to die, and the person who commits the crime is 
out shortly thereafter.
  A friend of mine in Lakewood, Florida, their daughter was killed by 
an illegal immigrant who was sentenced to 7 years for murder, which is 
regrettable that we only have 7 years prison time for a murder of 
another human being, and was released in 2\1/2\ years. Immigration says 
we cannot deport him.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about doing what is right for society. It 
is about doing what is right for the American public. It is about 
maintaining order in our streets, and about making certain that 
prisoners who are in fact sentenced, who are the criminals, who are the 
bad guys, people who actually commit the crimes are treated like the 
prisoners they are; no happy time, no gained time, no judge 
intervening.
  When the court rules and issues a sentence, the sentence should be 
fulfilled. It should be carried out. If it takes political courage to 
build the additional jail cells, then I say, talk to the politicians 
and get them to do that, but do not let one life be in jeopardy. Do not 
let one life be in jeopardy because of the continued persistence of 
judicial activists who insist that somehow these people have 
extraordinary rights, and those of the victims are often neglected.
  So I again urge my colleagues, as they have in the past, by an 
overwhelming vote, to support H.R. 3718, the bill offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) limiting Federal court jurisdictions 
over Federal prison release orders, and urge its passage today. It is 
the most important piece of legislation we will see in the House this 
week, and possibly this year.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, violating the Constitution and constitutional violations 
are not the solution to prison overcrowding. The Constitution is not 
violated when we deny someone weight training or access to a color 
television. If we are going to pass legislation like three-strikes-and-
you-are-out, or mandatory minimums, if we are going to try to pass 
those slogans, three-strikes-and-you-are-out has been studied and has 
been determined to be just a waste of money. Mandatory minimums result 
in high-risk prisoners getting not enough time and the low-risk 
prisoners getting too much time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to pass that legislation, we have to 
fund the prisons. These violations are not just weight training and 
color TV. They include rapes, assaults, living in sewer- and rat-
infested conditions. We need to fund those prisons and keep these 
within the constitutional constraints if we are going to pass that 
legislation.
  I think there are a lot of easier ways to deal with the prison 
problem. That is to prevent more crimes before they occur. But if we 
are going to pass legislation like this, Mr. Speaker, we have to pay 
the bill. We have very serious, ongoing constitutional violations.
  We have situations where the consent decrees are the easiest ways for 
the States to deal with this, if they want. They do not have to agree 
to a consent decree. We should not tie their hands and force them into 
litigation, where they may end up in more draconian sanctions than the 
consent decrees they have agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Delay).
  Mr. DELAY. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Speaker. The problem is nothing in my bill changes the concerns 
that he has. It does not eliminate the ability for courts to enter into 
consent decrees, it does not have anything to do with prisoners filing 
claims that prison conditions are cruel and unusual. I just feel that 
it is cruel and unusual to turn violent criminals out on the streets 
for prison conditions.
  It is very simple. We are just saying that they cannot turn violent 
criminals out on the streets because of prison conditions. They can do 
anything else to correct bad prison conditions, and the cases that the 
gentleman cites are horrible. They should be corrected.
  What we are saying is that we cannot turn them back out on the street 
to prey on our constituents because of prison conditions. Correct them 
in a different way. We can also renegotiate consent decrees, those 
consent decrees that this legislation may affect. Article 3 of the 
Constitution allows us to do it and precedent allows us to do it.
  We are just saying, do not turn violent criminals out on the street 
because of prison overcrowding and prison conditions.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to read the bottom of page 2 of the 
bill. It says


[[Page H3407]]


       Termination of existing consent decrees. Any consent decree 
     that was entered into before the date of the enactment of the 
     Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that is in effect on 
     the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     that provides for remedies relating to prison conditions 
     shall cease to be effective on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  That eliminates all consent decrees, not just those that have as a 
remedy the release of prisoners. So all of those cases where there are 
rapes, assaults, and everything else are included.
  Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, reading from the 
bill, that eliminates all consent decrees, but it does not preclude 
anybody from renegotiating consent decrees, and leaving out the fact 
that they are turning violent criminals out on the streets.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in the beginning of 
the bill, as is indicated, it would eliminate any consent decree that 
provides for remedies relating to prison conditions.
  The beginning of the bill says that notwithstanding that section, no 
court ``* * * shall have jurisdiction to enter or carry out any 
prisoner release order that would result in the release from or 
nonadmission to a prison on the basis of prison conditions of the 
person subject to incarceration, detention, or admission.''
  That has essentially eliminated a lot of the jurisdiction the court 
had in the beginning. If someone were only to provide for 
unconstitutional violations, at the prison, I am not sure what the 
court could do. They have been essentially eliminated from anything 
other than consent decrees. If the locality does not agree to it, the 
court would essentially be, because of this bill, without remedy to 
remedy constitutional violations.
  The law that passed 2 years ago is now being litigated. This bill 
just takes away the authority from the courts to enforce the 
constitutional rights of the citizens. I think it should not be passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3718, as we know, is a freestanding version of an 
amendment which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) offered to H.R. 
1252, the Judicial Reform Act of 1998, last month; April 23rd, to be 
exact. The House at that time overwhelmingly adopted the DeLay 
amendment by a vote of 367 to 52.
  I think it is a good bill. I think it will help keep convicted felons 
off the streets, which of course is the intent, in a constitutionally 
permissible manner.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3718.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________