```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, June 22, 1995 (85), Para 85.20 Point of Order]
[Pages 1035-1036]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.85.20  point of order

  Mr. PACKARD made a point of order against the motion, and said:

  Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order against the motion to 
recommit with instructions because it includes a limitation and is not 
in order under clause 2 of rule XXI. Under the precedents of the House, 
it is not ``competent'' for the House to amend the bill in the manner 
proposed because it is not in order for the House to instruct the 
Committee to do what the House itself could not do.
  Mr. Speaker, I quote from precedents of the House of Representatives: 
``It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to commit with 
instructions what may not be done directly by way of amendment.''
  Also, Mr. Speaker, a point of order was sustained on a motion, a very 
like motion, to recommit with instructions on August 1, 1989, under a 
different Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's motion to instruct 
includes a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in 
existing law, and not considered in the Committee of the Whole pursuant 
to clause 2(d) of rule XXI, and therefore I ask for a ruling by the 
Chair on the point of order.

  Mr. MILLER of California was recognized to speak to the point of order 
and said:

  Mr. Speaker, the language offered in this motion to recommit is in 
fact valid under the House rules. It is constructed to meet all 
requirements for a valid limitation under clause 2 of rule XXI. It does 
not impose ``substantial additional duties.''
  While it is true such an amendment could have been blocked under 
section (d) of clause 2 by the motion to rise had such a motion been 
offered in the Committee of the Whole, in fact no such motion was 
offered. The Committee rose under the direct terms of the rule, House 
Resolution 169, rather than as a result of the motion of the majority 
leader or the manager.
  The House rules clearly permit a valid limitation to be offered when 
the manager or the majority chooses not to offer the motion to rise or 
if they fail to do so in a timely fashion. For this reason, a motion to 
recommit with instruction to include a simple valid limitation is in 
fact in order, and

[[Page 1036]]

therefore the motion to recommit requiring a gift ban be reported back 
to the House is in order.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CAMP, sustained the point of order, and 
said:

  Consistent with the precedents of August 1 and 3, 1989, which are 
recorded in section 835 of the House Rules and Manual, the point of 
order is sustained and the motion is held out of order.

  Mr. MILLER of California moved to recommit the bill to the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the motion 
to recommit.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House recommit said bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. CAMP, announced that the nays had it.
  Mr. VOLKMER demanded a recorded vote on agreeing to said motion, which 
demand was supported by one-fifth of a quorum, so a recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device.

It was decided in the

Yeas

186

negative

Nays

240
```