And now a response to the previous response!

Just read your post about the Congressman Putnam’s chicanery on Congressman Miller’s pension amendment vote. I think your correspondent in your follow-up post is incorrect on the principal issue here — whether the chair incorrectly (and dishonestly) judged the voice vote.

The mp3 is likely accurate; I also heard the C-SPAN audio played the same day on the Randi Rhodes show. It also makes sense: Congressmen do not regularly groan loudly after the taking of a voice vote, and would only do so if the mp3 accurately reflects the sound of so few ‘no’ votes.

The House floor was likely nearly empty during the voice vote, as it usually is. When a recorded vote is called, bells ring throughout the House office buildings and Congressmen stream in from all over the Hill; that’s where you get the 200 votes on both sides.

If the Republican chair wanted a recorded vote and wanted to get it honestly, he simply could have declared the voice vote in favor of the Democrats, and then gotten a member of his own party to request a recorded vote. I don’t think the chair himself can ask for a recorded vote, which is probably why he ruled the way he did, against the Democrats, to ensure they would ask for a recorded vote.

More information on recorded votes at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/votes/votehelp.html

Hope this is useful.

Ryan Walters
JD Candidate, UC Davis School of Law

Me again: Thanks very much, Ryan. I've learned a lot in the past few days!

Seems a reader has taken issue with something I was ranting about the other night, and far be it for me to not accept a verbal slapdown when I deserve it! I admit I was fast & loose with the facts. Here's what this very kind & articulate person had to say:

Oh wise and mighty scribe, I pray that you find in your heart the compassion to forgive your loyal acolyte for insolence that will become all too apparent in this humble missive. I fear that I, your loyal acolyte, am compelled to question the accuracy of your most recent testament. I fear that it contains certain inaccuracies and misrepresentations of fact. I shall specifically address the voice vote referenced in your diatribe against the Right-Winged North American Peckerhead. With your permission I shall proceed in the lingua franca.

Dude, get your facts straight! George Miller is not a Republican; he is a Democrat who represents California's 7th Congressional District, including Solano and Contra Costa counties. Adam Putnam (R FL), not Representative Miller, held the Chair. Maybe thats why the audio clip is named putnam.mp3, hmmmmm. Representative Miller is the sponsor of H.AMDT.352 (A010) which was the subject of the vote in question. H.AMDT.352 (A010) amended HR3010 with the following language:

SEC. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to enforce or implement the ``Settlement Agreement By and Among UAL Corporation and all Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation'', dated April 22, 2005.

Without getting into the merits of the amendment, Id like to point out that the PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. PBGC collects insurance premiums from employers that sponsor insured pension plans, earns money from investments and receives funds from pension plans it takes over.

Putnam.mp3 is of questionable value. While it does sound like a clear distinction can be made between the ayes and nays, especially since the nay appears to emanate from a single voice, further research calls this conclusion into question. Upon completion of the recorded vote, H.AMDT.352 was agreed to by a margin of 219 185. I find it difficult to believe that the mp3 is an accurate representation of 219 voices saying aye followed by 185 voices saying nay. Realizing that the recorded vote may have resulted in a minor realignment of votes, its clear that we have around 200 people (+/- 20) on each side of the voice vote. I personally do not consider an erroneous assessment of such a voice vote unreasonable. Putnam.mp3, while entertaining, is of questionable origin and does not appear to be an accurate representation of the vote in question. Following the Chairs erroneous assessment of the ayes vs. nays, Representative Miller presented a parliamentary inquiry demanding a recorded vote on his amendment:

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote on my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to considering the request for a recorded vote as timely? Hearing none, a recorded vote is ordered.

It was that simple. A recorded vote was taken, the amendment passed, the system worked as intended.

What we have here is an attempt to create something from nothing. A Google search executed on July 1, 2005, resulted in three or four verifiable references to this mp3. Unfortunately, you were the only one that failed to even get the names of the players right. None of the major sites seem to reference the incident. Except for a handful of bloggers and their friends, outrage over this incident appears to be justifiably non-existent.

Me Again....
I had no idea I had acolytes!