TubeNet

If you have not heard, Rep. McSally of Arizona has sponsored an amendment to stop military bands in performing at "social events". This includes concerts and parades. Please look at some of the articles below, write your local representative and senators, and sign up for petitions.


https://www.change.org/p/u-s-senate-con ... ds-funding" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... ds-funding" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.danielwboothe.com/blog/u-s-h ... s-fornever" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

This is how she presented this amendment:

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Ms. McSally

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in House Report 114-623.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for performances by a military musical unit (as
defined in section 974 of title 10, United States Code)
described in paragraph (2)(B) or (3) of subsection (a) of
such section.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Ms. McSally) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking
Member Visclosky for all their hard work on this important bill.
I rise today to offer an amendment to help us guide reprioritization
of some defense spending. While I believe military bands play a very
important role in ceremonies, funerals, honoring the fallen, and
playing taps, this amendment simply limits their ability to play in
social functions, dances, and things that are really outside their core
competencies and the competencies of the military.
Sequestration and 15 years of war have taken a very heavy toll on our
military, and this bill is helping to turn that around. I appreciate
the hard work on that. For example, in the air domain, with which I
have some experience, we recently grounded one-third of our combat
fighters for 3 months in the Air Force.
The Air Force is facing a shortage of 4,000 maintainers for aircraft
and 500 fighter pilots, and that shortage is expected to widen to 800
by 2022. Only half of the Air Force fighter pilots, including those
that fly the F-22, are receiving the full spectrum of the training they
require.
Twenty-five years ago, we had 134 combat coded fighter squadrons;
today, we have 55. And we had 946,000 total force military and civilian
airmen. Well, today we have fewer than 660,000. The Navy and the Marine
Corps are facing similar pilot and aircraft shortages. Our Army is
drawing down to its smallest size since before World War II.
Yet, today, we have 99 different Army bands. In fact, today these
bands will play at 22 different shows worldwide. Most of these shows,
the USO and civilian bands would love to fill the role of.
At the same time, we have heard reports that we have a shortage of
buglers--those who are playing taps--to honor our military when they
are fallen. We have got to make sure that we have them represented so
that those who have fallen and served receive the honors that they
deserve.
We should be recruiting warriors, but the Army Web site is targeting
people to play music for a living. Don't get me wrong; I believe the
bands play an important role. Let me tell you, in my 26 years in the
military, I used to be at Christmas parties with the wing commanders
and generals, and we would have Active-Duty military entertaining us,
and it bothered me then.
We have difficult choices to make. We are spending, in FY15, $437
million on musicians' instruments, uniforms, travel expenses, and we
have seen reports of things like $11,000 flutes, $12,000 tubas, and
$88,000 pianos.
These are difficult choices that we have to make right now in this
bill. Because of some of these concerns that we have had--I am on the
Armed Services Committee--in this year's NDAA, we asked for detailed
information on the size and cost of all bands across the military.
While we wait for this information, this amendment will inform the
military that Congress desires them to use defense dollars on defense.
Let's be clear, this is not an attack on the arts. I am a vocalist
myself. I care deeply about the arts. But we have to, again, make
difficult choices in these bills. In no way do I want to devalue those
who have served in the past in these roles or are serving now in these
roles in our military bands, but for every dollar that is spent on our
bands to entertain at social functions, that is a dollar we are not
spending on national security, on our troops, and our families.
Because of the shortage of maintainers, the Air Force is asking us to
choose between things like air superiority and close air support. We
need to do both.
Some of our choices here are related to do we want to have aircraft
parts funded or musical instruments. Again, these are difficult
choices, but my amendment today simply limits the function of military
bands so that they

[[Page H3933]]

can be performing those ceremonial duties, playing at military
funerals, playing taps, those things that are very important roles for
our military.
While our communities certainly do enjoy being entertained by our
military bands, they would, I think, prefer to be protected by our
military. I urge everybody to support this amendment and make sure our
money is spent well on defense and the bands are focused on their most
crucial roles.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1115

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentlewoman's
amendment. As she has well said, military bands play a very important
role in recruiting, retention, and community relations. They also
provide patriotic and inspirational music to improve the morale of our
soldiers, sailors, and airmen. All of us support these roles.
Literally, such music makes our heart sing.
However, I agree that we should consider prohibiting the use of
funding for certain events. The bands play an important role during
ceremonies recognizing the sacrifices of the fallen, but they are not
appropriate at every event.
I look forward to working with the gentlewoman as we approach
conference to ensure that the language we include addresses the
gentlewoman's concerns. If the gentlewoman would agree to work with me
and Mr. Visclosky on this issue, I am sure we will be pleased to accept
her amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his
support of the spirit of the amendment. I look forward to working with
him and the ranking member to make sure that it is appropriately
tightened up so that it meets the intent of the amendment, which I
think we both agree upon. I appreciate his working with me on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
The amendment was agreed to.


_______________________
And the U.S. Code referenced:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/974" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

This is the same congresswoman that performed with Navy Band Southwest 2 days before she put cutting the military bands into motion.

2 days? Wow.

I,of course, would never do anything to undermine military bands. I will say the 150.00 mw2165 a friend of mine showed me he got from military surplus and a 500.00 fafner a local school got,does give me pause.they both were 100 % playable horns. I realize these instances are less than a rounding error in the scheme of things,but are bad for p.r. I say put all the horns on eBay,and maybe rethink just how often a horn needs to be rotated out.

Foolishness. The total amount she is talking about, for this tradition going back to our beginning as a republic, is very nearly what the FCC tells us is spent on FRAUD within the Lifeline phone system (so-called "Obamaphone").

She is not counting the costs of hiring civilian units to replace military.

She is not thinking about security clearances that would be necessary at many government events, and which civilian bands would not have.

She is not thinking about the "soft value" of the patriotism that bands help encourage.

But looking back to our founding, Mr. small-government himself, Thomas Jefferson, while President of the country used the Marine Band in church services! Clearly that was not a defense-related event (we're talking about regular worship services, not chaplain services in the battlefield encampments). If Jefferson supported military bands, surely we can today. NO politician in any leadership role has tried to take our spending back to what is actually authorized by the Constitution (the document that gives the federal government the only legitimate powers it has).

She says there are 99 Army bands of various kinds. (Well, yes, if the multitude of Reserve and National Guard bands are thrown in the count. Those units are not full-time duty.) Actually, the Army has approximately 34 full-time active duty bands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tary_bands" target="_blank" target="_blank

http://www.music.army.mil/organizations/activearmy/" target="_blank

Ace

Keep Military Bands, Keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, and increase tax rates on wealthy to pre Reagan year rates and PAY BACK money taken from Social Security....simple fix...

Signed.

Those of you in Arizona, vote McSally out.

Compromise: they can have professional bands which spend 60% of their time working as aircraft mechanics or pilots.

It is awesome that the military has professional concert bands, which wouldn't really exist otherwise. But you know, tax dollars and so on. Yea it's a drop in the bucket, so is everything.

I remember that quote as, "A billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." by Illinois senator Everett Dirksen. He may not have originated it either, of course, and that would have been back in the 60s, so he might have actually said, "A million dollars here..." Real money might have been in smaller denominations back then.

I still think $12k for a tuba is getting off light. Very light.

When we started the formalized Army music recruiting program 22 years ago (with four of us), I toured the Southeast U.S. and the Caribbean (tough gig) extolling the virtues of military music while at the same time admitting that if there were less need, there should be less of us. I hazard a guess that many of us have opinions, some educated on the matter, but that even facts enumerated from within sound like a self-licking ice cream cone to many. Certainly such to politicians. I had a great career performing and would like to see military music play for ages to come, but it can, will, and must change.

Historically, only a small percentage of military performers have a comprehensive grasp of both internal and external issues facing these programs. Even the senior Army officer responsible for much of the field's transformation over the last twenty+ years (Please, no one say his name) failed to sell the program on its virtues alone. Selling a program under attack is tough, even more so when you sell something that is, in part, intangible. Hearing numbers spoken from the mouth of any politician irks me, but they are as much a tool as anything coming from the military or its bands. I can't recall one time where inflating or deflating performances, dollars, or otherwise from any party to the conversation, didn't occur. While actual numbers run low (in the big picture) and emotions run high, the bottom line is that change is inevitable. Let's hope it's change that brings out the best in military music, whatever form that takes for the time being.

Talking about figures and Argumentation:
Have I overread the passage where the number of ceremonies is disclosed that had to be postponed or cancelled due to Military bands being out on what these polititians seem to consider field trips ?

What amount of money do these people expect to save ? The equivalent of one or two tanks ? Half a wing of an F-22 aircraft maybe ?
Will those actually make a difference or is this about symbolism ?

I´d expect most Military Music programs in the world have specific tasks and duties to fulfill. Disciplinary measures would have to be taken if such duties were not met by those in charge.
At the same time I believe most military bands performing on festivals and dances are doing exactly that: meeting their duties.

Dang, I´ve heard of recruits being ordered to shout "BANG-BANG" during field training because the budget for blank ammo had run out. Instead of making everybody feel ridiculous, other routes of training may have been taken with POSITIVE effects on morale.

The answer to missing personnel is not selling tubas, it´s recruiting and training personnel.

tubeast wrote: What amount of money do these people expect to save ? The equivalent of one or two tanks ? Half a wing of an F-22 aircraft maybe ?
Will those actually make a difference or is this about symbolism ?

Yeah - instead of worrying about the "band" how about the bozos in Washington start spending money smarter on weapons by avoiding the FUBAR deal with the F-35.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive, and possible the most error ridden, project in the history of the United States military. But DOD has sunk so much money into the F-35 — which is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over the 55-year life of the program — that the Pentagon deemed it "too big to fail" in 2010.

Ya know a trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon it really adds up.

The "BAND" is not the problem. And $12,000 tubas are not the problem. Seems to me the bands are a far better deal than a lot of the projects that Congress foists on the Pentagon.

....my amendment today simply limits the function of military
bands so that they can be performing those ceremonial duties, playing at military
funerals, playing taps, those things that are very important roles for
our military.

While our communities certainly do enjoy being entertained by our
military bands, they would, I think, prefer to be protected by our
military. I urge everybody to support this amendment and make sure our
money is spent well on defense and the bands are focused on their most
crucial roles.

Taking away the distractions and hyperbole, that actually sounds reasonable, doesn't it??

Three Valves wrote:

....my amendment today simply limits the function of military
bands so that they can be performing those ceremonial duties, playing at military
funerals, playing taps, those things that are very important roles for
our military.

While our communities certainly do enjoy being entertained by our
military bands, they would, I think, prefer to be protected by our
military. I urge everybody to support this amendment and make sure our
money is spent well on defense and the bands are focused on their most
crucial roles.

Taking away the distractions and hyperbole, that actually sounds reasonable, doesn't it??

No it sounds like micro management and possibly limiting the bands from doing some things that could be postive. It reminds me of when people in the go-go days of the market got upset that some fund managers went heavily into cash and thus they missed out on some of the upside. So investors demanded that the funds be limited to only ever having a very small amount of assets invested in cash. Of course the markets crashed and the funds were fully invested and the investors took the full hit which could have been avoided if it wasn't for the arbitrary restrictions placed on the money manager.

I just don't see the bands doing stupid stuff and thus the need for McSilly's legislation. McSilly probably can't read a balance sheet or engineering specs for weapons, but she can sure spot the band. It's grandstanding to look like McSilly is doing something and what McSiIly is doing really amounts to peanuts. Seriously, out of the roughly $488 million how much is waste? I bet it's less than the cost of the bathrooms on the latest $13 Billion dollar aircraft carrier launched in January - the Gerald R. Ford. Lets hope, that unlike Gerry, the boat can keep its balance.

I'd like to see a list of the events that are so out of the bands role. Sending the bands out to the communities does immeasurable good for not only recruiting but in many areas of the country it is their only tangible connection to the military. Want people to continue wanting their tax dollars invested in defense? -then you better put a face on it and the bands do an excellent job of that.

tofu wrote:

I'd like to see a list of the events that are so out of the bands role.

Taking away the distractions and hyperbole so would I!!