TromboneChat

There are some very important goings on in congress dealing with the scope of military music. Specifically, the House just passed a bill (that will head to the Senate) that will limit military music to official ceremonies and funeral details. Any mission dealing with community relations, recruiting, social events, morale and welfare for deployed troops, and other such missions will become illegal. This likely will include parades for major holidays.

Any one heard about this? I am writing this out of curiosity and it reflects only my personal interest. I am not expressing any opinion besides this curiosity.

Why would these things be made illegal?

Is it because the activities you list could be seen as political campaigning using public money?

It is under the belief that fewer jobs per week will save the government money. It would save on gas and vehicle maintenance, but many of these missions take place within a mile or two of the band's rehearsal space.

A separate but related fact is that the band's personnel get paid based on their grade, and their salary does not change regardless of how many missions they play. Another inference that one might make is that social functions will have to hire a civilian band or DJ to cover events that service members are already (as of today) being paid to cover.

I started this thread out of curiosity as to what other musicians think, and to give a heads up for potential future military musicians. I believe I'm allowed to state my actual personal beliefs about what this means, but I don't want to tempt fate. I believe this is a non-partisan congress issue, but since it ties into the DoD and this is a forum, I am merely going to state facts and suggest that any US based members read more about this fascinating sequence of events.

Here is the bill I'm question.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2685/text

The ammendment to limit the band's was proposed by Martha Mcsally. A representative from Arizona.

I see less and less appreciation for the arts each day. I'll start another thread soon about that.

Quote from: SethMatrix on Jun 22, 2016, 04:18AMHere is the bill in question.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2685/text

The ammendment to limit the band's was proposed by Martha Mcsally. A representative from Arizona.

I see less and less appreciation for the arts each day. I'll start another thread soon about that.

House Bill FY2017

It's this bill (your link was from last year) but specifically it's a house ammendment to it. I am having trouble navigating the website to find the specific ammendment number.

From what I can tell the ammendment will severely restrict the types of events that military bands can perform at. They will not be able to do performances for the local populations in the foreign countries with US Military presence (Germany, Korea, and Japan), perform at recruiting events, for the public, or for social events on base or in deployed environments.

In my own opinion, and speaking for myself, I believe that military bands are extremely valuable for public affairs operations in the countries listed above. Local citizens of these countries can have a very positive experience at a performance by a military band, and this may be their only chance to ever interact with the foreign service members stationed at bases within their own country. For every negative headline generated by potential misconduct in these countries, many more positive ones are generated by goodwill missions from military bands.

Also, it is my personal opinion that many US citizens may only ever see and interact with a member of the military at a local parade. The only member of their armed services that they may ever meet or be able to thank  (for veterans and many many people, this is a very emotional thing to do) has a high probability of being a military musician. Part of the job description is to tell citizens about their military.

Many recruiting events will feature a military rock band. Again, musician or not, the face of the military that potential recruits speak to for advice and insight has a high probability of being a military musician.

When I was an infantryman in Afghanistan, I saw an impromptu band consisting of a bass, guitar, and drum set playing instrumentals in the chow hall. We all crowded around and stayed for over an  hour until they had to go. It was the only live music I saw there in a year and trying to explain what that was like is impossible. They were not my favorite band. I couldn't tell you what they played. For an hour me and other complete strangers were feeling normal and, well, different from how every other day felt.

Other thoughts: the bill appears like it will not reduce spending by much -- most of the military music budget is personnel wages and money to keep and maintain equipment. Reducing mission load will decrease gas consumption and associated vehicle maintenance, but it is important to note that most of the missions that are in question occur on post within walking distance from the rehearsal hall.

What it MAY achieve is to make it easier for lawmakers to decide in a future year that the military bands are doing only half or less of the previous workload and costing about the same. It may be much easier to justify getting rid of military music altogether once this bill achieves its goal. If military music was completely cut, the total budget savings for the DoD apparently would be 0.075%, which is a little more than one F-22 Raptor, or 15% of one submarine, or five trident II missiles (or 6,500 military musicians and their equipment, facilities, vehicles, and resources). I believe that there is a lot of bang for the buck when it comes to military music.

This is my own thought, and I am not speaking for anyone but myself.

I've Been following this the past few days (affects me too, leaving soon for basic training to join the Army Band). There is a petition floating around online expressing the public's disapproval of such an amendment. More importantly, anyone who is against it, It would be more effective to write to your state's senators and voice your concerns. (Following suit to avoid any personal political views, but it may be obvious)

How would this impact things like the ATW?

I don't really understand this one, haven't read the details of the NDAA, but a couple of thoughts:

Army bands started downsizing long before this proposed legislation.  Our local one played its final concert this past Saturday.  I attended, it was awesome, and I'm sad to see it go.  It's part of the long term effort to reshape the military, something the military does themselves.  That isn't directed by Congress. 

But secondly, the use of funds in the military (and maybe in all of Federal government, but I only handle budgets in the military) has a very large number of restrictions.  I spend a good bit of time making sure any funds expenditures are from the correct account, are used for authorized purposes only, and have the proper amount of approvals. It is not unusual for Congress to "fence" an account and allow its use for one purpose only, or set up one forbidden action on an account. 

You are right, the military does decide it's own concept for size of units and structure, and has been downsizing since WWII. This bill ammendment, however, deals with budget and is 100% created by the House. The DoD is not involved in this bill or this ammendment, and the bill does not talk about reducing the size of military bands, only limiting what they are able to do.

Quote from: tbathras on Jun 22, 2016, 05:05AMHow would this impact things like the ATW?

I can only hazard a guess but I believe that this bill is aimed at all military music. The so called "Special Bands" or "Premier Bands" that are associated with these events are well known for mostly playing for the public, entertaining dignitaries, and playing social events in DC. This bill appears like it will stop that. They will only be able to play official ceremonies and honors.

I may be completely wrong, but that's what it looks like.

An article I read noted that Rep. Martha McSally is a former Air Force Colonel and specifically mentioned that bands playing at Generals' dinner was something she wanted to end. That sounded petty.

My suggestion is to contact your Senators and ask them to amend the bill to remove that amendment before the Senate passes it.  Then a conference committee meets to decide if it stays or goes.

The same thing happened to an extent in the UK in 1982 when may regimantal & corps bands where cut to 21 including the bandmaster!

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jun 22, 2016, 06:31AMAn article I read noted that Rep. Martha McSally is a former Air Force Colonel and specifically mentioned that bands playing at Generals' dinner was something she wanted to end. That sounded petty.


Actually, to me that makes sense. 

The purpose of bands is troop morale, formal ceremonies, and public image outreach.  It seems there is a perception on the part of Congress that bands might be misused for the entertainment of important people.  I doubt that happens as much as they think, but I guess it would be a legitimate fear.  Bands stay pretty busy without doing that. 

Whether or not it makes sense to maintain full size wind ensembles is another question.  This is a type of music I enjoy playing and listening to, but realistically its time has come and gone.  Very few military band performances actually use the full band, outside of formal change of command ceremonies and the Christmas and Fourth of July celebrations.  The rest of the time, probably 300 performances a year, is done with small groups like funk bands, combos, trios, etc.

This bill is worded to put an end not only to the Generals' dinners, but also community parades, holiday concerts, any type of troop morale event, community outreach, joint forces concerts, recruiting, performances of goodwill to foreign and war torn nations. Everything except change of command and retirement ceremonies, and bugle missions, none of which are generally seen by the public.

It would be sad to see those things go.

Seriously... contact your senators, of either party, with the bill number and your case for changing it.

For an under-the-radar issue they probably don't even know exists like this that might be all it takes to fix it.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 22, 2016, 07:19AMEverything except change of command and retirement ceremonies, and bugle missions, none of which are generally seen by the public.The sad fact of the matter is that most of the public never sees any military band in person. The premier bands? If you don't live in the DC area or New London, CT, you get one premier band passing through on tour once a year if you're lucky.

Quote from: JohnL on Jun 22, 2016, 07:32AMThe sad fact of the matter is that most of the public never sees any military band in person. The premier bands? If you don't live in the DC area or New London, CT, you get one premier band passing through on tour once a year if you're lucky.

Again, only speaking very generally and from my own point of view:

I feel like I work very very hard to play for the widest audience possible. I played in every corner of NC when I was at Bragg, including many one traffic light towns. I believe the estimated audience count was over 200,000 in just two years unless you count the NASCAR events. Then it's more.

I am averaging four or five events per week within Korea, almost all of which are for local citizens. Many times the crowd is over a thousand people. Any country with US bases in it must surely feel tension. But the chance for them to hear from us that we are happy and proud of the US/Korean alliance (the strongest in the world) and amazed by the "Miracle on the Han", and in turn for them to say "Fighting!", "We Go Together!" and "I love USA!" in english ... that is a big deal to me, from my perspective. I think that is not something you can achieve with more conventional means.

I honestly think the most important part of my job is talking to people after the shows. The public generally does not know about the military and to many people, the chance to say "thank you for your service" to someone in uniform is a very big deal. Servicemembers have heard this phrase a million times, but for the old veteran or regular jane or joe, that might be the one and only time they ever get to say that. To in turn let that person know that THEY are why I do what I do is the equivalent for me.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 22, 2016, 04:47AMHouse Bill FY2017

It's this bill (your link was from last year) but specifically it's a house ammendment to it. I am having trouble navigating the website to find the specific ammendment number.


Me too.  There are 38 amendments listed, none of them from Martha McSally. 

It's an attempt to make the bands invisible as a preliminary step to trying to eliminate them.  I've seen that tactic before and I'm sure it will happen again.

Keep playing to the widest possible audience.  And have your hosts and guest artists announce it to the audience since you can't do it yourselves.

It worked when I was in the Note and they tried to make drastic cuts.  One congressperson may feel that way but the general public won't stand for it.

Just emailed both of my senators.  Here is what I sent:

QuoteDear Senator Coons,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the McSally amendment that will curtail all military bands to playing only at specific ceremonies and funerals. While on the surface this may seem like a wise way to reduce military spending, in reality it will sever a critical connection between our military and the public, including the many veterans who attend various military band concerts every year, for what is frankly a "drop in the bucket" in savings.

As it stands now, the musical programs in the various branches of our armed forces have been gutted over the last twenty years. The Air Force Band program, for example, used to have over 30 bands that served both the civilian population and our troops. Now there are 10, and the area that they are each assigned to cover is so large that it makes it unlikely that most Americans will ever see or hear one of these excellent ensembles perform. If you believe in the concept of "Soft Power", this critical component of it is lost. In part because of these cuts, many funerals for our brave veterans require the use of an electronic bugle to play taps. This, to me, is an embarrassment and a poor way to honor our veterans.

While it may appear that having military musical units perform at non-ceremonial functions is wasteful, in reality the need for music will not disappear. Instead of using these outstanding musicians who are paid a flat salary, regardless of the number of hours or performances they are tasked with, outside musicians will be hired, which will lead to unknown quality and an ultimately greater expense.

In addition, military musical units perform a critical role in music education in our country. As a music educator, I have been honored to host musical units from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Their performances and clinics for my students and the general public have been inspiring, and forge a link between our military and civilian populations.

Some of the greatest musicians that America has produced, including John Philip Sousa and Glenn Miller, were proud members of our military bands. I urge you to do everything that you can to make sure that this critical component of our culture is not lost. Additional cuts to these programs are short sighted and will have the effect of decreasing morale within military units and severing another connection between our military and the civilian population. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Frank Gazda

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 22, 2016, 06:58AM The rest of the time, probably 300 performances a year, is done with small groups like funk bands, combos, trios, etc.

That wasn't my experience from 2005-2012 while serving in the Marine Corps.  I'd say it was close to the exact opposite of what you say.

Quote from: Dan Hine on Jun 22, 2016, 12:36PMThat wasn't my experience from 2005-2012 while serving in the Marine Corps.  I'd say it was close to the exact opposite of what you say.

My experience is with the Army at garrison level.  I haven't kept count but roughly 1 of 20 performances I hear have the full band.  The real numbers may be even lower. 

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 22, 2016, 08:20AMI feel like I work very very hard to play for the widest audience possible. I played in every corner of NC when I was at Bragg, including many one traffic light towns. I believe the estimated audience count was over 200,000 in just two years unless you count the NASCAR events. Then it's more.I know the bands down in San Diego are busy, but I never seem to hear about them playing up around here. Not really the fault of the bands - they go where they're invited, and it's up to the organizers of the event to publicize it. That said, it'd be nice if I could go the the web page for a band and find a list of upcoming public concerts. The only San Diego-based band that seems to have such a thing is Navy Band Southwest. Maybe it's a security thing...

One thing I would like to see is for the DoD to have a website with some sort of master calendar for public concerts - you plug in where you are, and it tells you what bands are playing in your area and when. Probably never happen - security concerns, once again.

Quote from: fsgazda on Jun 22, 2016, 11:16AMJust emailed both of my senators.  Here is what I sent:


Electronic bugle at a funeral for a dead armed serviceman?

ELECTRONIC BUGLE????

I'm sure there must be something more insulting than that but it'll take me a while to think of it.

Quote from: sonicsilver on Jun 22, 2016, 01:21PMElectronic bugle at a funeral for a dead armed serviceman?

ELECTRONIC BUGLE????

I'm sure there must be something more insulting than that but it'll take me a while to think of it.



Yeah.  No bugle, or bad bugle.  Equally disrespectful.

The only thing I could find was Amendment 048:
Quote48. McSally (AZ), McCollum (MN), Pearce (NM): Limits the
Defense Department from using money to have musical military
units perform in an official capacity for certain entertainment
purposes in 10 U.S.C. 974, including dinners, dances, and
social events. (10 minutes)
I'm confused though, that seems to apply to last year's budget, not next year.

At any rate, it is a limitation and not an absolute prohibition. 

Does it seem fair that at a purely social event (not a ceremony or official function) that the band members are working, for free, while everybody else is off duty having fun?  That's always bothered me a bit at functions of that nature.  The band is hired help like the wait staff - only for free.  Parades, ATW, those aren't purely social events and wouldn't be affected. 

Are there any actually in-the-armed-forces-now musicians here who know more about what this amendment does?

Quote from: sonicsilver on Jun 22, 2016, 01:21PMElectronic bugle at a funeral for a dead armed serviceman?


A few years ago,  the funeral service for a dear friend of mine had two young military personnel attend with a cassette player to play Taps.  They performed their duty honorably,  but it didn't seem right.  One has to imagine that there are some minimal rights our service men and women can expect from us,  including having Taps played by a military trumpet player at their funeral...just sayin'

This article contains Rep. McSally's explanation...

The Pentagon's battle of the bands

QuoteEntertainment is “just not the role of the military," said Rep. Martha McSally, a hawkish Arizona Republican and retired Air Force colonel who serves on the Armed Services Committee. She and other lawmakers are ramping up the pressure with new legislation that would require the Pentagon to determine whether it could ease cuts in combat units by reducing the number of musicians.

McSally told POLITICO that military musicians fulfill important ceremonial tasks and protocols — presidential inaugurations, parades and other public events and, of course, funerals. But she can no longer support such large expenditures “when we’re at a place where we’re having this conversation about being at a crisis level of readiness and force structure and manning for our military.”



In other news...

QuoteElectronic bugle at a funeral for a dead armed serviceman?

ELECTRONIC BUGLE????

I'm sure there must be something more insulting than that but it'll take me a while to think of it.

Basically too many wars made too many veterans...


Budget cuts to silence military buglers, replaced with recorded renditions of Taps at New York funerals

QuoteThe use of electronic bugles at military funerals has been in use since as early as 2003 under authorization by President George W. Bush as the number of Iraq War deaths and the growing number of deceased World War II veterans stretched resources.


Military funerals affected by bugler shortage


QuoteWith an estimated 1,800 veterans dying each day in America, the military has suffered from a shortage of buglers at funerals. In 2002, the Pentagon issued mock bugles such as the one used at McCaughn’s funeral to cope with the shortage and to move away from the rendering of taps via boom box, a practice that took hold in the 1980s.
I suppose it would be an outrage if a trombone showed up to play taps?

Not if the trombonist was playing a trumpet or bugle.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jun 22, 2016, 12:49PMMy experience is with the Army

The Marine Corps band field has (had?) a much different structure.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 22, 2016, 04:47AMTotal budget savings for the DoD apparently would be 0.075%, which is a little more than one F-22 Raptor, or 15% of one submarine, or five trident II missiles (or 6,500 military musicians and their equipment, facilities, vehicles, and resources).

So it's not really about money. It would cost more to implement the cut than the cut would save.

I played at a funeral once, and it's not something I'd rush to repeat. But it meant a lot to the bereaved. There are some things in life, especially military life, that are indescribable and inexpressible... except in music.

Yeah, there's no playing on a trombone.  But you can volunteer to play bugle.  If forget the group, buglers across America or something like that.  They help coordinate volunteer buglers.  I have a couple of friends that do it.  That said, the electronic bugle is a good recording.  It is Woody English, you probably saw him playing taps on CSpan for a couple of decades.  A bad recording of him sounds a lot better than a good recording of me on a bugle.

Cheers,
Andy

Quote from: elmsandr on Jun 22, 2016, 06:11PMYeah, there's no playing on a trombone.  But you can volunteer to play bugle.  If forget the group, buglers across America or something like that.  They help coordinate volunteer buglers.  I have a couple of friends that do it.  That said, the electronic bugle is a good recording.  It is Woody English, you probably saw him playing taps on CSpan for a couple of decades.  A bad recording of him sounds a lot better than a good recording of me on a bugle.

Cheers,
Andy

I'd never heard of this. For anyone else who's interested:

http://www.buglesacrossamerica.org/Home.aspx

Quote[Volunteers] can play a traditional bugle with no valves, or they can perform the ceremony on a Trumpet, Cornet, Flugelhorn, or a 1, 2 or 3 valved bugle.
So if any of those teeny-mouthpiece instruments tickle your fancy...

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jun 22, 2016, 01:41PMAre there any actually in-the-armed-forces-now musicians here who know more about what this amendment does?


Not sure if they have a clue what this could do. Most of the management level people, E7 and above, aren't allowed to talk about it. McSally's own office won't take calls from non-constituents. And she's trying to hillary her records of any associations with the bands prior to her offering this amendment.

Here's a gem:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vybxxt0uuz6kf6z/File%20Jun%2023%2C%2012%2017%2037%20AM.jpeg?dl=0

And a circulating memo on the subject:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bh7rwxo05dh4lka/File%20Jun%2023%2C%2012%2025%2047%20AM.jpeg?dl=0

 

When we did my father's monument dedication I wanted to play taps for him.  I wanted to play it on my alto trombone, which had a sentimental value since I bought it the last time I visited him.  Dad was a World War II vet serving in the South Pacific as a radio control tower operator.

I talked to the Veterans' organization he belonged to for many years, the VA chaplain we used to see at the New York VA hospital (who did the service) and was told I could use anything I wanted.  So I played Taps for him on my Conn 36H.  Nobody go upset.  I received a few compliments on my playing.  I'd be delighted to play for any other Vet who was near enough to get to.

I would take a real anything over the electronic bugle or the boom box.

One of the previously linked articles suggested that taps was required at every veteran funeral but some research indicates that taps and other ceremony like the folded flag presentation are available on family request but not required whether you want it or not.

My dad was in and out of the army before WWII got going so he's a technically a veteran but I think it would be silly to have a bugler do taps for him.

It's required if you do a military funeral,  as opposed to a private family one.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 22, 2016, 03:10AMIt is under the belief that fewer jobs per week will save the government money. It would save on gas and vehicle maintenance, but many of these missions take place within a mile or two of the band's rehearsal space.

A separate but related fact is that the band's personnel get paid based on their grade, and their salary does not change regardless of how many missions they play. Another inference that one might make is that social functions will have to hire a civilian band or DJ to cover events that service members are already (as of today) being paid to cover.

I started this thread out of curiosity as to what other musicians think, and to give a heads up for potential future military musicians. I believe I'm allowed to state my actual personal beliefs about what this means, but I don't want to tempt fate. I believe this is a non-partisan congress issue, but since it ties into the DoD and this is a forum, I am merely going to state facts and suggest that any US based members read more about this fascinating sequence of events.

My time in the military band field was mostly as a reservist, but we went to Ft. Leonard Wood every year and performed the duties of the post band for our two weeks every summer, and like you say  most of our jobs were on base or in close proximity.  With Military musicians being salaried employees, as you say this will only save a little vehicle use.  If you restrict these bands to only doing Military ceremonies you won't keep very many musicians in the military.  The dinings in, parades in the community, public relations concerts, etc. were what we rehearsed for, and what made the job interesting.  We could play the ceremonial stuff in our sleep we did it so often.  What will they do with the Top Bands like the Presidents Own, or the Airman of Note where a big part of their missions are public relations jobs?  This is terrible legislation.  I feel for you and the other musicians that are still on active duty, if this legislation goes through it will be a very bad thing for Military music program as a whole, and will probably be the death of it in the long run.  I've already written my congressman and senator asking them not to support this. 

I realize the Military is under the gun to cut costs.  They have been for a long time.

But this is making a bad Community Relations move to save the cost of a wing tank for an X-35 fighter.

The local Field Band marching on July 4th in a parade is appreciated by the locals.  I believe they provide this service for free.  I also like when the Field Band musicians hold clinics at the High School for the Band kids.

Personally I like my tax dollars being used to fund Military music.  Much more than invasions of Arab countries for no reason

Yes I received the actual ammendment and what in Title 10 it actually restricts. I'll post it on here when I get a chance but it appears to be worse than what Rep. McSally says. It also doesn't make a lot of sense, but I'll try to analyze it and put it up here.

But it looks as though this ammendment will restrict ALL musical missions by bands, including ceremonies and funerals.

The ammendment basically says, and I paraphrase, "of the illegal types of missions in section (2), which is a list of missions that are already illegal, (2) B is even more not allowed.

Also, every type of mission listed in section (3), which is a list of everything that IS allowed, will become illegal, including any event sponsored in whole or in part by the US Government  (ie, every event that we do on post)."

It's confusing because it's as if they didn't understand Title 10 or what it said, and just saw a list of mission types , and said "everything except whatever is first on these lists is now not allowed" but they didn't realize that the first two items on the list already weren't allowed. Perhaps as soon as they saw the word "dinner" in (2)(B) they decided that that was the start of the illegal activity.

I'll get the exact ammendment later on but here is the section from Title  10, and what will become illegal is (2)(B) and everything listed in (a)(3)

 Quote(a)Military Musicians Performing in an Official Capacity.—
(1) A military musical unit, and a member of the armed forces who is a member of such a unit performing in an official capacity, may not engage in the performance of music in competition with local civilian musicians.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the following shall, except as provided in paragraph (3), be included among the performances that are considered to be a performance of music in competition with local civilian musicians:
(A) A performance that is more than incidental to an event that—
(i) is not supported, in whole or in part, by United States Government funds; and
(ii) is not free to the public.
(B) A performance of background, dinner, dance, or other social music at an event that—
(i) is not supported, in whole or in part, by United States Government funds; and
(ii) is held at a location not on a military installation.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the following shall not be considered to be a performance of music in competition with local civilian musicians:
(A) A performance (including background, dinner, dance, or other social music) at an official United States Government event that is supported, in whole or in part, by United States Government funds.
(B) A performance at a concert, parade, or other event, that—
(i) is a patriotic event or a celebration of a national holiday; and
(ii) is free to the public.
(C) A performance that is incidental to an event that—
(i) is not supported, in whole or in part, by United States Government funds; or
(ii) is not free to the public.
(D) A performance (including background, dinner, dance, or other social music) at—
(i) an event that is sponsored by a military welfare society, as defined in section 2566 of this title;
(ii) an event that is a traditional military event intended to foster the morale and welfare of members of the armed forces and their families; or
(iii) an event that is specifically for the benefit or recognition of members of the armed forces, their family members, veterans, civilian employees of the Department of Defense, or former civilian employees of the Department of Defense, to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
(E) A performance (including background, dinner, dance, or other social music)—
(i) to uphold the standing and prestige of the United States with dignitaries and distinguished or prominent persons or groups of the United States or another nation; or
(ii) in support of fostering and sustaining a cooperative relationship with another nation.

And the ammendment :

QuoteDescription: H.Amdt. 1218 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

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.

Purpose:
An amendment No. 48 printed in House Report 114-623 to limit the Defense Department from using money to have musical military units perform in an official capacity for certain entertainment purposes in 10 U.S.C. 974, including dinners, dances, and social events.

House Amendment Code:
(A044)

House Tally Clerks use this code to manage amendment information.
Notice how the purpose stated is not the same as the actual restrictions. ..

Not surprised that they would not want a Military Band performing as such in a private function; even if it is on a Military Base.  However, PUBLIC functions such as parades, celebrations, ceremonies, etc. should be allowed.

Also, if the Colonel wants to hire a combo of musicians from his band to play a party, I wouldn't have any problem with that as long as he paid their salaries and didn't have them wearing military uniforms.

I know an awful lot of ex-Military musicians because their bands were eliminated.  These were talented people who would give a great show on a parade or doing an outdoor Concert in the Park.

Quote from: harrison.t.reed on Jun 25, 2016, 07:22AMAnd the ammendment :



As I read it, it doesn't actually make anything illegal (that would require amending the USC), but doesn't allow funds from the appropriation to be used for any musical performances.  Especially that certain subset that's...already illegal.

Clearly, the real problem with the amendment is that it was drafted by an idiot.  (Which, I realize, is unkind to idiots.)

It looks an awful lot like it was pushed by the Union, which has happened before.

Tom Lee, former president of the American Federation of Musicians, and member of the Marine Band before that, knew the regulations (which were not much different than what's listed there) in terms of not allowing competition for civilian musicians jobs.  He pushed hard on the DC bands to stop allowing their members to play outside gigs.

I haven't been following that situation for a while, so I don't really know what's going on but it wouldn't surprise me if that's it.

The AFM being anti military music goes back pretty far.  There was a controversy in the early 20th Century about allowing Military musicians to have membership in the organization, given that they performed for free (with LOTS of restrictions that would make trying to cut costs by using Military musicians instead of civilians almost impossible).

Quote from: Eastcheap on Jun 25, 2016, 11:18AM

As I read it, it doesn't actually make anything illegal (that would require amending the USC), but doesn't allow funds from the appropriation to be used for any musical performances.  Especially that certain subset that's...already illegal.

Clearly, the real problem with the amendment is that it was drafted by an idiot.  (Which, I realize, is unkind to idiots.)

Well the plot thickens on this one. McSally was supposed to narrate Lincoln Portrait, and sing the anthem, with a combined military/community band in Tucson, Arizona, on March 13th. She backed out of the narration at the last minute, and ended up doing the anthem a capella. She's an idiot that got airtime in a slow news cycle.

harrison,
I think you've misread the language.

It is not as restrictive as you think.

At least 90% of what our local post band did (the 392cnd, unfortunately being deactivated shortly) is still fine.

I say this as someone who is required to make decisions on what funded activities are legal and what are not. 

The devil is not in the details but in the fine print. 

This is funding language, if you're not used to reading PBGs you aren't going to read this right 

Also, near as I can tell, it applies only to the existing FY15-16 budget, and will have to be redone if at all for the FY17 budget.  But that part isn't clear to me.