[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 35 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE ARTS AND PUBLIC BROADCASTING

                                 ______


                          HON. BRUCE F. VENTO

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 24, 1995
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, as we consider Federal support of the arts 
and public broadcasting, we must recognize the full cultural and 
economic benefits of these activities. The nonprofit arts industry is 
an important part of the economy, constituting nearly 1 percent of the 
entire U.S. work force and contributing $36.8 billion to the national 
economy. In addition, Federal funding enhances the ability of 
specialized artists and musicians to keep unique cultural traditions 
alive for future generations. I would like to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues the following letter and editorial from the Mississippi 
Rag and editorial from the Minneapolis Star Tribune which provide 
further evidence of the positive effect of Federal funding for these 
programs.
           [From the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb. 22, 1995]

              The Arts--A Pragmatic Case Only Goes So Far

       As political rhetoric against the evils of federal arts 
     funding heats up, arts organizations are working hard to 
     offer compelling counter arguments--as well they'd better. 
     But something important about the nature of the arts is 
     getting missed.
       If you've been listening to House Republicans lately, 
     you've heard the arts portrayed as, variously, the playground 
     of the elite, the domain of leftist counterculturists, the 
     path to immorality and decadence. Recipient artists are seen 
     as entrepreneurs on the dole--laggards who should, instead, 
     submit themselves to the verdict of the marketplace. Each 
     argument must be countered, and thoughtful folks are 
     compiling facts and figures to do just that.
       And yet the resulting defense, designed to persuade those 
     who aren't attuned to the arts, falls short of expressing the 
     value of the arts--and why Americans should make sure they 
     flourish. Job statistics, investment payoffs, community 
     growth potential--they're all meaningful, they're all true. 
     they're even persuasive:
       The nonprofit arts industry contributes $36.8 billion to 
     the national economy each year.
       [[Page E440]] The 1.3 million jobs supported by the arts 
     industry resulted in $25.2 billion in paychecks earned by and 
     paid to workers in every industry in the country. More than 
     20,000 people in Minnesota work in the arts industry.
       The arts are an investment that will
        pay off in a better future work force. Arts have been 
     shown to improve student learning, instilling self-esteem 
     and discipline.
       The NEA stimulates local economies and spurs urban renewal.
       Jobs supported by the nonprofit arts industry represent, 
     alone, nearly 1 percent of the entire U.S. work force.
       Arts alliances are wise to underscore those points, given 
     the current political landscape. Perhaps details about how 
     the arts affect the economy will resonate with influential 
     pragmatists who don't relate to flowery talk from people like 
     actress Jane Alexander, the head of the National Endowment 
     for the Arts. And yet. . . .
       And yet for those who see the arts as an essential to life, 
     not as a frill, all this is a little cold. To those who have 
     felt the power of a film, an ethnic dance troupe or a good 
     book, the value of the arts is as clear as a mountain stream.
       Not surprisingly, that value is most succinctly put by an 
     artist. Violinist and conductor Pinchas Zukerman told a 
     lingering St. Paul Chamber Orchestra audience the other night 
     (OK, so we'll admit to being part of the blue-jeaned 
     ``elite'' at the ``Casually U'' series):
       ``It comes down to this: Do you want Beethoven's Ninth in 
     your life or not? It all depends on what the hell kind of 
     soul you want, as a society.''
       That says it.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Mississippi Rag, Feb. 1995]

                                                  Minneapolis, MN.
       Public broadcasting must be saved. I base this opinion on 
     the following background:
       I have invested my career in over 50 years of American 
     broadcasting as an employee, member of the military, free-
     lancer, and listener.
       In the private sector as an employee, I researched, 
     programmed, announced, and marketed broadcast services and 
     sound products in New York City, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 
     Denver, San Francisco, and Duluth-Superior.
       In the public sector, I currently serve as programmer, 
     spokesperson, and interviewer.
       In the military, I was a member of a team developing radio 
     broadcast concepts for hospital rehab programs during World 
     War II.
       I have also spent some 20 years studying and teaching in 
     the area of electronic media. Here are some of the realities.
       With some exceptions, it is my conviction that the profit-
     oriented broadcaster is not prepared to experiment, innovate, 
     explore and expose new program concepts. I am willing to bet 
     a microphone cord and a stack of classical and jazz CDs that 
     few commercial broadcasters, if any, will rally to fill that 
     specialized space in the bankrupt radio and TV spectrum 
     should public broadcast funding be eliminated.
       What will be the alternative? Again from experience in the 
     revolving door of commercial broadcasting, I say do not count 
     on the commercial licensee's sense of the public interest to 
     pick up the slack.
       Further from this half century perch and experience, I 
     suggest most commercial broadcasters are electronic lemmings 
     locked in battles of ratings and demographics. These 
     broadcast marketers are hung up on formula TV and format 
     radio. Operating a variety of musical ferris wheels, they 
     dump on us everything from a repetitive load of adult 
     contemporary, album-oriented rock, urban, and country music 
     to what amounts to TV tabloid journalism. Add, if you will, 
     sensation directed talk hosts whose topics are run as their 
     counterparts program music in hit radio.
       What will be the alternative to the audio-visual commodity 
     business? I suggest again, with some exception, the 
     commercial AM and FM TV dial will continue to program from 
     the bland to the sensational and the violent. I contend the 
     most creative investment in commercial broadcasting is 
     reserved for spot advertising and promotions. Public 
     broadcasting, for this debate, invests in new programs, 
     concepts and people.
       Slash those funds and there will be a giant ``sucking 
     sound'' swallowing those unique voices and programs as the 
     public broadcasting transmitters sign off because of lack of 
     funds. Privatize public broadcasting and public broadcasting 
     will be subject to the same demographics and rating game.
       I ask you, don't we as Americans deserve a broadcast 
     service which gives us an alternative system--a system which 
     truly invests, innovates and experiments with new program 
     concepts regardless of ratings, age, or background? No 
     content warning for the most part! The CBC, BBC, and our own 
     Voice of America are examples of innovators. So is American 
     Public Broadcasting!
       Time is of the essence. Join with me. Call your friends. 
     Contact your congressman and senator. Public broadcasting 
     must be saved for it is an important investment in . . . 
     democratic debate, cultural understanding, family values, 
     moral leadership and character.
       Far from elitist, public broadcasting is a medium for 
     breaking barriers and isolation. It is a catalyst for 
     building unity and celebrating who we are as Americans.
     Leigh Kamman.
                                                                    ____

                  [The Mississippi Rag, February 1995]

                             Editorializing

       In this issue, jazz broadcaster Leigh Kamman makes an 
     impassioned plea in favor of continued government funding for 
     public broadcasting, asking RAG readers to join in the fray. 
     This editor has already done so, contacting my senators, 
     congressman, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority 
     Leader.
       At approximately $1 per year per person, public 
     broadcasting is a fantastic bargain for a jazz fan. My 
     television is most often tuned to the local public television 
     station where I've been able to view superlative programs on 
     Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Sarah 
     Vaughan, and Benny Goodman, among others. I've also caught a 
     few jazz festivals.
       My car radio dial is set for four stations--all are public 
     broadcasting stations which feature jazz (one exclusively). 
     Every week, I make an effort to catch ``Riverwalk,'' Butch 
     Thompson's ``Jazz Originals,'' Marian McPartland's ``Piano 
     Jazz,'' ``Jazz at Lincoln Center,'' and Leigh Kamman's ``The 
     Jazz Image,'' all on public radio stations.
       Ask yourself what jazz programs you regularly listen to. 
     Dollars to donuts, you're listening to public broadcasting 
     rather than a commercial station. Stay silent during the 
     hearings to drop, cut, and/or rescind funding for the 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting and be prepared to lose 
     that programing.
       One argument against funding is that public broadcasting is 
     unnecessary now with all the options offered by cable. This 
     argument ignores the obvious, however--cable is expensive, 
     not available in many rural areas, and therefore not an 
     option for many citizens.
       Another argument is that commercial stations will pick up 
     the slack. A perfect counter argument is to offer an example 
     of a now-defunct jazz program on WCCO-AM, a major Twin Cities 
     commercial radio station known as ``The Good Neighbor to the 
     Northwest.'' The show, hosted by a fine, conscientious late 
     night broadcaster, Joe McFarlin, actually inspired the 
     launching of this newspaper. Joe (who was featured in an 
     early RAG) spent hours preparing an eclectic collection of 
     fine classic jazz, complementing the music with knowledgeable 
     commentary. This weekly show ran in the wee hours of the 
     morning, and many an early RAG was put to bed as we listened 
     to him. Joe did this show on his own, with no support from 
     the station--the show was not publicized, despite efforts on 
     this editor's part to get the station's publicist to 
     recognize the substantial following and respect Joe had 
     earned. Eventually, with no budget for buying records (most 
     he purchased on his own or brought from home), and no 
     recompense or appreciation from the station for the hours he 
     spent preparing the show, Joe gave up the good fight. I 
     suspect that many of you can cite similar stories.
       Traditional jazz and ragtime enthusiasts must realize that 
     if we're going to keep this music alive for future 
     generations, we have to fight for it on all fronts. It's no 
     secret that most school music programs--elementary through 
     college--go no further back in jazz history than Stan Kenton, 
     choosing to ignore the roots of jazz and ragtime because the 
     teachers themselves are not knowledgeable guides to this 
     music. Some (not enough) jazz and ragtime societies are 
     addressing this issue, making valiant efforts to get young 
     people interested in the music through jazz education 
     programs, jazz camps and scholarships, and they are to be 
     commended for their work. The challenge, as the RAG sees it, 
     is to educate the teachers as well as the students.
       Public broadcasting has been and can be an effective medium 
     for doing this. We document jazz and ragtime history in these 
     pages, and we value the role public broadcasting has played 
     in expanding our own knowledge. This educational role often 
     seems to escape those who would privatize the programming of 
     public broadcasting. They fail to appreciate that education 
     is rarely ``market driven'' and is seldom profitable per se, 
     but it's crucial in making us aware of the diversity of our 
     culture. At its best, public broadcasting feeds the ``Gee 
     Whiz'' factor, helping us to discover concepts that are not 
     only new but exciting.
       And, there is another consideration. The traditional jazz 
     and ragtime recording business is more prolific than ever, 
     but the recordings need exposure in order for the labels to 
     justify the expense. Where are you most likely to hear a 
     recording by jazz or ragtime performers who are eminently 
     capable but hardly household words? Think about it.
       Let's not close any doors that can be opened to spread the 
     word about the music we love. Let your voice be heard now.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Leslie Johnson.
Vol. 141


WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1995

No. 35


House of Representatives