June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1199

I encourage my colleagues to support this effort as well.

THE SACRED HEART CATHOLIC

CHURCH CELEBRATES 100 YEARS

fIN BLUEFIELD

HON. NICK J. RAHALL II OF WEST VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, 1995 is a memorable year for the residents of Bluefield, WV.

For it was 100 years ago that the Sacred

Heart Catholic Church was dedicated on Mercer Street. The theme of this years celebration

is ‘‘Remember, Rejoice, and Renew.’’

Late in the 19th century, the coal industry,

the railroad, and commercial trade brought numerous Catholics to southeastern West Virginia. The first Catholic service in Bluefield

took place on Princeton Avenue, when the

Reverened John McBride came on horseback

from Wytheville, VA, to perform the ceremony.

Mr. Speaker, the first Catholic service in Bluefield even predated the incorporation of the

city of Bluefield, WV.

Five years later, in 1984, the Most Reverend P.D. Donahue, Bishop of the Diocese of

Wheeling, WV, appointed the Reverend Emile

Olivier the pastor of the growing Catholic community in Bluefield. Through Reverend

Olivier’s tutelage and the hard work of the parish, the Sacred Heart Church was dedicated

on Mercer Street in Bluefield on October 27,

1895. The church continued to grow and was

responsible for the creation of other Catholic

communities in Powhatan, Gary, Welch,

Williamson, Princeton, and Our Lady of

Lourdes in Bluefield.

Mr. Speaker, the Sacred Heart Church in

1995, as in 1895, is a family of Christians

whose mission it is to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth by their worship,

evangelization, and strengthening of relationships and service to church and community. It

is with great honor that I help to honor the

centennial year of Bluefield’s Sacred Heart

Church. Remember, Rejoice, and Renew.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

fHON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th

Congress considers changes to the unemployment compensation [UC] system, I would like

to bring to your attention a recent speech by

Leon Lynch, Vice President of the United

Steelworkers of America. Mr. Lynch’s views,

which focus on the unemployment insurance

reforms recommended by the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation, were delivered to the National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation and Workers Compensation last month in Atlanta. These remarks provide an important viewpoint that

should become part of the debate over UC reform.

REMARKS OF LEON LYNCH TO THE NATIONAL

FOUNDATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AND WORKERS COMPENSATION

The focus of my presentation today is unemployment insurance reforms recommended by the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation. To date, the

Council has issued two reports containing a

number of recommendations to improve our

unemployment insurance program. The

Council’s major recommendations are focused on bringing the unemployment insurance system more into line with the realities

of the 1990s economy and labor market. I believe they deserve the support of business

and labor, and I want to explain why.

Since I joined the Advisory Council only

late last summer, I did not directly participate in the adoption of the recommendations

of the first report, which dealt mostly with

the reform of the extended Benefits (EB) program. The second Council report, released in

February 1995, focused broadly on the regular UI program. I was on board last year and

I voted in favor of the recommendations of

that report. The third and final report, due

in February 1996, will focus on the administrative aspects of UI.

In all honesty, I am continuing to learn

about our unemployment compensation system from the testimony presented by witnesses at Advisory Council meetings, the

briefing papers prepared by Advisory Council

staff, discussions among the Advisory Council, and meetings such as this. I have enjoyed

my participation in the work of the Advisory

Council and I hope to work for the adoption

of the Council’s recommendations at both

the federal and state levels.

Having admitted that I am not an unemployment insurance expert, however, should

not be taken as less than my full endorsement of the recommendations of the Advisory Council to date. You don’t need a Ph.D

to understand that our UI system is neither

serving the needs of unemployed workers nor

employers as well as it should.

As a trade union leader, I have long understood the terrible human impact of the defects in our UI system. These defects are

much clearer to close observers. If you

haven’t done so, I encourage you to review

the Advisory Council reports. They contain

many more facts supporting the Council’s

recommendations than I can cover today. I

hope you will take the time to review the reports since even those who regularly deal

with UI will find a fair and impartial review

of all aspects of the UI program.

I often hear employer representatives

claim that our UI system isn’t broken. I

challenge you to read the reports with an

open mind and come away with anything but

a conclusion that, in key respects, our UI

system can be improved and made to work

better for all interested parties.

I want to begin my discussion by pointing

out some of the factual findings from the

February 1995 Advisory Council report. Many

of you may be generally aware of UI developments, but I think these particular findings

deserve mention.

First, there’s been a serious erosion in the

number of unemployed workers getting UI

benefits. The ratio of insured unemployed

workers (those that file a claim and have

monetary eligibility) and the totally unemployed (those who are unemployed and actively seeking work) is widely used as an indicator of how many unemployed workers

get UI benefits. In 1993, 32 of the 52 jurisdictions had an IU/TU ratio under 33 percent.

Twelve states had a ratio of less than 25 percent. South Dakota had a ratio of 15.3 percent. In other words, the ratio of unemployed workers getting UI benefits was a

third or less in a majority of the states, and

less than 2 in 10 in South Dakota.

Complaints about the declining proportion

of unemployed workers getting UI have not

been met with sympathy by employers. However, even so-called ‘‘job losers’’ are no

longer getting UI benefits at past levels. Job

losers fall in the unemployed workers category which is closest to the involuntarily

unemployed workers who are supposed to get

UI—even according to most employers.

The 1995 report finds a steep decline in receipt of UI benefits in the ‘‘job losers’’ category. In fact, the ratio of UI claimants to

job losers has fallen nearly forty percent

since 1970.

The other reason cited for the reduced

number of unemployed workers getting UI

benefits is that eligible workers apparently

aren’t applying. While the research on nonapplicants is not as clear as we might wish,

on a practical level there are many things we

can do to encourage potentially eligible UI

claimants to apply for benefits. These include providing better UI claims information

to workers at the time of layoff, permitting

electronic and telephone claims, prohibiting

employer retaliation, and continuing to improve the customer service aspects of agency

claims handling. I believe that the Advisory

Council will consider some of these administrative matters in the coming year.

Analysts disagree about why the ratio of

insured unemployed workers to totally unemployed workers has fallen, but all recent

studies show that legislative restrictions on

UI eligibility and disqualifications have contributed. The only argument among the experts is the weight assigned to federal and

state UI law changes as compared to other

factors.

In fact, in most states, there are dollar estimates made on the amount of money to be

‘‘saved’’ when legislative restrictions on UI

are passed. Since many of you have pushed

for this so-called ‘‘cost saving’’ legislation to

reduce the number of UI benefits recipients

in your states, we should have few claims of

innocence in this audience. We in organized

labor are past the point of needing more

studies concerning the reasons for the decline in receipt of UI benefits. We expect

positive action to reverse the decline.

Often, when government is slow to act or

fails to act, we have to looked for solutions

elsewhere. That’s what we’ve done in the

Steelworkers—in this and other areas, such

as employment security, pensions and health

care.

For the unemployed, we have negotiated

supplemental unemployment benefits—commonly known as SUB. The fair-minded employers we have contracts with recognize

that unemployment compensation by itself—

where it exists—is nowhere near sufficient to

keep a family going.

With SUB, however, circumstances improve substantially. When one of our members is laid off, SUB will provide benefits

ranging from 70 percent to 90 percent of the

worker’s wages. And it provides these benefits for two years.

When the worker is receiving UC, that

amount is deducted from the SUB payment.

When UC expires, SUB makes up the difference. The result is that no matter what

the level of UC is, the worker receives the

same percentage of wages.

The rationale is simple: Workers should

not suffer for events over which they have no

control. SUB payments help them to survive

until they are recalled to their former jobs,

or until they find new employment.

Even though we are proud of what we have

done in this area, we feel this is an area that

is properly the government’s responsibility.

Is any that with full knowledge of the atmosphere in Washington—an atmosphere

with which I disagree completely. But that’s

a different story for a different time.

The problem we are dealing with today has

its own import, and I’m pleased that the Advisory Council report this year makes specific recommendations to reverse the decline
E 1200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks June 8, 1995

in UI benefits. In the meantime, the various

experts can argue about the weight of factors

that cause the decline.

Let me discuss two recommendations

which would start to move our UI system in

a positive direction.

First, the Advisory Council recommends

that no state set its monetary eligibility requirement higher than the equivalent of 800

hours of work at the state’s minimum wage,

with the higher quarter wages requirement

no more than 200 hours of minimum wage

work. This should encourage states to resist

the trend toward requiring more and more

earnings to gain UI monetary eligibility.

The factual basis for this recommendation

was a staff study of the monetary eligibility

provisions of all state UI laws. This study

showed that lower wage workers and parttime workers with substantial labor market

participation still failed to meet monetary

eligibility requirements in some states. The

800 hour recommendation converts to roughly a fifteen hour week for a full-year worker.

I do not think these workers have shown so

little attachment to the labor market that

we should exclude then entirely from the UI

system and force them onto welfare and

Food Stamps.

Another recommendation would begin to

move part-time and low wage workers back

onto UI. It is the adoption of a moveable, or

flexible, base period. Under a moveable base

period, workers with insufficient earnings in

the first four of the five completed calendar

quarters, can use their ‘‘lag’’ quarter wages

to meet the monetary eligibility. In Vermont, workers can even use the current, or

‘‘filing’’ quarter wages, to meet the monetary eligibility standard.

At this time, eight states have some form

of flexibility as to the period over which

they measure monetary eligibility for UI

benefits. Six states have a so-called moveable base period. Maine, Massachusetts,

Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. California and New York permit different periods of measurement as well. In

1997, Michigan will adopt a moveable base

period as part of its conversion from a wage

request state to a wage record state.

The rest of the states define their base periods as the traditional first four of the last

five completed quarters. As a result, wages

can be as much as eighteen months old, depending on when the unemployed worker

files and when she or he worked. A worker

who needs his or her ‘‘lag quarter’’ wages to

meet monetary eligibility standards must

wait up to three months to obtain benefits

under the traditional definition of base period. The moveable, or flexible, base period

permits these workers to gain UI benefits

much sooner, by counting the lag quarter

wages toward monetary eligibility.

The Advisory Council relives that workers

needing the moveable base period to gain UI

eligibility have demonstrated adequate labor

market attachment, as defined by each

state. They should not be denied UI benefits

solely because of the distribution of their

wages in their base periods. For this reason,

all states should consider the Advisory Council’s moveable base period recommendation.

Especially those which are currently paying

UI benefits to very low percentage of their

unemployed workers.

We also believe that the U.S. Department

of Labor should encourage this action. Another important area of Advisory Council activity has been our examination of state UI

trust fund solvency. Here, I believe the Advisory Council has made good progress toward

increasing the solvency of the UI system,

while maintaining a good deal of state flexibility.

Analysis by the Council staff has shown

clearly that states with lower reserves are

much more likely to be forced to borrow

from the feds, raise taxes, or cut UI benefits

in a recession—or a combination of FUTA

penalty taxes and interest payments. Both

benefit cuts and increased taxes during recessions should be avoided. Workers need the

benefits during any period of unemployment,

but especially during a recession. And employers need the spending boost provided by

UI benefits during a recession, and can least

afford a tax increase during economic

downturns.

For this reason, the Advisory Council has

recommended that States avoid so-called,

‘‘pay as you go’’ financing, and provide for

forward funding of UI. In other words, during

periods of economic recovery, the state

should permit funds to accumulate in its

trust fund for payment later during a recession.

Rather than debating continuously over

the exact level of reserves that are desirable,

the Council compromised on a level somewhat lower than the 1.5 high cost multiple

which has been historically defined as prudent. There was some feeling that requiring

this level of reserves drew too much capital

out of the economy and was less productive.

Instead, the Council recommended that

states maintain a reserve equal to one year

of benefits at the average of the three years

of highest payouts over the past 20 years.

The innovative part of the Council’s solvency recommendation was the suggested

use of federal interest premiums on trust

fund deposits over the desired level of reserve, and interest breaks for states forced

to borrow despite having reached the desired

level prior to the recession. In other words,

the Council did not set a ‘‘federal standard’’

for solvency, but, set up a method of encouraging states to accumulate higher reserves

prior to the next recession.

The Advisory Council also made a number

of recommendations related to the budgetary

treatment of UI by the federal government.

For years, both labor and employers have

urged the removal of the UI trust funds from

the budget. The Council recommended that

all UI trust funds be removed from the federal unified budget.

The inclusion of the UI trust funds causes

a number of distortions. Dedicated UI revenues have been treated as offsets against the

budget deficit allowing regular state UI benefit payments to be counted in federal spending. In addition, the tightening of administrative funding over the last several years,

and the recent difficulty in getting supplemental appropriations for unexpected UI

workload is a result of having the UI trust

fund in the budget. We say this must end.

Another result of having UI in the budget

is to make it subject to cost cutting measures designed for budget balancing, rather

than for UI policy. One example is the federal income taxation of UI benefits. This is

nothing more than a federally imposed reduction in state weekly benefit amounts.

The Council has recommended the repeal of

income taxation on UI benefits.

In the coming year, the Advisory Council

will be looking at administrative financing

of UI. Last year, the Council recommended

that the state agencies collect the federal

FUTA taxes used for administrative financing. Currently, the Internal Revenue Service

assesses charges of up to $100 million a year

to collect the FUTA revenue, and the states

feel that they are in a position to collect

FUTA taxes without using scare resources.

I believe that administrative financing will

be a matter for continued examination because proper levels of appropriations and

proper use of the administrative funds are so

critical to the UI system. As Bruce

Springsteen has said, ‘‘sooner or later, it all

comes down to money’’.

Employer support for UI and ES will increase, if they feel that their FUTA taxes are

wisely spent. State agency employees need

and deserve adequate wages and benefits.

State administrators need flexibility and

better incentives for meeting UI program

goals. The federal partner needs to better ensure that service improvements and efficiency are a product of its financing. And,

unemployed workers need pleasant, accessible, and effective UI and ES offices.

The Advisory Council often refers to the

two traditional, and inter-related, national

goals of the UI program. That is, adequate

wage replacement for unemployed workers

and economic stabilization. It is critical that

both of these national goals be met, and that

state and federal actions undercutting these

goals be reversed.

Wage replacement at an adequate level of

benefits is of obvious interest to organized

labor. But, in addition, organized labor recognizes that the overall level of workers getting UI benefits must also be improved. Otherwise, the UI programs are only a hollow

shell, leaving many workers who have substantial labor market involvement without

UI benefits. For these reasons, the Advisory

Council should consider methods to encourage states to pay adequate levels of UI benefits to a higher proportion of unemployed

workers in the coming years. Possible solutions include trust fund enhancements, administrative funding incentives, and federal

goals for states in these areas.

Let me close with some comments directed

to the employer community and its approach

to UI. I believe employers need to take a

broader view of UI than what I usually hear

from their representatives.

The other side of the coin from adequate

UI benefits is economic stabilization. This is

the other national goal of UI, and it still deserves our combined support. It truly helps

employers.

UI benefits buy groceries, pay rent, keep

the utilities connected, and purchase other

necessities for unemployed workers and their

families. In other words, all UI benefits are

spent with employers—a fact that some employers have apparently forgotten. The unemployed worker’s pocketbook is merely a

way station for UI benefits on their way to

an employer’s bank account.

Most employers are also on fairly thin ice

on the cost issue. Nationally, state UI payroll taxes amounted to .9 percent of total

payrolls in 1993. This is not insignificant, but

it is near the historically lowest levels of the

early 1970s, and well below the 1.4 percent

level reached in the recession of 1982–1983.

The federal FUTA tax rate is at historic

low levels, amounting to only 36 percent of

average wages. This has severely eroded the

actual FUTA tax rate, which has fallen in relation to inflation since the federal taxable

wage base was last increased in 1983. At that

time, the FUTA payroll tax amounted to

$81—today it’s $56. So even with the much

maligned .2 percent surcharge, FUTA taxes,

in terms of real dollars, are at the same level

as they were in 1970. In 1970, the net FUTA

tax rate was .5 percent and the taxable wage

base was still $3000.

While each employer naturally concerns itself with its labor costs, employers as a

group should recognize that UI benefits help

maintain a stable economy and society.

While $25 billion or so are paid in UI benefits

in any given year, these 25 billion were also

spent. And, unlike defense spending or social

security benefits or highway construction

funds, these UI dollars were mostly spent in

areas where unemployment was higher and

local employers most needed a spending

boost.
June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1201

In short, the business approach to UI

doesn’t seem to have changed, even though

the bad old days of higher UI taxes and lenient treatment of unemployed workers are

long gone. Whatever the validity of the costcutting approach of the mid-1970s to mid1980s period, employers, should rethink their

‘‘cost above all else’’ approach to UI.

Especially in the current political climate,

the views of employers are of paramount importance. Unless the policies advocated by

employers change, the downward trend of

the past fifteen or twenty years will continue, and this will have serious impacts on

employers and the larger society—not just

on unemployed workers.

The developments of the last fifteen or

twenty years have undercut the achievement

of our national UI goals. This was mainly

due to the effective elimination of the EB

program in 1981, the spread of state restrictions on UI eligibility and the adoption of

harsher disqualifications during the 1970s

and 1980s. Meeting these national UI goals is

important to workers and employers. For

this reason, favorable action on the recommendations of the Advisory Council on

Unemployment Compensation is important

to employers as well as the rest of our society. I hope that employers will review their

UI policy positions in light of the Advisory

Council’s recommendations. This would be

an important step in restoring the vitality of

our UI system.

Thank you, and I look forward to your

questions following the remarks of Bob

Mitchell.

RECOGNIZING SERVICE BY WCTE–

fTV

HON. BART GORDON OF TENNESSEE

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, WCTE–TV in

Cookeville, TN, provides a great service to the

television viewers of Putnam County and the

Upper Cumberland region of Tennessee. The

enclosed article from the New York Times

shows how the small, but capable staff juggle

many responsibilities and produce quality local

programming.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 17, 1995]

WHERE PUBLIC TV IS MORE THAN A POLITICAL

FOOTBALL

(By Laurie Mifflin)

COOKEVILLE, TN.—When people argue

about public television in Washington, Boston, New York or Los Angeles, they talk

about ‘‘Sesame Street,’’ ‘‘Nova’’ and ‘‘Frontline’’; about whether the political programming is too partisan, about whether opera

and ballet are too elitist, and about slashing

station budgets of $100 million a year or

more.

Here, too, in Cookeville, in the Upper Cumberland region of Tennessee, public television means ‘‘Sesame Street,’’ ‘‘Nova’’ and

‘‘Frontline.’’ But political programming

means covering monthly meetings of the

Putnam County Commission. Cultural programming means the Smithville Fiddlers

Jamboree and the Tennessee Tech Faculty

Brass Quintet. The budget runs a little over

$1 million. And the station consists of three

rooms and a truck.

The boxy WCTE–TV truck is parked beneath the iron girders and concrete risers of

the Tennessee Tech football stadium, the

station’s home. It is a ‘‘remote truck,’’ divided inside into three cramped carrels lined

with audio and video editing equipment, the

kind of truck television crews use when they

cover events away from the studio.

This remote truck does venture out—to

cover Tech football or basketball road

games—but as soon as it is parked under the

stadium, thick hanks of blue cable are pulled

out and connected to other cables leading to

the station’s control room, because the

truck doubles as the station’s main editing

facility.

So when Donna Castle and Rick Wells return from videotaping teenagers in Cane

Creek Park who are testing leaf and water

samples in a regional ‘‘Envirothon’’ contest,

for example, Mrs. Castle climbs into the

truck and sits down to edit a Hot Puddin’

Cake recipe for that week’s ‘‘Cumberland

Cooking With Cathy’’ show.

Mr. Wells heads to the ‘‘studio’’ on the

other side of the parking-bay wall—a

windowless 20-by-30-foot room with cinderblock walls and klieg lights sprouting from

the ceiling—to operate a camera focused on

teams of jittery high school students competing in the Upper Cumberland Academic

Bowl. And when that taping starts, Mrs. Castle will have to stop editing because David

Dow will need the truck’s control panel to

direct the three-camera Academic Bowl production.

WNET in New York and WGBH in Boston

may be the signature stations of the Public

Broadcasting Service because they produce

many of its best programs, but the mom-andpop stations of small-town America have

deep roots in the public television heritage,

too.

The two dozen or so smallest PBS stations

in the country receive 30 to 40 percent of

their budgets from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so eliminating Federal financing could force them to close up shop.

But ‘‘zeroing out’’ now appears unlikely;

when Congress returns from Easter recess,

the House and Senate will have to reconcile

their versions of bills to cut back financing,

with the compromise likely to be in the 10-

to-15-percent range.

But for Donna and Richard Castle, the operators of WCTE, Channel 22, in Cookeville,

even a 10 percent cut will hurt their barebones budget of $1.16 million (which includes

18 salaries). And because it would be cheaper

simply to pick up PBS’s national programming, Channel 22 would probably cut back

the thing that makes it distinctive: its local

programming.

WCTE was founded in 1978 as part of the

state Department of Education, and Mr. Castle, 58, the general manager, still calls it

‘‘educational TV’’ as often as he calls it

‘‘public TV.’’ The station offers instructional

programs used by local schools and by parents who teach their children at home, as

well as programs informing the community

about local government, local schools, local

cultural affairs and local businesses.

‘‘We’re here for the public, and I try to remember it all the time,’’ Mrs. Castle said. ‘‘If

people around here want to see the Smithville Fiddlers Jamboree instead of something

from the Theater of the Rhinoceros in San

Francisco, that’s O.K.’’

Mr. Castle pronounces himself ‘‘stumped’’

by the Washington politicians who seem so

down on public television. ‘‘We’ve never been

partisan or played politics in any way,’’ he

said of WCTE. ‘‘And when they talk about

public TV being for the wealthy and the

elite, well, that’s sure not true here.’’

Cookeville lies midway between Nashville

and Knoxville, far enough from each for the

area to qualify for Federal money to build an

840–foot television and radio transmission

tower. To the east, the countryside’s rolling

ridges become small mountains; there, television reception requires either a satellite

dish or a huge antenna. Many people cannot

afford either.

‘‘In our viewing area, 60 percent of the people don’t have cable,’’ Mr. Castle said. ‘‘In

the mountainous parts, if you don’t have a

dish, you can’t even get ABC, CBS or NBC. In

some of the historically poor areas around

here, the only station people get is Channel

22.’’

Channel 22, one of the smallest PBS stations in the country in terms of both budget

and viewership, is so small that it falls

‘‘below measurable standards’’ for rating by

the A.C. Nielsen Media Research Company.

Nielsen estimates WCTE’s cumulative weekly audience (house-holds that tune in for at

least 15 minutes a week) at 17,000 to 18,000.

The station gets its modest home rent-free

from Tennessee Tech, whose green campus

graced by red-brick Georgian buildings is the

town’s centerpiece. Of the station’s $1.6 million budget for 1994–95, $393,254 comes from

the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and

$498,315 from the state.

Finding that level of financial support

around Cookeville would be unlikely. Membership in Channel 22, which costs $25 a year,

accounted for $50,000 last year. An annual

eight-night auction at the town’s Drama

Center, run by 200 volunteers, added $72,000.

There are no large corporations here, and

persuading local businesses to underwrite

programs instead of buying advertising on

local commercial stations is difficult.

‘‘We charge $50 a program a week,’’ said

Tina Majors, WCTE’s director of development, ‘‘whether it’s for a local program or

one from PBS, but that’s for a 13-week commitment. Some businesses won’t commit to

that, but they’ll spend $100 for two spots in

a big local event like Horse Show Night at

the county fair.’’

Ms. Majors is WCTE’s newest employee,

hired about 18 months ago because of fears

about losing financing. She is just about the

only one who doesn’t work on programs.

‘‘There’s nobody here who can’t run a camera,’’ Mr. Castle likes to say.

Sue Gibbons, the traffic manager, said,

‘‘Richard and Donna’s three boys grew up in

the station, pulling cable and helping out.’’

Russ Castle, 23, now works for a local radio

station but still ‘‘runs a camera,’’ unpaid, on

all Tennessee Tech football games for WCTE.

His 20-year-old twin brothers, Art and Roger,

attend the University of Tennessee at Martin

and run cameras (also without being paid)

when they are home.

Steve Boots, the station’s young assistant

manager, describes his job as ‘‘anything from

grabbing a broom to hosting a show.’’ He was

the host for the Uppper Cumberland Academic Bowl in early April.

Channel 22’s director of educational programming, Becky Magura, started out as a

college intern in 1980 and has run the camera

on hundreds of football and basketball games

by now. She also produces the Academic

Bowl shows and many segments for ‘‘Upper

Cumberland Camera,’’ a magazine-format

show that appears every Thursday night.

That program—‘‘52 new shows a year; we

don’t repeat,’’ Mrs. Castle says with pride—

has done segments on the effort to restore

defunct movie theaters, on a conference offering advice to women in business, and on a

Tennessee Tech professor using computer

simulation in chemistry experiments.

The station also produces the ‘‘Upper Cumberland Business Profile,’’ an interview program; ‘‘Education in the Upper Cumberland,’’ and ‘‘Cumberland Cooking With

Cathy.’’ ‘‘When she did her Christmas show,

we stupidly said, ‘Send us an envelope if you

want recipes,’’’ Mrs. Castle said. ‘‘We got

over 600 requests. Joyce Hunter and I sat

there and stuffed all those envelopes.’’

WCTE’s productions look and sound as professional on the screen as most shows aired