Clearly, members of AAM Government Affairs staff should talk to each other before posting replies! Cameron and I are making valid, but different, points regarding the Senate plan. Cameron is correct that the Senate legislation "authorizes" FY 1996 funding for IMS at the FY 1995 level, while I am correct that the Congress has already acted to reduce actual appropriated funds from that level. Now is everybody really really confused? Andy Finch AAM Government Affairs [log in to unmask] On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Cameron Kitchin wrote: > Doug and other MUSEUM-Lers- > > No, the new IMLS would be authorized at the same level as IMS plus LSCA. > Your concern about the authorization or appropriation being lower than the > sum of the individual agencies could be well-founded for future funding, > though. Or, on the other hand, the museum library union could help a great > deal in arguing for greater overall funding. Also, for better or for worse, > the library funds in this union would certainly be greater than the museum > funds in the immediate future, reflecting current appropriations levels. > > Sorry to be so vague, but I have political instincts, not a crystal ball. I > sure would like to have a Congressional crystal ball, though. > > Cameron Kitchin > Campaign Manager > American Association of Museums > 202/ 289-1818, e-mail: [log in to unmask] >