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]
>