A Senate committee just unanimously passed the Museum and Library Services Act, which Trump opposes. Who will win out?
How much federal money, if any, should go to libraries and museums?
Context
The previous reauthorization of the Museum and Library Service Act came in 2010, signed by President Obama. But President Trump wants to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services agency, and its $231 million budget, entirely.
A Senate committee voted unanimously last week to not only preserve the agency, but increase its budget as well.
What the bill does
The Museum and Library Services Act [S. 3530 + H.R. 6988] in many ways mirrors the previous Obama-era reauthorization, but with a few changes:
- Total expenditures would be $299 million, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.
- More funds for disaster preparedness for libraries and museums, an issue more front and center in the wake of recent historically large hurricanes and wildfires in Texas, Florida, and California.
- Adjustments to the existing formula of disbursing grants to states, with the goal of allowing the funds “to be shared more broadly by all states.”
- Increasing the percentage of funds directed towards Native American or tribal libraries and museums from 1.75% to 2.25%.
The Senate version was introduced on September 28 by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). The House version was introduced the same day by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ3).
What supporters say
Supporters argue the legislation helps a critical element of American education and information.
“We must do all we can to support libraries and museums, which serve as anchor institutions for their communities and are beacons of education, connectivity, and discussion across our nation,” Sen. Reed said in a press release. “The Museum and Library Services Act is a crucial step toward ensuring that these institutions are funded, staffed, and accessible to all.”
“Through a relatively modest federal investment, this law helps build the capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the state and local level,” Sen. Reed continued. “And it will help fully leverage the role of libraries and museums in supporting the learning, educational, and workforce development needs of Americans nationwide...”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services is both expensive and largely redundant, considering that it’s not the primary funder of such institutions.
“IMLS’s funding supplements local, State, and private funds, which provide the vast majority of funding to museums and libraries,” the White House’s 2019 budget proposal said. “Furthermore, given that IMLS primarily supports discrete, short-term projects as opposed to operation-sustaining funds, it is unlikely the elimination of IMLS would result in the closure of a significant number of libraries and museums.”
(While it’s true that IMLS funding is grant-based, many libraries use the LSTA grant program to pay for database subscriptions and other computing related needs which are crucial to sustaining their operations.)
Votes and odds of passage
The Senate version passed the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee unanimously on November 29. The legislation next goes to a vote in the full Senate, where if it passes it will go to the House.
It had previously attracted 21 bipartisan cosponsors: 18 Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents plus three Republicans.
The House version has so far attracted six bipartisan cosponsors: five Republicans and one Democrat. It will either vote on the Senate’s version or else receive a vote in the House Education and the Workforce Committee.
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work!
