[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12009-S12010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AMERICAN SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS ABROAD

 Mr. ABRAHAM. I would like to congratulate the Senator from 
Kentucky for his leadership in shepherding the Foreign Operations 
Assistance Appropriations bill to a successful resolution. This 
legislation deals with many matters of importance to the United States. 
The Senator deserves our gratitude for his untiring efforts to bring 
about final enactment of this bill.

[[Page S12010]]

  As the Senator from Kentucky knows, I have a particular interest in 
the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad or ASHA Program. Funding for 
this program falls under the Foreign Operations Assistance 
Appropriations bill. I am particularly concerned with the manner in 
which the bill's conference committee report resolves the question of 
ASHA funding. With the support of the Senator from Kentucky and the 
Senator from Vermont, my amendment to earmark $15 million for this 
program in fiscal year 1997 was included in the final version of the 
Senate bill. The House, however, did not include a similar provision in 
its bill. The conference committee also did not choose to include the 
earmark in the bill. But the conference committee did insert strongly 
worded language in the conference report which refers to ASHA funding.
  I understand that during conference deliberation on this matter the 
managers of both the House and Senate agreed to two specific 
principles. First, it was agreed to that AID should not phase out ASHA. 
Second, the managers insisted that the ASHA Program be funded at an 
amount at least equal to that in fiscal year 1996. I would like to ask 
the Chairman for clarification as to the actual funding level 
contemplated by this language.
  As the Senator from Kentucky knows, on September 6, 1996 AID formally 
notified Congress that grants made through ASHA in fiscal year 1996 
would total $17.6 million. Based on this figure, it would be my 
interpretation of the report language that AID should award ASHA grants 
totalling at least $17.6 million for fiscal year 1997. In other words, 
in referring to the fiscal year 1996 funding level, the conference 
committee had in mind the ASHA funding level for the most recent year; 
it was not concerned with the fiscal year in which allocated funds were 
actually appropriated. Could the Senator from Kentucky tell me if my 
interpretation is correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his kind words. 
I am pleased to say that his interpretation is correct. The Conference 
Committee intentions were to make clear to AID that it strongly 
disagrees with the agency's proposal to phase out ASHA over the next 2 
fiscal years. There is broad agreement in both the Senate and the House 
that this program should be continued at levels close to those of the 
recent past. As for the fiscal year 1997 grant cycle in particular, we 
expect AID to make grants of at least $17.6 million. So, although the 
conferees did not retain the specific language of the amendment by the 
Senator from Michigan, we certainly concur with its spirit.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for that 
clarification.

                          ____________________