May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5357

primarily military equipment that Iran

alleges it did not receive. The equipment was purchased pursuant to commercial contracts with more than 50

private American companies. Iran alleges that it suffered direct losses and

consequential damages in excess of $2

billion in total because of the U.S. Government’s refusal to allow the export

of the equipment after January 19, 1981,

in alleged contravention of the Algiers

Accords. As directed by the Tribunal,

the United States’ submission addresses Iran’s claims regarding both liability and compensation and damages.

5. The Foreign Claims Settlement

Commission (‘‘FSCS’’) on February 24,

1995, successfully completed its caseby-case review of the more than 3,000

so-called ‘‘small claims’’ against Iran

arising out of the 1979 Islamic revolution. These ‘‘small claims’’ (of $250,000

or less each) were originally filed before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, but were transferred to the

FCSC pursuant to the May 13, 1990 Settlement Agreement between Iran and

the United States.

The FCSC issued decisions on 3,066

claims for total awards of $86,555,795. Of

that amount, $41,570,936 represented

awards of principal and $44,984,859 represented awards of interest. Although

originally only $50 million were available to pay these awards, the funds

earned approximately $9 million in interest over time, for a total settlement

fund of more than $59 million. Thus, all

awardees will receive full payment on

the principal amounts of their awards,

with interest awards paid on a pro rata

basis.

The FCSC’s awards to individuals

and corporations covered claims for

both real and personal property seized

by Iran. In addition, many claims arose

out of commercial transactions, including contracts for the sale of goods

and contracts for the supply of services

such as teaching, medical treatment,

data processing, and shipping. The

FCSC is now working with the Department of the Treasury to facilitate final

payment on all FCSC awards.

6. The situation reviewed above continues to implicate important diplomatic, financial, and legal interests of

the United States and its nationals and

presents an unusual challenge to the

national security and foreign policy of

the United States. The Iranian Assets

Control Regulations issued pursuant to

Executive Order No. 12170 continue to

play an important role in structuring

our relationship with Iran and in enabling the United States to implement

properly the Algiers Accords. Similarly, the Iranian Transactions Regulations issued pursuant to Executive

Order No. 12613 continue to advance

important objectives in combating

international terrorism. I shall continue to exercise the powers at my disposal to deal with these problems and

will continue to report periodically to

the Congress on significant developments.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, May 18, 1995.

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr.

WALKER). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of May 12, 1995, and

under a previous order of the House,

the following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

previous order of the House, the gentleThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

fwoman from Ohio [Mr. KAPTUR] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Ms. KAPTUR addressed the House.

Her remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genTHE SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from California [Mr. HORN] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. HORN addressed the House. His

remarks will appear hereafter in the

previous order of the House, the genExtensions of Remarks.]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from New York [Mr. OWENS] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. OWENS addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from New Jersey [Mr. MARTINI]

is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. MARTINI addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Oregon [Mr. DEFAZIO] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. DEFAZIO addressed the House.

His remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from California [Mr. KIM] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. KIM addressed the House. His

remarks will appear hereafter in the

Extensions of Remarks.]

HOW BUDGET AND RESCISSION

BILL AFFECT PROGRAMS FOR

fOUR STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. PALLONE]

is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, much of

the debate today and yesterday about

the budget and also the rescissions bill

focused on programs for seniors, particularly Medicare and also Medicaid

to the extent that it also impacts senior citizens, and I had previously spoken on the floor and stated emphatically how part of my opposition to the

budget was based on the fact that it

does have significant cuts in Medicare

and how that will negatively impact

our senior citizens. What I wanted to

speak about today very briefly though

are the parts of the budget, as well as

the rescissions bill that we voted on

today, that affect programs for students at our universities and or colleges.

Mr. Speaker, I happened to have a

forum during the April break at Rutgers University, which is in my district, and at the forum a number of

students expressed concern with the

cost of higher education, how tuition

continues to rise, how difficult it is not

only at private schools, but also at

public schools such as Rutgers University, to continue to meet educational

expenses and how many students increasingly have to simply drop out of

school because they cannot afford to

pay the cost of higher education.

I say to my colleagues, ‘‘If you look

at the two resolutions or bills that we

passed today, in one case the budget

and in the other case the rescissions

bill, both of them in my opinion rely

too heavily on cuts in programs for

higher education, particularly as it affects students who are looking for

scholarships, grants or student loans.

The budget itself actually assumes a

change in the current law to require

college students to pay interest on student loans while they are still in

school. Many students rely on Stafford

loans or guaranteed student loans to

pay for their colleges education or to

pay for a significant portion of it.’’

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem is

that under this budget measure the assumption is that while the students are

at school they will have to pay back

the interest on the loans. It is variously estimated, depending on how

long you stay in school, for example,

for undergraduate education, if you

were to take the maximum student

loan over the course of the four years,

that you would end up paying as much

as 20 percent more for your student

loan after you graduate. If you defer

your higher education and go to graduate school or professional school, the

cost of that interest could even be

higher as a percentage of what you

have to pay back.

The rescission bill today also makes

some significant rescissions or cuts, if

you will, in Pell grants, which are

grants that students receive to go to

college who tend to be lower income,

and also rescinds other additional

money that is available for Federal direct student loans.

Now some people have said to me,

‘‘Well, what does it matter, Congressman PALLONE, that you know students

have to pay more for their student

loans or they don’t get as much money

for grants or scholarships? After all,

they can always go out and work for a