[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S11316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    A NEW MARSHALL PLAN FOR THE EAST

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Chicago Tribune had an editorial 
calling for a Marshall plan for Eastern Europe.
  That really makes sense. I know that between now and election day 
we're not going to hear calls from our leaders for this, but after 
election day, I hope that will happen.
  It would take courage, just as the original Marshall plan took 
courage. After President Truman and General Marshall announced the 
plan, the first Gallup Poll showed only 14 percent of the American 
public supporting it.
  But what a great thing that was for the United States and the world; 
and let me add we need a Marshall plan for our domestic scene, 
particularly urban America.
  President Clinton was not correct when he said that this is the end 
of the era of big Government.
  The question is not whether the Government is big or small but 
whether it is good, whether it is doing the things that need to be 
done.
  There are needs today in Eastern Europe and in the cities of our 
country. My hope is that the next President of the United States--and 
my hope is that it will be Bill Clinton--and the next Congress will 
show greater leadership than we have shown in foreign affairs and 
domestic affairs these last 2 years.
  Mr. President, I ask that this editorial from the Chicago Tribune be 
printed in the Record.
  The editorial follows:

                    A New Marshall Plan for the East

       Sometimes the martial mind can discern more accurately than 
     others how this nation should pursue its interests short of 
     war. Think of Gen. George C. Marshall, who traded in his 
     olive-drab for pinstripes after World War II and, as 
     secretary of state, drafted the inspired plan (that now bears 
     his name) to inject billions of dollars into the charred 
     economies of Western Europe to create stable conditions in 
     which democracy thrived and communism was held at bay.
       Now that the Western democracies have won the Cold War, 
     along comes another general with a compelling vision for 
     America's role in Europe.
       U.S. Gen. George Joulwan, the NATO supreme commander, 
     argues that the Cold War's conclusion is not a time for 
     America to disengage from Europe but to ``consolidate the 
     gains of democracy.'' In military terms, he says, ``When you 
     take an objective, the first thing you think about is not 
     pulling back from the objective but of securing it.'' And the 
     Western democracies, he says, have not yet consolidated their 
     gains among the fragile, emerging democracies to the east.
       True enough. But it is the method by which Joulwan proposes 
     to achieve that consolidation--expansion of NATO--that gives 
     us pause.
       Pentagon troop strength in Europe, which forms the backbone 
     of the Western alliance, has dropped to 100,000 from a Cold 
     War high of 350,000.
       Joulwan argues for expanding NATO eastward. That is the 
     determination of both the North Atlantic Council that governs 
     NATO and of his own commander in chief, President Clinton. 
     (Republican challenger Bob Dole also favors allowing former 
     Warsaw Pact states into NATO.)
       But no military threat requires expanding NATO, 
     particularly at a time when the wounded Russian bear would 
     feel caged, provoked.
       True, partnership training exercises between NATO and the 
     armies of the East can teach discipline, order and the 
     powerful concept of control over the military by a 
     democratically elected civilian government. But even Joulwan 
     avers that America ``stands for much more than ships, tanks 
     and planes. It stands for shared values that are sought in 
     the rest of Europe.''
       Military alliances are no substitute for political and 
     economic integration, and that is the best way to share 
     western values with Central and Eastern Europe. Proof of that 
     rests in the dusty archives of American diplomacy, in a 
     proposal mostly forgotten as a casualty of the Moscow-
     Washington competition.
       It's not widely remembered, but the Marshall Plan 
     envisioned America's investing billions of dollars in Eastern 
     Europe--yes, even in Russia--as well as in the West. Moscow 
     vetoed that aid, so Marshall's visionary proposal benefited 
     Western Europe alone.
       Time to dust that plan off. The successor administration of 
     the Marshall Plan, the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
     and Development, is alive and healthy today. Along with 
     European Union membership and American guidance, it 
     represents the best strategy for integrating the new 
     Europe.

                          ____________________