[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3106-H3108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT OF UNITED STATES TO PRINCIPLES OF THE MARSHALL
PLAN
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 63) expressing the sense of the
Congress regarding the 50th anniversary of the Marshall plan and
reaffirming the commitment of the United States to the principles that
led to the establishment of that program.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 63
Whereas on June 5, 1947, in a speech at Harvard University,
then-Secretary of State George C. Marshall proposed the
establishment of a joint American-European program to provide
assistance, ``so far as it may be practical for us to do
so,'' to assist the countries of Europe to recover from the
devastation of World War II, and that program was
subsequently called ``The Marshall Plan'' in recognition of
the pivotal role of Secretary of State Marshall in its
establishment;
Whereas then-President Harry S Truman had earlier
enunciated the principle of assisting democratic countries
which faced the threat of communist aggression and thus laid
the foundation for the Marshall Plan with the ``Truman
Doctrine'' which provided economic and military assistance to
Greece and Turkey, and this farsighted policy represented a
reversal of longstanding United States policy of avoiding
peacetime involvement in foreign military and political
affairs;
Whereas the Marshall Plan was developed, refined, and
enacted with the broad bipartisan involvement of the Congress
of the United States, including in particular the efforts of
Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg of Michigan and Congressman
Christian A. Herter of Massachusetts;
Whereas the Congress provided an estimated $13,300,000,000
to assist the sixteen European countries which participated
in the Marshall Plan during the four-year period of its
existence, and this material contribution represented a
significant sacrifice by the American people;
Whereas the assistance provided under the Marshall Plan
served to ``prime the pump'' to stimulate the economies of
the participating European countries and resulted in an
average growth of 41 percent in industrial production and an
average growth of 33.5 percent in per capita gross national
product during the four years of the program;
Whereas the spectacular economic revival of the countries
of Western Europe would not have been possible without the
creativity, technical skills, managerial competence, and hard
work of the European peoples; nevertheless, the Marshall Plan
was a vital element in assisting the European peoples in the
postwar economic recovery;
Whereas the multinational economic cooperation required and
encouraged by the Marshall Plan was a significant impetus in
fostering transnational European economic cooperation and
unity which ultimately helped to pave the way for the North
Atlantic Treaty, in developing the multifaceted relationship
between the United States and the countries of Europe, and in
contributing to the establishment of the European Union; and
Whereas 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the original
speech by Secretary of State George C. Marshall calling for
the establishment of the Marshall Plan: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) urges all Americans on the 50th anniversary of the
Marshall Plan to reflect upon the significance of this
program as a concrete embodiment of the commitment of the
United States to fostering peaceful relations with the
economic prosperity of the countries of Europe;
(2) reaffirms the commitment that was expressed in the
original Marshall Plan (``Economic Cooperation Act of 1948,''
sec. 102, Public Law 80-472) was enacted--namely, that
``intimate economic and other relationships exist between the
United States and the nations of Europe,'' that extensive and
friendly relations with the nations of Europe and with the
community of European nations is vital to the promotion of
``the general welfare and national interest of the United
States'' and that the prosperity and security of Europe are
essential to ``the establishment of a lasting peace''; and
(3) acknowledges and commends the efforts of those
countries which originally participated in the Marshall Plan
to assist the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the
newly independent republics of the former Soviet Union in
their efforts to develop market economies and democratic
political systems as a reflection of the same generous spirit
that motivated the people of the United States to help these
Western European countries fifty years ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this timely resolution draws our attention to the 50th
anniversary of the Marshall plan which will be celebrated on June 5. It
reminds us of the grand commitment made by Secretary of State George
Marshall and President Harry Truman, supported by a farsighted
bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators. It was this commitment
that made possible the economic prosperity which we have now come to
take for granted in Western Europe and allowed democratic institutions
to develop and thrive.
Most importantly, it allowed the peoples of Western Europe, who are
now our closest allies, to emerge from the ashes of the Second World
War and to rebuild their lives anew.
As we reflect back on those troubled and uncertain times that
followed the end of World War II, we should renew the commitment to the
principles that underlaid our actions at that time, and remember that
there remain people in Central and Eastern Europe as well as the former
Soviet Union who were prevented from benefiting from the Marshall plan,
and who now look to us to do for them what was done for the Europeans
some 50 years ago.
Fortunately, today it is not up to our Nation alone to perform that
task, a task made even more daunting by the legacy of the Communist
system that prevailed for all the years that Western Europe was
developing and getting back on its feet. Today we can count on the
support of those very same nations that benefited from the vision that
gave birth to the Marshall plan to do for the New Independent States
what was done for them half a century ago.
This resolution rightfully acknowledges and commends the efforts of
our friends and allies to assist the newly independent nations of
Central and Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union to develop
free market economies and democratic political systems.
I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos] for his
good work in seeing to it that we accord this important anniversary its
due recognition, and I am pleased to have been an original cosponsor of
this resolution. I also commend our ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] in helping us bring this measure
to the floor at this time. I ask the House to lend itself unanimous
support to this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and I rise in support of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to underline the importance of
commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Marshall plan. The Marshall
plan laid the groundwork for the strong and close postwar political,
economic, and military relationship between the United States and
Europe. And, of course, that relationship remains the cornerstone of
our security policy today.
I think, without any question, the Marshall plan was one of the
greatest events in American political history and American diplomatic
history. I want especially to thank my friend and colleague from
California, Mr. Lantos, for his leadership and for his foresight in
bringing this resolution before us. And of course, I am grateful to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the other cosponsors of House
Concurrent Resolution 63, but it is really the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lantos] who deserves the chief credit, I think, for
bringing this resolution forward.
It is a very important resolution. It not only underscores the close
transatlantic relationship that exists today, it comes at a time when
many Europeans are anxious to underscore the importance of the
transatlantic tie, at least as we talk about the enlargement of NATO
and some of the concerns that our European friends have about the
growing isolationist tendencies in this country and in the Congress.
[[Page H3107]]
It is also important, I think, that we express our support now for
the aspect of the resolution calling for efforts by the European
beneficiaries of the Marshall plan to turn now to help the emerging
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. This is an important
resolution, and I urge its support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Lantos].
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Indiana, Mr.
Hamilton, for yielding me the time, and I want to thank the
distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, and the
distinguished Democratic ranking member, Mr. Hamilton, for supporting
my resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the end of the Second World War found Europe at a hinge
of history. And had it not been for the Marshall plan and related
events, the whole history of mankind during the last half century and
beyond could have turned out in a totally different and in a totally
ugly fashion.
The Soviet empire was ready to expand its control and influence
beyond Eastern and Central Europe to Western Europe, and it was the
incredible vision and courage and determination of U.S. bipartisan
foreign policy leadership that stood in the way. It began with
President Truman's enunciation of the Truman Doctrine, which provided
economic and military assistance to Greece and Turkey at a most
critical moment, followed by, 50 years ago this summer, the historic
remarks of Secretary of State Marshall calling for the nations of
Europe to come together, rebuild their devastated economies, and forge
the framework for political democracy.
I was a young student in Budapest at that time, Mr. Speaker, and it
was my privilege on Radio Budapest to call on the Government of Hungary
to join the Marshall plan because the Marshall plan was open to the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe. But of course, the Soviet
Union vetoed any such attempt. And we have seen over the last half a
century a differential development in Europe, spectacular economic
growth in Western Europe, and devastation, destruction and backwardness
in Central and Eastern Europe until the collapse of the wall in the
last few years.
I think it is important to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that in today's
dollars, the Marshall plan represented a commitment of some $135
billion by the United States to help the Nations of Western Europe to
rebuild their economies. This was the largest philanthropic enterprise
in the history of the world. We went in to do good, and we did well.
Europe's prosperity contributed enormously to our own prosperity. And
Europe's ability to develop Democratic societies has enabled us first
to prevent Soviet expansion and, with the creation of NATO, to see the
disintegration of the Soviet empire.
We now are at phase 2. We are now asking the question, are we going
to have anywhere near the comparable, vis-a-vis Central Europe, Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union, to see to it that these countries
and these peoples will also have the opportunity of developing viable
economies and strong and Democratic societies.
This is the opportunity for our Western European friends to show a
forward-looking outlook with respect to the European Union to open up
the European Union to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, just
as we provided the Nations of Western Europe with the aid and
assistance to rebuild their economies.
It is our joint opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that as the
various countries of the region qualify for NATO, we in fact open the
doors of NATO so we expand the arena of peace, stability, democracy,
and respect for human rights throughout the European Continent.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to underscore that
while in 1947 we were a country enormously limited in resources, we had
unlimited vision on the part of our political leadership, and what we
have to hope for now is that our political leadership on a bipartisan
basis recognizes the same opportunities with respect to Central and
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union that the leadership 50 years
ago recognized in the Marshall plan.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some comments about the
Marshall plan because my interpretation is somewhat different than the
conventional wisdom of the past 50 years.
I happen to believe the understanding of the Marshall plan is
probably one of the most misunderstood economics events of the 20th
century. The benefits are grossly overstated. The Marshall plan through
these many years has been used as the moral justification for all
additional foreign aid. And once I hear it, I assume we are on the
verge of extending and expanding our foreign aid overseas.
When we look at the total amount of money that flowed into Europe
following World War II, the amount that came from the American
taxpayers was not large. The large amount came from corporations and
investors who believed that Europe would be safe and secure, so the
large number of dollars then flowed into Europe.
It was interesting that the conditions were improved in Europe not so
much because of America but sometimes in spite of America, because many
of our economists went to Europe at this time and advised them that the
most important thing that they do, especially in Germany, was to
maintain price controls. Here in this country we did not learn, and
hopefully we have finally learned the lesson, but we had not learned
until at least 1971 that wage and price controls were not a good idea.
{time} 1315
Yet Ludwig Erhard at that time defied the strong advice by the
American advisers and took off wage and price controls, kept taxes low,
kept regulations low, produced political conditions which were very
conducive to investment, and this is what caused the real recovery in
Europe.
Political assistance, funds flowing into a country through political
maneuvers, are never superior to those funds that flow into a country
for reasons of the political stability. Because Europe did invite
capital, this was the real reason why Europe recovered.
Foreign aid is used frequently throughout the world to help people.
But if we look at Zaire and Rwanda and the many countries of the world,
foreign aid has really been a gross failure. As a matter of fact, it
does harm because it encourages the status quo. The market is much
smarter than we as politicians, because if the market and the political
conditions are not right, that country that wants capital must improve
those conditions to invite the capital. A good example might be in
Vietnam at the current time. They changed their conditions to invite
capital. So there must be an incentive for those countries to change
their condition.
Foreign aid very often and very accurately, I believe, is a condition
of taking money from the poor people in a rich country and giving it to
the rich people of a poor country. I think there is a lot of truth to
that, because the burden of taxation and inflation and the many things
that our average citizen and our middle-class citizen suffer comes from
overexpenditures and good intentions whether they are here at home or
overseas. We believed at that time, and strongly so, I guess, still,
that the government's responsibility, whether it is through government
expenditures or through the inflationary machinery of the Federal
Reserve, that if we stimulate an economy, if we prime the pump, so to
speak, that we can stimulate the economy. This was the argument after
World War II, that we would prime the pump. That is not a free market
notion, that is a Keynesian notion. There has been no proof that this
is beneficial. Really what counts is a sound currency. Germany after
World War II and even to this date is known to have a harder and
sounder currency than any other currency in Europe. Political stability
is what is necessary, not taking money from taxpayers of one country
and shifting it to another one.
Foreign aid very often, not so much the foreign aid that went to
Europe, and I would grant my colleagues, the other conditions
compensated and did not allow the foreign aid to be damaging so much as
the foreign aid, say, to
[[Page H3108]]
a country like Rwanda. That was so destabilizing, because the
politicians get hold of the money and they use it for political
reasons. Money to help a country must go in because conditions are
beneficial, that encourage investment, that encourage the market to
work.
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that there is a different interpretation,
but I know that the support for this measure is justified.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond to my
colleague's comments. While I think he is well-intentioned, there are
some issues that I think have to be addressed.
The United States, at the end of World War II, spent $16 billion in
1950's dollars in western Europe because we understood that while the
best avenue may be the private-sector initiatives and other issues at
hand, the reality was that without that economic assistance, there was
a danger that western Europe would destabilize and that much of it
would be taken over by Soviet influence. We recognized that short-term
expenditure was the right thing to do for human rights, for economic
opportunity, for political rights. I think to say that that model only
worked about one time in history frankly does not meet the historical
test.
If we take a look at the countries that are our biggest purchasers of
grain products today, they are many of the countries that started off
under a PL-480 program. To argue that there are still some countries in
the world that have not recovered is not, frankly, an astounding
argument. When we look at any program, it works best on certain areas,
and other areas are more difficult to get to. It does not mean that
there is not a benefit to us in that area.
Let me finish with these two points, and I will yield to the
gentleman from Texas.
That is, every place we have played a major role in establishing
democratic governments, governments that respect human rights, not only
have we done the right thing, we then turn out to have the best markets
there; but it has taken a cooperation between government and the
private sector, and we cannot do it without both.
I would say the same thing has happened in agricultural sales: that
in the countries where we have provided the most generosity of the
American people to providing assistance, those are the countries that
have turned out to be the largest purchasers of American agricultural
products, which helps our trade balance immensely.
Lastly, I would say that if the gentleman thinks the tax burden in
this country is distributed badly, I agree with that. Let us vote for a
progressive tax. There is a very easy solution to that.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would vote to change the taxes, but mainly
to lower them for everybody. The point that I am trying to make is that
the large amount of capital that helped Europe recover did not come
from the taxpayers. That was a small amount. There were a lot of other
investors that went into Europe. The key reason was the political
stability and the good economic climate which Erhard helped to
introduce. I think that is much important.
There is a difference between what happened in Europe versus the
waste that we had in Rwanda. We did not do the people, the poor people
of Rwanda, very many favors by sending money down there that became a
political weapon to suppress the poor.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to some of the observations the gentleman from Texas made.
I think the gentleman from Texas is correct in recognizing the
importance of private investment flows to Europe. I think they played
an absolutely critical role in European recovery. But I wonder whether
he would not agree with me that without creating the framework of
political stability, military security, the rebuilding of the
infrastructure, the absolutely indispensable achievements of the
Marshall plan, none of that capital would have flowed into Europe.
I was in Europe in 1945 and in 1946 and in 1947 and it was a
continent of devastation, destruction, hopelessness and despair. No
American company was interested in investing in a battlefield, which
Europe was at the end of the Second World War. It was the creativity
and the vision of American political leadership on a bipartisan basis
that created the framework for all of the subsequent investments and
trade which flowed after the basic preconditions were created by the
Marshall plan.
My friend from Texas should rejoice with us that this was a shining
moment of American history. It was one of the most beautiful moments of
American history when we went in to do good and succeeded in doing well
for us and for our European friends.
I do not see any point in diminishing this achievement of President
Truman and Secretary of State Marshall and Senator Vandenberg and
Congressman Christian Herter, who served in this body and who as a
Republican did so much to support these measures. When the history of
this century is written, there will be a shining moment of American
bipartisan political leadership which is represented as we celebrate it
with the Marshall plan.
What is called for now is a recognition that the Marshall plan,
because of Soviet occupation of central and eastern Europe, could only
do half the job. It could only do the job in western Europe. We along
with our European friends now have an opportunity to complete the job.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there could not be an argument made that
every dollar that we sent to Europe did not have some beneficial
effect. Quite possibly it did. But my point is that if that money from
the taxpayer had not been sent, there is nothing that says it might not
have been sent through the investors, but it depended on the political
climate and what they did. I do not want to deemphasize that. That is
the important reason why this foreign aid was not as harmful as it
usually is, and it had some benefits, mainly because of the political
climate.
Mr. LANTOS. If I may reclaim my time, not only was it not harmful, it
was the inevitable precondition of development. The gentleman should be
open-minded enough to admit that this was an enormously statesmanlike
and incredibly successful measure, and I have difficulty visualizing
the need 50 years later, looking at a success story, trying to
denigrate it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for his
important, constructive contributions to this debate. I would like to
note to our colleagues, in our proposed Foreign Policy Reform Act, we
are trying to move from government-to-government aid to aid that
benefits the private and voluntary sectors. We are involved in trying
to reform foreign aid and to encourage and stimulate private investment
in the developing world.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House
Concurrent Resolution 63.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________