RUSSIAN DEFECTOR GIVES WITNESS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VOICE OF AMERICA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000100050038-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 11, 2010
• Sequence Number: 38
• Publication Date: September 3, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN

25 YEAR R'
Approved For Release 2010/05/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100050038-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX September 23
A5978
We applaud the President for going di-
rectly to the country in this fashion. He has
left no doubt in anybody's mind that In his
view the national welfare demands passage
of the tax bill for economic health, as it de-
mands ratification of the test ban treaty for
e cause of peace. If the country agrees
th him, as e believe it does, then the peo-
p sho 1 t Congress know how they feel.
Defector Gives Witness to the
Effectiveness of the Voice of America
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
or
HON. HENRY S. REUSS
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 3, 1963
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, the testi-
mony of a Russian defector before the
House Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities last week produced very hearten-
ing evidence of the effectiveness of the
Voice of America. The account of the
defector's appearance follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
Sept. 19, 1963]
RUSSIAN SHIP JUMPER HAILS VOICE PROGRAMS
(By Robert K. Walsh)
A Russian seaman who defected to the
United States told a House committee today
he was influenced by Voice of America broad-
casts and books about this country.
A resident of Washington for the last 3
months and an English-language student at
Georgetown University, Vladislaw S. Tarasov
related how he jumped from a Soviet tanker
in a Calcutta harbor last November and swam
to a nearby American ship to ask political
asylum.
Testifying before the House Committee on
Un-American Activities, in calm -contrast to
uproarious sessions last week on the Cuban
visit of a U.S. youth group, the 25-year-old
witness gave this basic reason for leaving
Russia:
"In 1961 and 1962, I began to feel that in
the U.S.S.R. I was only a grain of sand in a
desert which at any moment could be blown
anywhere by the wind of the dictatorial pow-
ers. All my life I had been dependent on the
whims of other people. -
"We had to defend and promote the bu-
reaucratic directives and explain the party
line to the masses. That meant we must lie
out of fear of losing our means of livelihood
and even physical freedom."
He said that during those years he had a
chance to listen to some Voice of America
broadcasts and read Russian translations of
several books including works by Theodore
Dreiser, Mark Twain, and Jack London.
"I came to understand that America is
the leading country of the free world."
he said. "I became convinced that people
there really are equal under the law and that
each person is able to build his own life
without directives from above."
Committee members complimented him on
his progress in learning English. He had to
confer occasionally with an interpreter but
seldom hesitated in answering questions.
Committee Chairman Wn.r..xs, Democrat, of
Louisiana, said Mr. Tarasov was a good ex-
ample to others in Communist-controlled
countries. He said other Russians "would
have no reason to worry about -the reception
they will get if they come to the free world;
so long as they meet all proper screening
requirements." ? '
, Mr. Tarasov told how he Was held in cus-
tody by authorities in India after leaving the.
Soviet ship, but was released after a "thor-
ough investigation and very democratic court
proceedings."
He said the Russians accused him of having
stolen money from the tanker but produced
no witnesses or documents to back up the
charge. ?
Mr. Tarasov said he was not a member of
the Communist Party although he had to
join a Communist youth organization to at-
tend a nautical school to study electrical en-
gineering. He added that he apparently was
under suspicion for some time on Soviet ships
because he once found a ship's political of-
ficer searching his room.
Has the Soviet Union Already Set Us
Up for .the Kill?
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. BRUCE ALGER
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, September 23, 1963
Mr. ALGER. Mr. Speaker, how far
has the Kennedy administration already
committed us to the Russian point of
view regarding disarmament? This is
a question, it seems to me, that should
be answered.
On the one hand we are told by the
President that approval of the test ban
treaty will not mean a lessening in our
preparedness. Then we learn that
approaches have already been made for
high-level discussion with Khrushchev
on additional steps to bring about dis-
armament. The President seeks joint
United States and Soviet Union explor-
ation of the moon, but makes no demands
that Russian troops get out of Cuba.
Truly, the administration follows a
strange and fearful course and seems
undismayed that the Communist con-
spiracy grows in aggressiveness and the'
United States continues to suffer defeats
in Laos. Vietnam, and other areas of
the world from Communists. If the ad-
ministration, of itself, cannot muster the
courage nor the understanding to pro-
tect the security of the United States,
then Congress can do no less than to
arouse the American people to the danger
of inaction.
In this spirit I would like to include
two articles. One, a column by Dr. Rob-
ert Morris as a part of his regular fea-
ture, "Around the World," and second,
an interview from U.S. News & World Re-
port of September 30 with Dr. Zbigniew
Brzerinski, an authority on Communist
affairs, "Has Khrushchev Changed His
Ways?"
The articles follow:
Hama We Go AGA.=
of the treaty, maintain an apparatus to test
in the atmosphere, if necessary, and to main-
tain monitoring safeguards. Just watch
those melt away as we go step by step toward
what is euphemistically but erroneously
called "disarmament."
- Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson of Can-
ada is performing his predicted role of speed-
ing up the process. After the opening of
debate at the General Assembly of the U.N.he said:
"The Secretary General in a recent speech
has emphasized the advantage it would be
'if countries would in their national mili-
tary planning make provision for suitable
units which would be made available at
short notice for U.N. service and thereby
decrease the degree of improvisation neces-
sary in an emergency.'
"My own country now maintains forces,
trained and equipped for the purpose, which
can be placed at the disposal of the United
Nations on short notice anywhere in the
world." -
As the test ban treaty thus blends into
the disarmament discussions, we are being
treated to the spectacle of top military men.
and now Senators, one after another, make
the statement that the treaty contains mili-
tary risks?serious risks?but that since the
United States has- committed itself on the
world forum, a vote against the treaty would
cause harm in the eyes of the nations of the
world, yearning for peace. That was the
conclusion of Gen. Curtis LeMay. It is the
position of a number of Senators. The
man responsible for 90 percent of the strate-
gic striking force of the country, Gen
Thomas Power, goes further. He is flatly
against the treaty. So is General Schriever
who is responsible for most of our advanced
weapons system. Even the so-called tom
of face to the Nation cannot offset their
professional and competent judgments.
But let us look how we got into this un-
enviable position in the first place. Averel
Harriman went to Moscow in July to nego-
tiate the treaty. After a series of spectacular
but apparently unprofessional meetings
marked by our Mr. Harriman and Khru-
shchev embracing each other before the eye:
of the world, we heard' that a treaty War
negotiated. No one knew what was in it
except we did learn that the right of inspec-
-lion, which our President had earlier in-
sisted was indispensable; was quietly sur-
rendered by us.
After it had been negotiated, we learnec
what was in it. It contained ambiguitier
and legs/ inconsistencies. 'The wording or
the treaty forbidding "any other nuclear ex-
plosion" was directly opposite to the inter-
pretation of the treaty vent to the Benet(
by Under Secretary George Ball, which die.
in fact allow for other explosions. Even tilt
State Department admitted legal inade-
quacies in the wording.
But then other nations?more than 90 al
this Writing?began to sign, Many on th:
basis that the United States had done so.
The fact of the matter is that the Senate
is presented with an accomplished fact
The spirit of the Constitution is clear13
thwarted. Here is what It says: article II
section 2, paragraph 2. ? - -.??
"He (the President) shall aave power 1:1!
-and with the advice and-.Consent of th
to :
Senate make treaties, provided two-third
(By Robert Morris)
:
of the Senator' predent occur."
The Soviet Union's invitation to President Not only has the Constitution been Vitt-
Kennedy to -meet Premier Khrushchev in ated but the pressure' campaign waged or
Moscow next year to negotiate a treaty "for each Senator who had recognized the den-
general and complete disarmament" points gem has bean a trial rim fer the next _round
up how fast we are now moving. This comes the disarmament
treaty 1c_r
even before the "atinei"..of. that agreement, AnalYsed now;;.the disartdamerit treaty w,
the teat ban treaty, has.heen ratified by the have already offered;:dedifiliat lanvide for
Senate. ? -.? - disarmament at 0114,WaWiftltostcnr, our
after _we have received speoille amoureuse* . Araerieaneintessiti At -out for
? This move also comes we
' ' lust after . 'have Chia pato PlidinerS.
been assured that we. 1411, :nat.. disarm . and us. as
-
after
we wiactest .1a4eramm4Joa,tha- pm* 'r,a,naa.
-
- Approved For Release 2010/05/11: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100050038-7
Approved For Release 2010/05/11: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100050038-7
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
In this instance, if the Government re-
duces taxes while it has a $9 billion deficit
(or more) that $9 billion must be taken
out of the hide of the economy In some
other fashion. In practice the Government
will simply print up 9 billion paper dollars.
The resulting inflation will take back from
the people the relief which the Government
professes to give by lower tax rates.
Moreover, it is not true that every tax bill
that offers lower rates is all to the good.
Individual parts of the bill itself cannot be
taken as isolated, piecemeal moves. And the
whole of this particular tax bill Is by no
means an unqualified boon to the public
weal.
For example, .it is wrong to Imply that
every wage-earner and every businessman
will find his taxes lower as a remit of this
bill. The effect of the changed rules on the
particular situations of some people will be
increased taxes. What is true is that some-
thing likes a million taxpayers will be re-
moved from the Federal tax rolls entirely.
This, no doubt, Is a political blessing for
these million voters. But it is no boon for
the country. First of all it is this total
forgiveness of some taxes that accounts for
the greater part of total revenue loss to the
Government. More importantly, it means
that some million or so citizens, reaping the
benefits of Government, will contribute
nothing toward its support. So they will
hereafter be little concerned whether the cost
of that Government be high or low. A worse
example of irresponsible politics would be
hard to find.
It is all these things?and not the desira-
bility of lower taxes?that is at issue. And
it is all these things?and not a whimsical
desire to continue higher taxes?that impels
the Republican Members of the House to link
the tax bill to the achieving of curtailed
spending. They would make tax cuts de-
pendent upon next January's actual budget.
President Kennedy, let it be said, is not un-
moved by these arguments. That is why he
has now pledged a tighter rein on Federal
expenditures, reducing his deficit estimate for
the current year and promising to keep next
year's deficit to a handful of billions instead
of bucketfuls. He has even pledged a course
leading eventually to a balanced budget.
We are not unmoved either by these wel-
come assurances. But unfortunately such
Presidential pledges have themselvai been de-
valued by inflation. President Truman and
President Eisenhower both spoke of their
devotion to fiscal responsibility; neither
achieved it, Indeed, the grave threat to the
dollar which now so harasses President Ken-
nedy is largely a heritage of snch broken
pledges, both those of his predecessors and
his own.
So if there is a certain cynicism In the
Congress, that is understandable. And if
there is an effort to forge some solid link be-
tween tax reduction and spending reduction,
that is desirable. For the real cause of the
country's economic problems, including the
shameful plight of the U.S. dollar, is not just
the years of high taxes but the wasted years
of almost total economic irresponsibility.
Curing that?not piecemeal tinkering--is
the Nation's truly urgent need. ?
Editorial Comment on the President's Tax
Bin
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OP
HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS
OF le111801711
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
' Monday. September 23.913 4
Mr CIIRTIS. Mr. Speaker, under
leave to extend my remarks I would like
to insert in the Appendix of the ttECORD
two editorials. The first appeared in
the September 20, 1963, issue of the tit.
Louis Globe-Democrat and is entitled
"Political Tax-Cut Plea" and the second
Is from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of
September 19, 1963, and is entitled "Di-
rectly to the People":
[From the St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
Sept. 20, 1963]
Poi.rricst. Tax-Ctrr Pisa
The President has made a glittering ap-
peal, over the heads of Congress, for passage
of his $11 billion tax reduction scheme. It
was quite a show of political paternalism
from the great White HouSe father. Who
doesn't hate taxes?
Nothing could be finer in the state of
federalia than to dangle a mouth-watering
tax cut before voters on the eve pi a na-
tional campaign.
Mr. Kennedy may have been convinced of
his arguments, but his speech was, from the
standstill of economics, as phony as a $3
bill.
Any intelligent person, and he doesn't have
to be an economist, will concede that Fed-
eral taxation is too high. It throttles
incentive, has critically handicapped renewal
and modernization of the Nation's industrial
plant. It oppresses all of us individually.
The economic structure needs a slash In
national taxes. But such a mov without
corresponding cute in Federal expenditure,
or at least without a sure curb against in-
creased Federal spending, Is irrational, dan-
gerous, and fiscally profligate.
It would mean new seas of red ink, which
already have spread out of all reason. We
now pay about $10 billion a year just for
interest on the Federal debt.
It would mean that in addition to the
$19 billion of public debt the Kennedy ad-
ministration haii already rolled up the last
3 years, the President's tax knifing, plus his
plans for bigger spending, would add an-
other $50 billion to the debt? according to
the Republican minority report of the House
Ways and Means Committee.
We are for tax cats. Who isn't? But
downward adjustment of wartime income
levies should be welded to curtailed expend-
itures, an end to the prodigal spending con-
ceits of the New Frontier.
Mr. Kennedy said: "We have placed an
ever tighter rein on Federal expenditures,
limiting our outlays ? ? ? spending will be
controlled and the deficit reduced."
Yet Mr. Kennedy and his administration
have measures in Congress for public aid to
education which would cost $2.5 billion in
about 3 years; for "medicare," estimated to
run $1.3 billion a year in new taxes; a mush-
roomed Area Redevelopment Agency budget
of $650 million for "distressed" sectors, many
of which don't need Washington handouts at
all; for the useless, costly "Domestic Peace
Corps."
The President made his tax plea on the eve
of departure for a "nonpolitical" tour of
some 12 States, where Interior Secretary
Udall is pushing Federal power grid projects
estimated at $2,548 million of national tax
funds: Civilian employees of Washington
Government are steadily increasing.
About the only Federal purlieu showing
some effort at economizing is the Defense De-
partment. There is room in Defense for
squeezing out fat, but this is obviously the
area of Government that needs maximum
fiscal support more than any other.
Probably, as the President argues, a tax re-
duction can spur industrial expansion to
provide more jobs; unemployment is indeed
a critical problem. But what profit to
workers or to the Nation, if new spending?
piling debt on debt?inflates the dollar and
robs the people of purchasing power?
There is no magic about Washington's big
brother profligacy, in the name of social wel-
45977
fare. There Is never a dollar spent by Gov-
ernment that docent come out of taxpayers'
pocketbooks. If not paid by us, the dollars
Must be paid with egregkrus interest by our
children and grandchudren?or the Nation
plummets in a financial debacle. ' ?
Mr. Kennedy was right when he mid "the
Nation needs a tax eut now." It needed one
In 1960, 1951, and HIM Even 'before. But it
Is utterly foolhardy to make such reductions
without halting the free-banded spend pro-
clivities of the?Washington establishment.
Federal fiscal policy cannot be evolved by
-rubbing an Aladdin's lamp with a gleaming
eye on election returns. , . -
The sooner the public becomes closely
aware that you cannot get something for
nothing?from the clan or any socialistic
Junta in Washington?the sounder our econ-
omy will become.
Let's have tax cuts, and "now." But they
must be tied in fully with reduction, at least
a hard ceiling, to bar Federal overspend
manias.
IF'rom the St- Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 19,
, 19631
, Masons To inn Pnorra ?
President Kennedy's television address
Wednesday evening was a strong appeal, not
only for passage of the tax reduction bill,
but for rejection of efforts to saddle it with
unwise restrictions on Federal expenditures.
Both objectives are essential, We believe, to
the Nation's economic health.
It Is easy to denounce the fiscal immoral-
ity Of reducing tams without also reducing
expenditures, but the urgent problem of in-
creasing our economic growth rate cannot be
solved by such a simple resort to slogans.
Tax reduction is needed because all recent
experience demonstrates that the present
level of taxation acts as a brake on economic
expansion at a certain stage of the business
cycle.
Just as the built-in stabilizers of social se-
curity outlays, unemployment Insurance,
and the like coalltion and retard excessive
contraction of the economy in a recession,
so the tax structure in every recent recovery
period has damped down expansion well be-
fore the point Of full employment was
reached. Hence, the paradox of persistent
unemployment and pockets of poverty In an
affluent society?a paradox which must be
delt with.
Passing the tax cut but hobbling fiscal
policy with arbitrary limits on Government
spending would be unwise for two reasons.
It would disrupt the orderly operations of
Government, and it would reduce the eco-
nomic effectiveness of the tax cut.
Congress possesses full power to limit Fed-
eral expenditures by limiting the appropria-
tion of funds; to appropriate the funds but
then require the administration to stay
within an overall spending limitation' would
require the meat-ax slashing of all programs,
regardless of merit or their importance to
vital national responsibilities. The time to
balance the budget is after the tax cut has
helped to expand the economy, thereby ex-
panding the tax base. To attempt a bal-
ance prematurely would be to create pur-
chasing power with one hand and deplete
it with the other.
As President Kennedy emphasized, this
does not mean adopting a policy of deliber-
ate waste or profligacy. His indorsement of
the statement of intent written into the tax
bill by Representative Mats commits him
to an eventual budget balanoe and reduc-
tion of the public debt. But the goal must
be a balanced budget in a balanced full-em-
ployincnt economy. To strive for the first
without taking the necessary steps to estab-
lish the second Is, as all our postwar experi-
ence proves, an exercise in futility:- tor un-
less the economy can be made to grow at a
Satisfactory rate, not even the best of in-
tentions will balance the budget. %. ,
Approved For Release 2010/05/11: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100050038-7