Sam Gejdenson: “I think the descriptive term that was used by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) may be the…”

“I think the descriptive term that was used by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) may be the right one, but it is about the underlying amendment, not opposition to it. As I read this, yes, and again, I like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I get along with him well, I know his intentions are noble. But would the author of the legislation prohibit the American military from sitting down with the Chinese to deal with nonproliferation issues? If we had not just reached this conclusion in Kosovo, it would be illegal under the language of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to sit down and talk about logistics with the Chinese. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) apparently does not trust our American military, that they are either too naive or simple, that somehow the Chinese are going to take advantage of them. Let me tell the Members, we live in a free and open society. Anybody who wants to talk to the American military can look in the phone book and call them up and talk to them. We do not get to talk to Chinese, generally, because it is a closed society. I would argue that whether it was the Soviet Union or any of the satellite states, that any time there was contact, at the end of the day, America and freedom won. I believe our system is stronger, our military is more capable, and every time they come in contact with America and what it does, they crumble a little more.”