[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 162 (Tuesday, November 16, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2401-E2403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   TESTIMONY OF RICHARD A. DELGAUDIO

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. BOB BARR

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 16, 1999

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the 
Record the following testimony offered in printed form to the United 
States Senate Armed Services Committee on October 22, 1999 by Richard 
A. Delgaudio.

       Mr. Chairman, distinguished Senators, ladies and gentlemen, 
     my name is Richard A. Delgaudio, and I appreciate your taking 
     the time today to review my testimony which I have been told 
     will be recorded in the official transcript of today's U.S. 
     Senate Armed Services Committee proceedings. As I submit this 
     testimony, I place my hand on my Catholic bible and swear 
     that this is the truth as I know it, and I dedicate these 
     words to His name.
       I have served during the twelve years' existence of 
     National Security Center as its President, have sponsored 
     four fact-finding trips to Panama and have personally 
     participated in an additional four such trips. I have done 
     research on, have spoken before audiences from one end of 
     this country to the other, from Florida to New York to 
     Washington, DC to California to Ohio to points in between, 
     and have written and published articles, newsletters and 
     books on this topic. I have been on more than 100 radio talk 
     shows on this subject matter. I am the publisher of Captain 
     G. Russell Evans' Death Knell of the Panama Canal? and author 
     of Peril in Panama, both published by National Security 
     Center, with a combined distribution of 1.2 million. I have 
     published Panama Alert newsletter for the past ten years. And 
     I coined a phrase you may have already heard, and will be 
     hearing more of in the future: China is the new 
     ``Gatekeeper'' of the Panama Canal.
       I come before you today as an unabashed critic of the 
     current policy of the United States towards Panama. I come 
     before you in full agreement with the warning one year ago of 
     Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN (Ret.) before the Senate Foreign 
     Relations Committee. Admiral Moorer testified that unless the 
     current U.S. policy towards Panama is changed, then there 
     could be ``big trouble'' in Panama, trouble that could lead 
     to a military confrontation.
       I had earnestly desired to give you this testimony in 
     person today, and also to personally present to the Committee 
     the quarter of a million signed petitions from Americans from 
     all across the land who are very concerned about current U.S. 
     policy and pray that you see fit to reverse it.
       As Senators know, there have been occasions in the history 
     of the relationship between Panama and the United States, in 
     which American Presidents have felt it necessary to put our 
     boys into harms way at the Panama Canal to defend the 
     national security interest of the United States. Some of 
     those boys paid the ultimate price for following their orders 
     and doing their duty. Two dozen in Operation Just Cause, not 
     very long ago. National Security Center will, within the next 
     three weeks, be publishing a Panama Canal Calendar 2000 which 
     cites other dates where U.S. servicemen put their lives on 
     the line in Panama.
       I cannot believe that those American soldiers, airmen, 
     sailors and marines who died, who returned home wounded, and 
     all those who served, did this service for their country, 
     following the orders of mistaken Presidents. I firmly believe 
     that those orders they were given, especially orders given in 
     that Just Cause, were proper and right, both for the interest 
     of our country and for the long term interests of the people 
     of Panama and the United States.
       And so it is with some trepidation that I offer this 
     testimony today, for I fear that if my warning, and the 
     warning of my esteemed colleagues offering the Committee 
     testimony today, Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN (Ret.) Captain G. 
     Russell Evans, USCG (Ret.) and Bruce Fein, Esq., is not 
     heeded, then a higher casualty rate will be suffered by 
     American servicemen in a future Operation Just Cause to keep 
     the Panama Canal open, operational and secure. My focus in 
     today's testimony is on the question Senator Trent Lott asked 
     the Committee to focus on, ``Does Hutchison-Whampoa's 
     Chairman, billionaire Li Ka-shing, have ties to the Chinese 
     Communist Party, China's People's Liberation Army, or Chinese 
     intelligence activities.''
       My testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee is: 
     yes, Li Ka-shing does have strong ties to the Chinese 
     Communists. Li Ka-shing is China's Red billionaire, and he 
     has enabled his masters in Beijing to become the new 
     Gatekeeper of the Panama Canal. On December 31 (or perhaps on 
     December 14) of this year, China will, through Li Ka-shing, 
     be the uncontested, unchallenged, unwatched Gatekeeper of the 
     Panama Canal. Further, my testimony is: the government of the 
     United States has known all along about Li Ka-shing's ties to 
     Communist China, a self-proclaimed enemy of the United 
     States, and has offered no resistance whatsoever to that 
     government's now-successful move to control the entrance and 
     exit ports of the Panama Canal.
       The information that we have developed about Li Ka-shing, 
     China's Red billionaire, is mostly available in the public 
     record. Much of it has been collected and reported in my 
     book, Peril in Panama. Li Ka-shing is much more than the 
     elusive Hong Kong billionaire businessman that he has been 
     portrayed as. He has for many years also been one of the most 
     trusted allies of the Communist Chinese, well before they 
     took over Hong Kong, his base of operations.
       Li Ka-shing's influence is quiet, behind the scenes and 
     decisive. Shortly after his company took over in the Bahamas, 
     that country withdrew its recognition of Free China and 
     recognized Communist China. Do the Senators believe in such 
     coincidences?
       Li Ka-shing's relationship with the rulers of the Peoples 
     Republic of China goes back to the 1970's with Deng Xioaping. 
     When Li Ka-shing received an honorary degree from Beijing 
     University, on April 28, 1992, it was handed to him by none 
     other than Jian Zemin, the current dictator of the PRC.
       Why such an honor for Li Ka-shing? Simple. In the words of 
     Anthony B. Chan (Li Ka-shing: Hong Kong's Elusive 
     Billionaire), ``Li was the vital go-between that the 
     geriatric bosses of Beijing needed to firm up the support of 
     Hong Kong's other leading merchants in the smooth recovery of 
     the colony to China in 1997.''
       Li was very useful to the PRC in the takeover of Hong Kong. 
     He was always loyal to their cause, never critical. For 
     example: ``I was of course saddened (by the Tiananmen 
     massacre). But as a Chinese, China is my motherland. No 
     matter what happened, I am still willing to work for the 
     future of my country.''
       Senators need to understand fully, that these are Li Ka-
     shing's words giving the lie to those who say he is simply a 
     Hong Kong billionaire: ``As a Chinese, China is my 
     motherland'' (page 5, Li Ka-shing book).
       If he were just another Hong Kong businessman, how did Li 
     Ka-shing, in 1979, become a member of the China International

[[Page E2402]]

     Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC)? CITIC is Communist 
     China's top investment arm and the bank of the People's 
     Liberation Army. CITIC provides financing for Chinese army 
     weapons sales and finances the purchase of Western technology 
     through a variety of fronts. Li will of course deny that his 
     membership in the PRC's top government investment arm meant 
     he was allied with the PRC. But that was his path to power. 
     Li parleyed this association with Chinese power brokers into 
     the purchase of a controlling share in Hutchison-Whampoa, 
     which led to his becoming a billionaire.
       If he were not in the PRC's hip pocket, would Li Ka-shing 
     be running their commercial ports? Would he be running most 
     of south China's sea born trade? A Journal of Commerce report 
     by Joe Studwell reported that Li Ka-shing has a ``cozy 
     relationship'' with the Peoples Republic of China that is as 
     ``close as lips and teeth.'' Li Ka-shing was appointed a 
     member of the Preparatory Committee that oversaw Beijing's 
     takeover of Hong Kong in 1997. Among other things, the 
     committee eliminated the recently elected sixty-person 
     legislature, replacing it with puppets more helpful to the 
     PRC.
       There is ample evidence of the ties of Li Ka-shing to 
     Communist China. Here are several, some reported in my book, 
     Peril in Panama:
       Li has ``tried to secure CPPCC membership (Chinese Peoples 
     Political Consultative Conference) for his eldest son and 
     heir apparent, Victor Li Tzar-Kuoi, to keep contacts with the 
     top brass in Beijing.'' (Nikkei Weekly, 3/2/98).
       Nikkei Weekly reported that Li Ka-shing ``converted to the 
     pro-China camp in the late 1980's'' and was ``helping Chinese 
     companies affiliated with the People's Liberation Army enter 
     the Hong Kong market.''
       Senators are no doubt familiar with the Cox Report from the 
     other chamber, where there is ample documentation to 
     demonstrate to even the most skeptical how apparently private 
     businesses are used by the PRC as an arm of policy in 
     countries like the United States.
       Li Ka-shing ``posted congratulatory messages'' in a daily 
     Hong Kong newspaper operated by the PRC after their takeover 
     of the city (Asian Political News, 10/13/97).
       When PRC leaders came to Hong Kong to oversee their 
     takeover, their good and faithful servant, Li Ka-shing, 
     rolled out the red carpet (pardon the pun) for them. 
     Naturally, PRC leader Jiang Zemin stayed at one of Li's 
     hotels during the festivities. Many in the PRC delegation 
     skipped official British dinner ceremonies to dine with Li at 
     one of his hotels. Li stood with Jiang Zemin in a place of 
     honor during handover ceremonies but, skipped subsequent 
     celebrations because ``he is a target for pro-democracy 
     activists.'' (The Independent of London, 7/1/97).
       The Guardian of London (6/11/97) reported that Li and his 
     PRC allies are so powerful ``that even governments on the 
     other side of the world must reckon with their clout. A 
     recent decision by the Bahamas to sever diplomatic ties with 
     Beijing is widely thought to have been motivated by concern 
     over a newly opened port run by Hutchinson-Whampoa, Ltd., a 
     Hong Kong conglomerate controlled by Mr. Li, pro-China 
     mogul.''
       If he had that much influence in the nearby Bahamas, why 
     would Senators suppose the ``pro-China mogul'' would do any 
     less in further-away and much more important Panama?
       Asian Business (3/97) reports on Li Ka-shing's views on the 
     PRC leadership: ``Yes, I strongly believe in what they say.''
       If Li Ka-shing is given the order to slow down, shut down, 
     damage or even destroy the Panama Canal in some future United 
     States-China confrontation or any type of emergency where 
     United States troops, supplies and jet fuel are being rushed 
     through the Panama Canal, will he say ``Yes, I believe in 
     what they say?''
       Senators may suppose that some successful businessmen put 
     the interest of their business ahead of anything else, 
     including national interest. But putting the interest of the 
     PRC first has always been the best thing for the business of 
     Li Ka-shing. Why would Senators suppose that might change in 
     the future, at the Panama Canal?
       But let me provide more documentation.
       Li Ka-shing proudly serves as ``an advisor on Hong Kong 
     affairs to the Beijing government and has served on the 
     Selection Committee that picked Tung Chee-hwa'' as Hong 
     Kong's new top boss (Asian Business).
       I have a picture of Ronald Reagan hanging proudly in my 
     office. If Li Ka-shing is just a Hong Kong businessman, why 
     does he have a picture of the PRC dictator, Jiang Zemin, 
     hanging in his? (The Financial Times, 3/13/98).
       Press reports say Li publicly mourned the death of PRC 
     dictator Deng Xiaoping the day after he died (Agence France 
     Presse, 2/20-21, 1997).
       ``The Chinese Communist leaders turned for help to the 
     benevolent figure of a Hong Kong property billionaire, Li Ka-
     shing.'' (Sunday Times, 6/30/96).
       Hutchison-Whampoa ``is a partner with China Ocean Shipping 
     Company (COSCO) in several enterprises in China and elsewhere 
     in Asia.'' COSCO has long since been identified as an arm of 
     the People's Liberation Army, totally controlled by the 
     communist government of China. One United States Senator 
     advises constituents that he is very wary of COSCO but does 
     not see the same problem with Hutchinson-Whampoa. Why not? 
     They are in the same bed, under the same blanket, and 
     operators for the same cause.
       An unidentified State Department spokesman ``noted that 
     Hutchison has ventures in Asia with state-run China Ocean 
     Shipping Company'' (Journal of Commerce, 3/26/97).
       Companies wanting to do business in China know who to cozy 
     up to. USA Today (1/13/98) reported a company called 
     Peregrine leveraged ``their close ties to Hong Kong 
     billionaire Li Ka-shing to gain the trust of Chinese 
     leaders.''
       Proctor and Gamble's chairman and CEO, said ``Hutchison has 
     been and will continue to be a valuable partner in building 
     our business in China.'' (The Kentucky Post, 10/24/97).
       Li Ka-shing's dealings with the PRC are quite extensive. 
     Besides his Hong Kong dealings--all at the sufferance of the 
     government of Beijing, Li has financed several satellite 
     deals between the U.S. Hughes Corporation and China Hong Kong 
     Satellite, a company owned by the PLA's COSTIND. Li has put 
     more than a billion dollars into China. He owns most of the 
     piers in Hong Kong, has the exclusive right of first refusal 
     of all PRC ports south of the Yangtze River.
       We congratulate Senators who acted to block the PLA's 
     agent, COSCO, from gaining control of the military port of 
     Long Beach, California. But you might want to go back and 
     check your files a little further. You will find that it was 
     Li Ka-shing who was involved in that deal up to his eyeballs, 
     trying to help his friends and associates at COSCO and the 
     Chinese navy. Li Ka-shing's son and heir apparent, Victor Li 
     Tzar-kuoi recently boasted about another milestone for his 
     and dad's business operations, a $957 million deal. This is 
     the PLA's biggest investment yet in America. Li and his PLA 
     partners, report WorldNetDaily (6/29/99), have ``bought their 
     way in to the communications grid of northeast America . . . 
     Hutchison Telecom and the PLA are now major players in the 
     American mobile-phone business with the recent investment of 
     nearly $1 billion into Voice Stream Wireless.''
       ``Li is so close to the Chinese government that the Clinton 
     White House included his bio along with Chinese President 
     Jiang Zemin to the CEO of Loral Aerospace, Bernard Schwartz, 
     just prior to the 1994 Ron Brown trade trip to Beijing. 
     According to documents provided by the Commerce Department, 
     Brown and Schwartz were to meet both Li and Gen. Shen Rougjun 
     of CONSTIND.'' (NetNewsDaily, 6/29/99).
       Senators, it does not take a lot of research to know what 
     is going on in Panama with Li Ka-shing and Hutchison-Whampoa. 
     Those in the know in Panama are aware that the future of 
     Panama is China, that hope for jobs in the future is with 
     China. They know that to criticize Li Ka-shing or Hutchison-
     Whampoa in a country they dominate means a problem finding 
     work in the future. I found this to be true whether I was 
     speaking to high powered, well-connected, financially secure 
     individuals such as Panama's businessmen, lawyers, bankers, 
     or down-to- earth people who work with their hands and just 
     want to feed their families and have a future for their 
     children. If the United States is leaving and this Li Ka-
     shing is our future, the thinking at all levels goes, then 
     we'd best not criticize him.
       So don't go to Panama to have cocktails with the 
     financially successful, the well connected, the ruling power 
     elite, and think you'll find out about Hutchison-Whampoa and 
     Li Ka-shing. I urge the Armed Services Committee and indeed 
     the entire U.S. Congress, to investigate carefully the past, 
     present and the future plans of this Li Ka-shing, China's Red 
     Billionaire. He is on the verge of his greatest triumph for 
     his masters in Beijing, at the Panama Canal.
       I hope and pray that Congress will see fit not merely to 
     have a few hours hearing and publish a transcript of the 
     proceedings, but to undertake a serious investigation of what 
     is afoot at the Panama Canal, and how in the world can the 
     President say that his policy is advancing the best interest 
     of the United States?
       I said at the start, that in my view, Li Ka-shing and his 
     Hutchison Whampoa company, disguised in Panama as ``Panama 
     Ports Company'' is a tool of Communist China. And I said that 
     I believe the government of the United States has known about 
     this all along, and despite this advance knowledge, has 
     allowed this man, and thus his masters, to gain control of 
     the entrance-exit ports of the Panama Canal.
       First of all, consider that virtually all of the 
     information I have shared with Senators in today's testimony, 
     has been available in the public record, most of it prior to 
     the January, 1997 date that Hutchison-Whampoa become the 
     Gatekeeper of the Panama Canal.
       Further, the organization I serve as President, National 
     Security Center, filed a Freedom of Information Act Request 
     nearly two years ago with the Central Intelligence Agency, 
     after reading some of these reports, including one that said 
     that our own CIA had a file showing the connections between 
     Communist China and Li Ka-shing.
       I thought back then, when we filed that Freedom of 
     Information Act request to the CIA, that the American people 
     have a right to know whether their government handed this 
     knife at the throat of the United States, over to Red China 
     on a silver platter?
       But I got back a letter from the Central Intelligence 
     Agency, and they didn't agree with me. They said, and I 
     quote, `it is not in the national security interest of the 
     United States to confirm or deny the existence of the 
     documents you have requested.''
       We pressed on. National Security Center filed an appeal. 
     And a few months later, we

[[Page E2403]]

     got a reply. The Review board, having carefully considered 
     our request, had this to say: ''It is not in the national 
     security interest of the United States, to confirm or deny 
     the existence of the documents you have requested.''
       Senators, I conclude my testimony today, by suggesting to 
     you that I have yet to hear any possible reason why it would 
     not be in the national security interest of the United States 
     for you and for the American people to learn the truth about 
     Li Ka-shing and his ties to Red China, the new Gatekeeper of 
     the Panama Canal. It is very important to the national 
     security interests of our country, with no threat to the 
     sovereignty, freedom and future prosperity of our good 
     friends in Panama who I respect and appreciate, if we all 
     learned the truth about Li Ka-shing, and if the U.S. Congress 
     forced a change in the current policy of the United States at 
     Panama.
       I have reported in my book, about the prospects for a new 
     missile crisis in Panama. China currently has added to its 
     inventory of 18 ICBMS, the majority aimed our way. Senators 
     are aware that they have many more short range and 
     intermediate range nuclear missiles--148 at last count, and 
     growing. It is so farfetched to imagine some of those 
     missiles being quietly put on container ships and offloaded 
     at the Hutchison-Whampoa port facilities?
       These are the same people that managed to get 2,000 AK47 
     rifles smuggled into the United States. The same people who 
     are smuggling drugs (through their growing Red-China 
     controlled gang connection to the FARC narco-guerrillas to 
     the North in Colombia) into Panama and illegals into Panama. 
     Why not a couple dozen intermediate range and/or short range 
     nuclear missiles? Can you imagine the next ``Cuban missile 
     crisis'' taking place after the missiles have all been set 
     up? Or worse, after they have all been fired?
       This scenario has been confirmed as a possibility by 
     Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN (Ret.), and by a former commander 
     of all U.S. ground forces in Panama, Major General Richard 
     Anson, both members of our National Security Center Retired 
     Military Officers Advisory Board of 80 officers. Many other 
     retired officers have confirmed this scenario for me. If the 
     Peoples Republic of China, through corporate agents such as 
     COSCO and Hutchison-Whampoa aka Panama Ports Company, decides 
     to quietly move some short range and intermediate range 
     nuclear missiles into Panama and set them up on wheels ready 
     to fire on short notice at the port facilities, the United 
     States might not even know this has happened--unless and 
     until they want us to know.
       Other than bland reassurances by the same people who 
     laughed at Ronald Reagan's demand, ``Trust but Verify'' 
     during negotiations with Mr. Gorbachev, what can Senators 
     offer concerned constituents?
       Senators, we desperately need a continued U.S. military 
     presence in Panama. To challenge Red China's new role as 
     Gatekeeper of the Panama Canal. Or else within the next ten 
     years, Chinese will be the new second language of Panama, and 
     our vital security interests at Panama will be secure only at 
     the sufferance of Communist China.
       The people of Panama and the United States have worked in 
     harmony for nearly a century, to keep the Panama Canal open, 
     operational and secure. If President Clinton's policy is 
     allowed to stand, the Peoples Republic of China, through Li 
     Ka-shing, China's Red billionaire, will be the unchallenged, 
     unwatched Gatekeeper of the Panama Canal.
       I suggest to Senators a range of policy options for 
     immediate adoption. Foremost, any policy enacted should be 
     done with recognition that the Constitution of the United 
     States empowers our Congress as a co-equal branch of 
     government with the President, not as his subordinate. As a 
     co-equal, that means that acquiescence in the current policy 
     translates into responsibility for what is happening, and for 
     the disastrous catastrophe that faces United States 
     servicemen who will be called upon to fix the problem at the 
     price of their blood in the future.
       Second, I suggest to Senators that any policy they enact 
     should be done with recognition that the people of Panama are 
     very interested in continuing to work with the United States, 
     provided we pay a fair rent for military bases, provided we 
     hire back workers who have served as well in the past on a 
     seniority basis and for fair compensation. We should not be 
     turning our backs on our friends in Panama and walking away 
     just because Bill Clinton wants to reenact Vietnam at Panama. 
     If we suggest such a policy, if we respect the sovereignty, 
     the freedom, the economic needs of our friends in Panama, if 
     we make such an offer, in my view, the political leadership 
     of Panama will yield to what the people of Panama want. We 
     will have a future with U.S. servicemen helping keep the 
     Panama Canal open, operational and safe into the future.
       In conclusion, I pray that Senators will create a new 
     policy for the U.S. at Panama, one in keeping with these 
     sentiments of Senator Trent Lott, when he called upon 
     Chairman Warner to convene today's Senate Armed Services 
     Committee hearings: ``the transfer of control of the Panama 
     Canal is one of the critical national security issues 
     currently facing our nation and its impact will be felt for 
     many generations to come.''

     

                          ____________________