[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 74 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6011-S6012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           UNITED STATES-MEXICAN COOPERATION ON DRUG CONTROL

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am puzzled. In the last week or so, we 
have seen U.S. Customs' agents wrap up one of the most successful 
undercover operations in history. This effort, Operation Casablanca, 
has nailed a bunch of international bankers, mostly in Mexico, who have 
been laundering drug money. These white collar drug thugs have violated 
United States law, Mexican law, and international law. They have 
violated their trust. They have abetted one of the nastiest businesses 
on the planet. And they have conspired to do all of this to make an 
illegal dollar. Drug traffickers are bad enough. But their financial 
advisers and bankers are truly despicable. Thus, the Customs' 
undercover operation that exposed some of these low lifes is to be 
celebrated. My hat is off to the agents and informants that risked 
their lives to help defend our institutions and bring these pinstripe 
bandits to justice.
  But I am still puzzled. What has me scratching my head is the 
reaction of the Mexican Government to this event. Instead of joining 
hands in congratulating efforts to protect the integrity of our 
international banking institutions and our shared concern to stop drug 
trafficking, what have they done. The Foreign Minister of Mexico has 
called the law enforcement people the criminals. She has raised the 
banner of so-called national sovereignty to provide cover to criminal 
activities of Mexican nationals. Mexico has called for the extradition 
of the law enforcement people in this operation, claiming they have 
violated Mexican law. What is wrong with this picture? Let me count the 
ways.
  First, money laundering is the illegal act we are talking about. It 
is, by its nature, an activity without borders. It is also illegal in 
every legitimate country on the planet.
  Second, the bankers in Mexico who engaged in laundering drug money, 
did so with knowledge of the illegality of their acts. They did so in a 
manner aimed at avoiding detection. They did so in defiance of bank 
regulations and Mexican law.
  Third, these bankers engaged knowingly in using their expertise to 
violate United States law. And they provided the facilities of their 
banks to move money around the globe in violation of international law.
  Fourth, we know they did this because it's on tape. We know they did 
it knowingly because the indictments spell it out.
  Fifth, they used their expertise to try to improve the ease with 
which the money was laundered. They provided advice on how to avoid 
Mexican law.
  They acted with criminal intent and used the interconnectivity of the 
modern banking system to hide their acts. They committed these acts in 
this country, in Mexico, and elsewhere, either in person or by using 
computers.
  Now, the Foreign Secretary in Mexico would have it that in exposing 
these activities and in tracking the process, United States agents 
violated Mexican sovereignty and law. It would seem, in her view, that 
this means the undercover operatives committed criminal acts by 
engaging in money laundering. But in this country and most others, a 
criminal act involves intent. There is no criminal intent involved here 
by U.S. law enforcement. Just the reverse. Thus, law is not offended.
  As to sovereignty, well, if we insist on this point, whose 
sovereignty is violated? Sovereignty is not meant to be a shield for 
criminality. It would be a fine world if that were the principle. It is 
not. I can think of few more useful tools for drug traffickers, money 
launderers, and thugs of every description than to find a safe haven in 
some country willing to use its sovereignty to harbor international 
criminality. What has happened here, is that bankers have violated the 
laws of this country by using the international banking system to 
freely commit crimes. They have done this in person in this country and 
they have done it electronically across borders. These are the 
criminals, not the law enforcement people who have corralled this gang 
of crooks.
  But according to the Foreign Secretary of Mexico, it is the law 
enforcement folks who are to be labeled villains. In some of the most 
intemperate rhetoric I have seen from a senior government official, the 
Foreign Secretary not only castigates the good guys, but is calling for 
their extradition. I find this situation outrageous. I am equally 
concerned about the response from our own State Department. I have a 
letter here that our Secretary of State has sent to the Secretary of 
the Treasury. I will submit this for the Record. Instead of 
congratulating the law enforcement effort and joining hands with 
Secretary Rubin, Secretary Albright complains about inadequate 
consultation with Mexico. What is wrong with this picture?
  Given the important steps Mexico and the United States have taken to

[[Page S6012]]

improve bilateral cooperation and to go after the real thugs in the 
story, I hope we can get past this case quickly. I hope the Foreign 
Secretary of Mexico and Secretary of State of the United States wake up 
and smell the coffee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary 
Albright to Secretary Rubin be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                       The Secretary of State,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 1998.
     Hon. Robert Rubin,
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       Dear Mr. Bob: I know that both you and Attorney General 
     Reno are aware of the negative reaction in Mexico to the 
     announcement of Operation Casablanca and have had contact 
     with Mexican officials about this. I spoke May 21 with 
     Foreign Secretary Rosario Green who expressed her 
     government's deep resentment for not having been informed of 
     the operation prior to the public announcement. Other Mexican 
     officials have voiced concern that the activities undertaken 
     by U.S. agents in Mexico may have been illegal under Mexican 
     law or contrary to understandings between the United States 
     and Mexico.
       Mexico's reaction is a product of many factors, not least 
     of which is great sensitivity within the Zedillo government 
     to preexisting charges from the opposition that it is 
     attempting to bail out a corrupt banking system. However, I 
     am concerned about the negative tone this development 
     introduces into the relationship and that Mexican cooperation 
     on several fronts, particularly counternarcotics, may be 
     affected.
       We might have achieved more favorable results if we had 
     brought Attorney General Madrazo and a few others into our 
     confidence a few days before the public announcement. In this 
     regard, I believe State should have been consulted. We would 
     have been able to offer some advice that could have 
     ameliorated the negative reaction.
       I would appreciate being kept personally informed of 
     developing investigations in Mexico and other foreign 
     countries that could have a significant foreign policy 
     fallout. I do not wish to interfere with your law enforcement 
     work, but I do believe we need to do a better job of 
     coordination.
       It is essential that in the coming days you find ways in 
     your public statements and private contacts with Mexican 
     officials to indicate that we are actively working to avoid 
     similar difficulties in the future. I hope to discuss this 
     with you soon.
           Sincerely,
                                            Madeleine K. Albright.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________