However, he went on to say that we don't perform law enforcement activities there and seemingly minimized the risk we face by describing their role--or our role--there as advisory.

What are you doing by way of negotiation to exert this country's considerable leverage to ensure that our agents assigned there have the means to protect and defend themselves?

I want to be absolutely sure that if my members endure and embrace the risks to go over to Mexico and fight this war that they will have full diplomatic coverage and the peace of mind knowing that God forbid they make the ultimate…

I will say this: While the FBI stats may show that the overall statistics on violent crime may have gone down, violent crime committed against us, law enforcement officers, increased over 41 percent last year and is increasing beyond that…

If we send an unarmed agent to Mexico without full diplomatic status, and they are murdered like Jaime Zapata, how does our country demand extradition if the killers are caught?

Cooperation with the Mexican government is in the interest of both countries, as is an integrated law enforcement approach to effectively target and defeat the cartels.

To call them advisory--gentlemen, they were targeted and attacked for who they are--not for what they do, but for who they are as U.S. law enforcement officials.

You know, Chairman, I applaud you for characterizing these organizations as they should be: Narcoterrorists.

But we don't seem to have a plan or a strategy for Mexico and I think that is the thrust of this hearing is: What should that plan be?

That is less than we are currently spending in Afghanistan on any given week, and yet I think the stakes in Mexico and the relationship in Mexico and the United States are enormous and certainly of National security implications.

The narcoterrorism in Mexico is extremely sophisticated, well thought out, strategically planned.