Down their driving ships around the caribbean trying to do interdictions, but back in 98 i had a chance to do a Diplomatic Mission going into venezuela and colombia. At the time venezuela was very friendly with us and accept this in there. When we pulled into columbia, quite a different situation. Was one of the few towns you could go around in safely. I have had the chance to watch how planned columbia has worked, the partnerships were developed with the colombians. In fact try have been down there dealing with their head of navy, and we are very proud of the way that they are taking on the regional lead. They are running very symposiums, bringing in other countries, and we continue to work with them and sustain an relationship. The key to that has been a continued commitment. I have to admit that as they see fewer and fewer resources devoted to the counter drug mission then began to get a little anxious because they perceive that as a as backing away from sharing the battle with them
Account for their proportion of the downwind arm. Isnt that true . Yes or no . A think it is an easy answer. I think if you adopted an air quality on the threshold would be more likely to be the case this states that have already done a lot to control air pollution would have to take additional steps, even if it was done in a non costeffective way you answered my question. Does the fact that you begin with the statute says that each upwind state has to account for its effect on the downwind states. But once having identified that affect you then say, those upwind states that can make the reductions more efficiently have to make more reductions than the mere proportion of the harm requires. Isnt that so . I think it would be the case, yes, as compared to some air quality on the measures, the use of cost will have the effect of distributing the burden in a somewhat different way than it would if you considered air quality factor mr. Stewart, the states that are required to do more are th