mr. crawford, could i ask you a question. we are talking about the existing towers. my understanding of the situation is that you have to analyze the impact that you will have, what you are building but not necessarily analyzing the impact of what exists. is that correct? >> that is correct. the only extent to it is to analyze the impact of the towers is whether of an event of an earthquake there would be an effect such as the towers falling down and affecting life safety. >> in the newly built -- >> that's correct. >> presumably no worse than would be the case now. and possibly better. >> yeah. the main thing is that we examine what is the change. >> that is what i would bring up. the change is what we have to analyze. the impact of the change. not the impact of preexisting. >> correct. >> thank you, sir. necessary and desirable. very good point that commissioner moore made but not an e.i.r. issue. this is a private development. we do not have to establish blight to go forward. i think it is well documented many of the existing townhouse units were built quickly and

mr. crawford. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. crawford: thank you, like me and my colleagues, i represent a largely rural district. agriculture is the number one industry in the first district of arkansas and farmers there and across the country, i might add, are facing tough economic challenges like many other businesses today regardless of the product they're engaged in, poultry, cotton, rice, soybeans, whatever. the chief complaint of farmers in my district is the continuous pressure placed on them by the burdens of the e.p.a., now under the auspices of clean air the e.p.a. wants to regulate dust? american farmers produce the safest, cheapest and most abundant food supply on the planet. there are over three million mouths to feed and less than a mill crop farmers engaged in the process of meeting that demand, not to mention global demands growing where by 2050 there will be a population of over nine billion people. for centuries americans led the way in agricultural production and will continue to be the leading producer of com

mr. crawford of arkansas for today and mr. hanna of new york for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: it was an honor to have president obama visit the commonwealth and highlight the research being done at penn stalte on energy efficiency. i was hopeful the president would touch on the importance of domestic energy production, especially oil, coal and natural gas just as each is critical to any credible nrnl plan. unfortunately, i remain convinced that america lacks a comprehensive plan to end our reliance on foreign ail. in too many instance, this administration has undermined america's path to a comprehensive plan. this administration has imposed a moratorium on drilling in the gulf, placed huge portions of the continental shelf off limbs to oil pruck. these actions

mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. it is with great pride that i rise today to speak in honor of the legacy of president ronald reagan. while running for this office i was often asked why are you conservative? why are you conservative? my answer was always, ronald reagan. as a soldier i was stationed in a unit in pennsylvania and i was tasked several times with secret service details protecting the president. and there was one in particular that i remember, september 17, 1987, when he gave the address at the bicentennial of the constitution at independence hall in philadelphia. i was literally standing in the shadow of history and as a 21-year-old soldier didn't fully appreciate it. as i look back on that moment now, i fully appreciate what president reagan had to say. in his speech he said, the founding fathers had the presence of something higher that enabled them to write the constitution. he said, quote, it was that ideal that enabled them to rise above politics, self-interest, to transcend their differences and to

mr g.s. displaying we through to crawford the national contest aiming to fix all aspects of life in the country through official this lands maybe twenty six thousand pictures have been submitted to the contest the jury has chosen three hundred and sixty five of the best looks should be on display until the twentieth of march. i think i could see again so sushi mania in moscow it was all about how much i think it's driven by the women. and obviously it's it's considered healthy it's considered law actually interact with the role of diet you could constantly on a diet came some lean i keep those figures nice and trim and you know they i think that perceive it to be more healthier than you know maybe grilled me to rule fish. and what we have in front of the sale we've got the truth which is. i mean i thin lee slice the she me form and we've got so punctual of oil. you know a little bit of a cough cough souls' this is a hand roll and you know it's with the nori filled with rice and you can basically chop them with whatever you like but as sushi ice cream guy ice cream kind of sushi fleishman to unl

because what the prime minister was making clear that crawford did not go unnoticed, especially in the american press. >> what mr. blair said to us about crawford on the 21st of january was the issue is very simple. he, meaning saddam come either had a change of heart or regime change was on the agenda. i'm puzzled as to whether he said of his own agenda. you see off the agenda. >> i think we may be in different terms about the same thing. >> we were using coercive diplomacy. it was diplomacy that is a threat the possible use of force. and the object it was a disarmament of saddam hussein and the iraqi regime. the first method was diplomacy. if that method failed, but with military action, consequence of military action was found to be regime change. that's how it works. the point we're trying to get across to saddam and his allies was that he had every opportunity to comply with united nations obligations, without his regime having to be changed. i may buy ideas, but he thought that was a very high incentive to come into early compliance. >> i mean, your objective as you told us last year, your final sentence t

because what the prime minister was making clear at crawford did not go unnoticed, especially in the american press. >> well, what mr. blair said to us about crawford on the 21st of january was the issue was very simple, he, meaning saddam hussein, either had a change of heart or regime change was on the agenda. so i'm puzzled as to whether he said it was on the agenda, you said it was off the agenda. >> i think we may be using different terms about the same thing. we why using coercive diplomacy. so diplomacy backed by the threat and the possible use of force. and the objective was the disarmament of saddam hussein and of course the iraqi regime. the first method was diplomacy. if that message failed then it was military action. the consequence of military action was bound to be regime change. that's how it works. the point we were trying to get across to saddam and his allies was that he had every opportunity to comply with the united nations obligations without his regime having to be changed. and i maybe my evil thought that was a very high incentive for him to come -- maybe very naively. >> your final senses to

because what the prime minister was making clear that crawford did not go unnoticed, especially in the american press. >> what mr. blair said to us about crawford on the 21st of january was the issue is very simple. he, meaning saddam come either had a change of heart or regime change was on the agenda. i'm puzzled as to whether he said of his own agenda. you see off the agenda. >> i think we may be in different terms about the same thing. >> we were using coercive diplomacy. it was diplomacy that is a threat the possible use of force. and the object it was a disarmament of saddam hussein and the iraqi regime. the first method was diplomacy. if that method failed, but with military action, consequence of military action was found to be regime change. that's how it works. the point we're trying to get across to saddam and his allies was that he had every opportunity to comply with united nations obligations, without his regime having to be changed. i may buy ideas, but he thought that was a very high incentive to come into early compliance. >> i mean, your objective as you told us last year, your final sentence t

because what the prime minister was making clear that crawford did not go unnoticed, especially in the american press. >> what mr. blair said to us about crawford on the 21st of january was the issue is very simple. he, meaning saddam come either had a change of heart or regime change was on the agenda. i'm puzzled as to whether he said of his own agenda. you see off the agenda. >> i think we may be in different terms about the same thing. >> we were using coercive diplomacy. it was diplomacy that is a threat the possible use of force. and the object it was a disarmament of saddam hussein and the iraqi regime. the first method was diplomacy. if that method failed, but with military action, consequence of military action was found to be regime change. that's how it works. the point we're trying to get across to saddam and his allies was that he had every opportunity to comply with united nations obligations, without his regime having to be changed. i may buy ideas, but he thought that was a very high incentive to come into early compliance. >> i mean, your objective as you told us last year, your final sentence t