mark sanford Rep
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">same guy was gov appl trail</font><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford%27s_disappearance_and_extramarital_affair"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">
</font></a></div><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford%27s_disappearance_and_extramarital_affair"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford%27s_disappearance_and_extramarital_affair</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/trump-might-actually-get-a-serious-challenger-from-the-right-wing/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/trump-might-actually-get-a-serious-challenger-from-the-right-wing/</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">weld chafee and sanford app trail</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A group of 12 Congressional Republicans sent a letter to the leaders of both houses of Congress Thursday, objecting to a provision in the tax bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"For decades, Congress has voted to prohibit oil and gas development in the refuge, with the overwhelming support of the American public," <a href="https://reichertforms.house.gov/uploadedfiles/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge_letter_to_gop_leadership_final.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">the group wrote</a>. "Support for this protection remains strong today. After years of debate, the Arctic refuge stands as a symbol of our nation's strong and enduring natural legacy."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The letter was sent as the Senate was poised to pass a massive—and controversial—tax overhaul, which has seen fierce opposition from Democrats. The House<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/house-tax-overhaul-bill.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;"> passed its own version of the tax bill</a> in November, and the two versions will now have to be reconciled. Tucked into both bills is <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15112017/anwr-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-oil-drilling-alaska-murkowski" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">a provision</a> that would allow for the opening of a 1.5 million-acre section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. The justification for its inclusion in the tax bill is that profits from any oil and gas development would help offset a budget deficit.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This part of the refuge, known as the coastal plain, occupies murky legal territory and has been fought over for decades. While the majority of the 19 million-acre refuge has been designated as wilderness area—and is permanently off limits to drilling—the coastal plain has occupied a middle ground. It is not currently open to drilling, but an act of Congress could reverse that.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is not the first time the GOP has come close to passing a bill to open this part of the wildlife refuge to drilling, but in the past, conservationists have won. This time—despite the effort of this group of Republicans—that's looking less likely.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Earlier this week, the bill hit a procedural bump due to some arcane legislative rules that appeared to make it illegal to wrap the ANWR provision into the tax overhaul. Those who oppose drilling in the refuge saw it as a potential way to kill the provision, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)—a supporter of drilling in the coastal plain—said she did not see it as a problem. "We will be able to resolve all this," <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republicans-hit-snag-with-effort-to-drill-in-arctic-wildlife-refuge/article/2642084" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Murkowski said.</a> "I am not concerned."</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The letter opposing drilling was signed by Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Ryan Costello (Penn.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Patrick Meehan (Penn.), Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. (N.Y.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.),<b> Mark Sanford (S.C.),</b> Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), John J. Faso (N.Y.) and Leonard Lance (N.J.). </font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In it, the Republicans laid out a number of reasons why they believe drilling in the refuge is a bad idea:</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conservative Rep. Mark Sanford has some doubts about the Trump administration's rosy economic projections.</font></p><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At a House Budget Committee hearing Wednesday, the South Carolina Republican drilled Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney about the White House's expectations for <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/44505017" target="self" style="user-select: text; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r">gross domestic product</a> growth. President <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/" target="self" style="user-select: text; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r">Donald Trump</a>'s budget wish list released this week <a class="inline_asset" href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/us-2018-budget-proposal-white-house-slashes-the-social-safety-net.html" title="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/22/us-2018-budget-proposal-white-house-slashes-the-social-safety-net.html" target="_self" style="user-select: text; text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r">sets an objective of sustained 3 percent economic growth</a>.</font></p><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"This budget assumes a Goldilocks economy. And I think that's a very difficult thing" on which to base a budget, Sanford told Mulvaney, who also previously represented South Carolina in the House.</font></p><div id="inline_movable_ad" style="user-select: text;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"It assumes that the stars perfectly align with regard to economic drivers."</font></p><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. economy grew 1.6 percent in 2016.</font></p><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mulvaney defended the White House's projection earlier in the hearing, saying he was "stunned" about widespread doubts that the U.S. can achieve — and maintain — 3 percent growth. He argued that people would have to be "pessimistic" to assume such a level of expansion is "somehow unreasonable."</font></p><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sanford highlighted multiple possible problems in reaching sustained 3 percent growth. Among them, he contended that it would assume labor force growth and productivity growth that may not be achievable.</font></p><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He argued that the necessary labor force growth would "require either radically opening immigration or a radical change to demographics."</font></p><p style="user-select: text; margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 0px;" gotham="Gotham" narrow="Narrow" ssm="SSm" r="r" arial="Arial" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Sanford was doubtful about the growth projections, other Republicans on the House panel said they agreed with those expectations.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div>