on the same day about the same thing and used the method of signing Mr. and Mrs. Rubyduby on both of them. Here's our response and here's what my oh-so-liberal and perfect in every way husband wrote back to him (damn he's good):
Mr. and Mrs. Rubyduby
1234 Utopia Lane
Somewhere, Georgia *****
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rubyduby:
Thank you for your letter expressing your concern for the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It is good to hear from you and I appreciate the
opportunity to explain my position on this imperative issue.
As you may know, in 1960, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Fred
Seaton, issued Public Land Order 2214, officially establishing the Arctic
National Wildlife Range. The order set aside 8.9 million acres to preserve
the wildlife and recreational values of the area. In addition, the order
specifically permitted oil
and gas exploration and development in the Range. Congress later debated
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which resulted in the
creation of over 100 million acres of parks, wildlife, refuges, and national
forests - tripling the amount of land designated as wilderness. The Act
expanded the original Arctic National Wildlife Range to 19.6 million acres
and renamed it Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In
the spirit of compromise, and consistent with the original purpose of the
1960 order, Section 1002 was included in the Act to set aside 1.5 million
acres for oil and gas exploration and development, subject to an Environment
Impact Statement and authorization by Congress.
Like you, I have a strong desire to see the wilderness home of the caribou,
polar bear, and coastal tundra remain wild and free. At the same time, I
believe it is essential that Congress provide a strong energy policy that
includes oil and gas development to stabilize energy markets, generate
economic growth, and lessen
our dependence on foreign oil.
Production and support facilities will be limited to 2,000 acres of the 1.5
million acre coastal plain. For comparison purposes, if the Refuge were a
page of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the area in question would be the
size of a single letter. Research indicates that energy development and
environmental protection can coexist; development's effect on the
environment would be minimal while the effect on the native people living
there would be very beneficial.
Industry has learned much during the last 30 years of energy development on
Alaska's North Slope about how to minimize environmental harm. The North
Slope is 60 miles west of ANWR's coastal plain and the use of directional
and extend-reach drilling has allowed North Slope drillers to minimize the
drilling "footprint", and such techniques have greatly reduced the spacing
of individual wells. Of course, that technology would be employed in the
coastal plain to significantly reduce the footprint of energy development.
Also, other drilling has occurred in wildlife sanctuaries including, the
Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Louisiana and the Bernard W. Baker
Sanctuary in Michigan, where groups have successfully engaged in energy
extraction in environmentally sensitive lands without causing harm.
I am confident the United States has the most stringent environmental
safeguards in the world, and energy exploration and development would be
subject to the strictest environmental standards. Thank you again for
taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive timely email
alerts regarding the latest
congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web
site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to be in touch
if I may ever be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
Hubby laying the smackdown:
Dear Senator Chambliss,
This is what your party loves to refer to as "talking points!" At best,
BEST, the wildlife refuge would yield less than one years supply of crude
oil, it will not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. While
I appreciate your concern for reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I
find your efforts in this area to be disingenuous. Your legislative efforts
with concern to our nation's energy policy indicate someone who's married to
big oil and not concerned with working toward a well thought out energy
policy.
If you are truely dedicated to our nation's energy independence, and not
just interested in protecting your real constituency (big oil) to the
detriment of the everyone else in the American family, then put your money
where your mouth is and support the "Apollo project."
http://www.apolloalliance.org/ Sincerely,