"We should not use special budget procedures to jam through legislation to drill in the Arctic Refuge. This topic is too important to the public to address it in such a back-door manner. We should be having a full, open discussion of the issue during an energy debate"
About this Quote
Feingold’s line is less about the Arctic Refuge than about process as a proxy for legitimacy. He’s arguing that the method is the message: if you have to “jam through” drilling via “special budget procedures,” you’ve already conceded the policy can’t survive sunlight. The diction is deliberately physical and slightly seedy. “Jam through” suggests force and impatience; “back-door manner” frames the maneuver as sneaky, almost shameful. In a Senate built to fetishize procedure, that’s not decorative language - it’s an indictment.
The specific intent is to strip proponents of ANWR drilling of their clean, technocratic alibi. Budget reconciliation and similar shortcuts can be defended as efficiency, but Feingold recasts them as a democratic bypass. He’s appealing to a civic instinct that even people who disagree on the merits can recognize: if something will reshape public lands and energy policy for decades, it should endure a “full, open discussion,” not a procedural ambush.
The subtext is aimed at a familiar Washington trick: rebranding a contested environmental decision as an accounting problem. By insisting on an “energy debate,” he refuses the premise that drilling is merely a revenue line-item or a path to lower prices. He’s also positioning himself - consistent with his reformist reputation - as the anti-cynic in a system that thrives on cynicism.
Context matters: ANWR fights peaked in an era when “energy independence” rhetoric collided with rising environmental consciousness, and when reconciliation became an increasingly tempting tool to dodge filibusters and hard votes. Feingold’s warning anticipates the modern procedural arms race: when lawmakers can’t win the argument, they try to win the calendar.
The specific intent is to strip proponents of ANWR drilling of their clean, technocratic alibi. Budget reconciliation and similar shortcuts can be defended as efficiency, but Feingold recasts them as a democratic bypass. He’s appealing to a civic instinct that even people who disagree on the merits can recognize: if something will reshape public lands and energy policy for decades, it should endure a “full, open discussion,” not a procedural ambush.
The subtext is aimed at a familiar Washington trick: rebranding a contested environmental decision as an accounting problem. By insisting on an “energy debate,” he refuses the premise that drilling is merely a revenue line-item or a path to lower prices. He’s also positioning himself - consistent with his reformist reputation - as the anti-cynic in a system that thrives on cynicism.
Context matters: ANWR fights peaked in an era when “energy independence” rhetoric collided with rising environmental consciousness, and when reconciliation became an increasingly tempting tool to dodge filibusters and hard votes. Feingold’s warning anticipates the modern procedural arms race: when lawmakers can’t win the argument, they try to win the calendar.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Russ
Add to List
