Excerpts of the Daily News-Miner?s Oct. 21 two-hour interview with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Republican. Includes material not published in the Oct. 27 edition of the newspaper due to space limitations.
ANWR
News-Miner: On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the argument in the campaign has been over whether the team approach is better or if it is better to bring some political diversity into the team.
Why isn?t it a good idea to have somebody on the other side of the aisle advocating for the opening of ANWR?
Murkowski: What I have said is it really is all about the numbers when it comes to the ANWR strategy and how we make it happen. And if you look at the current makeup of this Congress. You have 43 Republicans that support opening ANWR. You have 43 Democrats that oppose it. So just from the perspective of which side is it going to be easier to kind of make some gains and get some more support, it is quite apparent that we?ve got the edge on the Republican side.
Now the question is does it benefit us to have somebody on the other side working the Democrats. Tony is going to have to find 11 Democrats. Eleven is a huge number. On the Republican side we were two votes shy of passage when we took this up last. There you can talk about strategy. You can talk about the different approach, but what we need to keep in mind as Alaskans is we think ANWR is about us. We think ANWR is an Alaska issue. I can tell you that every Senate candidate that is running today has had to answer the question from constituents: ?Are you going to oppose or are you going to support opening ANWR to development?? I don?t care if this Mel Martinez down in Florida or whether it is Pete Coors in Colorado. Everyone is having to answer that question. And so candidates are taking a position as they are going into their election.
This why you have to have a Republican majority... If (the Democratic) leadership is not willing to put it on a budget reconciliation bill, if they?re in the majority and they have the opportunity to do it through budget reconciliation, that?s our shot. That?s our shot for 50, but if you?ve got Tom Daschle, Harry Reid--you?ve got individuals who have committed to not opening ANWR, they will not put it on the agenda. They will not advance it if they?re in the leadership. Our leadership has already pledged to. We did it once before. We?re itching to do it again. So that?s where the talk about ?Wouldn?t it be good to have somebody who can work the other side? really doesn?t play out in how the process works, because if we don?t have that majority, we can?t get it on the agenda and if we don?t have the numbers to get us to 50, we?re not there.
PATRIOT ACT
News-Miner: You have legislation to revise the Patriot Act. Why hasn?t that gone anywhere?
Murkowski: Well, as you know we have got some authorization of some of the aspects of the Patriot Act that are going to be coming up in 2005. The Patriot Act as we know here in this state is something that has been the subject of great scrutiny and I think great and legitimate concern. People looked at that and said here?s legislation that is well intentioned certainly but in an effort to protect our national security perhaps they have overreached, perhaps the government has gone too far and encroaching on our personal--on our individual liberties. And when I got to the Senate it was just about this time where there were numerous communities, numerous councils around the state, there were so many resolutions to us in the Senate saying take a look at it. They didn?t necessarily say pull the plug on it, get rid of it, but they said make sure that our individual liberties have not been compromised through this act. And I took a very close look at it and drafted the legislation and before we introduced it we had people from the administration come into us and saying ?We don?t think you should move forward with this and we said, no, it is necessary to modify certain parts of this Act because I did feel, I do feel, that in certain areas they went too far, that perhaps the checks, the balances aren?t in place there.
And it was after I introduced my legislation, I would say it was about three or four months afterwards and it has bipartisan support?Senator Wyden was one of the original co-sponsors with me from Oregon--Larry Craig introduced a version of the legislation and very, very similar to mine. It doesn?t quite go as far in certain areas but is very, very similar to mine. His also had bipartisan support I signed onto his as a co-sponsor as well.
ASSAULT WEAPONS
News-Miner: You have opposed the resurrection of the assault weapons ban, which Congress recently let expire. Would you support restoration of the ban?
Murkowski: To re-institute a ban on the assault weapons? Not if it?s the same ban that has been in place. I don?t know that I would support one. But if it was the same law that was in place, I do not think that that should have been re-instituted. I was just fine with the fact that it was allowed to expire.
News-Miner: The Legislature expressed support for the Second Amendment as an expression of an individual?s right to bear arms. The Legislature attempted to pass a resolution with language to clarify that. You voted for an amendment that would have taken that language out of the resolution and kept the language of the Second Amendment itself. Why do that if the intent of the legislation was to reassert the individual?s right to bear arms?
Murkowski: In retrospect and I?you wish you could be able to go back in your mind and really recall the debates that we had about this issue because I simply don?t?I do remember the dissension on the floor over this is like ?You know what if we just stick with the Second Amendment, we can get this resolution passed and move forward.?
MILITARY FORCE
News-Miner: What are views on the general philosophy of pre-emptive war and the role that the United Nations should have leading up to a U.S. decision to go to war?
Murkowski: We don?t want to be perceived as a nation that just pushes in and says it is going to go our way or no way. I don?t think that we did that in Iraq. We have a role, an obligation if you will as a superpower, as a world power in this country to not only be respectful of other nations but to build that respect of the nations toward us. Some of our relationships with some of our former friends and allies have not been the best recently and a lot of it is over Iraq. But the president has said we should not basically have hat in hand and wait for the blessing of every member of the UN if in fact action needs to be taken. We don?t ask for that permission from every member before we move. And I agree with the president on that, but you have to, you?ve got to use that responsibility very, very carefully, very judiciously.
SOCIAL SECURITY
News-Miner: On Social Security, do you think that privatizing the program is the way to address its financial imbalance?
Murkowski: I don?t know that it is the way to address its financial imbalances. What I do know is that the demographics and just the direction that the population is going and the aging and the trends that we?re seeing, the demographic trends, we know that by 2018 we are going to have a situation where we?re paying out more than we?re taking in. We can?t be waking up on Jan. 1, 2018 and saying gosh, maybe we need to do something about Social Security. We?ve got to start the conversations and we?ve got to start working it. And President Bush is the one that has been floating the idea of privatization, and I don?t think privatization is the word, but the ability to basically take control of some of your Social Security. And for some that?s an exciting idea. For others it?s a frightening idea. What we need to make sure is we are protecting and we are ensuring Social Security for the recipients.
News-Miner: You don?t have any favorites among reducing benefits, raising the retirement age, or increasing the contribution to Social Security?
Murkowski: I don?t want to reduce benefits.
News-Miner: Okay, raising the retirement age, increasing the withholding tax, privatization?
Murkowski: What we don?t want to do, again it comes back to--the key words I think are preserving and protecting Social Security. How do we do it so that we don?t reduce benefits and we don?t end up taxing more? How can we take this system and again, recognizing the demographics that we?re up against, how do we make it work?
News-Miner: So not cutting benefits, not raising the taxes, that?s fairly limiting. What can you do with it then? That leaves you with age adjustment or some sort of privatization.
Murkowski: And that?s, you know, that?s the direction, as you know, that the president is taking in the conversations that he has had.
What?s wrong with options? You know, isn?t it something that we should be considering?
News-Miner: Privatize if you want to?
Murkowski: If you want to, but if you?re not comfortable with it, you know that there is a system that is just exactly like what you had before. We did this with Medicare you know. If you don?t want to take advantage of the new changes to Medicare, you can stay exactly where you have been for the past 10, 15 years that you?ve been a Medicare recipient. You don?t have to change. Maybe that?s what we do with Social Security.
MINIMUM WAGE
News-Miner: Would you support an increase in the minimum wage?
Murkowski: Well there are two different proposals that are out there. There is the (Sen. Ted) Kennedy proposal which, and I can?t tell you the specifics, goes to whatever amount in a pre-accelerated time period. There is a (Sen. Mitch) McConnell proposal out there that bumps up the federal minimum wage and it gets it to Kennedy?s level but there is a phasing.
News-Miner: Do you support either of those?
Murkowski: I support the McConnell one.
FEDERAL DEFICIT AND TAXES
News-Miner: The Treasury Department announced a $413 billion deficit for 2004. Given the deficit, do you support continuation of the president?s tax cuts, and what would you do to reduce the deficit?
Murkowski: As far as the tax cuts go, I supported the president last year. I supported the extension of the tax cuts when we took it up a couple of weeks ago.
News-Miner: That didn?t make them permanent, that?s still in the air?
Murkowski: It extended them for another five or six years I believe. Every economist has their own view of how you bring about a stronger economy and from my perspective I believe that one of the ways that you bring about a stronger economy is if we as individuals have more money to spend. So if in fact we can increase that child care tax credit from $600 to $1,000 per child, that?s $400 more you have in your pocket. It is these types of things that I believe do help reduce the deficit.
You?ve got more money coming in your small business, you can hire that one additional person.
News-Miner: Is the thrust of the argument over the child care tax credit or whether you give a tax break to the wealthiest people in the country?
Murkowski: That sounds fine and good, but if you look to the specifics of the Kerry plan, they keep saying you know cut out the tax breaks for the millionaires. It sounds great. It has good cach?, but look closer. Basically it is anybody that?s making over $319,000. It?s that top bracket that would then be subject to these cuts. Well if you?re a small business, if you?re a Sub S corporation, and you?re making?say you?re making $375,000 a year, it is you that are not going to be able to take advantage of this tax cut through your business. So are you going to be able to hire that next employee?
When we look here in this state 95 percent of our businesses are small businesses. Now I think it would be interesting to take a look at those small businesses and see the average and how many of them now with the changes in the corporation laws are now Sub S?s. What the average reported income for these would be .
This really sounds good, ?let?s not give tax breaks to the millionaire?s,? but let?s just see how that would actually apply here in Alaska.
News-Miner: Didn?t I hear Sen. Kerry in the debate last week say that the small businesses would get a credit?
Murkowski: Well, but if you do that then how much of a difference have you really made? If in fact you?re saying, ?well okay then anybody who is a Sub S or anybody who is in this range you?re exempt,? then you haven?t figured out how you?re going to pay for (expenses).
News-Miner: We?re not confusing personal income taxes with corporate taxes are we here?
Murkowski: No. ... a Sub-S is you. It?s run through you as an individual.
News-Miner: The second question about the deficit?
Murkowski: And how do we reduce that deficit? Keep in mind that this deficit didn?t just come about because George Bush was going spend crazy. This was following on the heels of the dot.com bubble bursting. We had a soft economy. Some people say it was a recession that things were not well, they were not healthy. Then we?re hit on September 11th and all of a sudden everything changes. And the expenditures that we saw with homeland security. We?ve got the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and we have expenditures as a country that we could not have anticipated. Now that?s where we are.
Hopefully we will be getting things under control in terms of the buildup that we have had to do for homeland security. I for one think that all that we have done to try to make this country more secure has been money well spent. It?s something that we see that we had to do. There?s a vulnerability we?ll never be able to completely guarantee that we?re not going to see another attack like that, but I think we know that we had to do something and it costs money.
We have some circumstances that I think are unique, but it doesn?t mean that we don?t need to address the deficit. It doesn?t mean that we can just say well in the name of homeland security we?re just going to have to keep bringing it up bringing it up, we have to have a plan.
The President says five years. The senate is saying we can get it under control in three, but that?s going to mean reductions in spending. Last year, my first year there in the Senate ... I voted against Democratic spending increases in the amount of $1.4 trillion. So there?s a little bit of double-talk going on.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
News-Miner: Governor Knowles has said that you are the chief apologist for No Child Left Behind and have not advocated getting at a fundamental problem, which he sees as a restructuring of the relationship between the federal government and the state. Do you see that bill as a restructuring control?
Murkowski: The legislation was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy so I can?t imagine that that was the intent at the time that it was passed it enjoyed great bipartisan support and I think it was because people recognized that we have not done enough for our children?s education in terms of standards and in terms of accountability. We need to make sure that all children get the best possible education and I think that was the intent.
I think the intent of No Child Left Behind is sound and I said that and I offer no apologies for that intent.
We?ve got some challenges though in how you apply a federal act that is designed to fit all 50 states. We?re not Ohio. Most of our communities are not accessible to one another. We don?t have a system or we don?t have a state that you can apply certain parts of this act and expect it to work.
So as with any legislation we pass, whether it?s the Patriot Act or whether it is No Child Left Behind, we shouldn?t be afraid to revisit it and say are we doing what we intended to do with this legislation. And if not, let?s not be afraid to say we got to change it. We?re going to make it work.
That is what I?m doing with the Patriot Act. That?s what I?m doing with No Child Left Behind.
News-Miner: You?ve said that you?ve gotten some changes already, but do they or do they not rise to the level of an official exemption from any of the No Child Left Behind Act?
Murkowski: The waiver of school choice is an official exemption.
News-Miner: But kids in Aniak are not going to be shipped to Bethel because they don?t have an alternative no matter what the law says, so ...?
Murkowski: The law would have enforced it.
News-Miner: The school district from Aniak could be forced to pay to ship a child to school in Bethel?
Murkowski: Uh-huh. Before we got the exemption the law would require that if you had failed to meet AYP two years running as a school, you have to provide for school choice if the parents so desire.
There?s no way that they could have afforded that transportation. So they wouldn?t have done it. And what happens next? The lawsuit from the parent that says the federal law says that you?re going to take my child to a school that has met AYP and you?ve got to do it and then where are we? How have we benefited our kids because now we?ve got lawsuits all over the state?
News-Miner: So you think the exemption that you?ve obtained is solid enough that it would prevent that, such a lawsuit?
Murkowski: Yep.
FUNDING FOR ALASKA NATIVE TRIBES
News-Miner: Senator Stevens has been stressing the need to regionalize the Native (tribal) organizations to save money. I heard him say again today that the rest of the country is just not going to accept that half the tribal priority allocations go to Alaska. You expressed some skepticism a couple years ago about that idea. What?s your thinking on it now?
Murkowski: When the idea of regionalization first came out, I think it was a very scary concept. Does this mean that in our village we are not going to get the funding that we have used for the tribal housing entity or tribal courts in dealing with domestic issues? When you have uncertainty people first get a little defensive. And then the challenge was, ?Hey, let?s figure out how we make this work,? because I think Sen. Stevens is just trying to be realistic and pragmatic.
And so I think there has been a lot of good that has come about in the past year. People are talking about ?Well, what is it that can be done??
News-Miner: At the same time there have been a lot of resolutions passed saying ?No way.?
Murkowski: Right. But what it has done is forced the discussion on folks that would really rather not discuss it. They would really just rather that the funding be allowed to continue uninterrupted.
It may be that in certain areas that moving the funding through the regional might work really well, but, in other areas, is it the best solution? I?m not convinced that it is. I look at some of the issues that people in our villages are dealing with, whether it?s the suicide, whether it?s the domestic violence, whether it?s how we meet our housing needs, and I?m convinced that some of the best solutions come when you are able to resolve them at that very local level. If regionalization doesn?t allow for this, then maybe it?s not the best way to approach it.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
News-Miner: You supported a plan that doesn?t force drug companies send prescription drugs to Canada and other countries that impose price controls. Therefore, some people say, drug companies could elect not to send to those countries, which will in effect cut off the returning supply of drugs to the United States. So what would (your) bill actually do (to lower prices)?
Murkowski: Well your statement says it there. It would not force companies to send their products overseas to another country. Put this in the context of, you know, a company here in Fairbanks that makes steel pipe. In what other industry do we force businesses to commit to an unlimited quantity in another country?
The example that I think is a timely one right now is what?s going on with the flu shots. You have to supply an unlimited quantity to these other countries under these arrangements and yet you don?t have the product for us here in this country? Tell me how this helps us as Americans.
We?re bearing the cost of the research and development, and then on top of it you?re going to impose a requirement that you?ve got to provide unlimited quantities to other countries who have price controls. Tell me how these companies are going to continue to want to even market new products to even go forward with the research.
There was a fellow here in Alaska for many years, Jamie Love, who was head of AKPIRG. He?s now with a consumer advocacy group in the Lower 48, and he says importation is not the first place that we need to go if we?re really looking to lower prescription drug costs. It is one area that you can consider, and if we can get our prescription drugs from Canada at half the price and these are good safe drugs, this is good. I want to make sure that it is safe and it?s what your doctor prescribed for you.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
News-Miner: Assuming you?ll be voting on some Supreme Court nominees if you?re elected, are there any legal views that you?d find objectionable in those judges?
Murkowski: In all the nominees that have come before me I have looked to make sure that they are credible, that they are qualified, that they are unbiased in their approach. The folks that have come before us have almost without exception been rated highly qualified by the American Bar Association. There is a process that you look to, but in terms of a litmus test, there is no litmus test out there for me.
NEPOTISM
News-Miner: The issue of nepotism has been sort of kept alive in the campaign. You?re still in a dead heat with Gov. Knowles in a state that has been overwhelmingly sympathetic with Republicans in other congressional elections. Is that what is holding you back?
Murkowski: People don?t bring it up with me. I think they?re hesitant to do that, but I talk to people and I?m not so na?ve to believe that I have been able to woo everybody over. This appointment by my father was certainly a first and it did anger many people. And I understand that.
There are some who have said that I should not have accepted the position because it was from my father, and I guess the response that I have consistently given is: If I didn?t feel I could represent Alaska as it needs to be represented, I could not do this job. I would not have taken it.
News-Miner: The response to that is that, in accepting it, even though you could do the job well, you put your personal desires over the good of the Republican Party and perhaps even the state, or the Alaskans who are more conservative in their sympathies.
Murkowski: And to those who say I put my personal desires first?they don?t know me. What I have given up to serve and what I am willing to give up to serve is not recognized.
I knew I was going to have to work doubly and triply hard because there would be those that would believe that I didn?t have the qualifications to serve and that I was just appointed by my dad. I knew that I was going to have to give up two very important years with my young boys and assign that job of being mom as well to my husband.
That wasn?t something that was easy for any of us to do. And I didn?t do it because I wanted to have the title of being senator. I did it because I really believed I could make a difference for Alaskans.
And I keep coming back to what did we do today? It is giving back to the state that has given a lot to me, and it is so trite and politicians always say it, but I?m not a politician. I am a person who is very passionate about my state.
GREATEST SUCCESS OR MISTAKE
News-Miner: What has been your greatest mistake in your political life and the greatest success?
Murkowski: You know I will tell you the successes - the successes aren?t really the things that make the headlines ... Like the gas line news was big. I?m really proud of the increases for veterans funding that I have gotten. Those are all kind of the big headline things that people think about, but where I feel like I have achieved a success, I mentioned the deal with Sam Herman the other day. Knowing that I made a difference to him and to his family and just working the bureaucracy and getting him his discharge papers when he needed his you know - he leaves the Army in 1946 or the Alaska Territorial Guard in ?46 and he doesn?t get his official discharge gets no benefits until 2004 and talking with him and his family his daughters were all there saying how much this meant to their dad. It is the human side of the job.
Murkowski: The regrets or the mistakes. I think I?ve made some process mistakes.
Murkowski: I?m thinking more about the Senate. But you know it is interesting. Both of them. There are so many parallels. I think I had a real advantage (in the Senate) just having had some legislative experience and understanding the legislative process in kind of the big picture, but it is new process.
I think if I had Berners Bay to do all over again I would have introduced legislation that was basically put out for discussion purposes so that we could get field hearings. We introduced our legislation and then we had the hearings here. I wanted to amend the bill. We weren?t able to advance that. And I think it just helps knowing how you can work the process. Until you?re part of it I?m really not quite sure you can know.
