Excerpts of the Daily News-Miner?s Oct. 19 two-hour interview with former Gov. Tony Knowles. 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. You?ve said that we need somebody in the party to help work on this issue. What can you do that hasn?t already been attempted in Congress?
Knowles: Well, I think the development of oil and gas in Alaska is dependent upon getting bipartisan support in Congress. For 24 years nothing has happened and we?ve had every mix possible of lineups of partisans, whether the Congress has been controlled by Democrats with a Republican president. We?ve had a Democratic president with a Republican Congress, and most recently, we?ve had all Republicans and none of them has worked. I think there has to be bipartisan support for a broad energy bill.
News-Miner: What do you offer to entice members of Congress who are not on board now? They would expect to take something back to tell their constituents that this was a good trade-off.
Knowles: Well, I don?t think of it in terms of win, lose or trade-off, or a who-gets-what situation. I think America needs an energy bill that sets some goals that nationally people feel are important to this country in the future. And we?ve never done that before, because every energy bill that has gone through has been partisan, secret and pork-filled, and that is the old politics. The way you are describing it is the old politics way: ?Who am I going to trade what for what.?
I think what America has yearned for in an energy bill was a combination of values in regards to conservation, renewable fuels and development of fossil fuels, oil and gas. And we need that kind of a balance. The bill that most recently went through Congress had very little of that. No ANWR, no heavy oil, and only part of the gas line provisions. And then $2 billion dollars for nuclear energy, another $2 billion for coal-bed methane and clean coal development and then there?s a rain forest in Iowa, a shopping mall down in Louisiana. There was nothing on conservation. So rather than that approach, if want to make a step toward conservation with CAFE (vehicle mileage) standards for automobiles, adjusting tax policies for automobiles so you don?t give a tax write-off for agricultural vehicles for a Hummer, and you adopt as a national mission renewable fuel, wind, solar, geothermal, and also look at the technology--we need to develop fuel cell technology and other sources--and then bring in the oil and gas, and I think that kind of a balance will appeal to America.
The one party strategy as outlined today when Lisa Murkowski said that her secret plan was to get seven more votes, seven more Republicans. Well, that?s not strategy, that?s a wish that she has, that?s a political wish. That?s not going out and putting together, what I would consider in a senatorial fashion, forging the kind of bill that?s going to work.
PATRIOT ACT
News-Miner: On the Patriot Act. Sen. Murkowski has a bill to amend it. Do you see differences between yourself and her on this issue?
Knowles: She did not introduce a lengthy bill. She co-sponsored (Sen.) Ron Wyden?s bill after the state Legislature, and 38 communities around Alaska, did it. There has never been a hearing on it, nothing done on it.
News-Miner: You want some changes. What, specifically?
Knowles: Well, the main problems with the bill are that it allows investigation of a person into all of their records without ever notifying them that, one, that they are under investigation, two, they don?t have to prove to any judge or anything else in terms of getting access to those records. It?s just purely an executive or single person in the Justice Department?s decision that that?s what they?re going to do. You have none of the checks and balances that you?re given in the Bill of Rights in what has been established as, not only our constitutional rights but the freedoms that are also supported by many other laws and Supreme Court decisions.
So the fact that you can also incarcerate somebody without ever having to give them charges, habeas corpus, none of the provisions of the Constitution merely by designation of someone in the Justice Department that they think you are a terrorist, so this is very frightening.
The ability to abuse that and what kind of nation we?ve become if that is the standards that we?re going to fall to, I think they are very dangerous and represent an internal threat to our government that is not to be overlooked. Take the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments in one shot and throw them out the window with the Patriot Act. And now they are talking about phase two, son of Patriot Act and I haven?t heard Lisa Murkowski say anything about that.
SOCIAL SECURITY
News-Miner: What should be done about fixing Social Security now? If we don?t raise the retirement age, decrease benefits or increase taxes, how will the system remain solid?
Knowles: Well, the first thing we should do is get our fingers out of it and leave Social Security for Social Security. That is used in many ways to help pay for other services. And the trust account that was set up by increasing during the 1980s when they made a significant increase both in employee and employer benefits, that was to build up figuring that the baby boom was about to arrive and to build the trust up big enough that you could live off some of the earnings. And I think they had it out to 2042 at one point before you started eating into principal. It?s not a permanent fix, but it?s nice to have a couple generations ahead, but that is reduced now. I think they?re talking now around what 2020. That is significantly reduced because we haven?t kept the financial integrity of it. So we need to ensure that and not use it for other uses.
There are a number of things that could be done. One right now is the limit of $85,000 in terms of contribution to it. Above that you don?t pay anything. It used to be I can remember way back then it was around $25,000 that you quit paying Social Security, and it has gone up over time so that?s one way to approach it. I mean it is kind of an employment tax. It?s tough to go up for more dollars on that, but the first thing to do is to stop the bleeding and that?s to stop letting it be utilized by the government.
News-Miner: Do you have any preferences, though, of raising the retirement age, decreasing benefits or increasing taxes,?
Knowles: I don?t think that?s necessary at this point.
FEDERAL SPENDING IN ALASKA
News-Miner: Alaska receives more federal money per capita than any other state. Do you see it as a job of the U.S. senator to keep that up?
Knowles: I?d like to put it on a per acre basis. When you?re talking about transportation, looking at the physical and environmental challenges that you have, the climate challenges, the physical and climatic challenges that you have in Alaska?they don?t know what frost heaves are in the Lower 48?so the need to go back in there and resurface highways, other needs that we have are extraordinary. Our dependency upon airports. I think we actually have the only marine highway system as part of the national highway system. So those are all extraordinarily costly.
News-Miner: What about the pork list that Sen. John McCain and others put out critical of federal spending?
Knowles: Well you know one person?s pork is another person?s needs. And to have somebody from other states that has complained about our pork, they don?t live here. And whether it is in terms of telecommunications needs for basic health and education in rural Alaska, in remote villages, one of the big industrial sites of America there in Dutch Harbor, with half of America?s bottom fish being harvested and processed there, they don?t have a hospital. It?s through telemedicine that we are able to give them a minimal amount of health care. If there is federal monies to be placed toward it, I think given what Alaska contributes to America in terms of those goods and by being a state, we deserve that.
ASSAULT WEAPONS
News-Miner: Congress recently let the federal ban on some assault weapons lapse. Isn?t the ban a reasonable regulation?
Knowles: Each state can do that and under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution they have that authority, so we don?t want people from California, New Jersey, telling us what we need.
MILITARY FORCE
News-Miner: How long do you think we?ll be in Iraq or have troops there?
Knowles: I would hope for just a very short time. I think if we set the goal of peace and stability that we can, upon the assumption of a semblance of legitimate government?which there isn?t now, although it is more legitimate than it was earlier; it is getting a sense of legitimacy. Once we can get a legitimate government with hopefully a semblance of security and ability to do what is expected of government, then we need to turn our attention full force on Osama bin Laden.
News-Miner: A lot of critics said the Iraq war was a pre-emptive war and therefore they question the morality of it, saying basically a person shouldn?t strike first. Do you view it that way and does the United States have a lack of moral underpinning for the war?
Knowles: A pre-emptive war should only be utilized when there is an imminent threat to the security of America. And the president told that?the president, the head of the chief of staff and the head of the intelligence agencies?gave that information to Congress and to the American public that there was an imminent danger. Today that?s not true.
News-Miner: How does having been in Vietnam color your opinion of the war? Do you see similarities? Do you see similar mistakes being made?
Knowles: I don?t know if comparing one to the other is very helpful. I think it is more helpful to use what we learn about Vietnam as a guide to success in other arenas. And what we learned there was that you should not go to war unless there is an imminent threat. Number two, if you go to war, you should use an overwhelming force. You need broad public support and you need an exit strategy. Those four points were generally termed as the Powell Doctrine. I think that applies today. And we haven?t complied with that. We have complied with very little of that doctrine in our invasion of Iraq.
MISSILE DEFENSE
News-Miner: About missile defense, a vocal minority says it is technically unsound, strategically unsound, and an amazing waste of money. You?ve said you support it.
Knowles: I am pro-defense. I believe that Alaska plays a critical role in our nation?s security and certainly the military strategy of having some missile defense system is one that I do support. The question is and I think as you raise it there have been doubts raised as to whether it is technically operating at 100 percent.
My position is that even if it is not 100 percent technically right now we are going to continue to develop it and, by the time we have all the installations ready to be utilized, there will be a lot of progress made in that regard.
News-Miner: Some would say it?s not a good expenditure of our limited resources because basically someone with a small boat or ship could come into one of our harbors with a nuclear bomb, even if you made a perfect missile shield.
Knowles: This is not a silver bullet for the protection against all weapons of mass destruction, but it is certainly is one that I think has been thought through and has broad support of our strategic leadership. Which doesn?t mean we shouldn?t deal with the other ones too. Maybe that?s with better Coast Guard facilities and I?ll be fighting for that, too.
MINIMUM WAGE
News-Miner: Sen. Kerry proposes increasing minimum wage. President Bush said he supports some sort of increase. Your view?
Knowles: I think the $5.15 minimum wage is scandalous. It is back to a level I think equivalent to 1949. It?s $7.15 in Alaska. But the $5.15 that it is in the rest of America, taking inflation into account, is back into the 1949 level. I mean it is ridiculous.
News-Miner: You will find an argument from the economists that if you raise the minimum wage then there are fewer jobs to go around.
Knowles: Oh, yeah, they always say that don?t they?
News-Miner: Do you have any idea what you?d like to increase it to?
Knowles: Alaska increased it to $7.15 an hour. In doing that I think it was something that was long overdue. There were numerous cries that it would put people out of business but I haven?t heard anything.
FEDERAL DEFICIT AND TAXES
News-Miner: The Treasury Department last week announced the 2004 budget deficit at a record $413 billion. Is there a way to close it?
Knowles: The first most important one is to get the economy moving and that, to me, is the way. When you have an economy that is sluggish at best, losing jobs, more people going into poverty, more people losing their health insurance, that always puts more of a burden, less revenues, more expenditures. So we need to get the economy moving.
News-Miner: So before you go on, how do you do that? Do you support President Bush and his tax cuts and then using that as a stimulus?
Knowles: From a strictly economic basis I totally support the bipartisan support of the middle-class tax cut, because that clearly, as every economist can say, that is the way in which to help stimulate the demand side of the equation. And it?s a very good way to do it and it also helps people that are having a very hard time to make ends meet with rising prices.
News-Miner: What about the top portion of tax cuts, the over $200,000?
Knowles: I would take the top one percent (of taxpayers). You take that one percent and roll (the tax rate) back to what it was in the year 2000, which was a 36 percent marginal tax rate, versus today?which they made permanent at 33 percent. Just that 3 percent over the next 10 years is $194 billion.
News-Miner: So that?s not as much of a rollback as Sen. Kerry?s proposal then, correct?
Knowles: I?m probably more conservative than he is.
News-Miner: Well how did you come up with that?
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
News-Miner: On No Child Left Behind, Sen. Murkowski had been referring to the waivers she received to make the act work better for ...
Knowles: She?s made no waivers. There have been no waivers given and there are no exemptions given. She is incorrect. There are no waivers or exemptions.
News-Miner: I believe it?s exemption from the school choice. Some of the schools that don?t make adequate progress wouldn?t have to pay for students to go to some other village.
Knowles: The only situation which I?ve heard her refer to is the absurd situation of taking somebody from Hooper Bay and flying them to Bethel on a daily basis -- that they would not enforce that. But they won?t even give an ?exemption? or ?waiver? to that because that is not the policy of this administration to give any waivers or exemptions. So they are going to supposedly look the other way. We don?t know whether that?s an election position that they are not going to do anything until after the election?s over.
And the fact that they won?t enforce publicly an absolute absurd position that would make every late night talk show in America is no victory for Alaska.
What we need is fundamental change in the No Child Left Behind. I think it?s a fool?s errand to try and figure out how we?re going to comply with a law that doesn?t make sense. It hurts education in Alaska and it?s been found out across the rest of America that it doesn?t make sense.
I want to be part of the leadership that changes that law, that gives it back to the states and lets the federal government perform what it should do in terms of support of the state efforts to raise the level of education.
News-Miner: You spoke to us many months ago about the act and maybe you could reiterate the changes you talked about, or additional ideas?
Knowles: Everyone knows the three parts of better education are higher standards, some sort of testing and assessment of the students so that you know how they are doing, and then have some kind of accountability with schools, teachers and parents. And throw into that technology, access to technology, is critical for education.
But those three fundamentals are something that the federal government should support as state?s develop their actual plans to address these issues.
If they do, and it?s accepted by the Secretary of Education and signed off, then we will fund those programs that they have listed under No Child Left Behind. So it?s an incentive, it?s a carrot, to accomplish what I think all of the states have been working on for several years. I know in Alaska the Quality Schools Initiative was doing very well. It wasn?t a perfect plan but it was certainly making a great deal of progress in all of those areas and worth putting more money into education as a state.
What we want from the federal government is full funding of Title I and special ed. Those precede No Child Left Behind as unfunded mandates. That alone would bring about $60 million to $70 million to Alaska to help us fulfill low-income schools and students with disabilities.
Alaska is a lot different than New York and so our plan is going to be different than theirs. That would establish the fundamental, what I would consider proper, relationship with education.
News-Miner: You?re talking about scrapping No Child Left Behind pretty much. That?s what it sounds like.
Knowles: I?m talking about fundamentally changing the relationship between the federal government and education. Education of 200-plus years in America has always been under local control.
News-Miner: Sen. Murkowski has talked about some other changes that are needed. But your basic contention, I think, is it not, that she is going along. This is a big push in the Bush administration and she doesn?t want to counter anything the Bush administration is doing on this issue.
Knowles: Her positions on it make her the chief apologist for the No Child Left Behind.
HEALTH CARE
News-Miner: At the debate you said that your deal is that health care should be a right of people, not a privilege. But from the proposals you?re offering it doesn?t appear that you?re supporting a nationalized health system.
Knowles: Doesn?t appear? It isn?t.
News-Miner: So, you?re not supporting a nationalized health system. Why not, if it is a right for everybody?
Knowles: I don?t know the Canadian system so I mean I?m not a proponent of that. What I do believe is that we can make some major changes if we adopt the provision that everybody should have that access to affordable health care ... what we can start doing is taking the systems that we have in place now and fulfilling them to provide adequate affordable health care. And that would be reforming and funding Medicare, that would be doing a Denali KidCare which I believe all children should have access to health care.
Medically it?s the right thing to do and financially it is the right thing to do ...
I think we should take Medicaid ... If we expanded that to have it covering low-income working families and fulfilled the principle that it should always pay to work. That?s going to cost some money as well as we reform Medicare, fully funding veterans care, funding all children, so now you?ve reduced the universe of people that need care to working people that don?t have it. And then there are specific programs that you can, I think, put in place and will address that issue. And the more progress you make on it up until the time that you?ve finished it, would then provide fundamentally full access to health care.
FUNDING FOR ALASKA NATIVE TRIBES
News-Miner: Sen. Stevens has been very concerned about the expense of providing funds to every tribe in Alaska under the current formulas and he wants some regionalization. Do you see that as a reasonable way to address the concern about rising costs?
Knowles: The relationship between the federal government and the American Indian tribes is established in the constitution both in the Congress clause and the Treaty clause. Alaska has 227, 230 tribes that have been recognized by the Executive Branch. It was approved by Congress, including both Senator Stevens and Don Young, and approved by the judicial system. They have also been approved by the Alaska Supreme Court. So that relationship is one which I believe we should utilize in the best possible way.
Alaska Natives have a higher infant mortality rate, lower life expectancy, higher rate of diabetes and cancer. The nation?s highest rate of teenage suicide. The highest unemployment. The lowest educational achievements. And we need to address those problems and I think working with the tribes on a government-to-government relationship is an enormous help in being able to improve those figures, and that is what we should spend our time doing.
News-Miner: Sen. Stevens says basically it would be more efficient attacking those problems if we didn?t spread our money out across 220 tribes but regionalized administration of those programs that help address those problems.
Knowles: That is not something that in the context of government-to-government relations that you unilaterally decide. I don?t support the regionalization effort and it has no support among Alaska tribes.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
News-Miner: Opponents say that if we start importing prescription drugs, Canada and other countries, faced with U.S. demand, will have to restrict the amount of drugs that can be sent back to the U.S. If so, it sort of defeats the purpose of prescription drug importation. Do you think those challenges could be overcome with prescription drug legislation?
Knowles: The problem with the drug industry now is that they write the public policy, where we can?t negotiate with Medicare, and we?re not allowed to buy from Canada the same drugs that they produce and send to Canada. So what we have done is have put them in a power position that enables them to vastly increase their profits while the public, which needs those prescription drugs on a life and death basis, pays the price. So we need a government policy that sticks up for the users and not the producers.
News-Miner: Critics of this effort say that, if we allow prescription drug imports from other countries and take away U.S. companies? ability to restrict where those drugs go, that basically we are going to be placing price caps on our drugs in the U.S. Is that not something to worry about?
Knowles: If the drugs are available in Canada at a cheaper price there is no reason for us not to be able to import them to Alaska so that you could cut the price, when one of the largest expenses that many families and people, particularly seniors, have with health care is the cost of prescription drugs.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
News-Miner: Is there anything that you would find in a Supreme Court nominee that would disqualify a candidate?
Knowles: At a time when I consider personal freedoms at more risk than at any time in my memory, I?m going to make sure that people that come to the U.S. Senate for my vote of approval -- that they not only have the traditional temperament and the background, but they are fiercely protective of all of our Bill of Rights.
News-Miner: We?re talking about Roe v. Wade among those things?
Knowles: That certainly is a constitutional right and I consider that important.
News-Miner: How strictly would you adhere to that?
Knowles: There is no single provision, but I want to see a person that protects all of our rights. And I consider choice, a woman?s right to choose, and not putting a bureaucrat or a politician between a woman and her doctor, as an important right. So yes, that will weigh heavily upon my consideration, as will protection of all of the Bill of Rights. How they look at the Tenth Amendment, which establishes the relationships from the federal government and states. Clearly the First Amendment rights, so you guys can say whatever you want.
NEPOTISM
News-Miner: It is obvious with some voters the nepotism question remains a big important issue. In your campaign you keep mentioning it in a roundabout manner. Do you regret promising not to make this an issue?
Knowles: I didn?t make it an issue. Frank Murkowski made it an issue when he appointed her. And Lisa Murkowski made it an issue when she accepted. I didn?t make it an issue. So, in terms of what I?m focusing on, in everything that I do, is the fact that we want to have jobs, health care, education, national security and personal freedoms.
News-Miner: But you are making now overt reference in this latest ad. It starts off with your voice, says it?s Frank Murkowski?s hand-picked successor. That?s a pretty strong reference there.
Knowles: Well, should I say the elected senator? That would not be true though. So?
News-Miner: You don?t feel that those ads are bringing up the nepotism issue subtly or subconsciously?
Knowles: I didn?t create the issue. Everybody in Alaska knows about it and there are people that are upset about it. That is a fact of life.
News-Miner: Then why not have an ad specifically on that issue? Instead of having a sort of sideways reference.
Knowles: Because what I think is important is the campaign, or the issues, that I?m addressing in the ads.
SUCCESS AND FAILURE
News-Miner: What?s the greatest mistake of your political life and what is your greatest success?
Knowles: I think the greatest success, and I want to frame this in the context of politics is not a one-person show ... So I?m not claiming the credit, but having participated in and to help lead the effort. I would say is Denali Kid Care.
...At the end of a meeting ...there was a family that was sitting in the back. A woman carrying a baby, two boys that looked like they were threatening to be teenagers and then an older girl that was very well dressed, but you could tell it was a family of limited means. And so they wanted a picture. So we talked for a few minutes and then the girl that was dressed up said, ?I?d like to give you this letter.? ...Somewhere in the letter it intimated that maybe they had had some special medical challenges but it said ?it really kept our family together and I?m making this contribution for you to go to the United States Senate and continue your work in that field.?
I?ll never forget that. ... So I?ll carry that back to D.C. inside the beltway and I don?t care what?there will be lots of pressures to do lots of things? but that gives you the power to know what is the right thing to do and it just reinforces it. So the Denali Kid Care Program...
Knowles: The disappointment that I have had and I had to take responsibility for was not being able to get the subsistence measure on the ballot for Alaskans to vote ... We could have kept state fish and game management and I think it would have also brought Alaskans together in a way that we continue to be divided over federal management, state management, subsistence ... I worked it all eight years and it never got there. So that was the biggest disappointment.
