A: Our priorities are to do the work that is necessary to make Alaskans safer, healthier, better educated and more prosperous.

Q: In the last session the House passed a long-range fiscal plan including an income tax, an alcohol tax and use of permanent fund earnings. All of those measures except the alcohol tax were killed in the Senate. Do you anticipate that any new revenue measures will be implemented this session?

A: Gov. (Frank) Murkowski has said that he intends to bridge the fiscal gap by developing Alaska's resources, and that seems to be the course that the public wants to follow, and we're going to work hard to make that come to pass. But time ultimately will determine whether that's a wise course or not.

Q: Do you think it's a wise course?

A: It's the course that the public has chosen to follow, and part of my responsibility now, once a decision is made, is to work as hard as I can to make it a success.

Q: The latest state revenue projection estimated the Constitutional Budget Reserve will run out of money in June 2005. Do you think the Legislature can do anything to extend the life of the reserve fund?

A: I think there's a lot that we can do but, you know, what we need to also be doing at the same time is trying to move the state forward, not just protecting programs or assets that we have now. We need to make decisions about how we can make, as I said before ... the state safer, healthier, better educated and more prosperous. And if we do that we're doing our job. If we fall short of moving forward in those directions, then the legislative session will not have been a success.

Q: How will the shortfall directly affect residents of the state?

A: We get into a bind when we view budgets solely in dollar values. ... We need to start thinking in terms of what we can do and what we should do. That's where I think the problem is. It's a problem of imagination, it's a problem of will, and I'm hoping that creative people can get together and come up with solutions that work best for the state.

Q: Do you expect cuts in the budget this year?

A: You know, it's too early to say what happens. I'm willing to let the Murkowski administration lay out its budget. ... But it's our commitment as responsible legislators to try and make the budget work, but we also have a responsibility to constituents to make sure that they're served.

Q: If the budget has to be cut, what areas do you think should be eliminated ­ or what do you think should be added?

A: I think what we need to do is re-engineer government and look at what the goals of government are, what services we are providing, and see if, perhaps, there are better ways of providing those services. It seems to me also that there are opportunities for us to consolidate state and local services in ways that reduce the overall budgetary burden of state and local government budgets. And I'd like to begin by exploring those two avenues. It's a process rather than a simple declaration of what we ought to do or where we ought to cut.

Q: The bipartisan fiscal policy caucus last session was successful in getting a variety of revenue-generating measures through the House. There's been talk among House Republicans now about forming a Ways and Means Committee to take the place of the ad hoc fiscal policy caucus. What are you hearing from colleagues in the House?

A: I've heard mention that they are intending to do it. We just hope that they are not trying to find ways to be mean to the people in the state of Alaska.

Q: How do you anticipate that the committee will be different from the fiscal policy caucus?

A: I'm waiting to see how it's outlined. Last session and during the campaign, Democrats took the lead in being the fiscally responsible party. It was a message of ģEat your vegetablesē and it was not a message that people, apparently, wanted to hear at the time. So it's now time for the Republicans to lead, to show us how they intend to bridge the fiscal gap.

Q: With Republicans running the Senate, the House and the Governor's office, do you think there will be more cooperation between lawmakers this session?

A: You look at history and the history of one-party states, both in the United States and in other countries, has not been one of overwhelming success. The abilities of an institution depends a lot on the abilities of the individuals who make up those institutions. As long as people approach problems not as Republicans first but as Alaskans first and are willing to approach those problems with open minds, I think there is an opportunity for us to solve some of the major issues. But if partisanship carries the day, it's unfortunate for the state.

Q: Six special sessions have been held on the issue of subsistence. Do you believe there will be a resolution to subsistence this session?

A: I think the Senate is, as it has been in the past, a black hole as far as subsistence goes.

Q: What would a subsistence plan have to include for House Democrats to support it?

A: It would have to comply with ANILCA. It would have to work. That's the fundamental issue. If it doesn't work there's no point in pursuing it. It would have to have the support of the people that are most impacted and that would be the subsistence users.

Q: What other measures will Democrats push this session to help bridge the urban-rural divide?

A: In the past, Rep. (Mary) Kapsner's Alaska history bill was important. (Kapsner's bill would have made a course in Alaska history a high school graduation requirement.) A lot of what happens in Juneau in terms of the urban-rural divide is the quality and tone of the debate, and we're looking to see how people address the issue.

Q: In November, voters passed a bond package to fund maintenance and construction of rural schools while providing debt reimbursement for urban schools. Do you see there being a push this session to make that a permanent formula?

A: Democrats are very proud that we are the ones who drove that bond package through and the debt reimbursement package through the Legislature. That's our doing and we are going to take a measure of pride as schools are maintained and built across the state. We were fortunate to work with Sen. (Rick) Halford on this, and if we can set up a formula that redresses inequities in school maintenance and construction across the state as well as fill in needs for school maintenance and construction, then we've done a good job.

Q: In recent years, local governments have complained that the state cuts support for programs it still mandates. An example is the senior citizen property tax exemption, which used to be supported by state funds. Do you expect lawmakers to impose more unfunded mandates or take some away?

A: You know, in the time that I've served in the Legislature I'm trying to recall any unfunded mandates that we've passed of any magnitude and none come to mind. The whole notion of unfunded mandates is not one that I like, it's not one that my caucus likes and to the extent that it's possible we will oppose them. At the same time, when we make a commitment to a local government or to a constituency, it's incumbent upon the Legislature to uphold our end of the commitment.

Q: There have been efforts in recent legislative sessions to build a private prison in Alaska to address the issues of overcrowding and relocation of prisoners to Arizona. Do you expect the issue to return this session, and will House Democrats support the measure?

A: House Democrats have opposed the measure and we will continue to oppose the measure. I think Gov. Murkowski has indicated during the campaign that he opposed a private prison, so I don't expect it to resurface.

Q: The administration is negotiating with the state's 12 labor unions over three-year contracts that are set to expire in June 2003. Will the Legislature fund the contracts if they call for increased pay and benefits?

A: Gov. Murkowski during the campaign said repeatedly that he wasn't going to balance the state budget on the backs of state workers, and we're looking for him to follow through in that direction. We have an issue in the state of recruiting and retaining high-quality employees, and we need to do what we can in terms of wage and benefit packages so that happens.

Q: Were there any particular pieces of legislation that were on their way to being passed last session that did not because time constraints that you expect to return this session?

A: No. Last session went on for so long and in so many different formats I think we covered everything. We are going to see the Regulatory Commission come back. There will be the regular flurry of issues, but what I've heard from the Senate president and the speaker of the House, there are not a lot of initiatives coming from the majorities in either body, and they are waiting for the governor to declare what he wants to do. Democrats, as I said before, we do have some proposals that we want to follow through on. We think it's very important that Alaskans' security be taken care of in terms of anti-crime measures, in terms of public-health measures. We are very committed to expanding educational opportunities in the state, making sure that there are enough opportunities so that Alaskans can develop the skills necessary to work and live productively. And that dovetails with our third primary objective, which is to develop the economy. We can have a high-quality work force, but we also need to, aside from doing resource development, pave the ground for more entrepreneurship in small businesses in this state.