Q: What are your expectations and priorities for this legislative session?

A: I'm optimistic about the future but know that there are enormous challenges facing our state like the budget problem. ... For the Democrats, education and schools are at the top of our list. I think we also want to see things in place to help small oil and gas producers in our state because I think most of us are starting to realize that our long-term future interests for economic development lie with the independent oil and gas producers in the state. ... I think we also want to help out senior citizens and veterans. Particularly prescription drugs are a huge concern for our senior population.

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: I don't expect there to be any major new revenue discussions in the Senate. Whether that's right or wrong, I always think it's better to plan for the future. Gov. Murkowski ran on a promise that there weren't going to be any revenue measures and that we were simply going to grow our way out of the red ink. I think Democrats are looking to Gov. Murkowski to fulfill the amazing promises that he made to become our governor.

Q: How long does he have to act on generating some new revenue for the state?

A: Well, according to incoming House Speaker Pete Kott, we have about 18 months. I think that's an honest assessment of the situation. The honeymoon for Gov. Murkowski, I think, probably lasts one session ... Again, he made a lot of promises to become governor, and I think people want to see him keep those promises.

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: Practicing budget discipline and looking for greater efficiencies, that all helps but it's really marginal and around the edges. It's a steep drop off that we're coming up to. Fran Ulmer was realistic about it in the campaign. Gov. Murkowski was not realistic about it, so the real interesting thing to observe is whether he will come to grips with reality or not. There are things the Legislature can do. We can make sure we don't go off on any spending sprees, but the conservatives promised no new taxes and that we were just going to grow our way out of the problem and cut spending.

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: What the Democrats set out to do this past session we accomplished, which was to pass a major bond package. We used our three-quarters vote leverage to force the Republicans to put that bond package for education on the ballot. They didn't want to do it. They didn't want to tie urban and rural Alaska together, but the Democrats worked with Sen. Rick Halford for the best interests of the entire state, and we were extremely proud of that accomplishment. ... The jury is still out on whether that can become permanent.

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 the House right now?

A: There were a number of us that were involved in that fiscal policy caucus, most notably Lisa Murkowski. Republicans and Democrats together were trying to grapple with this while (House Speaker) Brian Porter stood back and (Sen.) Dave Donley and (Sen.) Rick Halford stood back and were not supportive of the effort. So now it's the legislative leadership ­ the new leaders who are coming in the House and Senate are interested in institutionalizing that effort and really sort of basically admitting that we do have a long-term structural problem in our state finances. ... I would say that's a good thing, so that more of the Legislature is confronted with those hard realities as opposed to us all having to tromp out of the Capitol to another location to work on those issues as a caucus. That could be a positive development for the Legislature if it's a sincere effort to grapple with the looming problem.

Q: With Republicans heading these committees, since they have control of both the House and Senate, how do you see a committee like this working differently?

A: It brings the normal committee structure onto the problem. And it probably means there would be less creative discussions. But it's really up to those leaders, how sincere they are about dealing with the issue. It could potentially mean that it will be less bipartisan, but my expectation is that the people in charge will not truly grapple with the problem until there is truly a crisis. Until we fall off the cliff. And that's highly irresponsible for the state's future, but that's the sort of behavior that the Republican leadership has demonstrated in the past, to put it off until after the next election.

Q: This session the Senate is more evenly split, with eight Democrats and 12 Republicans. How do you think this will change the tone of the Senate?

A: I am personally very committed to changing the tone in the Senate. The Democrats, as long as I've been around, have been perfectly willing and able to help carry out the business of the Senate. We never used our three-quarters vote for personal projects or pork barrel kinds of efforts. We have always used our three-quarters vote for large statewide kinds of concerns like school construction and maintenance ... and we have provided the key votes in the Senate to put the budget to bed. So it's been moderate Republicans and the Democratic caucus who have joined together to finish the business of the Senate. ... The biggest knock-down, drag-out battles are not between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, they have been within the Republican caucus... The 12 to eight division in the Senate means that it is more likely that we will work together and do the business in a very civil kind of manner.

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: That's all up to Gov. Murkowski. He says he wants to solve the subsistence dilemma and he campaigned on that, so it's up to him. The people that block a vote of the people on subsistence are the people who were very strongly in favor of Sen. Murkowski becoming Gov. Murkowski, so the governor is going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting if he wants to solve that problem.

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

A: As we discussed before, the big test is education. Education is the great ladder of opportunity. Democrats place it as our top priority. We just think there is no greater thing you can do for economic development in this state than to put a lot of attention and focus on education. So the school construction and maintenance and the rewrite of the (education) formula, that's the big test of how we're all going to get along in this state. Subsistence and education are the two sort of tripwires for the urban-rural conflict, and it's incumbent upon all of us to try an minimize that problem rather than exacerbate it ...

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: Oh, I don't see any big push to create any more unfunded mandates. I, personally, have sponsored legislation to fully fund those programs. It's really ironic for me to sit here from my position in the minority and watch Republicans who use the mantra of unfunded mandates at the federal level be the folks who have unfunded mandates at the state level and are unwilling to appropriate the money to make that a fair deal for local governments. To me it seems like base hypocrisy for the political party that criticizes Democrats at the federal level for unfunded mandates are the political party here in Alaska responsible for perpetuating that situation. ... I personally favor maintaining the senior citizen property and veterans tax exemption and funding it fairly because it really isn't fair to local taxpayers (and) local governments to have a law in place and then not provide the funding. But since the Republicans have been in charge of the Legislature the funding has been greatly lessened, and local governments almost find it intolerable at this point.

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 Senate Democrats support the measure?

A: I personally have been very much opposed to private prison development in Alaska for a whole bunch of substantive policy reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if it resurfaced because there is a lot of money to be made by those folks. But we've been successful in beating back those efforts and again Gov. Murkowski, as I understood it, promised to oppose private prisons in Alaska. And that was something he said to impress the public safety employees across the state, and I trust that he was sincere about that. I would expect that Gov. Murkowski would let everyone know that ­ that he would veto a bill for a private prison, and maybe that will take the wind out of the sails. But most if not all Democrats have opposed private prison development in Alaska because we think it's not good for public safety and not good ultimately for local communities or the public treasury.

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:I fully expect Rep. (Norm) Rokeberg to introduce a bill that he and Rep. Sharon Cissna worked very hard on in the House and passed the House. It's the bill to allow pooling for small businesses and non-profits for health insurance. It's a very positive pro-growth, pro-economic development, pro-business, pro-health care legislation. I very much applaud Rep. Rokeberg on that bill. It came to the Senate and died with Sen. Lyda Green in the HESS committee. But I believe there is a big bipartisan push from non-profits and business and other folks who care about health care coverage to see that bill come across again.