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

A: It's funny you should ask that because my expectations are to complete the session in a timely fashion and accomplish whatever it is that the Republican caucus majority wishes to accomplish. And at this point we as a caucus have not established any priorities. Clearly from my own standpoint I would be premature in putting forth any priority that I would like to see accomplished without conferring with the other 27 members

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 anticipate that any new revenue measures will be passed this session. I think we are going to have to take a close look at what the administration is pursuing. Their mandate out there within the general populace was that the population did not want income taxes. They ran on economic development. I'm going to be keenly interested to see what exactly they are going to put forward that would generate the kind of revenue that will help close the fiscal gap. So at this point I don't see any revenue measures going forward. I think that we'll take a close look at what the administration is going to be putting forward, and maybe in the next year, if we can't fill that void to close the gap, then we'll look at additional revenue enhancements.

Q: How long does the Murkowski administration have to build up his development plan?

A: Well, I think he has clearly a good two years to do that based on the price of oil, again bailing us out here (recently). It remains to be seen how stable that price is going to be over the next six to eight months, but it looks like it's going to be in the high 20s (dollars a barrel) and at this point maybe even the low 30s for a good period of time. So that's bought him and the administration some time. Otherwise, I would have thought we might have looked at new revenue measures next year, but we do have probably another, I'd say, six months to eight months on top of the two and a half years that people are predicting that we have a drop in that Constitutional Budget Reserve. So we're probably now in the 2006 time frame before we drain the CBR. You don't want to drain it before you implement something, so by the end of 2004 or early 2005, if nothing changes and we're still drawing the same amount out of the CBR, we need to look at other revenues.

Q: Do you anticipate any cuts in the budget in order to slow the depletion of the Constitutional Budget Reserve?

A: Well, you know we've been cutting that budget for a decade now since I've been there, and we're down to the point where you're going to cut nickels and dimes, but any substantial or systemic amounts are just not there anymore. You can curtail out-of-state travel by state employees. That's going to save maybe 20, 30, 40 thousand dollars. You can maybe even consolidate a couple of the departments. We did that and we saved, I think, maybe $1 million, but when you're talking close to $1 billion in dealing with small amounts, it's going to be real difficult to close that fiscal gap. I just don't think there's a lot more cuts that are available without making substantial reductions in service. We did some things last session to include cutting the moneys for the parks, and it was a hue and outcry there and restored some of that. So I think the public has basically gotten to the point where they're feeling the cuts, and that's, I think, what our intent was altogether, to let them know that there was a real problem out there ...

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: Well, I believe there is going to be certainly the interest in cooperating. Whether or not there is going to be that cooperation that everyone sort of expects, I doubt it because we still have a system of government that's based on democracy, and there is part of that democratic process ­ the checks and balances. The House is going to take the lead on some things. We're not going to agree on everything the Senate does or everything the administration puts forward. So there's going to be cooperation. Certainly there's going to be the interest in cooperating, but I think when the end of the day comes we're going to find that we do have our differences, and that's what I think democracy is all about. And I think that's what this general population would like to see. We're not going to rubber stamp everything that comes across.

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's happening in the House, and how far along are House Republicans in getting this committee formed?

A: Well, we're still pretty much at step one. It was much my idea to go forward with a Ways and Means Committee. It was going to be a special committee that I was hoping that we could get some cooperation out of the Senate and make it a joint committee, and the whole purpose was to keep the discussion at the level where people still could understand what was happening within the fiscal arena at the state government level. I think absent that, there is going to be some complacency out there again with the price of oil now at $30 a barrel and everybody's going to be fat, dumb and happy again, and the permanent fund dividend check is going to be a robust check. Well, that's not going to be the case, and there are a number of reasons for that. Whether or not we establish that Ways and Means Committee at the House level absent the Senate remains to be seen that it's going to be one of our issues that we are going to be addressing at our first caucus in Juneau ...

Q: Do you anticipate there being a Ways and Means Committee in place ... when the Legislature convenes?

A: I think right now there is a 50-50 shot there will be one. Again, we discussed this issue when we had our retreat in Girdwood last month, and it was not conclusive one way or the other that we should establish one. I think there were some good points brought out from those who wanted to see one established. And then there were those who brought some good points out that didn't want to see it and that cautioned everybody that a Ways and Means Committee does not only mean taxation. It means looking at revenue opportunities ­ it could be through economic development, it could be through taxes, it could be through a number of measures.

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: No. I don't believe there will be a resolution. We've been fighting this issue way too long. I think the sides that are out there are too divisive. I don't think you can have any constructive negotiations or constructive meetings on the issue anymore. It's just one of those issues that's going to go on and on. I know our caucus has talked about it and if we can come to some conclusion before the legislation is introduced ­ that is we can get both sides to agree on what it is they can agree on ­ then there would be some legislation put forward. However, having gone through this now for a decade I don't see the sides getting any closer. In fact, they are getting further apart now that the federal government's taken over there seems to be some sentiment that we can live with the federal government much better than we can with what happens at the state level. So it's going to be, as years pass, more and more difficult. At this point I don't have any reason to believe that the administration is going to put something forward. It is my understanding that they will not put something forward unless we can all agree on what it is that they put forward.

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: I think there might be a push to make that a permanent formula, but I think it's going to be centered around the whole fiscal situation, whether or not the state can continue to provide that level of funding through a bonding mechanism or another form of mechanism that will continue to fund not only the urban but the rural schools.

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: I don't believe you will see lawmakers impose any new unfunded mandates. Clearly, from a Republican standpoint, that is something that we really don't believe in. There have been (some) from time to time that have been included over the years, but at this point I don't believe you are going to see any unfunded mandates. I think the hue and cry from municipalities and the boroughs that it would be imposed upon as far as those unfunded mandates will certainly make a difference to any lawmaker that may be considering supporting an unfunded mandate.

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 Republicans support the measure?

A: I do expect the issue of private prisons to return. We've seen it in the last two legislative sessions. I expect it will be reintroduced by somebody. Whether or not the Republican caucus will support something like that remains to be seen. It was a fairly narrow vote last time, and it is my understanding that the administration is not supportive of private prisons in Alaska. And based on that I'm not sure that we want to put Republicans through the whole process of voting for something ­ for or against in a narrowly constructed vote ­ that is only going to be vetoed by the governor in the end.

Q: Juneau officials have, at times, proposed building a new Capitol or expanding the current one. Do you think either proposal is a good one. If so, would you commit state funds to it?

A: Well, I've always believed that Juneau should look at construction of a new state Capitol. I don't believe expansion of the existing one is appropriate. I'd much rather see a new one constructed. It doesn't have to be a Taj Mahal, but it needs to be some form of building that is clearly accessible to the general population in Juneau as well as provide the mechanism that will provide the general population in Anchorage and Fairbanks with the logistical kinds of things that would make that Capitol accessible. ... If it's located out in the (Mendenhall) Valley for instance you'd probably want enough hotel rooms to accommodate people and the transportation that would get them to and fro. Whether or not we could commit state funds remains to be seen. I've always thought that a combination of private sector, city and state funds would be a good venture that we can all hold hands and go forward with.