Q: What are your priorities for this Legislative session?

A: Well, I'm going to be working with the budget chairs and the administration on the operating budget. I certainly have concerns about how that is going to come together. But in particular for myself I've focused this past couple of years on permit streamlining and finding out why it is that our process is now just as much of a discouragement to attracting private investment as our environment, our severe environment up here. ... We will be looking at what makes sense for the Legislature to do to help the prospects for a gas pipeline. We will be looking at the initiative passed by the citizens with regard to the All-Alaska Gas Pipeline Authority and how those two potentially can work together. We want to work closely with the congressional delegation on any suggestions they have on how the state can be helpful with gas pipeline legislation in the Congress and also access to ANWR issues.

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 only to see (all but the alcohol tax increase) killed in the Senate. Do you anticipate that new revenue measures will be implemented this session?

A: Whether the House again puts together some kind of a long-term package of that sort ­ I think if there is to be any movement or discussion on that, it would have to originate in the House. I don't know that the Senate or the governor has indicated much of a willingness to go there right away. We want to utilize the budgetary pressure that we have to really force people to really look at some of these other areas with regard to generating economic activity in the state of Alaska first. And if you were to negate the necessity to look at those areas and really take some passive proactive measures to get things going in the state, there would be some question on whether you would do it if you didn't have that budgetary pressure.

Q: The latest state revenue projections estimate 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: Well, by controlling expenditures as much as possible, and certainly a dollar that you don't draw out now is available in the future. I believe that we are just about done with a lot of the litigation with oil companies that had resulted in the balance of the Constitutional Budget Reserve, so I don't know that there is much that we can do on that legal front to draw new dollars into the fund. ... Also, the latest revenue forecasts indicated that as the Legislature had suspected the past administration was somewhat low-balling the future oil and gas revenue projections, or overall revenue projections to the state. That also extends the Constitutional Budget Reserve. ... I think this Legislature and governor will be working together to no longer be blackmailed by the minority to get the three-quarters vote that is necessary at the end of the Legislature to balance the budget. In the past the minority has had to work with the administration and basically use the three-quarter vote to leverage more spending, which means more of a draw out of the Constitutional Budget Reserve, less money in the future. ...

Q: Do you anticipate cuts in the budget this year? If so, what cuts would you support?

A: I think that due to the switch in the administration the operating budget that we will be presented with is going to be largely the '03 budget (passed in 2002). The administration will have an opportunity to come in and make some budget amendments. And then of course working with the Legislature, in conjunction with the Legislature majority party, (the administration can) recommend other areas where they think savings can be gathered up. I think the Legislature will look at that, but it won't be until the next year's operating budget that this administration has their people in place from the ground floor on the development of the proposed operating budget. ... The Legislature, I think, is going to be looking at ways of controlling the tremendous growth in some of the social service budget. Some of that is due to funding changes on the federal level that we might or might not be able to get changes made to, so we'll just have to wait and see.

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: I've heard an expression of interest along that line. What exactly they will ultimately do on their side I'm not sure. I don't know that members of the Senate majority are interested in forming a formalized ad hoc committee. We'd rather just use the committee structure that we have to evaluate ideas along that line. And to tell you the truth, with our majority being 12 strong, a lot of our members are doing double duty to cover the committee structure that we do have on an ongoing basis. So establishing additional committees beyond that just increases everybody's workload.

Q: If the committee is formed, how would you anticipate it being different than the fiscal policy caucus?

A: I don't know that it would be, to tell you the truth, except for I'm sure they would factor in the past election being somewhat of a referendum on some of the ideas that were proposed by that fiscal policy caucus. Basically, some of the frustration that many people had on the Senate side was there were discussions of a lot of different ideas (but) the minority said the outcome of a fiscal plan is an income tax and nothing but an income tax. And if you are not willing to talk an income tax, we are not interested in participating. So they basically forced the fiscal policy caucus into embracing an income tax, and it didn't sell with the Senate, it didn't sell with the general public, I don't think it sold with our new governor.

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

A: Due to our ... separation of powers between the Legislature and the administration, and then the bicameral Legislature, there is supposed to be an airing of differences of opinion. So we've had differences of opinion between the House and the Senate, and the Legislature's had differences of opinion with the governor. ... However, when we do have those differences I think there is much more of a likelihood that we'll try to work them out and not just have the battle ensue in the press and the headlines. I think we'll continue to have a good working relationship with the House even though we differed with them. Leadership got together regularly to discuss where it was that we wanted to take the Legislature and now we will have much more of an opportunity to have that type of constructive dialogue with the administration.

Q: How about the Senate? There is a 12-8 split in the Senate right now. How does that affect the relationships between lawmakers in that body?

A: Well, most of the members that are in the Senate have been around for quite a while. New members that are coming over from the House, I dealt with them extensively when I was co-chairman of the House Finance Committee. We've got just two brand-new members to the legislative process in the Senate, but I think they strike me as being fairly quick studies on issues and on the process. So I think they will be up to speed fairly quickly. And the minority members that return, we've had robust debate with them in the past, but I think it's always been on civil terms, and I expect that to continue.

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

A: I don't know that that's something to be expected this session. I think, and my counsel to people in the administration is, that if the governor has some new ideas on a potential way of going at the subsistence dilemma that we find ourselves in, there will be a willingness to discuss ideas. ... If it were just a piece of legislation, the same old idea of let's just bow to federal law, which a number of us suspect has constitutional infirmities, that would be pretty much a nonstarter. To tell you the truth, I don't know that the votes on that type of concept have changed much from what you've seen in the past. And because of that, I don't know that the House is that eager to just charge out with the same old idea if it is to find the same kind of reception in the Senate. So hopefully that leads to a real interest and willingness from both the administration, the House and the Senate to look at and evaluate different ideas that have perhaps not been fully discussed in the past due to the Knowles administration's position. And alternately I think that leads to not having quick action this year. It's the type of thing that a proposed constitutional amendment, if there is to be one, cannot go on the ballot except for in a general election year. So it's nothing that could go to a public vote if it was needed this year, and that's not to say that if there was an idea that had some traction we should wait until the last possible second in the next legislative session.

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, to tell you the truth, the Legislature will just see how that voter-approved language sort of plays out here in the next year or two. It will go a long way to relieve a lot of the sort of the pent-up pressure for school construction dollars. We have to keep an eye on the accumulating debt of the state. We are by and large debt-free at this point, and that was sort of the plan as the Prudhoe Bay revenues came down, the debt that was issued years ago would also come down. And now not knowing whether we are going to have a spike in revenue anytime soon or if it is going to be flat revenues or declining revenues exactly. I think the Legislature is going to try to be fairly careful on how that debt load builds up, so I wouldn't look to see any kind of action to sort of go a next step to sort of enshrine stuff in statute. We want to be careful about the amount we are handing off to the next Legislature and the one after that.

Q: I think that this (bond package) was seen as helping to bridge the urban-rural divide. Do you think there will be any other measures coming out of the Senate that work toward bridging that gap?

A: Well, I think it was just the realization that we did have needs across the state. I think the urban-rural divide was largely a fabrication of the Knowles administration, unfortunately used to push their policy agenda to the detriment of most citizens in the state of Alaska. I think the Legislature was interested in taking care of school construction needs across the state. So I certainly on my behalf and the vote that I cast, it wasn't done so to respond to the divide that was largely a creation of the administration. It was just to address needs that were legitimate out there.

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 this year?

A: When it comes to school districts, I have asked districts numerous times to show me the statutes, bring the statutes to me, that they believe are unfunded mandates that are unjust. And by and large I haven't gotten too much from the districts. The senior property tax exemption is one that I think is legitimate for local governments to feel that they have a legitimate complaint about. I have advocated to members of the Legislature in the past that it is something that the Legislature should consider turning over to be a local option. I don't know that there is the ability with the very tight state fiscal policy or fiscal situation to expect the Legislature to step in and refund that tax mechanism. Therefore, if it is to continue, it should be something that local governments have some say on.

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 Republicans support such a measure?

A: I have not talked to members of the caucus about that. I'm not aware at this point if anybody has prefiled legislation. Historically, those efforts have started in the House and come over to the Senate, and I've not had any conversations with Speaker Kott about whether he anticipates that this year. I believe through the campaign the administration may have weighed in against that kind of concept. But I'm not sure at this point to what degree if such statements were made how set they were or whether the administration would look at a proposal. One thing we do have to keep in mind though is that housing the prisoners out of state, while it is a leakage of state dollars out of our economy, there is no way that we can match that per-day rate here in the state. So we have to weigh the benefit of having that activity take place in our economy versus the additional expense to the state treasury.

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: I don't think at this point I'm interested in committing many state funds in that effort. A number of years ago an outside speaker mentioned that we had the most remarkably unremarkable Capitol in the nation, but it's a usable functional building. I am more than happy to conduct the people's work in the building. I think it lends itself to the approachability that citizens feel that they have with the Legislature and their elected officials. There is nothing very stand-offish about the building. So if the municipality felt that somehow they wanted to update the facilities that we had, I think the Legislature would look at that.