Murkowski said it was her idea to set up a rural congressional office in Bethel and that she made sure Alaska Natives participated in her summer internship program. Knowles pointed to his record, saying he set up a Native internship program in Anchorage
when he was mayor. Both said they were against "regionalization" of federal funding. They were referring to the idea of consolidating funding now distributed to Alaska's 230 or so federally recognized tribes and disbursing it through regional channels.
Source: AK Senate Debate in Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
Oct 29, 2004
Facilitated Government Canned Salmon purchases
To help reduce excess inventories of canned salmon, and protect fishermen against falling prices, Murkowski urged the federal government to buy more salmon. In 2003, the Department of Agriculture purchased more than $12 million of canned salmon for
government food programs and in 2004 the USDA committed to purchasing more than $15 million of pink salmon products. The Department announced it would also purchase another 130 tons of canned salmon for a humanitarian aid mission overseas.
Source: Campaign website, LisaMurkowski.com
Jun 30, 2004
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.
Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program.
Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act;
Bill S. 1932
; vote number 2005-363
on Dec 21, 2005
