Speaker 1: What if there were a way to reduce cancer deaths
Speaker 1: by half in the next twenty five years. This is
Speaker 1: the future Exact Sciences works toward every single day because
Speaker 1: they believe it's possible. Exact Sciences is a dedicated team
Speaker 1: of cancer fighters united by a purpose to help eradicate
Speaker 1: cancer by preventing it, detecting it earlier, and guiding personalized treatment.
Speaker 1: Visit exacsciences dot com to learn more.
Speaker 2: This Republican senator can tell you that I am getting
Speaker 2: the calls that I'm sure all of my Republican colleagues
Speaker 2: are that are saying, as a Republican, your job is
Speaker 2: to line up with the president. Why are you even
Speaker 2: questioning any of this? Why are you even questioning this?
Speaker 2: And I say, well, because I'm a United States Senator.
Speaker 2: I swore an oath to the Constitution, not to the President,
Speaker 2: and so I know what my responsibilities are under Article one.
Speaker 1: Hi everyone, I'm Katie Kuric and this is Next Question.
Speaker 1: Hi everyone, I'm Kitty Kirk and this is a very
Speaker 1: special edition of Next Question. This episode is coming to
Speaker 1: you from Washington, DC, in fact, the home of Senator
Speaker 1: Lisa Murkowski. She is one of the most independent voices
Speaker 1: in the US Senate and isn't afraid to take a
Speaker 1: stand even when it's at odds with her own party.
Speaker 1: She has written a new book called Far from Home.
Speaker 1: An Alaskan Senator faces the extreme climate of Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: And there is plenty to talk about, not only the book,
Speaker 1: but what's happening in Washington and in this country. Senator
Speaker 1: mccowski is so good to see you. Thank you for
Speaker 1: inviting us into your home.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you, thank you for making the track down.
Speaker 2: This is where I plant myself when I'm here in
Speaker 2: d C and not back in Alaska.
Speaker 1: And this is where your dad lives.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So tell people.
Speaker 1: About your dad, because for some of a certain age
Speaker 1: they might not know who he is.
Speaker 2: Well, he came to the Senate in nineteen eighty riding
Speaker 2: the coattails of Ronald Reagan. My dad had been in
Speaker 2: the banking business in Alaska for basically his whole professional life.
Speaker 2: He had attempted one run at the House of Representatives
Speaker 2: in nineteen seventy, who was actually defeated by Congressman Nick Beggage.
Speaker 2: Kind of sounds like deja vous all over again. Some
Speaker 2: people say, are there other political families in Alaska, Murkowski's
Speaker 2: and the Beggages. We laugh about it, but there is
Speaker 2: some history there. So anyway, my dad was a banker
Speaker 2: and chose to run for the United States Senate in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty wins and served in the Senate for over
Speaker 2: twenty years. And then I decided that it was time
Speaker 2: to come back home, time to return to Alaska, and
Speaker 2: so he ran for governor and served as governor for
Speaker 2: one term, and it was that vacancy that was created.
Speaker 2: Then he had two more years in his term when
Speaker 2: he ran for governor. And so my story, my political story,
Speaker 2: kind of begins then in two thousand and two when
Speaker 2: he made probably the most dangerous political decision in appointing
Speaker 2: me to fill the final years of his term.
Speaker 1: And you were not and to it right. So I
Speaker 1: was ninety years old, you said, no way.
Speaker 2: I was smart enough to know that.
Speaker 1: Dad, this is called nepotism. You know, you didn't want
Speaker 1: to be the original nepho baby.
Speaker 2: I did not. And besides that, I had a really
Speaker 2: nice life back home. My husband and I were living
Speaker 2: the life in Anchorage. We had two great kids. There
Speaker 2: were young young guys at the time, little boys, Nick
Speaker 2: and Matt, and I was living my political dream, which
Speaker 2: was to be in the Alaska legislature. I was a
Speaker 2: House representative for a small district in Anchorage, Alaska.
Speaker 1: You've been head of the PTA.
Speaker 2: That was my political launch was the PTA at my
Speaker 2: son's elementary school. It was a Title I school, so
Speaker 2: we had all kinds of challenges and it allowed me
Speaker 2: to kind of get my feet wet into doing some
Speaker 2: really good community things that made me feel good about
Speaker 2: what we were doing for other people, and it made
Speaker 2: a difference. It made a difference, and I think about
Speaker 2: that kind of as my initial political grounding and why
Speaker 2: you do the things that you do Because I was working,
Speaker 2: I was raising kids, I had a life, and to
Speaker 2: take on an extra layer of responsibility was like, oh
Speaker 2: do I need to do this?
Speaker 1: But pretty daunty, right, But your dad kind of guilted
Speaker 1: you into it.
Speaker 2: You know. I come from a family where it's you're
Speaker 2: supposed to contribute. I think I've got a pretty good
Speaker 2: work ethic, and I think it comes from from my parents,
Speaker 2: who who just had good principled work ethic. We worked
Speaker 2: together as a family, but there was also how do
Speaker 2: you give back? How do you give back? To your communities.
Speaker 2: So you can give back as a PTA president working
Speaker 2: for the kids. You can give back in political office
Speaker 2: by saying I can make a difference for little my
Speaker 2: little district.
Speaker 1: Insue. By the way, I want to mention was a
Speaker 1: big family. I didn't realize how many kids run your family.
Speaker 2: We didn't think that it was that big at the time.
Speaker 2: There were six kids and great family. Really, my brothers
Speaker 2: and my sister, my brothers and sisters, we are the
Speaker 2: tightest of friends to this day, and I think it's
Speaker 2: because of that, because of ken of the we work together,
Speaker 2: we play together as a family, and that made really really,
Speaker 2: really strong, strong bond.
Speaker 1: Tell me again, though, how your dad, I read this,
Speaker 1: convinced you. He basically was disappointed when you were hesitant, right.
Speaker 2: Well, I think he didn't understand why I would not
Speaker 2: want it. Certainly, being in the United States Senate very prestigious,
Speaker 2: and he had really done his due diligence. I think
Speaker 2: there was a list of about twenty five people on
Speaker 2: that list, some notable people that people even outside the
Speaker 2: state of Alaska had recognized. Sarah Palin was on the list,
Speaker 2: but I was on the list as well, and I
Speaker 2: kind of thought it was almost a gratuitous thing. And
Speaker 2: he said, no, others have suggested your name, and so
Speaker 2: I want to know if you want to be included
Speaker 2: in the mix. And I said, look, you've got great
Speaker 2: names on the list. I am not your pick. And
Speaker 2: long and short of this is we kind of went
Speaker 2: back and forth over a period of a month and
Speaker 2: a half and he said, I keep coming back to you.
Speaker 2: I want to know if you will consider it, and
Speaker 2: I said, no, I don't want to leave me alone.
Speaker 2: And then he plays the guilt card. He said, you
Speaker 2: love our state. You know you could make a difference,
Speaker 2: and you have an obligation to your state to try
Speaker 2: to make it better. So think about it. And so
Speaker 2: you know, when you lay that on, it's like, okay,
Speaker 2: I'll think about it. But then period of weeks go
Speaker 2: by and I'm not hearing anything. So I figure, of fufta,
Speaker 2: I'm in the clear. I don't have to do this.
Speaker 2: I can stay focused on my life in Juno as
Speaker 2: a legislator and my life at home in Anchorage with
Speaker 2: my family. And December eighteenth, I'm in the barbershop with
Speaker 2: the boys, getting their haircut so they look good for
Speaker 2: the Christmas pictures and I get this telephone call from
Speaker 2: my dad and he's like, hey, did you get did
Speaker 2: you get the FedEx package? I'm like what? Anyway, he
Speaker 2: had recalled a conversation from years ago when we were
Speaker 2: sitting around at campfire and he brought out a pair
Speaker 2: of really not very attractive knitted socks, blue and gold,
Speaker 2: looking like the state flag with little stars on him.
Speaker 2: And I kind of joked with him about, gosh, where'd
Speaker 2: you get those ugly socks? And he said, you know,
Speaker 2: some constituent knitted them for me. And you know, this
Speaker 2: is what you get when you're a United States senator.
Speaker 2: And I said, WHOA, wouldn't that be great one day
Speaker 2: to be a United States Senator so I could get
Speaker 2: a Para Sox like that. Anyway, he sent me the
Speaker 2: Paara Sox and that was when I said, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe I do have an obligation that is deeper than
Speaker 2: what I'm doing in Geno. And so we said yes,
Speaker 2: and here we are twenty three years later.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, I want to give some props to your mom
Speaker 1: because he she is truly the smartest one in your family.
Speaker 1: And is mom smart? She looked, you know, well, you know.
Speaker 2: My dad was the big public figure right He was
Speaker 2: the senator, he was the banker. She was the glue.
Speaker 2: She made sure that when he called up at four
Speaker 2: point thirty and said, I'm bringing home some folks from
Speaker 2: out of town for dinner, she's already feeding six kids
Speaker 2: and a husband who's been gone all day long, and
Speaker 2: she doesn't miss a beat. She puts another four place
Speaker 2: settings on an already big table and makes it happen.
Speaker 1: And never complained ever.
Speaker 2: Really, no, no, no, maybe once in a while, No,
Speaker 2: not even not even. My mom is probably the least
Speaker 2: athletically inclined person out there, and you know what, she
Speaker 2: would be there with us when we would go, when
Speaker 2: we go do our downhill skiing trek, when we hiked
Speaker 2: the chill Cooot trail. She doesn't like to get her
Speaker 2: her head underwater, but by gosh, she'll everything else in
Speaker 2: the water with us. And she is just such an
Speaker 2: extraordinary woman. My folks are both ninety two now and
Speaker 2: they are dang independent and health and good health.
Speaker 1: But it's so lucky.
Speaker 2: I am so blessed. My family is blessed.
Speaker 1: It sounds like Alaska was such a fun place to
Speaker 1: grow up. And you're from a pretty small town, right, Senator. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I've never been to Alaska, but it must just
Speaker 1: be so beautiful. And I know in your book you
Speaker 1: write about really your heart is in Alaska and when
Speaker 1: you go there, you know your home and just the
Speaker 1: beautiful surroundings. What was that like. I know you don't
Speaker 1: know any differently, but wow, you're jealous.
Speaker 2: Well, and yeah, I said, I'm blessed with my family.
Speaker 2: I am blessed with the extraordinary state that I live in.
Speaker 2: Is it is so different every area I grew up
Speaker 2: in southeastern Alaska, where it's it's small little island communities
Speaker 2: with massive trees and the cliffs that go straight up
Speaker 2: and then down into the ocean. The wildness, the rawness,
Speaker 2: the softness. At the same time, there's something different about Alaska.
Speaker 2: The air smells cleaner and more pure. The color of
Speaker 2: the sky is richer, the trees smell differently, the flowers
Speaker 2: are more intense in their colors. It's just kind of
Speaker 2: it is a land of extremes and it's harsh at
Speaker 2: the same time. But that beauty is something that is
Speaker 2: just difficult to describe, and I never ever get tired
Speaker 2: of it. We raised our boys in Anchorage, and we
Speaker 2: lived in this part of town, an old part of town.
Speaker 2: Sits above the hill, right overlooking downtown, so we're really
Speaker 2: close into everything that's going on. The railroad tracks are
Speaker 2: right below us. The military base is right behind us.
Speaker 2: But every day I would drive over the bridge and
Speaker 2: you look out and here's the same mountain range that's
Speaker 2: been there since time immemorial.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And my boys recalled me calling them the oh my
Speaker 2: gosh mountains because same view every day, and I'd look
Speaker 2: over and it's say, oh my gosh, it's so beautiful.
Speaker 2: It never gets old. People are talking on the radio Latasha. Oh,
Speaker 2: by the way, d Nali's out today, Like what is
Speaker 2: that all about? Well, the mountain is so majestic today,
Speaker 2: and the sky is so clear that the mountain's out today.
Speaker 2: It's an amazing place. It makes me smile. But what
Speaker 2: is more important to my day ja here in Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. Is how when I am home, I am
Speaker 2: filled up because this place can deplete you, it can
Speaker 2: suck everything out of you. And I get on that
Speaker 2: plane and you know, eleven to twelve hours later, four
Speaker 2: hours time difference, four thousand miles, I'm home and I
Speaker 2: feel it, and it's my attitude that lives. I feel
Speaker 2: like I can breathe better. I just fill everything up
Speaker 2: so that when I come back here on that Monday,
Speaker 2: I got room to go, I got gas in my tanks.
Speaker 2: And it really makes a difference.
Speaker 1: Have you finally adjusted to life in the nation's capital,
Speaker 1: because you write about initially feeling this was an utterly
Speaker 1: foreign world and moments, I mean days when you felt
Speaker 1: profound loneliness. Have you gotten used to it?
Speaker 2: I think I've gotten used to it? Have I Have
Speaker 2: I liked it?
Speaker 1: No? Really, I grew up near here, so this is
Speaker 1: sort of my hometown and it's not Alaska, granted. But
Speaker 1: there's some nice things about.
Speaker 2: Oh there are, and there are some beautiful things about it.
Speaker 2: In fact, COVID was really interesting that time period when
Speaker 2: I was I was stuck here. I wasn't flying back
Speaker 2: and forth. My husband was Alaska. I was pretty much
Speaker 2: pretty much on my own work in my own little
Speaker 2: office here by myself. But I would make myself go
Speaker 2: out for long walks and just appreciate the beauty of
Speaker 2: the spring in Washington, d C. And the architecture. I
Speaker 2: loved looking at the different doors, what color they were painted.
Speaker 2: It is beautiful, but it's still not home. And even
Speaker 2: though we've lived in this home for for years now,
Speaker 2: it is still not home my home. When people say
Speaker 2: are you going home, I mean that home back in Alaska.
Speaker 1: You've had, as you said, a very long career as
Speaker 1: a senator, but there was a pivotal moment for you
Speaker 1: that I think perhaps you see it as before and after,
Speaker 1: and that was in twenty ten when you lost the
Speaker 1: Republican primary to Joe Miller, who was a Tea Party
Speaker 1: back candidate. But instead of stepping aside, you launched an
Speaker 1: historic writing campaign and against yach you won. And Courtney,
Speaker 1: my producer, and I were talking, No, I don't have
Speaker 1: one fact. We were going to see if you had
Speaker 1: any extras I do.
Speaker 2: This is what Vern did. He turned the plastic band
Speaker 2: into gold. Oh that is so cool, so fill it in,
Speaker 2: write it in.
Speaker 1: So basically, you had bracelets made or someone made bracelets.
Speaker 2: Cover bracelets because strong bracelets.
Speaker 1: Right. They wanted everyone to make sure they spelled your
Speaker 1: name correctly.
Speaker 2: Right, they needed to spell the name correctly in a
Speaker 2: write in. But you also had to make sure that
Speaker 2: you filled in the little bubble next to the line,
Speaker 2: the line said right in. My name was nowhere on
Speaker 2: a ballot. That's kind of scary you going in. It's like, oh,
Speaker 2: I'm a for election, but my name is nowhere. And
Speaker 2: it was just a line and it said right in.
Speaker 2: And if you wrote my name in and you spelled
Speaker 2: it perfectly, but you failed to fill in the bubble,
Speaker 2: it didn't count.
Speaker 1: It took a lot of confidence to do that, didn't it, Senator.
Speaker 1: I mean, it could have ended in sort of humiliation,
Speaker 1: but it didn't. You won. What gave you the courage
Speaker 1: to do that?
Speaker 2: Well, my brother said, Lisa, you know, what you're trying
Speaker 2: to do is next to impossible. There was a right
Speaker 2: successful rite in nineteen fifty four with strom Thurman different circumstances.
Speaker 2: Murkowski is not easy to spell. The only way that
Speaker 2: you can prevail is if you are an evangelist with
Speaker 2: a cause. Need to believe that this can be real
Speaker 2: in order to make this happen. And the only way
Speaker 2: that people can believe is if you believe yourself that
Speaker 2: it can happen. And I don't know which came first,
Speaker 2: because it was considered to be a fool's errand in
Speaker 2: the eyes of most people, in Washington, d C. To
Speaker 2: try to do a campaign. The professionals, the consultants were
Speaker 2: all gone, the pollsters were gone. When the Republican Party
Speaker 2: said Republican Primary says, this is your Republican nominee, people
Speaker 2: went with Joe Miller. I can't fault them for that.
Speaker 2: That's what happens around here. I get it. And so
Speaker 2: we were going to have to do this on our own.
Speaker 2: And the money wasn't going to flow because nobody's going
Speaker 2: to give money to somebody that's on a fool's errand.
Speaker 2: And so it was Alaska that had to make the commitment.
Speaker 2: And when they started, they random people, strangers on a
Speaker 2: bike stopping in the middle of the street, the janitor
Speaker 2: rolling the garbage can through the airport stopping me and saying,
Speaker 2: you got to give me an opportunity to vote for you.
Speaker 2: You have to do this for me. It made me
Speaker 2: believe that we could do this, that we could do
Speaker 2: the impossible.
Speaker 1: And then when you won, how did that liberate you?
Speaker 1: How did that make you believe more in yourself and
Speaker 1: your own conscience? Because it was a turning point, wasn't it.
Speaker 2: Oh, it was pivotal in so many ways. Yes, It
Speaker 2: was historic from an election perspective, right in terms of
Speaker 2: what Alaskans had done. One hundred and three thousand Alaskans
Speaker 2: had been taught how to not only participate in this
Speaker 2: ride in election, but to do so in a way
Speaker 2: that was legible enough so that the courts backed up
Speaker 2: the counting, because, believe it or not, even a correct
Speaker 2: spelling was being challenged by my opponent. If there was
Speaker 2: an exclamation point at the end of Lisa Murkowski or
Speaker 2: one that was really offensive to me, somebody had put
Speaker 2: a heart instead of dotting the eye, they wanted to
Speaker 2: challenge that. I'm sorry, that's voter intent is pretty clear
Speaker 2: that I think that they really wanted to support me anyway.
Speaker 2: It was a turning point for me in understanding who
Speaker 2: I really worked for. The Republican Party did not return
Speaker 2: me to the Senate. It was not the Republicans of Alaska.
Speaker 2: It was this wild, crazy mix of Republicans and Democrats,
Speaker 2: conservatives and liberals, Independents, Greens, libertarians, people who say it's
Speaker 2: none of your damn business what my party is. These
Speaker 2: were the people that took a risk, who said I'm
Speaker 2: not throwing away my vote by doing this. This is
Speaker 2: a very proactive action on my part to say who
Speaker 2: I want. There was no I'm going to pick the
Speaker 2: lesser of two evils. It was a statement of conviction
Speaker 2: and intentional, absolutely intentional in every way. And that is
Speaker 2: so freeing when you have when you have this, many
Speaker 2: Alaskans across the board say I don't care what the
Speaker 2: party has said. My choice is. I want to have
Speaker 2: a choice, and she is my choice. And that was
Speaker 2: very freeing, and that continues to be kind of my
Speaker 2: entry point to a focus that says, I'm not going
Speaker 2: to be looking to the Republican talking points. I'm going
Speaker 2: to evaluate this on whether or not these policies work
Speaker 2: best for Alaskans.
Speaker 1: You have developed a reputation for being an independent thinker,
Speaker 1: someone who is interested in bipartisan problem solving, and because
Speaker 1: of this, you and your colleague Susan Collins of Maine
Speaker 1: often find yourself the deciding votes on closely divided legislation
Speaker 1: or high profile confirmations. How much pressure do you feel
Speaker 1: because of that?
Speaker 2: You know there's pressure, and I suppose that I put
Speaker 2: that pressure on me because I am evaluating. I'm being
Speaker 2: open in trying to determine the right direction I suppose
Speaker 2: if I wanted to remove that pressure, I could very
Speaker 2: easily just tow the party line not have to really
Speaker 2: think through the pros and cons or whether or not
Speaker 2: you know how it's going to look if I vote
Speaker 2: with the Democrats on something, how it's going to look
Speaker 2: when I vote against the president on something. I could
Speaker 2: very easily remove that pressure. But I don't think that's
Speaker 2: why Alaskan sent me back. I think they sent me
Speaker 2: back not only in twenty ten, but when I ran
Speaker 2: again in twenty sixteen and won, and in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two and one. I think they sent me back because
Speaker 2: they wanted me to represent them. And so do I
Speaker 2: like the pressure?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: No, no, I could. I could have a much more.
Speaker 2: I could have my evenings free instead of all that
Speaker 2: stuff sitting over there in the corner. That's all my
Speaker 2: homework just for the weekend. I could make my life
Speaker 2: much easier. But I don't think that's what Alaskans expected me.
Speaker 1: When was the most pressure exerted on you in terms
Speaker 1: of a vote?
Speaker 2: And again, keep in mind, there is external pressure that comes,
Speaker 2: whether it's from your constituents, maybe from the administration, and
Speaker 2: then there is the pressure that you place on yourself, right.
Speaker 2: I describe in the book during the first impeachment where
Speaker 2: there is a very arcane inside baseball process going on
Speaker 2: in this Senate with regards to calling witnesses and the
Speaker 2: role that Chief Justice John Roberts was going to be
Speaker 2: placed in. So much of that pressure that I describe
Speaker 2: was my own internal conflict. I don't think most people
Speaker 2: were viewing that in a way where I need to
Speaker 2: I need to call, I need to write, I need
Speaker 2: to protest, I need to do something. That was pressure
Speaker 2: on me. I think clearly with with Kavanaugh, that was
Speaker 2: a vote where there was certainly pressure coming from Alaskans,
Speaker 2: pressure coming from the administration, pressure coming from my conference.
Speaker 2: There was a lot of external pressure there, and that
Speaker 2: was that was hard. That was a very very difficult
Speaker 2: vote vote for me.
Speaker 1: What kind of pressure from the administration did you experience? Well?
Speaker 2: I did not, you know, I didn't get a call
Speaker 2: from the from the President of the United States saying Lisa,
Speaker 2: you have to you have to do this or then that.
Speaker 2: I think I think not only folks in the administration,
Speaker 2: but the people that I work with know that I
Speaker 2: don't respond well to that. I've worked with Leader McConnell
Speaker 2: for a long time when he was our majority leader,
Speaker 2: and I think he realized that giving me more information
Speaker 2: was probably more persuasive to me than saying you have
Speaker 2: to stick with the team.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, you receive threats that if
Speaker 1: you didn't vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation, false allegations would be
Speaker 1: made against your sons. That's pretty nasty business.
Speaker 2: Nasty, and those are the things that keep you awake
Speaker 2: at night. I can handle the political pressure, right.
Speaker 1: Where are those threats coming from?
Speaker 2: You know, it's it's stupid, random stuff, whether it's you know,
Speaker 2: somebody who calls in anonymously and doesn't even have doesn't
Speaker 2: want to talk to a human being, They just want
Speaker 2: to leave a nasty voice message on the phone. We
Speaker 2: report all of the threats, whether they come in by
Speaker 2: phone or by email or by text. But those things,
Speaker 2: whether they are whether they're just whether they're just designed
Speaker 2: to be nasty, you can't just say, well, don't think
Speaker 2: anything of it. That weighs on you, and that's.
Speaker 1: Heard ultimately, and we'll talk about the political tenor of
Speaker 1: our times in a moment. But why did you ultimately
Speaker 1: decide not to vote to confirm Breck Kavan. I know
Speaker 1: that you write about how you knew what this would
Speaker 1: mean for survivors of sexual assault, and that he had
Speaker 1: become when you met with him, defensive and had no
Speaker 1: self awareness. Was there a deciding factor that made you
Speaker 1: say I cannot support this person for the Supreme Court?
Speaker 2: So I think the first the first thing, the first
Speaker 2: point that really that really caused me to say I
Speaker 2: don't think that I can support him, was how he
Speaker 2: had responded in committee with what I felt was a
Speaker 2: very intemperate attitude in response to questions. I know he
Speaker 2: was under pressure. I know he felt that he was
Speaker 2: being unjustly accused. That's what he shared with me. I
Speaker 2: get that, and any one of us if you feel
Speaker 2: that you have been falsely condemned, you've got a right
Speaker 2: to defend yourself. But he was he was being considered
Speaker 2: for a seat on the highest court in the land,
Speaker 2: one of nine, and as hard as those questions would
Speaker 2: be to him, as personal and emotional as they may be,
Speaker 2: as a judge and a future justice of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: he's got to hold it together, right.
Speaker 1: But apparently he was encouraged to get angry by the
Speaker 1: President himself and what.
Speaker 2: Does that say? What does that say? One of the
Speaker 2: things that is part of my criteria, in addition to
Speaker 2: judicial temperament, which was important, is free from bias, free
Speaker 2: from free from these external pressures. So now the president
Speaker 2: who has appointed you is going to tell you how
Speaker 2: you should behave or should should not behave. I want
Speaker 2: to know that as a justice, as one of nine,
Speaker 2: you are not looking at who appointed you. You are
Speaker 2: not looking to political fallout. You are not looking to
Speaker 2: anything other than fidel to the law and to our constitution.
Speaker 2: And so that that worried me. That worried me because
Speaker 2: he seemed to respond to that like you need to
Speaker 2: be more aggressive.
Speaker 1: How much blowback did you get, Senator when you did
Speaker 1: not vote to confirm him?
Speaker 2: You know, I was You're worried about things like that.
Speaker 2: What's the response going to be from my colleagues and
Speaker 2: from your constituent and from well, from those you're working for.
Speaker 2: But as far as my colleagues, I will tell you
Speaker 2: it was immediately after that vote, Mitch McConnell came up
Speaker 2: to me as the majority leader and said, you know, Lisa,
Speaker 2: you did what you you felt you had to do.
Speaker 2: You're still on my team. There may have been colleagues
Speaker 2: who who vehemently disapproved, but it's not like I was blackbald,
Speaker 2: or you know, she needs to be kicked off of
Speaker 2: the conference. That did not happen. I think there is
Speaker 2: a respect that we we each have to make difficult
Speaker 2: decisions and we have to live with them. Maybe some felt, Okay,
Speaker 2: this was a big enough decision that her constituents are
Speaker 2: not going to support, that she won't make it through
Speaker 2: the next election. That did not prove to be the case. Alaskans.
Speaker 2: Alaskans are very are very cognizant of some of the
Speaker 2: challenges that we face in our state when it comes
Speaker 2: to matters of domestic violence, sexual assault. I wish that
Speaker 2: I could tell you that we're turning the corner and
Speaker 2: eliminating this within our own society. We're making a headway,
Speaker 2: but we're not doing enough. And I think that there
Speaker 2: were concerns from many about whether or not a Justice
Speaker 2: Kavanaugh would be able to understand the lived experiences of
Speaker 2: many women, not only Lee and Alaska, about around the country.
Speaker 1: What if there were a way to reduce cancer desks
Speaker 1: by half in the next twenty five years, What if
Speaker 1: it were the future our children, our loved ones, our
Speaker 1: world could actually wake up to. This is the future.
Speaker 1: Exact Sciences works toward every day, but they believe it's possible.
Speaker 1: Exact Sciences is a dedicated team of cancer fighters united
Speaker 1: by a purpose to help eradicate cancer by preventing it,
Speaker 1: detecting it earlier, and guiding personalized treatment. They bring together
Speaker 1: the best and visionary thinking and scientific rigor to create tests,
Speaker 1: including COLI guard and Anchotype DX that inspire life changing action.
Speaker 1: Visit exactsciences dot com to learn more. You mentioned President Trump,
Speaker 1: so I want to read something you wrote about him
Speaker 1: in your book Far from Home. Trump wants to be
Speaker 1: seen as special and uniquely capable. He seems to have
Speaker 1: a deep psychological need for that kind of approval. In fact,
Speaker 1: he has opposite qualities. In my dealings with him as president,
Speaker 1: it was evident that he could not have planned his
Speaker 1: own rise or engineered the transformation of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: He isn't that smart, As former Attorney General Bill Barr
Speaker 1: has said, Trump lacks the ability for strategic or linear thinking.
Speaker 1: He isn't able to form or follow through on complex plans. Instead,
Speaker 1: Trump was extraordinarily lucky. He appeared at a moment when
Speaker 1: Americans had lost touch with the civic virtues that hold
Speaker 1: us together as a nation. A movement had arisen among
Speaker 1: Americans who were angry that the government wasn't representing them,
Speaker 1: dissatisfied by agencies ranging from the IRS to the federal
Speaker 1: lands agencies to the federal courts, people who felt no
Speaker 1: one listened to them. Finally, with Trump, had someone who
Speaker 1: spoke loudly about the unfairness and dissatisfaction they felt. Trump
Speaker 1: did not create the situation. He hit like a lightning bolt,
Speaker 1: which normally is a momentary and ineffective flash, but this
Speaker 1: time it touched tender, dry ground and ignited a landscape
Speaker 1: prime for a spreading wildfire. I was surprised how blunt
Speaker 1: you were about Trump's mediocrity, or I guess, the qualities
Speaker 1: he's lacking, particularly given so many of your Republican colleagues
Speaker 1: just fall over themselves flattering him. Why did you decide
Speaker 1: to be so frank?
Speaker 2: Well, I can tell you that when we were writing
Speaker 2: the book, I was saying it in real time, so
Speaker 2: I was probably saying this back in twenty twenty when
Speaker 2: I don't know about you, but I didn't think that
Speaker 2: we would have a second Trump administration. I'm just being
Speaker 2: very frank with you and saying, you know, maybe I
Speaker 2: thought that he was gone from this scene, and so
Speaker 2: you weren't that worried, and you can say things I
Speaker 2: will tell you. I will tell you that whether it is,
Speaker 2: President Trump is now more strategic and more prepared, and
Speaker 2: I think he has learned a lot from the first
Speaker 2: administration where you come in and it's like, Okay, now
Speaker 2: I'm president, and you know these people are I'm told
Speaker 2: these people are all good. People are going to give
Speaker 2: me good, good advice and guidance. And he didn't really
Speaker 2: didn't really like some of that advice and guidance because
Speaker 2: they might have challenged him a little bit. Now we
Speaker 2: are in a second Trump administration where I fully believe
Speaker 2: that the Biden years were spent by President Trump planning
Speaker 2: for this administration, working with people that encouraged him every
Speaker 2: step of the way, and again who would reinforce the
Speaker 2: direction rather than challenge a direction. And so I think
Speaker 2: you have an entirely different administration this time around, and
Speaker 2: I think you have a president that is much more
Speaker 2: keenly focused on what it is that he wants to achieve.
Speaker 2: I don't think that he had that targeted and directed
Speaker 2: focus first time around, or if he did, he wasn't
Speaker 2: quite sure how to implement it. I think it's different now.
Speaker 1: Well, many people think because of that, he is far
Speaker 1: more dangerous in his second term.
Speaker 2: Do you I think he has already shown us in
Speaker 2: the six months that he has been in the presidency
Speaker 2: now that he is far more prepared to exert executive
Speaker 2: powers independent of the Congress, with an administration that has
Speaker 2: been directed. If you will that we're going to do this,
Speaker 2: and if Congress comes along, that's great, but not as
Speaker 2: keen on respecting that that divide between Article one Article two.
Speaker 2: It's a different environment. I don't mean to be pushy here.
Speaker 2: I am in your living room, Senator, but I don't
Speaker 2: feel like you really answered the question. Do you think
Speaker 2: he's more dangerous? Yes, he's taking more liberties, he's pushing
Speaker 2: the envelope. Do you think he's it's dangerous what he's doing.
Speaker 2: It could be dangerous if if the Congress decides, if
Speaker 2: the Republican majority in the House and Senate decide that
Speaker 2: the ends justifies the means, and we're good with the
Speaker 2: goals and so we're okay with how he is utilizing
Speaker 2: emergency powers. If we are okay without checking him, then
Speaker 2: I think, yes.
Speaker 1: Yes, they haven't exactly done that. They haven't exactly No,
Speaker 1: then they've turned to the courts, haven't they. I mean,
Speaker 1: so Congress personally, I don't see a lot of profiles
Speaker 1: and courage. I don't see a lot of people challenging him.
Speaker 1: And you say, if isn't that happening already?
Speaker 2: We are not. I would rather, I would rather challenge
Speaker 2: us in the Congress to assert our role and our
Speaker 2: responsibility than to just condemn the actions of the President
Speaker 2: and get nowhere, we we have the ability. But you're
Speaker 2: I'm not going to dispute your observation that we we
Speaker 2: as a Congress have not stood up and said, wait
Speaker 2: a minute. When it comes to tariffs, we have we
Speaker 2: have a level of oversight here, and there's a small
Speaker 2: bipartisan group that has come together to say there's a
Speaker 2: process here, we should move by it. We should uh,
Speaker 2: we should stand by it. We're going to have a
Speaker 2: test coming up on recisions. We may have a test
Speaker 2: coming up with war powers. This is where I think
Speaker 2: you're you're going to see whether or not the extent
Speaker 2: to which Congress is going to say, we've got a
Speaker 2: we've got a very important role here. Yes you are
Speaker 2: the president, Yes you are the executive, but we are
Speaker 2: the check.
Speaker 1: We have to be the check. We have not been
Speaker 1: the check in my view, I think, and a lot
Speaker 1: of people's views. People feel like you're fellow Republicans, you
Speaker 1: all control everything, and you're rolling over basically pardon my
Speaker 1: French kissing Donald Trump's ass, letting him get away with
Speaker 1: whatever he wants to do, and can you explain why?
Speaker 1: And I think maybe this brings us back to your
Speaker 1: comment about fear and about retribution when you were speaking
Speaker 1: in front of those tribal leaders and nonprofit people not
Speaker 1: too long ago, as you know, Senator, that went viral,
Speaker 1: as they say, where you conceded that people are afraid
Speaker 1: and they're afraid of retribution. And honestly, it's pathetic to me, so.
Speaker 2: I think it needs to be understood.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 2: There are, well, there are many many in my conference
Speaker 2: who are absolutely in line with what the President is proposing,
Speaker 2: with the policies, and I think because they are so
Speaker 2: in line and in sync, there is this there is
Speaker 2: this sense that basically my job as a cent their
Speaker 2: job as a senator is to do whatever it is
Speaker 2: that I need to do to help support him. And
Speaker 2: so you are not seeing a questioning. You are not
Speaker 2: seeing people saying, well, you know, that's really our role here,
Speaker 2: because again I think they support the goals of the president.
Speaker 2: And believe me, believe me, every single one of us
Speaker 2: as a well this Republican senator can tell you that
Speaker 2: I am getting the calls that I'm sure all of
Speaker 2: my Republican colleagues are that are saying, as a Republican,
Speaker 2: your job is to line up with the president. Why
Speaker 2: are you even questioning any of this? Why are you
Speaker 2: even questioning this? And I say, well, because I'm a
Speaker 2: United States Senator. I swore an oath to the Constitution,
Speaker 2: not to the president, and so I know what my
Speaker 2: responsibilities are under Article one. I know that.
Speaker 1: And imagine you're getting some calls from people who are
Speaker 1: also saying, do more. Why aren't you stopping him?
Speaker 2: And the answer to the how do you stop your
Speaker 2: duly elected president? You have to speak up. Okay, you've
Speaker 2: noted that I do speak up. I don't speak up
Speaker 2: on every occasion. I think we learned in the first
Speaker 2: Trump administration that you could be top of the news
Speaker 2: every single day if all you did was was respond
Speaker 2: to comments that had come out of the White House,
Speaker 2: that's not appropriate either. So choosing choosing the times to
Speaker 2: speak out and how you speak out so that you
Speaker 2: can still have a level of credibility is something that
Speaker 2: I weigh, and that's that is important. Is there a
Speaker 2: fear of retribution or retaliation? We live in a political world, right,
Speaker 2: that's no great secret to anybody. When Donald Trump didn't like,
Speaker 2: you know, my position on certain things, he even though
Speaker 2: he was no longer president, then he says, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna I'm going to find somebody to run against you.
Speaker 2: Basically he said, I'll find anybody with a pulse and
Speaker 2: I'll be there in Alaska to support whoever that is.
Speaker 2: And he carried through with that. He didn't win, his
Speaker 2: candidate didn't win. But that was something that you look
Speaker 2: at and you say, you know, this is the political
Speaker 2: landscape that you're in. So if you're afraid of being
Speaker 2: primaried because you have you have voted one way or
Speaker 2: whatever it is that you did, that comes with the territory,
Speaker 2: all right. I think what is what is of greater
Speaker 2: concern to me and the reason why I made the
Speaker 2: comment that I did in front of five hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty folks from the nonprofit sector. When I was asked directly,
Speaker 2: how do you respond to those people who say they're afraid?
Speaker 2: I answered, honestly, we're all afraid. There is so much
Speaker 2: uncertainty at this moment in time. This was this was
Speaker 2: several months ago where it was the height of the
Speaker 2: of the riffs of the This was the uh those
Speaker 2: that were on probationary status and not knowing a on
Speaker 2: a Friday, if you were going to have a job
Speaker 2: on a Monday, being.
Speaker 1: Told enforced by the way riffs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but being told that the work that you've been
Speaker 2: doing as a as a marine scientist, trying to work
Speaker 2: on fisheries issues no longer has value.
Speaker 1: But you meant more than that, didn't choose senator.
Speaker 2: But let me no, let me let me continue, because
Speaker 2: what was happening at the time, and to a certain extent,
Speaker 2: is still happening. People's grants being terminated, not knowing whether
Speaker 2: or not you're going to be able to keep the
Speaker 2: women's shelter open because you're operating off of such thin margins.
Speaker 2: And your grant comes in in a way that it's
Speaker 2: literally eight month to.
Speaker 1: Month clinical trials being stopped, cancer research, medical rights.
Speaker 2: Happening did go on and on, and so what had
Speaker 2: what was happening was uncertainty and fear about what was
Speaker 2: going to happen. And what I wanted to underscore with
Speaker 2: them was not only do I hear you, I get
Speaker 2: it because I'm hearing from those who have this level
Speaker 2: of uncertainty, but we also are experiencing the uncertain of
Speaker 2: what is coming next because there is there is no
Speaker 2: known path here. And those who are questioning, those who
Speaker 2: are saying, I don't think it is within your legal
Speaker 2: limitations to be terminating federal employees in this way. And
Speaker 2: when you challenge that, the pushback that you get, the
Speaker 2: the the well, I guess I'll just call it pushback
Speaker 2: because that's what it is from not only those in
Speaker 2: the administration, but those supporters who are like, wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 2: you know why aren't you, why aren't you on President
Speaker 2: Trump's team? Why are you questioning all this? We need
Speaker 2: to get rid of these people. You know what, if
Speaker 2: you need to reduce your forces, you can do it
Speaker 2: in a way that recognizes the humanity of these people
Speaker 2: who have been good public servants, and that was not
Speaker 2: being handled, and the law wasn't being handled, and so
Speaker 2: so is their retaliation. Yeah, we saw it. I wasn't
Speaker 2: making that word up because we had already seen by
Speaker 2: that point in time, an executive order against two law
Speaker 2: firms for what Because individuals in the firms had represented
Speaker 2: on people from January sixth that the administration did not
Speaker 2: think should be defended. And that to me is political
Speaker 2: retaliation that has economic consequences for that firm. Right, why
Speaker 2: do you do that? I can understand if you want
Speaker 2: to do a review of an agency to determine whether
Speaker 2: or not the funding has been appropriately directed. I can
Speaker 2: understand if you need to, if you need to look
Speaker 2: at a budget and say, do we need to have
Speaker 2: this level of staffing in order to execute this? But
Speaker 2: what we saw happening was not the norm and in
Speaker 2: most many cases was not.
Speaker 1: Okay, what are your constituents saying? And do you believe
Speaker 1: that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1: I've had experts, you know, I've been doing interviews about
Speaker 1: this for months, you know, because it didn't take long
Speaker 1: for this thing with the law firms to happen and
Speaker 1: suing TV networks and universities and universities, and on and on,
Speaker 1: and many scholars I've interviewed have said that we are
Speaker 1: in the midst of a constitutional crisis for months now.
Speaker 1: I'm curious where you stand on that.
Speaker 2: I was responding to a question a few days ago,
Speaker 2: and we're talking about democracy, and I said, you know,
Speaker 2: I've been in this enate now for a while, a
Speaker 2: couple decades. I don't ever recall a time when there
Speaker 2: has been more asked about the state of our democracy,
Speaker 2: whether our democracy is still safe, And that in and
Speaker 2: of itself is telling you. You've asked a direct question,
Speaker 2: are we in the midst of a constitutional crisis? And
Speaker 2: we've seen the discussion all over the place in terms
Speaker 2: of are we there, are we moving there? What do
Speaker 2: we do to avert it? I think our reality is
Speaker 2: is that we are we are recognizing that the institutions
Speaker 2: that support our democracy here are being challenged. And I
Speaker 2: take it back to what I was saying earlier about
Speaker 2: our responsibility in the Congress. There are things that we
Speaker 2: can't necessarily change about the judicial branch, and certain things
Speaker 2: we can't change about the executive branch. These these are
Speaker 2: things that are defined in our constitution. But how we
Speaker 2: control ourselves in the legislative branch is something that we
Speaker 2: have control over. We are if we are trending towards
Speaker 2: constitutional meltdown. We have the ability as one of the
Speaker 2: three equal, separate, but equal branches of government to weigh
Speaker 2: in here and to try to write things. Is it possible.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Some people have suggested it's gone too far.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but I do know that it is
Speaker 2: worth fighting for. It's just worth fighting for. We have to.
Speaker 2: We don't have any other choice.
Speaker 1: Where do you think we are? Do you think we're
Speaker 1: veering towards this or do you think we're smack in
Speaker 1: the middle of it? I mean, you're you see these
Speaker 1: issues every day, you deal with it. You watch what's
Speaker 1: happening when it comes to things like deportation, mass deportation.
Speaker 1: You see what's happening when it comes to to you know,
Speaker 1: activating the National Guard and the Marines in California. I mean,
Speaker 1: you are living, breathing all these things. I'm just reading
Speaker 1: about them. Where do you think we are? And how
Speaker 1: worried on a scale of one to ten, are you
Speaker 1: for democracy.
Speaker 2: I think that there are some people have asked, you know,
Speaker 2: are there any red lines where at that point we know,
Speaker 2: I don't know that there's anything as clear cut as that,
Speaker 2: or whether you just edge closer and closer with different
Speaker 2: decisions and determinations. But we've always we've always kind of
Speaker 2: recognized that, Look, the executive is inherently political, the legislative
Speaker 2: branch inherently political. We get that, but it's the judiciary.
Speaker 2: It's the judiciary that's going to be that ultimate backstop there, right.
Speaker 2: The problem, the problem that I see is that more
Speaker 2: and more the courts are also being viewed as polite.
Speaker 2: And if people stop believing in the courts, if people
Speaker 2: stop believing that there's going to be justice there for
Speaker 2: them because maybe I'm in maybe I'm an immigrant, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe I'm maybe I'm transgender, if they stop believing that
Speaker 2: there is no backstop to the to the very highly
Speaker 2: politically charged legislative branch or the executive branch, then we're
Speaker 2: in trouble as a democracy. And so how do we
Speaker 2: address that? That's a problem. I kind of hint to
Speaker 2: that in in the book, and I think that's part
Speaker 2: of the struggles that I cite to when I'm talking
Speaker 2: about the the Kavanaugh nomination. The role that the Senate
Speaker 2: plays in the role of advice and consent is is
Speaker 2: kind of one of our fundamental things that we're supposed
Speaker 2: to be doing right, and we've I think we have
Speaker 2: strayed from the seriousness of that advice and consent to
Speaker 2: the point where now it's I'm going to consent as
Speaker 2: long as the president who nominates that Supreme Court justice
Speaker 2: is of my party, and I'm gonna I'm gonna look
Speaker 2: away from anything that I might call into question it
Speaker 2: is it is now become nothing more than a partisan
Speaker 2: confirmation process.
Speaker 1: Do you feel Republicans on the hell have abdicated their
Speaker 1: responsibility to the country.
Speaker 2: I'm when it comes to the courts, no, no, no, no, everything,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna I'm gonna. I'm just going to push back
Speaker 2: a little bit here, because the Democrats did the exact
Speaker 2: same thing as the Republicans are doing now when it
Speaker 2: comes to allegiance to their president with nominations, whether it
Speaker 2: is whether it's at the Supreme Court level or at
Speaker 2: the at the district court level. It is frustrating to
Speaker 2: me beyond no ends and so you know, we can
Speaker 2: take potshots at the Republicans, but this is guilt on
Speaker 2: all sides. This is an abdication of our role in
Speaker 2: the advice and consent process to actually look at the
Speaker 2: qualifications of the individuals and determine their fitness. And so,
Speaker 2: you know, and and then I could go off on
Speaker 2: I'm very concerned about what I see to be the
Speaker 2: politicization where now the American public looks at a decision
Speaker 2: that comes out of the out of the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: right now, and if they don't like it, they say, well,
Speaker 2: it's because of all those Biden no Obama judges, or
Speaker 2: on the other hand, it's, well, we knew the outcome
Speaker 2: because it was.
Speaker 1: A Trump court.
Speaker 2: You know. That's something that we've got to get away from.
Speaker 2: And I kind of blame the media for that. It
Speaker 2: used to be that anytime you would see an elected
Speaker 2: leader's name, you have an r D behind it, right,
Speaker 2: I get it, But you should not. We should not
Speaker 2: say every time you identify a judge a justice who
Speaker 2: appointed him, stop politicizing it.
Speaker 1: Do you think that, Joe Biden. I hear what you're saying,
Speaker 1: because I've covered Supreme Court confirmations for as long, if
Speaker 1: not longer than you've been as Senator. And I totally
Speaker 1: appreciate and understand what you're saying, But I guess my
Speaker 1: question would be taking it out of the judiciary realm
Speaker 1: and Supreme Court nominees and the whole confirmation process. Do
Speaker 1: you believe that Joe Biden was as big a threat
Speaker 1: to democracy as Donald Trump? Because I think many people
Speaker 1: Senator would say on all fronts were living in unprecedented
Speaker 1: times in terms of threats and challenges to our institutions,
Speaker 1: to basic fundamental constitutional rights like due process. And I
Speaker 1: feel like I know you pretty well at this point.
Speaker 1: You can't be okay with some of the stuff that's
Speaker 1: going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not.
Speaker 2: I wasn't okay with some of the things that went
Speaker 2: on in the Biden administration. I didn't like a lot
Speaker 2: of his policies. He did a lot of damage, I
Speaker 2: think to Alaska's opportunities from a policy perspective. But I
Speaker 2: didn't worry about threats to democracy. I did worry. I
Speaker 2: get just as irritated with my colleagues on the other
Speaker 2: side of the aisle, with the Democrats, for what I
Speaker 2: felt was just was just complete, you know, complete bowing
Speaker 2: down to whatever Biden wanted, what whoever you put in there.
Speaker 2: There were some there were some people who just should
Speaker 2: not have been included as part of a confirmable process,
Speaker 2: and and they closed their eyes, just as the Republicans
Speaker 2: are doing on our side. But from an institutional perspective,
Speaker 2: I think that there were some there were some lines
Speaker 2: that under the Biden administration we just didn't see crossed.
Speaker 1: And we are under the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: I think we are seeing I think we're seeing greater
Speaker 2: pressure to the fidelity of the institutions by by the executive.
Speaker 1: Yes, what are you most worried about when it comes
Speaker 1: to the actions that have been taken less than six
Speaker 1: months into his presidency by this administration?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I am I am an institutionalist at heart,
Speaker 2: and I care that that we function well. And I
Speaker 2: think it's important for us as a country for the
Speaker 2: public to believe that we are functioning well and we
Speaker 2: are functioning in their best interests, because if they don't
Speaker 2: believe that, if they don't feel that none of this works,
Speaker 2: you know, is you can only govern with a consent
Speaker 2: of the governed. And if we are failing here, how
Speaker 2: do we make sure that the rule of law means
Speaker 2: anything anymore? Where do you think it's being challenged the most?
Speaker 2: The rule of law. I think the thing we're seeing
Speaker 2: right at this moment in time is with some of
Speaker 2: the immigration initiatives, that we're seeing a real, a real
Speaker 2: push in that regard in an effort to basically move
Speaker 2: numbers to get as many people out of the country
Speaker 2: as possible in a quick period of time. I think
Speaker 2: some of the due process concerns, due process requirements are
Speaker 2: being pushed, overlooked, overrun. I am sign me up to
Speaker 2: get rid of the bad guys that are here illegally,
Speaker 2: the ones that are really engaged in bringing about destruction
Speaker 2: through drugs and trafficking, etc. But it seems like there's
Speaker 2: just this massive push right now to track down just
Speaker 2: as many numbers as we can and so taking somebody
Speaker 2: who's been here for twenty years and has been working
Speaker 2: hard every day, who is here illegally because the overstate
Speaker 2: is VISA, but has been a contributor, a contributor ever since.
Speaker 2: I'm not thinking that those need to be the first
Speaker 2: ones to be sent back to a country that they
Speaker 2: no longer have a connection.
Speaker 1: To, because there are people who are going through the process,
Speaker 1: who are being snatched and grabbed in courthouses all amongst
Speaker 1: the country.
Speaker 2: We're seeing it. And so it does to your question,
Speaker 2: what area do I think we're seeing. We're seeing greater
Speaker 2: pressure on certain principles of again democracy, fundamental due process.
Speaker 1: Right, do you feel comfortable still being a Republican given
Speaker 1: what's happened to your party with the really the complete
Speaker 1: takeover by MAGA.
Speaker 2: So I'm clearly not a mega Republican. I'm a Republican
Speaker 2: that believes in the same kind of values that that
Speaker 2: I signed on too when I was eighteen years old
Speaker 2: and registered in terms of individual freedoms and a smaller
Speaker 2: government and strong, strong defense, strong country. And so those
Speaker 2: stay with me regardless of regardless of what goes on
Speaker 2: within within the party structure itself. And so I don't
Speaker 2: get hung up on the label. I think other people do,
Speaker 2: because labels are really convenient. When I just say I'm
Speaker 2: I'm an independent, you know, a small eye, or I'm
Speaker 2: a moderate, What does that mean if they know that
Speaker 2: there's an R there, there are certain expectations, right, and
Speaker 2: I think the expectations more and more are you look
Speaker 2: exactly this way, that there is a Republican litmus test
Speaker 2: or a Republican purity test. I don't pass that in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways. What I'm trying to do is
Speaker 2: again be true to the values that I have, of
Speaker 2: that I have long held. And uh again, I come
Speaker 2: from a state where uh, that party label perhaps is
Speaker 2: not as as not a I don't know, Scarlet letter,
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's the right way to but
Speaker 2: it's it's it's not it's not as big a deal.
Speaker 2: It's it's what have you done to help us?
Speaker 1: Having said that, you know, we see more moderate Republicans receding, retiring,
Speaker 1: you know, the people who I think represent your branch
Speaker 1: of the GOP.
Speaker 2: It's hard.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that will ever return? Or do
Speaker 1: you think this more red meat, populous part of the
Speaker 1: party is going to overtake it for good?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know, but I do know
Speaker 2: that if those that that dare to stand in the
Speaker 2: middle don't continue to exist, If we say this is
Speaker 2: too hard, if the only thing that happens in the
Speaker 2: middle of the road is you become roadkill, then it's
Speaker 2: pretty sure that you're not going to see that until
Speaker 2: things get so extreme and so bad that there's something
Speaker 2: that pushes everything towards the middle. And so I think
Speaker 2: part of what I try to tell in this story
Speaker 2: is that there is a place for moderation, There is
Speaker 2: a place for collaboration and working together. That that's what
Speaker 2: people want to see. They don't really want to see
Speaker 2: the partisan bickering and the infighting and what didn't you
Speaker 2: get done? But what did you do? What did you build?
Speaker 2: That's why I love the little piece about our work
Speaker 2: with the infrastructure Bill and how a bipartisan group of
Speaker 2: lawmakers not only built something I think that was good
Speaker 2: for the country, but we had fun doing it because,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, we were legislating. We were making something
Speaker 2: happen that was going to matter for people where they lived,
Speaker 2: and it felt good. We don't we need to do
Speaker 2: more of that and not less of that. And if
Speaker 2: you are not willing to be there and be that participant,
Speaker 2: be the man in the arena, then it's not going
Speaker 2: to happen. And so you've got it's important to try
Speaker 2: to provide a little bit of optimism instead of the
Speaker 2: daily deluge of defeat. That's an interesting one.
Speaker 1: That's very illiterate. It is very literally defeat. There's a book.
Speaker 2: There's a book waiting for you out there.
Speaker 1: If you want to get smarter. Every morning with a
Speaker 1: breakdown of the news and fascinating takes on health and
Speaker 1: wellness and pop culture, sign up for our daily newsletter,
Speaker 1: Wake Up Call by going to Katiecuric dot com. You
Speaker 1: also write about January sixth and how terrifying that was.
Speaker 1: I'm curious how you felt about the rioters on January
Speaker 1: sixth being quickly pardoned.
Speaker 2: Wrong. It's just wrong, And I said, so, people died,
Speaker 2: people died. Friends of mine who are Capitol Hill police
Speaker 2: talk about that day confidentially to me because they can't
Speaker 2: they're not allowed to say anything publicly, they'd lose their job.
Speaker 2: But they tell me of what they went through. That
Speaker 2: was not That was not just a group of people
Speaker 2: that got a little crazy. I call it an insurrection.
Speaker 2: And so for those for those who did violence, who
Speaker 2: for those who committed crimes to be pardoned a blanket
Speaker 2: pardon practically, to me, no, that is wrong and unforgivably wrong.
Speaker 1: You know, people contrast that with what's happening in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: with mostly peaceful protests and activating the National Guard and
Speaker 1: the Marines. I asked you this earlier, but I think
Speaker 1: we moved on to other topics. How do you feel
Speaker 1: about the use of the Guard and the Marines in
Speaker 1: a situation like that.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm one that thinks, you know, your National Guard,
Speaker 2: these are your state guardians, right and your governor is
Speaker 2: the one that has that authority over them. I think
Speaker 2: that there's a process there that we all expect that
Speaker 2: if the President feels that additional additional enforcement needs to
Speaker 2: be brought in, that they work with the governor. I
Speaker 2: think it was I I feel that it was it
Speaker 2: was somewhat concerning that that the president didn't work with
Speaker 2: the governor. I just learned today just reading something that
Speaker 2: that the courts have upheld the authority of the president
Speaker 2: in doing so because there apparently he had worked through
Speaker 2: the state's adjutant General as opposed to the to the governor.
Speaker 2: So apparently there was some legal basis for.
Speaker 1: Them that's being appealed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I hadn't heard whether they were going to
Speaker 2: appeal on that, but but it is, I mean, it
Speaker 2: is something where there is an area where you can say,
Speaker 2: all right, does the president have that level of authority.
Speaker 2: I don't think that's the conversation that we need to
Speaker 2: have here. That's going to be settled out one way
Speaker 2: or another. But I do think that how we ensure
Speaker 2: that our communities, our cities feel safe while still allowing
Speaker 2: for respectful and peaceful protest when there's violence, when there
Speaker 2: is when there is the destruction that we have seen
Speaker 2: in some of our communities, not just right now with
Speaker 2: Los Angeles, but what we had seen some years ago
Speaker 2: in Seattle and Portland and the violence in the destruction.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a situation that there is a
Speaker 2: responsibility to ensure the safety of those who who are
Speaker 2: in these areas. But can we can we be working
Speaker 2: together instead of kind of this heavy handed I'm just
Speaker 2: going to take charge of this situation. This is where
Speaker 2: I feel we have a where more politics has been
Speaker 2: brought into a volatile situation than should should be allowed
Speaker 2: to factor in.
Speaker 1: So do you think he was overstepping his authority or not.
Speaker 2: I think the President wanted to make a point. I
Speaker 2: think he wanted to show a level of strength and
Speaker 2: dominance and taking charge. I think that was that was
Speaker 2: what he wanted to.
Speaker 1: Do in a political way.
Speaker 2: That's how that's how it's been translated. Right.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you a couple of other issues. There's
Speaker 1: so much going on, and I just so appreciate your
Speaker 1: time to kind of give us your point of view
Speaker 1: on some of these things. The murder of their representative
Speaker 1: in Minnesota, Melissa Hortman and her husband, and then the
Speaker 1: shooting of another legislator and his wife. It's scary out.
Speaker 2: It is scary. It is scary. It is it is
Speaker 2: a it is a volatile time. There is anger, there
Speaker 2: is there's hatred, there's hatred, and this is where this
Speaker 2: is where I think as leaders at all levels we
Speaker 2: have we have a responsibility to work to be bringing
Speaker 2: people together, not creating greater divide, not creating greater anger
Speaker 2: and hatred, and us against them. Watching your words, your
Speaker 2: words really really matter.
Speaker 1: What did you think of Mike Lee's statements?
Speaker 2: I think your words really matter, and I think what
Speaker 2: he put out there was wrong and insensitive, it was
Speaker 2: just and so why would you do this? Why would you?
Speaker 2: Why would you? Why would you add fuel to a fire?
Speaker 1: Well, I think some people would not use the word insensitive.
Speaker 1: I think they might say grossly and appropriate, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean it was really weird. Let's be honest.
Speaker 2: Well, and let's let's not let's not even try to
Speaker 2: describe whether it was weird or grossly inappropriate. But why
Speaker 2: would you do anything that would that again, would would
Speaker 2: poke at the situation in a way that is going
Speaker 2: to be more divisive at a time when I would
Speaker 2: like to think that we would say when a lawmaker,
Speaker 2: somebody who is an elected representative of the people at
Speaker 2: any level has been assassinated by a guy with a
Speaker 2: hit list, that we would not all roundly condemn that,
Speaker 2: regardless of whether you're the victim was a Democrat or
Speaker 2: a Republican or you know whatever. Uh, this is this
Speaker 2: is where we're not we're not recognizing the humanity. We're
Speaker 2: letting politics intervene into everything.
Speaker 1: So how can we tone down the rhetoric?
Speaker 2: Think before you send a tweet.
Speaker 1: In fact, you had your sister made a necklace for
Speaker 1: you after an interview we did, yeah, where you said.
Speaker 2: I cannot live in fear of a tweet because I
Speaker 2: think the question that you had asked me. This was
Speaker 2: in the first Trump administration, and I don't recall what
Speaker 2: the issue of the day was, but I had spoken
Speaker 2: out and you asked me if I was concerned about
Speaker 2: any kind of pushback or retribution, and I said I can't.
Speaker 2: I can't live in fear of a tweet. And yeah,
Speaker 2: so Carol did make me that little necklace. I still
Speaker 2: have it. I don't wear it all the time, but
Speaker 2: I have it right underneath a heart of this date
Speaker 2: of Alaska.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you about the so called Big
Speaker 1: Beautiful Bill, which is now known as that branded by
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Do you think it's going to pass?
Speaker 1: What is the status?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you know, not not not knowing what day
Speaker 2: this is actually going to air. I can only speak
Speaker 2: about where it is today. And we are not done.
Speaker 2: I think it's probably fair to say that there is
Speaker 2: still a great deal that is yet to be negotiated. Uh.
Speaker 2: The public has been read into the great controversies over
Speaker 2: as salt and medicaid and the energy tax credits and
Speaker 2: the deficit. The deficit. Oh yeah, these are none of
Speaker 2: these are insignificant. You know, does it spend too much?
Speaker 2: Does it does it cut too much? Uh? The these
Speaker 2: these are areas where we are not yet reconciled. This weekend, UH,
Speaker 2: there will be this procedural process where the parliamentarian will determine, uh,
Speaker 2: those matters that are more related to policy than than
Speaker 2: than revenue or spending, and those are are thrown overboard.
Speaker 2: So what does that do to Well, I'm there or
Speaker 2: I'm not there. I've been working through a lot of
Speaker 2: the concerns that I have as they relate to Medicaid
Speaker 2: and SNAP and our ability and in a state like
Speaker 2: Alaska to to to not only UH be able to
Speaker 2: comply with certain requirements, but just the impact on Alaskans
Speaker 2: where we've got an extraordinarily expensive system, uh, when it
Speaker 2: comes to healthcare and access to healthcare and limited access.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot in the mix right now. I
Speaker 2: do think ultimately you're going to see a reconciliation bill pass.
Speaker 2: Do I think it's going to pass by the fourth
Speaker 2: of July. Uh, That's what everybody is is aiming towards.
Speaker 2: I would much rather, and I have have have said,
Speaker 2: uh said that I would much rather have good policy
Speaker 2: than try to adhere to an arbitrary timeline.
Speaker 1: Do you think Donald Trump is going to be disappointed
Speaker 1: with the ultimate bill?
Speaker 2: You know, I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't think so.
Speaker 2: I think his and keep in mind I'm not on
Speaker 2: the negotiating team. I'm not a chairman of a committee
Speaker 2: that received instructions, and so a lot of these negotiations
Speaker 2: are going on with just a very few individuals, right.
Speaker 2: But I am very aware that the Trump administration has
Speaker 2: been engaged throughout so that they know that the kind
Speaker 2: of the general direction of things. So I would I
Speaker 2: would certainly think he would be good with it at
Speaker 2: the end of the day.
Speaker 1: How do you feel about the cabinet in general now
Speaker 1: that you've seen them operate for most six months? You
Speaker 1: were talking earlier about the people President Trump was surrounding
Speaker 1: himself with now versus his first term. In general, do
Speaker 1: you think they're doing a good job?
Speaker 2: Uh? In general? Uh, you know, I I can pick
Speaker 2: on a secretary here or there. Uh, but I think
Speaker 2: I think the President has put in place, at least
Speaker 2: at the top level, a cabinet that is they're they're
Speaker 2: they're working to do their job. Uh. There are still
Speaker 2: many within the departments, you know. I'm I'm the chairman
Speaker 2: of the Interior Appropriations Committee, So uh, we've got jurisdiction
Speaker 2: over all the parks and public lands and in many
Speaker 2: of these positions that are under the Secretary. They don't
Speaker 2: have them filled out yet, and so we're trying to
Speaker 2: get answers to a lot of questions and don't get
Speaker 2: the level of detail that we need right now because
Speaker 2: the people that would be putting these in place are
Speaker 2: not yet there. That's hard. I get that.
Speaker 1: Since you brought up the National Parks, can I ask
Speaker 1: you Senator about you know, obviously there were significant cuts
Speaker 1: to the National parks, especially being from Alaska and caring
Speaker 1: so much for the environment in the outside world. I
Speaker 1: recently saw that there can't be any signage or education
Speaker 1: in our national parks about anything negative about America or
Speaker 1: that's interpreted as negative. So really no conversation about indigenous
Speaker 1: people where this gos backed on that one tell me,
Speaker 1: because that's the impression I got.
Speaker 2: Because when we talk about indigenous people, we're not talking
Speaker 2: about a DEI initiative. And this was something very very
Speaker 2: early on in the Trump administration when the DEI Executive
Speaker 2: Order came out. The relationship with American Indians, Alaska Native
Speaker 2: Native Hawaiians is based on a trust responsibility, right, It's
Speaker 2: a trust and treaty responsibility and there are It is
Speaker 2: not race based. It is political based and it's very clear.
Speaker 2: I made a request of the various secretaries, I think
Speaker 2: it was probably in late January or February, very early on,
Speaker 2: reminding them, reminding them that when we are talking about
Speaker 2: Native programs, when we are talking about Indigenous peoples, we
Speaker 2: are not talking about d e I And Uh it
Speaker 2: was actually a Secretary Burghum out of Interior that issued
Speaker 2: a secretarial order confirming that we were able to receive
Speaker 2: the same out of HHS out of the Department of Education.
Speaker 2: And so we have been working very aggressively, if you will,
Speaker 2: to to ensure that, uh, there's no there's no confusion.
Speaker 2: So I saw the same same thing that you have
Speaker 2: read about the signage in the parks. I'm not quite sure, like, okay,
Speaker 2: what is this? What does this mean? Uh? So I'm
Speaker 2: actually I'm actually going to get a better read out
Speaker 2: from the folks over there at Interior about give me
Speaker 2: some specific examples here, because if we're not talking about
Speaker 2: indigenous peoples, is this instances you know, maybe it's it's
Speaker 2: slaves that were involved in a battleground, uh site that
Speaker 2: is part of our of our park system. Give me
Speaker 2: some give me some examples of what you what you
Speaker 2: consider to be in this category.
Speaker 1: Do you sometimes feel, or have you felt at all,
Speaker 1: that this anti Dei philosophy or this backlash against Dei
Speaker 1: has gone too far to the point where it's a
Speaker 1: racing history. It is not giving credit to female pioneers,
Speaker 1: black pioneers. I personally find it distressing.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I'll give you a specific example. I was
Speaker 2: on my way to Sitka, Alaska, which is a small
Speaker 2: island and beautiful community in southeast Alasta.
Speaker 1: I have a friend who is the doctor there.
Speaker 2: Really it's a great community, beautiful, But I was going
Speaker 2: there because we were recognized a Clinket code talker. So
Speaker 2: everyone knows of the Navajo code talkers. Well, during the war, Uh,
Speaker 2: there were also a small group of of of Clinkett
Speaker 2: people who served in the military. The Clinquet language is
Speaker 2: it's hard to pronounce and UH. Anyway, they they were
Speaker 2: also code talkers, and so they have been recipients of
Speaker 2: the Congressional Gold Meal. And I was literally on an
Speaker 2: airplane to go present the family of this uh, this
Speaker 2: code talker who had not previously been acknowledged, UH, present
Speaker 2: them the UH, the the documentation, and I get word
Speaker 2: that UH that the Navajo code talkers. The code talkers
Speaker 2: basically had we're going to be scrubbed as part of
Speaker 2: a DEI initiative. Now, obviously that didn't happen. We've addressed that,
Speaker 2: but it kind of speaks to the who's making these
Speaker 2: decisions and why why do you think that this is appropriate?
Speaker 2: I'll tell you one of the things that I think
Speaker 2: is causes me to say sometimes these things are just
Speaker 2: over the top. I don't know what how much money
Speaker 2: it's going to cost to take the name off of
Speaker 2: the Harvey Milk where I guess the Harriet Tubman also
Speaker 2: was a naval I don't know what kind of a
Speaker 2: naval ship she is, but a handful of individuals that
Speaker 2: had had faced extreme challenges through their life who had
Speaker 2: been recognized we've named a ship after them. It's kind
Speaker 2: of petty to say, you know, how much does it cost?
Speaker 2: But in fairness, In fairness, when we're looking at all
Speaker 2: of the other priorities that we are asking of our
Speaker 2: military right now that we are asking of our navy,
Speaker 2: when our navy needs to to be doing more yesterday
Speaker 2: to to build up their fleet, we're now going to
Speaker 2: tell you go over and and scrape everything off, repaint it,
Speaker 2: rebrand it. Why why are we doing why are we
Speaker 2: doing this this effort to to just to use your
Speaker 2: words to scrub everything?
Speaker 1: Who is making the decision?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know who's making the decisions.
Speaker 2: You know. I think in the in the in the
Speaker 2: early months, there were some things that were coming out
Speaker 2: that just were where did that come from? And and
Speaker 2: we learned that there was some decisions that were being
Speaker 2: made by doche teams that came in before you had
Speaker 2: any secretaries being accountable, And there was some stuff that
Speaker 2: was going on that I think caught a lot by surprise.
Speaker 2: And I can't imagine what it must have felt like
Speaker 2: to be a cabinet member coming in and to see
Speaker 2: some of the things that you basically now had to
Speaker 2: figure out how to clean up while not throwing anybody
Speaker 2: under the bus, right. Yeah, So I don't know, I
Speaker 2: don't know who's making that decision. I mean, I don't
Speaker 2: know if that's from the Secretary of Defense or if
Speaker 2: that's somebody somebody lower down. But somebody's making the decision.
Speaker 1: You did vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Junior. Do
Speaker 1: you regret that?
Speaker 2: I can't spend time on regrets for the votes that
Speaker 2: I have made. I'm disappointed in what we've seen out
Speaker 2: of Secretary Kennedy when it comes to vaccines and the
Speaker 2: the the panel. We need to have h we need
Speaker 2: to have truth and credibility and honestry and transparency and
Speaker 2: all of the above when it comes to UH to
Speaker 2: to our vaccine policy in this country. And I think
Speaker 2: by just summarily disposing of everybody that was on that panel,
Speaker 2: it doesn't it doesn't convince me that that UH this
Speaker 2: is now credible and and and and trustworthy. So that
Speaker 2: that to me is very very concerning. I will say
Speaker 2: though that my my vote to support him, I was
Speaker 2: very very direct with him where I come from on
Speaker 2: on vaccines. But he he has been true to his
Speaker 2: word to me when it comes to IHS in in
Speaker 2: health service, which he has that oversight of in ensuring
Speaker 2: that the reductions and forces, the riffs that were applicable
Speaker 2: across his department, that they were preserved, he said to me,
Speaker 2: and he acknowledged that, Look, they have been underfunded. This
Speaker 2: is an area where there is great need. I'm going
Speaker 2: to be there. And the other area is his focus
Speaker 2: on chronic diseases, things like obesity, diabetes. These are things
Speaker 2: that we see in Alaska that are extraordinary drivers in
Speaker 2: some of the healthcare issues that we're seeing with a
Speaker 2: focus on just diet and what this all means. So
Speaker 2: he's got a very I think it's fair to say
Speaker 2: he's got a strong following in Alaska because of the
Speaker 2: focus on some of these So is he perfect?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Am I going to push him to try to be
Speaker 2: more better. I think that's my responsibility.
Speaker 1: If you had known then what you know now, would
Speaker 1: you still have voted to confirm him.
Speaker 2: I think I would have gotten I would have tried
Speaker 2: to have gotten greater assurances, are more specific assurances on vaccines.
Speaker 2: But I also recognize that, look, we are, we are
Speaker 2: six months into into this process. He's appointed eight people.
Speaker 2: I think the maximum to the panel is I want
Speaker 2: to say seventeen or eighteen. It's it's it's much. It's
Speaker 2: double what it could be. And so he's got some
Speaker 2: room for improvement there, I think, and I think that
Speaker 2: there are other members of the Senate who who feel
Speaker 2: as I do on this issue that making sure that
Speaker 2: that there is credibility, that there is strong science, that
Speaker 2: we get beyond some of these issues that lead to
Speaker 2: vaccine hesitancy because of signals that are sent by policy leaders.
Speaker 2: We got some work to do.
Speaker 1: I want to end with one of your prime motivators
Speaker 1: for writing this book, if I could, Senator Murkowski, that
Speaker 1: you wanted to show the system actually works. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people in this country don't feel that
Speaker 1: way right now. You give examples, but what would you
Speaker 1: say to people who are really discouraged and frustrated.
Speaker 2: You can't give up. You can't give up. What's your
Speaker 2: option just like stay in bed all day and think
Speaker 2: it's going to get better. There's a lot of people
Speaker 2: speaking up now who've never spoken up before, never spoken
Speaker 2: up before, never being involved in a protest, who are
Speaker 2: becoming engaged. They're frustrated because it's like, Okay, so I
Speaker 2: marched in a protest, I had a sign, it was fun,
Speaker 2: it was a beautiful day. I've never done this before,
Speaker 2: and I've heard I've heard them say is this a
Speaker 2: waste of time? And I said, you know what, when
Speaker 2: people stop speaking up, then we're gonna believe that everything's okay.
Speaker 2: And you know everything's not okay, and so stay in there,
Speaker 2: don't give up, and so I know that there is
Speaker 2: a level of discouragement. I know that people are feeling
Speaker 2: like this is just really heavy right now, and so
Speaker 2: isn't isn't this the moment two for you to be
Speaker 2: a participant instead of checking out? We can't. We can't
Speaker 2: check out. Then we give up. And when you give up,
Speaker 2: then that's when that's when you have the authoritarian that
Speaker 2: comes in and says, I'll take care of you my way. No,
Speaker 2: there has to be a level of optimism, and there
Speaker 2: has to be a level of hope. And I operate
Speaker 2: in an environment of a lot of negative nabobs out here,
Speaker 2: and I get that, and I cannot let them get
Speaker 2: me down. I cannot. I have to believe in the
Speaker 2: greater good. And maybe it's just the spirituality that comes
Speaker 2: with an amazing place like Alaska that allows me to think, Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is worth fighting for. We can do this. It
Speaker 2: may be like a crazy wild write in that everybody
Speaker 2: says is impossible. Maybe they're saying it can't be saved,
Speaker 2: but we are still the greatest country. We're still the
Speaker 2: greatest country on the planet, and so let's not let's
Speaker 2: not fall prey to our own our own fears here.
Speaker 1: Let's let's.
Speaker 2: Figure it out. It's gonna be hard, but it's gonna
Speaker 2: be worth it. You just have to believe.
Speaker 1: Well. The book is far from home, an Alaskan senator
Speaker 1: faces the extreme climate of Washington, d C. Where we're
Speaker 1: sitting right now. Senator Murkowski, thank you so much, Thank.
Speaker 2: You, Thanks for the conversation. Good to be back with you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Everyone. If you have a question for me,
Speaker 1: a subject you want us to cover, or you want
Speaker 1: to share your thoughts about how you navigate this crazy world,
Speaker 1: reach out send me a DM on Instagram. I would
Speaker 1: love to hear from you. Next Question is a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartMedia and Katie Kuric Media. The executive producers are Me,
Speaker 1: Katie Kuric, and Courtney Ltz. Our supervising producer is Ryan Martz,
Speaker 1: and our producers are Adriana Fazzio and Meredith Barnes. Julian
Speaker 1: Weller composed our theme music. For more information about today's episode,
Speaker 1: or to sign up for my newsletter, wake Up Call,
Speaker 1: go to the description in the podcast app or visit
Speaker 1: us at Katiecuric dot com. You can also find me
Speaker 1: on Instagram and all my social media channels. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows. What if there
Speaker 1: were a way to reduce cancer desks by half in
Speaker 1: the next twenty five years. What if it were the
Speaker 1: future our children, our loved ones, our world could actually
Speaker 1: wake up to. This is the future Exact Sciences works
Speaker 1: toward every day, but they believe it's possible. Exact Sciences
Speaker 1: is a dedicated team of cancer fighters united by a
Speaker 1: purpose to help eradicate cancer by preventing it, detecting it earlier,
Speaker 1: and guiding personalized treatment. They bring together the best and
Speaker 1: visionary thinking and scientific rigor to create tests, including COLLI
Speaker 1: guard and Chotype DX that inspire life changing action. Visit
Speaker 1: exact sciences dot com to learn more.