CVN reporter Max Graham and KHNS reporter Brandon Wilks interviewed U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski when she visited Haines last week. Below is a transcript of the interview edited for clarity and length.

During her visit, Murkowski attended the Alaska Outdoor Alliance Confluence, a conference about building a sustainable outdoor recreation industry across the state. She also toured Haines' public safety building and met with residents at a campaign reception at Viking Cove.

Murkowski, a Republican, is running for re-election this year. She placed first in the Aug. 14 primary with 45.05% of the statewide vote, topping lead opponent Republican Kelly Tshibaka's 38.55%. In the Haines Borough, 49.2% of townsite voters chose Murkowski and 24.1% chose Tshibaka, who's been backed by former president Donald Trump. The Democrat candidate Patricia Chesbro garnered 12.6% of the townsite vote. Murkowski won 44 votes in the upper valley, while Tshibaka and Chesbro garnered 38 and 14 there, respectively. And 27 people voted for Murkowski in Klukwan, where Tshibaka and Chesbro tallied one vote each.

Wilks: Senator Lisa Murkowski, thanks for joining us. You're in town for the Alaska Outdoor Alliance Confluence. What has been your biggest takeaway from the conference?

Murkowski: I think what we're seeing here in Haines is a coming together of interests of those that are focused on Alaska's outdoor opportunities and how we really, wholly integrate that. I spoke at lunch about how we're connected, whether through transportation, certainly through our marine highway system - that's how I came to Haines this morning - whether it's aviation, whether it's road access, it's how we come together not only physically through those connections but also through things like broadband. ... And not only how we build these connections but how we're able to make these opportunities available to not only our visitors but to those of us who live and work and raise our families, who call Alaska home. Some of the things we get excited about, whether it's the opportunity for extended trail systems or again some of the federal programs that we put in place in recent years that allow for greater access to our public lands, greater care and greater stewardship for our public lands. ... Good gathering today.

Graham: You mentioned the infrastructure bill in your speech today. I know you've touted the work you did on that, in getting funding for the ferry system. I think people are wondering how long before that money translates into more frequent, reliable ferry service in the upper Lynn Canal, more than just a couple ferries a month in the winter.

Murkowski: The people of Southeast, the people in our coastal communities deserve to have a reliable, affordable marine highway system. It has been something that has been part of this region since I was a kid growing up here. In fairness, there is no reason we should not have a good, sound ferry system in the state of Alaska. Given all that we have, the resources that we have, it is in my view a shame that our system has been allowed to really founder in a way that you can't build ridership because you can't get a reliable schedule. And then you've got issues like dynamic pricing that really price people out of an opportunity to travel in that way. So your question is a fair one: When are we going to see the money? What we are doing now, allowing the contours of the programs that we have put in place through the infrastructure law – the criteria, eligibility, timelines – all of that is coming together. ... What people need to remember is we're going to be in a situation here where it's not only programmatic funding that will be included as part of an ongoing funding source for operation for the Alaska Marine Highway System - that will be in place. But then we also have specific funding to establish essential ferry service. We're very familiar with essential air service. We're doing the same thing when it comes to our ferry systems, not just in Alaska but in other areas where it's deemed to be essential. So that will be a source of funding in this five-year bill. We also have funding for a pilot program for electric or low-emitting ferries, one of which has to be located in Alaska. ... So you've got operational money, you've got support for an electric or low-emitting pilot, which will be separate, and then you have additional funding for the essential (service). ... From the federal perspective, what I can do to help - not only as an appropriator but one who helped design and pass this infrastructure bill – we can move federal resources. The state of Alaska is the one that has to establish the contours of this system. You don't want the federal government running your Alaska Marine Highway System. This is where the state has really got to come together. ... It has got to put a framework in place for sustainability. ... Some of this money is ongoing, recurring funding that you'll be able to count on; that's a first. But some of this is part of the five-year money that is coming from this infrastructure. We've got a window of opportunity to take it now. And I am pushing everyone from the governor on down in this administration to please seize this moment. ... We can do better. We can do better as a state in providing for highway service. And that highway service in our coastal communities is (the) marine highway. ... We've got a permanent fund that is billions of dollars. We've got extraordinary wealth. We can figure this one out. We have to prioritize it. I have made it a priority at the federal level. The state needs to prioritize this as our transportation for our coastal communities.

Wilks: According to the Congressional Budget Office the (infrastructure) bill would increase deficits by $256 billion between 2021 and 2031, and the current administration has been criticized for their spending policies, increasing inflation. Speaking locally, we came near $7 a gallon of gas, and it's actually $9 for a gallon of milk. It's actually cheaper to drink that gallon of gas than milk. How did you weigh the benefits that Alaskans would receive against the increase in national spending and a contribution to high inflation?

Murkowski: Well, those of us that were working on the infrastructure bill were very purposeful in making sure that what we were funding, what we were building out, was not going to be contributing to inflation. As we were working on this, inflation was not at the record levels that we see today. It has dipped just a little bit below, but it's still record inflation. So what we were working to do, again, was to make sure that this was not just kind of a short-term shot in the arm, economic one-time stimulus – that what we were doing was legacy investment: a road that you are building; a bridge that will be in place for the next 40 years; an airport that will allow for economic growth. We factored all of this in. A water and wastewater system does not contribute to inflation like a one-time payout of a loan forgiveness time of a thing. So there was a great deal of debate among the 10 members - five Republicans and five Democrats - who built this, about what should go in and what should not go in. And one of the prime criteria was: is this going to be an inflationary creator or a dampener? And that was an important part of a review and our analysis. ... Where I think we did see contributors to inflation was – they called it the American Rescue Plan (ARP) in 2021. It passed as a wholly partisan bill. And it was not what we would consider legacy infrastructure investment. It was more one-time stimulus dollars. This Inflation Reduction Act that was passed about a month ago, again on a whole partisan basis through the reconciliation process. That is not a full $1 trillion, as the ARP bill was, but you are again, through that measure - even though it's called the "inflation reduction act" - what you have are increased levels of short-term spending that I am fearful will contribute further to higher rates of inflation. The spending is real and legitimate. And again we have to be stewards of federal taxpayer dollars. But I am one who is prepared to say that when those dollars are made as investments to your community for a long period of time, that helps to stimulate economic growth and is a dampener to inflation.

Wilks: Is there any plan among your colleagues or those on the other side of the aisle to actually eventually get a hold of our debt which has now grown over $30 trillion?

Murkowksi: I wish that I could tell you that I think you're going to see leadership from the Biden Administration on that. But I'm not seeing that. I am very empathetic to those who have incurred substantial student loan debt. But I think that the president's action in this recent decision to forgive up to $10,000 for some and up to $20,000 for others in student loan debt is not going to help us as we're reducing spending. Because when the federal government forgives that debt, it is not as if it goes away; it just means that individual who received that one-time benefit, that golden ticket, it means that that obligation is then distributed among the rest of us. So we didn't incur that debt, but we will now be obligated for that. And so I view things like that as a signal that at least from the administration's perspective we're going to see that effort to rein in further spending.

Graham: I want to transition into a question about the state of national politics. You're in a unique position – or close to a unique position – with your approach to politics.

Murkowski: Isn't that a sad reflection? To be a moderate and to say that that is an unusual position - so many people that I know are moderate people in the middle.

Graham: Lots of reports paint you this way. It seems like you own that: being a moderate, being a centrist. But I don't think I've seen anyone ask you why you think it is that there are fewer and fewer representatives willing to buck their own party's leadership. I know there have been studies on that. But I'm curious, in your eyes, why it is.

Murkowski: I think our politics has driven elected officials to what they would define – what is my base? Who are the people who have elected me? We don't see it so much in Alaska. We've got one congressional district. So our congressman, or now a congresswoman (it feels good to be able to say our "congresswoman"...), their base is the entire state of Alaska. And the state of Alaska is a pretty diffuse group. You've got about 27% of the electorate that affiliate themselves as Republicans, 17 or so that lineup as Democrats and everybody else – the 60-some odd percent choose not to be affiliated with one of the two major parties. They may be undeclared. They may be nonpartisan, They may be independent, Green, Libertarian. So for those of us in Alaska to say I have to pay attention to my "base" – well, who is my base? My base in Alaska is pretty broad. I think in other states you have seen redistricting push things in a way; you have seen closed primaries push lawmakers to one side of the political spectrum or the other. I think closed primaries have resulted in perhaps the more extreme conservative or the more extreme liberal being the one elected in a primary. And then the general comes about and the two sides duke it out, and one absolutely wins and the other absolutely loses and there's no common ground in the middle. So if you're a person from a district that's overwhelmingly conservative, that's your base that you're going to respond to. There's no middle area. I think Alaska is a little different in that space.