LIVE: 2026 Alaska Congressional Fisheries Debates

These are going to be live for just a minute. Testing, testing, Mr. Testing, testing.

Gareth is pretty soft, right?

Organized by the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce and KMXT Public Radio. It's the only debate in Alaska devoted exclusively to fisheries. A tradition that dates back over 3 decades. I want to give a special thank you to our sponsors: Madsen, Koniag, Trident Seafoods, North Pacific Seafoods, Alaska Whitefish Trawlers, the City of Kodiak, Alaska Pollock Fishery Alliance, The Truth, Pacific Seafood Processors Association, United Fishermen of Alaska, Alaskan Quota and Permits LLC, and the Freezer Longline Coalition. First up, we'll hear from two of the four U.S. House representatives candidates, Nick Begich III and Bill Hill.

As we go in, gentlemen, to each session of debate, I'll go over the parameters for that round, but to start with, there's some ground rules. First is, we will be using a timer system that has a flashing light. The green light will turn on when your time begins. The yellow light will be lit when you have 30 seconds left, and the red light will be lit when your time is up. We ask that once the red light is lit, that you end your comments at that time.

Two, please be courteous and don't interrupt your fellow candidates. And three, this is a fisheries debate, and we'd ask candidates to stay on topic. And finally, I would like a promise from each of you, if you don't mind, that you would adhere to these ground rules and abide by your time limits with a thumbs up. Would you join me? Thanks so much, gentlemen.

All of today's questions were submitted by members of the public or the seafood industry and vetted by our local committee, which is comprised of representatives from all sectors of the fishing industry. Well, let's begin with an opening statement. Each candidate will have 90 seconds to share with the public why you are the best candidate to represent Alaska fisheries in the U.S. House. Nick Begich, since you have your name starts first in the alphabet, I will let you go first, 90 seconds, Nick Begich. Thank you, Senator Stevens.

Such an honor to be back with you. This is the third such debate I've attended in the last 6 years, and Kodiak has certainly a special place in my heart, but a special place in Alaska's coastal communities and fishing industry. You know, the fisheries discussion is always one of the most complex discussions that occurs, and the reason it's so complex is because we've got so many different user groups. From around the state, so many different gear types, so many different regulations, whether they be federal or state. And so this is, as much as it is an opportunity to speak with you, it's also an opportunity to learn from you about what the latest technology is, what the latest policy discussion should be.

And so I treat this opportunity as a moment to hear and to learn and to take those, those ideas and thoughts suggestions back to D.C. to work and put those into action. It's a pleasure to represent you in the United States House as your sole representative out of 435. I'm happy to report back that I have passed more legislation than any freshman on record, and those are good Alaska bills. They are bills that unlock lands for Alaskans, and they are bills that in many cases we've been working to achieve for decades. It's an honor to be here.

Thank you to the Kodiak Chamber for this opportunity to discuss these important issues, and I look forward to the next 45 minutes. Thank you, thank you, Bill Hill, for your 90-second opening statement, if you would. Hello everybody, whoa, my apologies, there's a little like a voice from on high there. Kodiak on a beautiful day, not a much better place to be Ama'a. It's an absolute pleasure to be here with you today.

Why am I the best candidate to represent Alaska in terms of fish? I think a life revolving around fish. You know, I've been a subsistence fisherman since before I can remember. I started commercial fishing at the age of 8. I had the joy of fishing with my father on the back deck as his second in command for many years, and the joy of working with family.

I raised 3 of my kids on my fishing boat and understand the importance that state, national, and international politics play in what happens on our back decks with our children, what happens in the income that we can take home, what taxation does to us, what tariffs do to us. I've lived the life of fish. Even during the campaign, I had to take a few days off to go fishing to pay the bills. And honestly, you know, it was some of the best 8 days of the campaign. But, you know, fish is just a part of who I am, and I know the impact that we have from subsistence, sport, small boat, commercial, and industrial strength commercial industries.

So I'm a fish-first candidate, and I hope to represent you in Congress. Thank you.

For round 1, we have the short answer or lightning question round.

Thank you. Question number 3: What are the 2 most important committee assignments for Alaska's U.S. Representative that will affect the fishing industry? Mr. Hill. Natural Resources, specifically Water, Wildlife, and Fish, and then Transportation. I think are the two most important ones.

Mr. Begich. Natural— is this thing on? Okay. Natural resources, clearly transportation and infrastructure. These are the longstanding committee assignments of Alaska's sole representative going back many decades.

Of course, Don Young was a committee chair at various times of each of those committees. But this is where I've had a lot of success in passing legislation. 13 Bills out of the House. 12 Of those bills came out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And the House Natural Resources Committee, and this is where Alaska fishermen have a nexus of legislative impact.

Well, thank you, gentlemen. For the next round, our two panelists, Mike Litzow, formerly with NOAA Fisheries, and Chelsea Rodell with Pacific Seafoods, will provide some background on an issue and then ask a series of questions about that topic to the candidates. Each candidate will then have 2 minutes to answer each question.

Topic 1: Leveraging opportunities with USDA Office of Seafood and NOAA Fisheries seafood strategy. This year saw the creation of the USDA Office of Seafood and NOAA regional priorities to advance America First seafood, building on Executive Order 14276, Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness. Alaska is a major part of U.S. seafood, contributing 60% of domestic seafood volume production, with 9 of the top 20 ports for volume in U.S. commercial landings. However, seafood continues to face challenges, including high fuel costs and competition in global markets. Question number 1: What kinds of programs and solutions would you push forward to alleviate these industry challenges?

And we will start with Mr. Begich. I think it's such an important question. Let me just say, for decades we have fought to be a part of the recognized foods covered under the USDA. And finally, we have that recognition in this Congress by this President to create the USDA Seafood Office. And if you're interested in what this office does, you can go out to usda.gov/seafood.

And see all of the things that we're working to do through this office. Now, in my hand, for those who are watching, you can see it. For those on the radio, you can't right now, but I have a booklet that was given to me by the Secretary of Agriculture that says, "USDA Office of Seafood, Serving Farmers of the Sea." And it is so important for us to finally recognize in Washington that we are farmers of the sea, we are harvesters, and we are part of the healthy food mix for our nation. Of course, Alaska, uh, the producer of 60% of the domestic catch, um, in our country. But finally, we have the recognition that we need.

The USDA Office of Seafood really does two things right now. One, it helps our, uh, fishers understand how they can utilize USDA programs, and it also helps the USDA understand what it means to integrate the fishing industry into their existing programs. Having a seat at the table is absolutely critical. We finally have that seat, and it happened in this Congress, and I was glad and proud to be a part of that effort and that announcement. Thank you.

Mr. Hill.

Wow, must be me. Um, well, I guess I'd start with an executive order is a very fragile thing that could go— that could go away in the next administration. So we need to work that to ensure that the USDA Office of Seafood is put into legislation and that is codified so that we can maintain that for Alaskan fishermen through the— throughout the course of decades and we can depend on it. So let's start there. Second, you know, Alaska fishermen have been hit really hard by a lot of the activities that have happened across this world.

You know, tariffs are a great thing when they're targeted and they're rolled out well and they help Alaska's industry. The Iran war is a really, really terrible thing in terms of how it's impacted our industry. I don't know how many of you have been impacted by tariffs or the, or the outcomes of the Iran war, but the fuel costs that I paid this summer were $2 a gallon more than last year, and they were already high. And then we start talking about things like food and groceries and the things that really allow our crews to do good work for us when we're fishing hard. But the other work that needs to be done, I think, is to ensure that Alaska becomes not only a net producer of seafood, but becomes a net processor of seafood.

So we really need to define some targets in terms of encouraging small community production of seafood. Because taking the raw product out of the ocean and shipping it overseas or down south is only giving us a limited amount of opportunity in this state. So we need to work on developing our production capacities, particularly in small fishing communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Question number 2: What specific efforts could your office and Congress take to help level the playing field improve our global competitiveness, and provide fair trade of Alaska seafood? We will start with Mr. Hill. Well, I think the very start of it is something I mentioned in my last comment, which is talking about tariffs. Right now, China is paying about 2 to 7%— I mean, sorry, Russia has about a 2 to 7% tariff rate when shipping seafood to China.

The United States and Alaska, it's over 20%. So there is some work to do on tariffs in our trade. We also need to be aware of how other countries impact our fisheries, whether it's through massive hatchery populations coming out of Japan, China, and the Eastern Asia areas. We need to make sure that we protect our borders and ensure that we don't have fishing, fishing activity within our waters. So there's a lot of work to do there.

Um, I'm committed to ensuring that Alaska's fisheries are not only healthy but thriving and growing the base of support for our communities, because this is not just about making a dollar. It's about supporting our families. It's about growing a family business and passing that on to our kids. It's about thriving communities that don't thrive when the dollars leave our communities. It's about building up the base of Alaska that has been diminished, and that's the work I want to take on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Begich. You know, the, the USDA Office of Seafood is a great place to start, and I agree, you know, it is important that we codify this into law, and that's exactly what we're doing in the House. The Farm Bill for the first time actually includes language to do exactly that, to codify the USDA Office of Seafood, and that, that farm bill actually passed the House and is sitting over in the Senate right now for further action. I think it's important that we maintain the barriers to foreign fish that are currently in place entering our domestic markets. It's so important when you have operators that are operating irresponsibly, using irresponsible fishing practices, in some cases within the 200-mile limit, but in most cases outside the 200-mile limit, and they're able to compete with our domestic producers.

That's wrong, and I think we need to maintain those restrictions to penalize those, those operators, and predominantly out of Russia and China. I mean, we also have to recognize that fish don't honor the 200-mile limit. They travel all over the ocean, and we've got to do more to crack down on, on those deleterious practices. So I think that there is a conversation around international trade. I think we have some good policies in place right now.

I think we need to prevent those fish from entering our domestic markets. We are absolutely working to make sure that the USDA Office of Seafood survives beyond one president.

Thank you. Our next topic is the role of Congress in managing fisheries and bycatch. So the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council— the council is the primary, primary regulatory body for federal commercial fisheries management in Alaska. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA. MSA requires a robust public process, stakeholder involvement, and a balancing of the 10 national standards in decision-making.

The Council is responsible for managing bycatch. Bycatch occurs in all fisheries, and setting bycatch limits at zero would effectively shut down commercial fisheries. So the first question: Given our fisheries management structure, what is the most impactful thing Congress could do to address bycatch and why? We'll have 2-minute answers and Mr. Begich, you're first. Right, I think we can do a lot to address bycatch and I'm working with Senator Sullivan on a bill that does exactly that, to address bycatch reduction.

I think it's also important for us to recognize that we need transparency. More transparency for folks who may have conflicts of interest that currently serve on the NPFMC. When we look at the national standards, of course, National Standard 9 is the one that deals with bycatch, and I think it's pretty clear: minimize bycatch, and to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize mortality of such bycatch. But we often focus on Standard 9. There's other standards that have applicability here.

For example, National Standard 1 makes it clear that we are to prevent overfishing, and when we have stocks of concern that are being caught up in nets, we're entering into a situation where we have, we are actually overfishing the non-targeted species as a result of that. So I think we need to balance that as well. You know, at the end of the day, we need to make sure that the fisheries are managed in an equitable fashion. That means subsistence users need a seat at the table, It means sport fishers need to sit at a seat at the table. It means our small commercial operators need seats at the table and our larger operators need a seat at the table.

Now, as the representative for all of Alaska, it's my intent, and this is the purpose of my bill, to make sure that every Alaskan, no matter what user group they're a part of, has a seat at that table to shape the policies that will determine what those bycatch thresholds are. And I was proud to lead a letter over to the NPFMC that helped result in, for the first time, a chum bycatch limit out in the Bering Sea. This is an important step, and it's important recognition that we need to make sure we're taking care of all the user groups of Alaska.

Thank you. Mr. Hill. Well, I don't think, uh, us— there's a single simple fix, but, you know, I grew up in this village called Kaukenok, and every spring we'd see the entire community pack up and move down to fish camp. And they'd spend the entire summer fishing for sockeye salmon. Over the course of the summer, they put up their food and that was required for the winter.

But it was more than just that. It was spiritual. It was cultural. It was a way that you taught your children and your grandchildren about the importance of your connection to the land and the water. It was more than just protein on the table.

Subsistence is sacred. And the very first thing that needs to happen, and I think you hear it from across the state, this is why there's such a loud outcry, is because some of our subsistence users have not been able to access their resource, which is more than just protein, for quite a few years now. We need a tribal seat on the MSA, and I'll work towards that.

Thank you. Sorry, was I out of time there? No. Okay, but there's more than that, right? I mean, you take a look at your local area, the Barnabas Gully, you know, the greatest concentration of Tanner crab here in this area, but it's overrun by trawling, limiting the prospects local fishers have.

There are a lot of other fixes. The midwater trawling needs to be midwater trawling. We've got a lot of work to do. It's not just one simple fix, but I'm ready to go to work. Thanks.

Thank you. So the second question's along the same theme. All fisheries have bycatch, including commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence, and a goal of zero bycatch isn't reasonable. Do you believe there's a role for Congress in reducing bycatch? And if so, what?

Again, we'll have 2-minute answers and Mr. Hill, we'll start with you.

Well, the goal for zero by— 0% bycatch should be the goal. We need to work towards that. We need to work towards very low thresholds for our trawl industry, especially the out-of-state corporate trawlers. We need to make sure that they're held accountable to a very strict standard, because if we're not working towards that goal, then we're not working towards maximizing the catch that they're looking for, but also minimizing their impact on the environment and the other fisheries that are a part of the catch of that vessel. So 0% needs to be the goal.

And I'm, you know, my perspective is when you set something out for industry to accomplish, they always find a way. And we've seen over and over again that our trawl fleet has met the standards that are being set for them. So can we get to 0%? That would be everybody's desire. But should we be working towards it?

Yes, we should be. And we should be making sure that those processors that are able to get to extremely low bycatch or 0% are rewarded. But those who are bad actors, you got to leave the fishery. Thank you.

Mr. Begich. Look, I think that goals are intended to be bold, goals are intended to be aggressive, and you're not going to achieve anything if you don't set out to achieve it. And certainly that's been my objective in the Congress in these first 2 years, and we've achieved some pretty incredible things that people thought were not going to be possible, including the establishment of the USDA Office of Seafood. So I think it's important to have the goal, but I think it's also important to recognize that you're correct in your statement. Every fishery has some level of bycatch.

The question is not whether each fishery has bycatch, the question is how much bycatch does each fishery have, and what are the impacts of the bycatch within each fishery. I think it's also important to recognize that not every fishery in Alaska is exactly the same. Southeast is far different from the Bering Sea, the Bering Sea is far different from the Gulf, the chain is different. These are different regions of the state, and they need to have policies that reflect that. And so this is the purpose of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, to help sort through those challenging trade-offs and decisions.

But I do think we need to reduce bycatch. I do think the goal should be zero. Uh, it's going to be a long road to get there, but we also have to recognize that in every single fishery, whether it be subsistence, sport, small commercial, or large commercial, they have a bycatch responsibility as well.

Thank you, gentlemen. It takes an enormous amount of courage to run for office, and you both have shown that. I appreciate what you have had to say. Can we have a round of applause for all of our candidates?

So for the next round, we will be using the iconic paddles before you, not to be used as weapons, believe me, but they will have a group of questions for you and they involve a yes or no answer. Candidates will respond yes by raising the green paddle and no by raising the red paddle. First question: Will you hire a dedicated fisheries and ocean policy advisor? Both answer yes. Two: Should science be the foundation of commercial fisheries management even if different from public opinion or misinformation?

And both answered yes. 3, Do you commit to engaging with impacted Alaskan fishery stakeholders prior to introducing seafood legislation? And both have answered yes. And do you support increased funding for assault and assault Kennedy competitive grants? And both have answered yes.

And finally, do you support finding ways to increase available visas for the seafood processing workforce? And both have answered yes. Thank you, gentlemen. Sarah. Okay.

Question number 6. Do you believe overharvest is a significant problem in North Pacific fisheries?

Still yes or no? Sorry. Yes. Yes or no? Both candidates said yes.

Do you think the USDA Office of Seafood is good for Alaska? We have a yes from both candidates. Do you support more funding for fisheries research and stock assessment surveys in Alaska? Yes from both candidates. Do you believe Alaska's rural and tribal communities should have more say in decisions affecting the fish they depend on?

Two yeses. And last question, do you support expanding federal programs that help Alaska seafood products compete in domestic and international markets? Two yeses. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.

For the next round, our two panelists, Mike Glitzow, formerly with NOAA Fisheries, and Chelsea Riddell with Pacific Seafood, will provide some backgrounds on an issue and then ask a series of questions about that topic to the candidates. Each candidate will have 2 minutes to answer each question. Thank you. Topic number 3 is the economic health of the Alaska seafood industry, coastal communities, and the state of Alaska.

The seafood industry provides over 41,000 jobs statewide and contributes $5.2 billion to Alaska's economy, according to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. At the same time, Alaska faces changing environmental conditions and volatile global seafood market conditions, and our coastal communities must maintain resiliency. Question number 1: Decisions can have very different consequences for differently situated communities, companies, and individuals. How can you ensure federal fisheries policy does not disproportionately hurt or benefit one set of stakeholders?

And we'll start with Mr. Begich. Well, I think it is such an important question, and as I— I'll go back to something I said just a moment ago. Each fishery is different. There's different species, there's different abundance within each fishery, there's different challenges within each fishery, there's different gear types. And so, uh, it's so important for us to utilize the process that is in place, uh, to manage these fisheries.

You don't want somebody in Washington, D.C. deciding what happens within a fishery on a day-to-day basis in Alaska. It doesn't make any sense. And, uh, no matter the experience that, that one of us may have That's a bad idea. We have the North Pacific Fishery Management Council because we need a council of experts who understand the industry, understand the science, and can interpret it properly to implement policies that maintain abundance and also predictability for people who go out and rely on these resources. Um, you know, at the end of the day, I think Washington has a role to create the structure for management, and I think the experts from industry and from these various user groups in Alaska also have a role to make sure that from on a day-to-day basis, on a year-to-year basis, that those fisheries are managed responsibly.

Thank you. Mr. Hill? Well, thank you for that question. You know, I think what we're seeing right now in our state, when you look at social media and you look at polling, we see the direct result of a group of people who have felt they're, they're left out of the decision-making. And our user groups are so varied.

You know, I have a buddy in Southeast, he's a troller and he trolls for coho. I have a lot of friends in Bristol Bay who are either drift or setnet salmon fishermen. I have friends who run commercial fishing lodges, you know, for sports fishermen. But subsistence fishing feels— subsistence fishermen feel like they've been left out of the conversation, so we need to make sure that they're included. Included at the end of the day.

Until we do that work so that everybody is involved and affected, we're going to continue with this debate. But yes, fisheries is one of the most complex subjects you can talk about here in the state of Alaska, and every single user group needs to have a voice at the table, or else we're just going to be in a, in a really bad place. But I truly believe many of our communities are— have very much the same issues. We have issues in terms of making sure we have the opportunity to fish, We have issues about the fluctuation in fish prices, the availability of equipment, the price of our gear that comes across, the price of fuel. We all have a lot of things in common, and sometimes the fish policy itself may be different, but we have many things we can work on together, and I'm happy to jump into that to make sure that we have a future fishing economy for our children.

Our second question for this topic: communities are concerned about aging marine infrastructure that is critical for our seafood ports and healthy working waterfronts. As Alaska's congressman, what plans do you have for securing federal funding for marine infrastructure? Mr. Hill, begin with you. You know, it's, it's not just the infrastructure of our ports, it's not just the infrastructure of our docks, It's not just our offloading capacity, but it's our marine highway system. We have so many issues that need to be addressed.

And why can we find billions of dollars for wars? Why can we give billions of dollars of tax credits to companies that are building data centers and AI? Why can't we give billions of dollars to building the infrastructure that will allow Alaskans to build good lives here at home? Let's build our ports. Let's repair ships here in Alaska.

Let's make sure that we have a place where the money is not just leaving the state. Great statistics on the amount of money that our fishing industry generates, but you know, my fishery, 80% of the value of the fishery leaves our state. I think that's unconscionable. We need to build up our ability to process our fish and to serve the world. And that's the work I want to do through infrastructure.

Thank you.

Mr. Begich. I think it's great that we agree. Difference is I'm doing that work right now. The WERTA bill is up for suspension vote in the House as soon as I get back this week. And the WERTA bill includes a number of investments for Alaska ports and marine infrastructure.

In fact, just last year I was able to secure $5 million for the float replacement here in Kodiak because this infrastructure has been aging out. It was put in place in 1982, and we're losing slips because this, this harbor infrastructure is literally falling apart. I think as a part of that, we need to make sure that we have a long-term infrastructure cycle plan for Alaska. When infrastructure goes into service, we need to estimate when it needs to be replaced and do a better job of understanding how we're going to plan to replace that infrastructure that people rely on so much. I'm also happy to report that I'm a chair of the bipartisan Ferries Caucus.

This is for our marine highway system, and we were able to just unlock $410 million of investment for the Alaska marine highway system.

So these are things that I'm doing in Washington that I will continue to do, and that I will continue to do across the aisle. Because that is how I've been getting things done in Washington for Alaska, working in a bipartisan fashion to move the priorities forward that are important for Alaska's fishing communities.

Thank you. Question number 3 is: Before supporting a specific law or policy proposal, how would you evaluate economic ripple effects in order to understand and balance the needs of all Alaskan communities? And Mr. Begich, we'll start with you. This is something that we do all the time in my office. We meet with folks from every constituency.

We meet with folks from subsistence communities. We meet with folks from small commercial. We meet with folks from the sport industry. We meet with the stakeholders, and we do that before we introduce legislation to make sure that it best represents the political center of gravity and the policy will of the people of the, of of our state. And, you know, it's so important that we do that.

We got to recognize too subsistence user groups don't have a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. There's no one making their case for them in Washington. So how do we make sure that they are heard? Well, we meet with them. We meet with those communities when they come in.

We talk about the concerns that they have. We talk about the technologies that may be available to help in a low footprint way enhance some of these returns. We've heard from some, uh, some in our delegation in the past that Yukon recovery will take 30 years. These communities don't have 30 years. We need to think about innovative ways to restore these stocks faster, and that is what we are working to do with those communities.

But meeting with each stakeholder group prior to the introduction of legislation, and even after the introduction of legislation, to understand what may need to be tweaked or changed to best meet the state of Alaska's needs. That's something that I have committed to doing and do on a regular basis.

Thank you. Mr. Hill, would you repeat the question please? Sure. Before supporting a specific law or policy proposal, how would you evaluate economic ripple effects in order to understand and balance the needs of all Alaskan communities? Great.

You know, there are so many ripple effects, secondary and tertiary ripple effects, that come from any decision that's made. You know, one of the impacts that we felt in Bristol Bay was, you know, there was this push to do what was called permit stacking, and the idea was to open up the fishery to a lot of different people. Well, permit stacking, instead of encouraging the, the purchase of new boats and things, has now become a consolidation of permits, driving up permit prices and making it harder for young people to buy in. So there's always an outcome that we never anticipate in the long run trying to do good things, but I think, you know, my opponent is right. You need to be out talking to people, and that's what I've done since day one.

I've traveled across the state to the smallest communities, to the largest. I've had public events to ensure anybody who wanted to speak with me could meet me and see where I stood and share with me the issues that they were facing. And that's work that I'm committed to doing. My office will have an open door. I will hire people who are deeply vetted.

Alaskan issues, and we will answer the phone and we'll answer your emails. Because at the end of the day, if your congressman is not responding to you in a timely manner, then what are they doing? You need to have somebody in Washington, D.C. who truly reflects the Alaska ideal of let's sit down and have a cup of coffee and talk about our issues together. And that's the kind of work that I'd like to do. That's how I'd like to represent you as an Alaskan.

And I truly believe your voice is the most important thing that goes to Washington, D.C. We'll now move on to our next short answer or lightning round where we ask candidates for brief responses. So please limit your answers to 30 seconds or less. Question number 1: How do you plan to build support from other members of Congress on seafood issues? Mr. Hill, we'll start with you.

Well, we'll start with— let's talk to everybody who's involved with seafood and everybody who is a, who is a legislator that has a state involved with seafood. We need to start building those relationships. Over the course of my life, I've had the opportunity to grow up in a coastal fishing community, which is very conservative in nature. I've spent 25 years in the education community, which is very progressive in nature. And I have great relationships across the board, and I've done a lot of great work for our community in Bristol Bay, um, through a bipartisan effort.

Well, look, I've had a lot of success in— I've had a lot of success in working across the aisle. I'm a co-sponsor, co-lead on the, the NOAA Data Preservation Act with Sarah Elfrith. Out of Maryland, and we have worked to make sure that the data that NOAA collects is never deleted, that it's retained over time. I worked just last week with Jared Golden to make sure that his priorities in his fishery were met for, for the lobster fishermen of Maine. Working across the island, being successful, means demonstrating that you're ready to do that, and I've done that in Congress.

Thank you. Question number 2: How do you plan to engage with all impacted stakeholders before introducing legislation? Mr. Begich, please. Well, I think this is a, this is a good question. We kind of answered it previously, but I think at the end of the day it's about outreach.

It's not waiting for people to come to you, it's going to them, and that's what we've, we've made every effort to do. When we are looking at policies that we're going to attempt to implement or policies that others are trying to implement on our behalf, which happens a lot in D.C., we reach out to those stakeholders and we say, what do you think about this? What are you—. What's your view? Because at the end of the day, Alaskans are the subject matter experts of these issues.

I couldn't agree with you more. We need to be talking to Alaskans first and foremost. We need to truly be there for you. We need to make sure that we're flying to the smallest communities and to the largest. And we're open to all perspectives.

We need to make sure that if you're a really conservative person, that you have the ability to come and talk to me, and that if you're a very progressive person, you have the ability to come and talk to me. Because at the end of the day, if I'm not collecting information from everybody in this state, um, I'm not going to be doing the job of the Alaska people, and that's what I'm there for.

The United States Coast Guard provides vital search and rescue operations But Alaska-based assets are increasingly diverted to other national security missions. How will you ensure adequate vessel, aircraft, and trained personnel remain available in Alaska for search and rescue and safety at sea for our fishermen? 30 Seconds, please. We'll get into— they'll help.

Well, the Coast Guard is such an important part of the work, of the work that's done in our seas. You—. I mean, the relief that is brought when you see a Coast Guard helicopter or plane coming out and circling around is something that only a real— uh, somebody who's been in really bad weather on a commercial fishing boat can truly know, or, or just on a fun fishing boat. Um, they have a dedicated purpose. We need to retain that.

And if they need to be used for other operations, we need to support them through Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Mayhew. This is something that we have prioritized in the Congress with a generational level of investment for our United States Coast Guard, $25 billion unlocked for the Coast Guard and our communities. That means 16 new icebreakers. Yes, thank you. 16 New icebreakers.

It means new helicopters and equipment. It means programmatic funding, but it also means shoreside infrastructure to support their mission. Including housing. And this is so important for coastal communities who have seen this. The housing issue with the Coast Guard is significant, needs to be addressed.

What do you believe are the primary causes of declines in king and chum salmon in Alaska? Mr. Begich. So primary causes for decline for king and chum salmon, I believe it's largely bycatch related. I think that's been an ongoing pressure on these species, particularly in parts of Alaska. You look at the Yukon, you look at the Kuskokwim, those runs are way down.

We're seeing some recovery in chums. I think that the cap that we put in with NPFMC is sort of that initial shot saying, hey, we're going to be managing these more carefully, but I think that historical bycatch is the root cause. Thank you. Bill Hill. I would agree, but I'd also add that there are some other secondary and tertiary causes that need to be recognized in addition to bycatch.

Climate change is a real thing and we need to start mitigating for that. But yes, we need to end bycatch.

Thank you. Alaska has a worker shortage that will only get worse over the coming years. What can you do in Congress to increase the workforce in the fishing and processing sectors? Mr. Hill. I'm sorry, I could— I could have lost—.

Has to do with the shortage of workers in our processing plants, and we know it'll get worse in the coming years. Is, is there something you can do in Congress to increase the workforce in the fishing and processing sectors? Well, there's been a very difficult— there's been a loss of an outside workforce that has supported many industries over the years. And that's due to an increase in the cost of bringing a worker, a visa worker, to the U.S. Until we can build a U.S. workforce that is willing to do the job that some of our immigrant workforce does, we're going to be stuck in the same position. So we need to make sure that visa workers have the ability to come to the U.S. at a reasonable cost.

Thank you, Mr. Baggage. Well, I think this is something that, uh, that my opponent and I agree on. We saw in the paddle round we support making sure that the people who provide that seasonal are available, whether they're domestic or they come from elsewhere. You know, I think workforce development is an ongoing issue. We hear about it all over the state, and not just in the fishery, we hear about it in all the industries.

And making sure that our students, when they leave high school, are prepared to enter the workforce— absolutely critical for Alaska as a state. Thank you. As a U.S. representative, what specific avenues could you use to ensure that economic value generated by federally managed fisheries does not come at the expense of Alaska salmon subsistence food security and the communities that depend on them. I'll tell you what, right now we, we need labeling transparency rules throughout the United States. Alaska seafood is competing with penned fish and farmed fish, and the end consumer doesn't know it.

And so when you're buying an Alaska seafood product We need to make sure that it's labeled Alaska, that that's transparent, because it gives us the best price for our product and it reduces some of the pressure on our fisheries. Thank you. Mr. Hill. Um, we quite frankly need to encourage the development of more processing in our state that's not a consolidated, vertically integrated type of processing, and we need to make sure that we're legislating to make, to make sure that farmed fishing does not come to our seas and that we keep them off for as long as we possibly can. Thank you, gentlemen.

Bycatch is often presented as a binary choice between protecting the long-term health of Alaska's fish population versus protecting the economic interests of the fishing industry. Do you think this is an accurate characterization and why or why not? Mr. Hill.

Well, I think when we see an example like I was referring to in Barnabas Gully here a little bit earlier, the idea that you have a high-quality, high-price product like Tanner crab that— or sorry, Dungeness crab that are being wasted by an industry that's targeting flatfish, which are a very low-price commodity, I think that's where this comes from. So, yes, I think in many cases it looks like a binary choice.

So I think we've got to be able to do all things at once in Alaska. We have a variety of industries and rural communities that rely on not just fish processing, but the ability to move goods in and out of their communities. It's already expensive. It doesn't need to be made more expensive. And so we've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Bycatch is an issue. We know that it is, and we need to continue to work on that, but as we've talked about today, there are other issues. There are ways to enhance certain stocks, there are ways that we can invest in equipment, but this needs to be multi-pronged.

This concludes all of our questions for the candidates. This last segment of the forum, each candidate will have 1 minute to present closing statements. Mr. Hill, we'll have you share your 60-second closing statement first.

Well, I'll tell you, I've lived a life of fish. Um, early in the year in Cochnock, we'd set that net out, we'd catch the first couple of fish that would come up the river, and we'd share them in our community. We'd go down to Naknek in the summer and we'd commercial fish so we had some money in the winter to add to what we were having. We'd go back up and we'd catch fish for our dog teams and for us to eat in the winter. And then when freeze-up came, we'd go up to Gibraltar Lake and get redfish and whitefish.

And then all winter long, as we were fishing dolly varden or rainbow trout, we'd be using these big gobs of salted cured eggs that we got in the summertime. Fishing has just been an integral part of my life. I don't have fish poisoning, but it's in my blood.

Thanks. Mr. Begich, your 60-second closing statement, please. It's been an honor to be your representative in the United States House. I've traveled all over the state, from the big cities to the small villages, from Nome to Chuathpuluk, Aniak, Ketchikan, all the way through southeast over to Bethel. You name it, I'm there, and I'm there for a reason.

I'm here to listen to you, to understand what the issues are, to understand more importantly what the solutions are so that I can take them back to DC and get those things done on your behalf. I've been successful. I've delivered more than any freshman legislator in US House history. 13 Bills have passed the House, 9 have become law from my office. I'm on 8 subcommittees, 3 committees.

That's double the workload of my predecessor. I have specific examples of how we're delivering for you and will continue to deliver for you. D.C. is a complex environment. There's 435 members of the United States House. Alaska gets only one.

When you make that decision this November, make sure that the person that you're voting for has a track record and the ability to deliver results for Alaska. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Really appreciate I appreciate your being here and your answering these questions. Could we have a round of applause for both candidates?

So this concludes our fisheries forum for the U.S. House of Representatives candidates. We'll now take a short 10-minute break before hearing from the U.S. Senate candidates. You're listening to the live broadcast of the Alaska Fisheries Debate from the Gerald C. Wilson Auditorium in Kodiak. Thanks for tuning in and joining us. Thank you.

Welcome back, everyone. Glad to see you. Please take your seats, if you will, and we'll begin this next round. This is the 2026 Congressional Candidates Fisheries Forum, live at the Gerald C. Wilson Auditorium in Kodiak. This event is hosted and organized by the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce.

Could I have you all sit down and be quiet, please? Okay, thanks. So this event is hosted and organized by the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. And KMXT Public Radio. I'm Gary Stevens, your co-moderator for today's Congressional Candidates Fisheries Forum.

And my co-moderator is Sarah Frazer. Hey, good morning everybody. I'm Sarah Frazer. Quick thank you to our sponsors of today's events before we begin: Madsen, Cognac, Trident Seafoods, North Pacific Seafoods, Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association, The City of Kodiak, Alaska Pollock Fishery Alliance, The Truth, Pacific Seafood Processors Association, United Fishermen of Alaska, Alaskan Quota and Permits LLC, and the Freezer Longline Coalition.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from two of the four U.S. Senate candidates, Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan. As we get to each section of the debate, I'll go over the parameters for that round. But to start with, here are the ground rules. One, we will be using a timer system that has flashing lights.

The green light will turn on when your time begins. The yellow light will be lit when you have 30 seconds left, and the red light will be lit when your time is up. We ask that once the red light is lit, that you end your comments at that time. Second, please be courteous, please be respectful, And don't interrupt your fellow candidates. And finally, this is a fisheries debate, so candidates must stay on topic.

I would like a promise from each of you that you will adhere to these ground rules and abide by your time limits with a thumbs up. Could I have a thumbs up? Thank you very much. All of today's questions were submitted by members of the public or the seafood industry and vetted by our local committee, which is comprised of representatives from all sectors. Of the fishing industry.

Let's begin with opening statements. Each candidate will have 90 seconds to share with the public why you are the best candidate to represent Alaska fisheries in the United States Senate. Mary Peltola, since your name begins first alphabetically, we'll start with you first. Please, Mary, 90 seconds. Thank you to the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce for having me here today.

Strong fisheries are the lifeblood of our economy, Communities and families. Some of the fisheries that have sustained generations of Alaskans are suffering at the hands of Lower 48 factory trawlers, and we need to take action. I want to be clear, we're in this fight together against out-of-state corporations who export our fish and our profits while leaving our fisheries worse off. Our fight is not against small and mid-sized boats that keep communities like Kodiak strong It's against the out-of-state corporate greed that leads to wanton waste and damage to our seafloor. I've been fishing in Alaska since I was 6 years old.

I became a permit holder when I turned 12. I'm the only candidate on this stage who's an Alaskan fisherman. Fish is in my blood, earned over generations on the water. Alaskans know the difference between a senator who fights for fish and one who fishes for donations. That's why I've not taken a single dollar from out-of-state corporate trawlers and why I've never owned a share of stock in a farmed fish company.

I'll fight to ban Lower 48 factory trawlers from harming our fish stocks. I'll fight to reduce bycatch, and I'll fight to restore abundance for the next generation of Alaska fishermen. I'll fight to secure real and timely disaster funding. And thank you again for having me, and I look forward to working with you.

Thank you, Mary. Dan Sullivan. Thank you to the Chamber. I love this community. I've learned so much from this community.

12 Years ago, I participated in this debate against someone who had served in Congress, talked a lot about fish, but got little done. I promised something different—real results, not just talk. I kept that promise. Working together, I've led on a long list of achievements. Just to name a few: single-handedly banning Russian seafood imports—and now I'm going after Chinese imports—establishing the new USDA Office of Seafood, passing major IUU fishing bills, securing over $600 million in trade relief for Alaska fishermen and over $100 million for NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program, fighting and winning in court for Southeast salmon trawlers and our halibut fishermen against the Amendment 80 trawl fleet, passing the largest ocean cleanup legislation in history, leading on historic multi-billion-dollar investments in our ferry system and Coast Guard, and leading on reducing bycatch, including the most comprehensive bill in history that we will vote on next week Here's the bottom line: our fishermen deserve relentless focus and action, not just talk.

During my opponent's first term in Congress, she did not introduce one bill dealing with fish. In two terms in Congress, she did not have one bill signed into law. I had 63 signed into law in two terms, many focused on strengthening our fisheries. We have many challenges, but working together, I promise to continue delivering real results for all of you.

For the first round of questions, our two panelists, Mike Litso, formerly with NOAA Fisheries, and Chelsea Riddell with Pacific Seafood, will provide some background on an issue and then ask a series of questions about that topic to the candidates. Each candidate will have 2 minutes to answer each question. Thank you. Topic 1 is identifying and achieving seafood priorities. Alaska is known for its wonderful seafood, and seafood is an important economic driver for Alaska's coastal fishing communities.

The seafood industry is complex, and it faces many issues and opportunities on the horizon. Question number 1: What are the top 2 fisheries issues where you can make a meaningful difference for Alaska, and why did you choose these two issues? We will start with Mr. Sullivan. Well, let me begin on the top two.

First, the Russians essentially declared war against Alaska fisheries, and they said it, they're going to flood the zone with regard to their seafood. It drove down prices, and one of the top things that I've done with regard to our fisheries that's helped everybody And by the way, it helps the bycatch issue, is go after the Russians. If you say, hey, you're going to attack Alaska, we'll go after you. I relentlessly worked on getting a ban on all Russian seafood into the United States of America. This took relentless work.

This has helped our fishermen across not only Alaska, but the country. And now we are going after China with regard to the same ban. Why? Because Russian trawlers, Chinese trawlers ravage the ocean. They compete unfairly, and they have been, um, going after our markets.

So the number one thing is not only to continue the Russian ban, but I've gone to other countries to try to get them to go after the Russians and the Chinese in terms of banning the importation. That helps with bycatch, it helps with our fishermen, it helps everybody. The second one is a policy goal that we have tried to get done, and I got done, um, for years. That's establishing a USDA Office for Seafood Policy. What does this do?

It enables— we got that done last year. Now I'm trying to get that into law. We will get that done as well. My bill for establishment of the Seafood Policy Office is in, um, is in the Farm Bill right now. That helps with regard to enabling fishermen to have access to all the programs that farmers have.

And finally, getting my bycatch bill over the goal line next week in the Commerce Committee. Thank you.

Can you restate the short question at the very end there? Sure. What are the top 2 fisheries issues where you can make a meaningful difference for Alaska, and why did you choose these 2 issues? It's hard to narrow it down to 2, Chelsea. I think that number 1, we have to reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens Act.

This hasn't been reauthorized since 2006, and so much has changed in our waters and in our industry. I, I believe that one of the top issues for our fishermen across every sector, across every region, is the high cost of fuel. This is the number one cost for all fishermen. This war in Iran is driving up our gas and diesel prices. Dan Sullivan has voted for the war in Iran over 10 times.

10 Times. Times to jack up your prices. This should not be— we should not be going to Washington, D.C. to fight for one party or another. We should be fighting for our fishermen. And yes, we do need a USDA Office of Seafood, but we can't celebrate just yet.

We need to make sure that that USDA Office of Seafood is fighting for wild stocks, Alaskan stocks, not farmed fish, not the Dan Sullivan USDA Office of Farmed Fish.

Thank you. Our second question: Can you please detail your plan to engage with all impacted stakeholders before introducing legislation? And Ms. Potolo, we begin with you. Thank you, Mike.

I am very proud of the, uh, trawling bill, the bycatch bill that I introduced when I was in the Congress, the 2 years that I served in Congress in the minority. I worked with stakeholders across the state of Alaska. That's why it took over a year to introduce that, because I was actually talking with people with 907 area codes across our state about how the legislation impacted them and their fisheries and their bottom line. I think it's so important to only be talking to Alaskans. You had to be an Alaskan to get an appointment with me.

I did not want to hear from Lower 48, Seattle 7, Lower 48 factory industrial trawlers, folks who are mostly employing non-US citizens. I think that stakeholder outreach, stakeholder engagement, constituent work, listening to actual Alaskans is the number one job of a US senator, of an Alaskan senator, and that's why Every community I go to, I have meet and greets, I have constituent opportunity, meeting time face to face so I can really hear what's on your mind and in your heart, and you can see whether or not I am understanding what you are saying, what Alaskans are saying, what Alaskan fishermen feel that they need. Right now they need lower gas prices, lower diesel prices. When I smell the scent of diesel, the first thing I think of is my dad's Volvo Penta inboard motor and the smell of that diesel. And every day that diesel is getting more and more expensive for our fishermen, more and more expensive to make ice, more and more expensive for our processors to process these fish.

Most of our powerhouses are generated by diesel. We need a break here. We need some help. We need somebody in DC fighting to lower our costs, not to jack up our costs.

Well, stakeholder engagement is actually what I've been all about. And let me, let me lay out the parameters of how I've been focused on reducing bycatch for years, not in a slogan, but actually getting it done. Let me begin. As I mentioned, Starting with the ban at the bad actors, banning Russian and Chinese trawl-caught fish coming into the United States. That took thousands of hours of work for me and my team with the Biden administration, with the Trump administration, and hearing from Alaskan fishermen.

This is something my opponent was MIA on. She was very uninvolved. One of the biggest issues that we got done for all Alaskans. This is going to help everybody. But we also passed two IUU fishing bills that go after bad actors.

One that just passed the Senate is going to be able to sanction Russia, sanction China again to prevent that trawl-caught fish coming into the United States. I was able to increase appropriations for NOAA's Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. That's a huge area, focus on bycatch, and very importantly, I defended in court when our halibut fishermen were sued by the Amendment 80 trawl fleet in Seattle. I was the one who wrote the brief, got involved in the litigation, and we beat the out-of-state trawlers who were coming after our halibut fishermen in litigation. We've had strong advocacy on the council that I went to the council last year to get the Western Alaskan chum bycatch limit implemented.

That was another area where I was leading. And then finally, my Alaska Salmon Task Force Act. This takes consensus. This brings in all Alaskans, the best minds. That was passed in 2022.

It's not easy to pass a bill, Congressman Peltola. It's hard. It takes hard work. It was consensus that we worked together to lay out what's happening with our salmon runs, and how we can address strengthening them, including going after bycatch.

Thank you. The third question is, what are the two most important committee assignments for a U.S. Senator from Alaska that will affect the fishing industry and why? We'll start with Mr. Sullivan.

Well, first is, um, the Commerce Committee, and 12 years ago at this debate, I told all of you that I would seek not only a seat on the Commerce Committee, but I would seek the leadership position on the Commerce Committee to help our Alaska fisheries and our fishing communities. I kept that promise. I chose that committee. I chose to be the chairman of that committee, uh, the subcommittee in terms of oceans and the Coast Guard, and that's what we're doing. We're laying out fisheries and Coast Guard bills that have had a huge positive impact on our state.

I've also chose to be on the Environment and Public Works Committee, but let me talk, and that's also dealing with fisheries. So I made those promises, I kept those promises. My opponent would empower a Seattle, Washington-based senator to be the next chairman of the Commerce Committee. Any opportunity to get bycatch bills passed, including mine, would be automatically undermined if you had the chairman of the Commerce Committee being from Washington State. That's who my opponent is looking to empower.

But let me talk about some other things with regard to fisheries. And the committees on which I'm on. In the next 6 years, if I'm reelected, I have the opportunity to be the chairman of the Commerce Committee. We will then reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens, but we should not reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens if a Seattle, Washington senator, who my opponent is supporting, would be chairman of the Commerce Committee. Finally, as a subcommittee on that committee, I wrote the biggest investment in Coast Guard history, a $25 billion investment in recapitalizing our Coast Guard.

Kodiak is going to get at least a billion dollars, 2 icebreakers and 2 fast response cutters from that important work. Thank you.

Go ahead. This is one of my least favorite questions because it pretends that I've already won this election. This election is not a slam dunk. This is not a sure thing. This, this race is neck and neck, and my deadline is November 3rd.

November 3rd is the day we need to remember to get out and vote across our state. I think all committees are good committees. I do think the Commerce Committee Committee in the Senate is especially important because number one, this committee needs to authorize NOAA. NOAA has yet to be authorized. All the doge cuts that we've seen in this critical agency, these are our federal partners, these are our federal allies.

We do not have sustainable management. We are flying blind without the surveys and the research that NOAA does. We need to enshrine that agency and make sure that they have recurring funds. We have a do-nothing Congress that hasn't passed a real budget since the late 1990s. The 1990s.

It's been over— it's about 30 years since we had a Congress that could even pass a budget. So we can't have NOAA just hanging out on a limb hoping. That this agency will be funded by the goodness of people's hearts. We know how life and death this agency is, not just for, you know, keeping a roof over our head and being able to pay for the gas we need, but also to get weather. We live and die by our weather here.

We live and die by federal agencies and the federal employees who keep those agencies going. And Dan Sullivan voted He went right along with all these dogecuts, mowing down federal employees that we rely on. These agencies weren't fully staffed to begin with. Alaska has taken more cuts on federal employees percentage-wise than any other state, and no other state depends on our federal employees as much as Alaska does.

Thank you. Our second topic is leveraging opportunities with the USDA Office of Seafood and the NOAA Fisheries Seafood Strategy. So just this year, USDA created the first Office of Seafood, and NOAA Fisheries announced regional priorities to advance America First Seafood, which built on 2025's executive order 14-276, Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness. Alaska is a major part of U.S. seafood, contributing 60% of domestic seafood production, with 9 of the top 20 ports for volume in U.S. commercial landings. At the same time, seafood continues to face challenges, including increased operating costs and competition in global markets.

So our first question: What federal programs would you propose or support to help Alaska seafood products compete in domestic and international markets? Ms. Potolo. Thanks, Mike. Alaskans count on a delegation to bring home the pork.

We can shape the seafood office to make it work for Alaska, and this office can be great for Alaska, but we cannot celebrate just yet. We're missing out on funding because our delegation isn't informed on all of the opportunities that we have. Our regulatory framework is already overly complicated. We need clarity. We need to make sure that this new office has congressional oversight to make sure they're on point and pivoting when they need to pivot.

We need to prioritize our ocean economy. NOAA and USDA should support small and medium-sized fishermen and medium-sized fishing boats. We've got to make sure that they're supporting our kelp, our new kelp farmers, our new shellfish growers. I'll fight for clarity to make this office work for Alaska. We should have a federal office like ASMI, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, We should have had this decades ago.

Our fish, you know, on the East Coast, I see more Norwegian farmed salmon than I see Alaskan wild-caught salmon. We need to fix that. People in Washington, D.C., people all across the Eastern Seaboard, they want to eat wild fish. They want to eat Alaska wild fish. Not enough people know that half of the world's red salmon, half of our wild-caught sockeye are from Bristol Bay.

We have the best fish in the world. We should never be out-marketed by farmed fish, and we've got to make sure that the USDA Office of Seafood doesn't become the Dan Sullivan Office of Farmed Fish.

Thank you. Mr. Sullivan. Well, if there's ever a question or an issue that distinguishes the difference between my record of getting things done and my opponent's record of talk, it's this. So we were able to get this USDA Office of Seafood right here, something I've been working on for years. Take a look at it, Alaskans.

This— for over 100 years, farmers had policy programs that help so many farmers from USDA, and our fishermen never got access, loans, crop insurance, all these things. And they've been outside the door of the USDA. They're now inside the door. The door is open. It is a tremendous opportunity.

It's something I'd worked on through 3 different successive administrations. We got it done. I was glad it was a Kodiak fisherman, Sterling Proudt, who was at the opening when we had 3 cabinet members announce this. But we need to also get it into law. And I have legislation that does that.

When the Congresswoman was in office for 2 terms, she never introduced any bill to, uh, get this into law. She didn't introduce a companion bill of mine. Actually, after she lost in 2024, in December of 2024, she introduced a bill to finally do this. Talk about too late. Talk about not being focused on this, this issue.

This is a huge issue. My bill is now in the Farm Bill because we brought the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator John Boozman, up to Kodiak to learn about these issues. Finally, we also have this Office of Seafood American Competitiveness from this administration. I wrote a lot of this to help our fishermen. This is an all-of-the-government approach to seafood, to our fisheries.

Every agency. I hosted roundtables during the Biden administration, the Trump administration, the Obama administration with cabinet secretaries on these issues. My opponent was MIA, never led on these, never focused on these. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Our second question on this topic: What kinds of programs and solutions would you push forward to alleviate industry challenges, including variable fish prices in global markets and increased fuel and labor costs? Mr. Sullivan, will you speak? So I think the first one goes back to the Russian ban that we got in place and the Chinese ban. Uh, 3 years ago when we were here, uh, at, at, uh, COMFISH, as I mentioned, the Russians had declared that they were at war with Alaska fishermen, with American fishermen.

Flooding the market. We stopped that. We put in place a ban, and we brought in the ability to raise prices for our fishermen because the flood of Russian, um, seafood into the United States has been stopped. Again, I'm very glad to have led those efforts with so many people here, but we need to continue that ban, expand it, and then go after the Chinese who also have similar unsustainable practices with their trawl fleet and unsustainable environmental practices in which they undertake fishing. So those bans are absolutely critical.

We need to build on the USDA Office of Seafood. And when it comes to energy, what's really important— and I know people are struggling, it is a challenge, we do have high costs with regard to diesel and other things— I've established a White House task force focused on Alaska energy to help with supplies, to double the amount of LIHEAP funding, to get waivers with regard to the EPA to produce more diesel in Alaska. But here's the thing, our challenges on Alaska have to be resolved by producing Alaska energy. For Alaskans. That's the best way going forward.

My opponent would ally herself with the anti-Alaska energy groups in Congress who will do what they always do, shut down Alaska energy, and that would be really horrible for all Alaskans, including our fishermen.

Thank you. Ms. Peltola. Could you say the question one more time? Sure. What kinds of programs and solutions would you push forward to alleviate industry challenges?

To address the challenges, including variable fish prices in global markets and increased fuel and labor costs? Well, I do think again, having a federal program that matches the ASMI program is the bottom level. We've got to be able to really showcase the seafood that we have to domestic markets and global markets. We really have to work on bringing down fuel prices, and everyone in this audience, everyone in the listening audience knows so much of the cost of fuel is tied to the Strait of Hormuz right now. Again, 10 times the current senator has voted for this war in Iran.

10 Times he's voted to jack up our prices. This is a direct link to the Strait of Hormuz, and, and this cost of energy affects everyone, both, um, if you're on a factory trawler or the smallest fishing boat in the ocean, if you have a family-run operation processing fish or the biggest processing plant in the state, we've got to bring down fuel prices. We have to invest in bottom technology. We have to protect and expand and, and grow our ocean economy, our mariculture. We've got to be able to look around the corner for disasters, not just the one-off disaster that we just came out of.

We have to have some ability to look up over the dashboard at what's coming and have agencies that are fully staffed, not just half-hearted programs with no funding to implement them. Um, we, we have to do much, much better at supporting our fishermen and really listening to what you need. How much does it cost to produce ice these days? We are being priced out of petroleum and we're being priced out of our lives in Alaska because of the war in Iran.

Thank you both. At this point, I just want to express my appreciation for your, uh, knowledge and your experience and your honesty in speaking with us. Continue, please, to show respect for each other. That's what we expect from you. Thank you.

So this time, let's have a round of applause for both of our candidates.

So let's take it a little bit lighter. This has been pretty heavy, and I acknowledge that. For the next round, we'll go to the paddles that you have. As these questions involve yes or no answers, the candidates will respond yes by raising the green paddle or no by raising the red paddle. First question: Do you think the new USDA Office of Seafood is good for Alaska?

Both yeses. Thank you. Number 2: Do you believe overharvest is a significant problem in the North Pacific fisheries? Overharvest. Again, the question is, do you believe overharvest is a significant problem in the North Pacific fisheries?

Two yeses. Yes, thank you. Three, should federal workforce programs be expanded to address Alaska's seafood processing labor shortages? And two yeses. Thank you.

Do you support federal assistance to make Alaska's fishing vessels safer and more efficient? 2 Yeses, thank you. And finally, should US policies and funding increase domestic value-add seafood processing capacity? Let me read that again, I may have screwed that up. Should the United States policies and funding increase domestic value-added seafood processing capacity?

And 2 yeses, thank you very much. Yes, sir. Keep those paddles ready, we do have a couple more panel questions for you. Do the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries adequately consider impacts on subsistence users, salmon migration, habitat, and indigenous ways of life?

We have 2 nos, thank you. Next question: Should the federal government increase investment in Alaska seafood infrastructure and processing capacity? We have 2 yeses. Do you prioritize increased funding for U.S. Coast Guard aircraft, marine vessels, and trained personnel to ensure safety at sea for our fishermen? We have 2 yeses.

Do you believe climate change is already significantly affecting Alaska's ecosystems and fisheries?

We have 2 yeses. Last question. Do you support maintaining or increasing federal funding for Alaska fisheries and ecosystem surveys? Two yeses. Thank you.

So thank you. For the next round, our two panelists, Mike Litzow, formerly with NOAA Fisheries, and Chelsea Riddell with Pacific Seafood, will provide some background on an issue and then ask a series of questions about that issue, about that topic, to the candidates. Each candidate will have 2 minutes to answer each question. Thank you. Topic number 3 is the role of Congress in managing fisheries and bycatch.

The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is the primary regulatory body for federal commercial fisheries management in Alaska under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or MSA. MSA requires a robust public process stakeholder involvement, and decision-making that balances the 10 national standards. The Council is responsible for managing bycatch. Bycatch occurs in all fisheries, and setting bycatch limits at zero would effectively shut down commercial fisheries. Question number 1: All fisheries have bycatch, including commercial, sport, personal use, and subsistence, and a goal of zero bycatch is not reasonable.

What could you do to support reducing bycatch in fisheries while balancing the interests of all impacted stakeholders, including communities like Kodiak? We'll start with Ms. Petula. Thank you, Chelsea. Alaska needs a senator who understands commercial fishing and will, will work with anyone to deliver for our fishermen and our communities.

Not enough Alaskans are in DC working for us who understand our seafood industry and our fishermen. We have outdated and inefficient lower-48 bureaucracy, and we have outdated and legislation— outdated legislation and rules that don't work for Alaskan fishermen. Magnuson-Stevens does need to be revised to curtail bycatch, Standards, national standards 4, 8, and 9 do need to be tightened up. We Alaskans, almost all of us agree on this. Alaska Natives should have 1 or 2 seats on the council.

That North Pacific Fisheries Management Council does not reflect the majority of Alaskans. It does not reflect the Alaskan population. We need Alaska Natives to be able to sit on that council. Both Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski have been in staunch support of this. I don't know what on earth the resistance would be.

They'd still be outnumbered. We've got to work with our new governor to look at the makeup of the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and we need to make sure that we have funding increases for both enforcement and monitoring. I believe that the federal government should help invest in commercial fishing boats, trawlers, to make sure that they do have excluders, that there is real-time monitoring so that we are not devastating our environment. We have NOAA bycatch rules on the books now that are not being enforced. Let's just start with enforcing the rules we have.

Thank you. Mr. Sullivan. Well, as I, as I mentioned earlier, I've been working on the bycatch issue for years. It requires a multifaceted approach, and that begins with going after the bad actors— the Russians, the Chinese— implementing the trawl bycatch ban, which I was able to do.

Secondly, passing legislation, which I've also done, going after and sanctioning these fishing fleets, the IUU fishing bills that targeted the Russian and Chinese trawl bycatch fleets. We've increased annual appropriations for NOAA bycatch research. As I mentioned earlier, I've defended in court and led the effort to defend halibut fishermen when they were sued by the Amendment 80 trawl fleet in Seattle, and we won that. We— I weighed in with strong advocacy as it relates to the Western Alaska bycatch chum limit with the council. But most importantly, I've worked over years with Alaskans in a consensus manner to get bills passed.

My Alaska Salmon Task Force Act, which was the most comprehensive bill to look at how we get strong salmon runs returned to our state in our state waters, it looked at several different areas including bycatch, a framework and a pathway to move forward which set the stage for my comprehensive bycatch Bycatch Reduction Act, which we will be bringing to vote on in the Commerce Committee next week. The one way in which we will not get any bycatch legislation done is if the senators from Seattle who support and have fundraised for my opponent become the chairman of the Commerce Committee. That's how you stop this in its tracks. We're making progress. We need to do much more.

Thank you. Our next question: Bycatch is often presented as a binary choice between protecting the long-term health of Alaska's fish populations versus protecting the economic interests of the fishing industry. Do you think this is an accurate characterization? Why or why not? Mr. Sullivan, start with you.

I think the way in which you teed up the question, that it impacts all fisheries, is important to know. But the reason in which we took so much time to draft my bycatch legislation is because we thought the council was not moving fast enough. We thought the council was not looking at the data. We thought the council was not focused properly on deadlines. So we— although you don't always are— you don't always want to introduce legislation to direct the Council to move forward with regard to deadlines when they are not in many ways doing their job, I think it's an appropriate role for Congress to do that.

So my bill forces action, it directs action to reduce bycatch, including unobserved fish mortality, limiting trawl gear contact with the seafloor, in creating transparency with regard to the council, which we think is needed. There are concerns that there's conflict of interest. There are concerns that the council is moving too slowly. This is the oversight role that I believe the Congress should play with regard to the Council on Bycatch. And this is why this bill that we've worked on for a number of years is, is really important.

There's a balance, of course. You don't want 100 U.S. senators trying to legislate fish allocation in the North Pacific, but at the same time, when the council is not working on an important issue like bycatch reduction, which Alaskans are very focused on, It needs to move, it needs to work, and that's why my comprehensive bill, the most comprehensive bycatch reduction bill ever introduced in Congress, is going to get a vote next week in the Commerce Committee, and it'll be important.

Thank you. Ms. Potolo.

Thank you, Mike. Bycatch for all fishermen is inevitable. You know, and especially with certain gear types. Gill nets are pretty unforgiving. But when the bycatch is in the metric tons of juvenile halibut, juvenile salmon, juvenile crab, that's a different level of bycatch.

And we have been trying for years, Alaskans, regular Alaskans, have been going and presenting their testimony before the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. I think you get 3 minutes if you're a regular person. If you're representing other people, you get 6 whole minutes to talk about something this important.

And the, the discussion has boiled down to the world— to the word practicable. Practical. Practicable amounts of bycatch. What does practicable mean? And for many people who live, who depend on hundreds of grown salmon to feed their families, hundreds of grown halibut, grown crab, practicable, it's a tough pill to swallow, and we've got to get our arms around what does practicable amount mean?

When we are harvesting more bycatch than people who have had a 12,000-year relationship with that species and whose whole community exists because of this long-term, long-time generational relationship with salmon, when they're being aced out by industrial factory trawlers taking out metric tons of forage fish for all of these critical species that we rely on, something has to give. And I'm proud of the work that I've done. I'm proud to be one of a movement of Alaskans rising up to address this. Woo-hoo! Thank you.

Question number 3: What do you believe are the primary causes of declines in king and chum salmon in Alaska? We'll start with Ms. Petula. I do think it's a myriad of things, Chelsea. I know that it is.

You know, it can't have been good that we had 5 snowless winters at the headwaters of those, the 2 biggest rivers in our state. That has lasting impacts. 5 Snowless winters. You know, by the 5th summer, we had chum salmon floating down our river unmolested, just floating down our river. They had had heart attacks because our river was over 70°F.

It was 98+ degrees in the sun. This is really hard on salmon, but— and that's more challenging to get our arms around. Climate acidification, that is not as easy to get our arms around, but removing metric tons of forage fish every year, year after year, generation after generation, having metric tons of our juvenile halibut, salmon, and crab removed from the ecosystem year after year, plowing up, you know, even the midwater trawls. It's become known that 80% of the time the midwater trawls are dragging the bottom. This cannot be good for our ecosystem.

System. This is the one place where Congress, Alaskans, has an opportunity to say, no, this is a man-made impact. We have the ability to, to address this systemically. We can get our arms around this. Wanton waste is not good for anyone.

Wanton waste catches up with us, and everyone who lives on the water knows that. We know how the balance of this ecosystem is very delicate. And if you're adding to it on top of acidification, on top of ocean temperature rise, you know, when do we say uncle? So I know it is a myriad of things. I know it is a challenge, but let's start where we can.

This is again, a difference between, uh, my opponent and myself. This is a critical issue. It's probably the most important issue facing Alaska. And what I was able to do, uh, in 2022, working with all of you, every stakeholder in our state, we said, what are the causes of this great variability in salmon runs throughout the state? Why is it happening?

Let's work together and get consensus. So I passed the bill. And Congressman Peltola, you know it's not easy to pass a bill on fisheries. Well, I passed one of my many bills on fisheries, the Alaska Salmon Task Force Act. I hope people can look at it.

It brought everybody together, the best minds in the state, with a heavy focus on Indigenous Alaskans, on the Yukon, on the Kuskokwim, to say what is causing this and what's the roadmap in which we Alaskans should come together to have a way forward for what we all want, which is strong, healthy salmon fisheries throughout our state. And of course, it was a myriad of many things from these experts— university, state, local, federal, indigenous. It was climate change and ocean acidification. It was competition with other fisheries out in the ocean. Russian hatcheries are producing billion of salmon.

It was freshwater habitat. It was salmon predators. All of this is in this report. And of course, it was also bycatch. This is a roadmap on how we get back to strong, healthy salmon runs and bring Alaskans together.

That's what my legislation did. It's not easy to do that. It's not easy to get consensus. But the next step from this report was research gaps. We have research gaps on salmon.

I am addressing these with NOAA. I'm addressing much stronger, robust, um, research as it relates to salmon in this. And of course, this legislation produced the Bycatch Reduction Act that we're voting on next week in the Commerce Committee.

We'll now move on to the short answer or lightning round where we ask candidates for brief responses, so please limit your answers to 30 seconds or less for these questions. First question: What have you accomplished related to fisheries in your time in Congress? Mr. Sullivan, please. Well, I won't repeat my opening statement because it's, uh, over 30 seconds, but I've come in to this job every single day focused on fisheries, probably more than any other issue. I have the best team.

We have produced, we have created all kinds of opportunities, and it is a huge difference between me and my opponent. First term in the Congress, she never introduced one bill on fish, never got a bill passed and signed into law. I have numerous bills dealing with fisheries and other actions that help our fisheries in Alaska. Miss Pottola, can you restate it please? What have you accomplished related to fisheries in your time in Congress?

Well, one of the things I was really proud to have worked on, and Senator Dan Sullivan and I worked on this together, is unclogging disaster relief funds out of the Office of Budget and Management and looking at longer-term solutions for making sure that fishermen and fishing families get those disaster funds in a more timely way. I am uniquely qualified to fight for fishermen in Washington, D.C. I've been fishing since I was 6. I've worked in commercial fishing. I've worked with processors.

I've worked as a tender boat person. I could go on and on with the fishing list that I have. Thank you. Before supporting a specific law or policy proposal, How would you evaluate economic ripple effects in order to understand and balance the needs of all Alaskan communities? Ms. Peltola, please.

We know that Alaska has a very holistic economy, and I think in Alaska we know this better than in any other place because we— there are so few of us and we're all related, we're all connected. When the price of fuel goes up, for making more ice or fueling up your boat, it affects every single other thing. When it costs more for processors to process that fish, when it costs more to ship it out to consumers, that affects everything. We've got to lower our fuel prices.

Mr. Sullivan. The key is engagement, an open-door policy with all Alaskans, and then View what the challenges are and work relentlessly together to achieve breakthroughs. We did that during COVID a lot of great ideas from the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. I've done that in litigation when outside groups have come after our halibut fishermen, our Southeast troll salmon fishermen. I got in the courtroom, fought for them, and of course when our fishermen said, "Senator, the Russians are at war with us," Flood markets, you got to ban the importation of Russian seafood.

We did that as well.

The U.S. Coast Guard provides vital search and rescue operations, but Alaska-based assets are increasingly diverted to other national security missions. How will you ensure adequate vessels, aircraft, and trained personnel remain available in Alaska for search and rescue and safety at sea for our fishermen. Mr. Sullivan. Well, I'm very proud of this. I authored the largest recapitalization of the Coast Guard in U.S. history last year, $25 billion to recapitalize the entire U.S. Coast Guard.

Alaska is going to benefit more than any other state by far. This community is going to benefit more than any other community. 2 Icebreakers in Kodiak, 2 fast response cutters, new C-130s, new H-60s. We are getting that throughout the state, and my opponent has been saying she was against that law, which I think is remarkable.

How will I support the Coast Guard funding, or say again? Yeah, the end of the question, how will you ensure adequate vessels, aircraft, and trained personnel remain available in Alaska for search and rescue and safety at sea for our fishermen? Okay, I'm proud of the work that I did on the House side with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure because of my subcommittee assignment on Coast Guard. I was an appropriator. I'm very proud of the fact that we got Alaska's first icebreaker, in large part because of the work I did across to the Senate side, because on the Senate side my party was in power.

I was— I'm very, very proud of the work that I did to support our station here. I have two sons who proudly served in the Coast Guard. I will always support our Coast Thank you. Alaska leads the nation on sustainable management, data collection, and monitoring of our fisheries. How would you ensure adequate funding for federal agencies and the critical science they provide?

Beginning with Mary. Thank you, Senator Stevens. First of all, I never would have backed these Draconian doge cuts that we have seen from Washington, D.C. since 2025, the Department of Governmental Efficiency by Elon Musk that Senator Sullivan wholly supported, wholly supported, mowing down hundreds of federal employees that we no longer have manning these, these critical agencies, these agencies. Again, the work they, they do is life and death for us in Alaska.

Dan Sullivan, if you could respond to that. So, surveys and NOAA are absolutely critical. I've been a strong supporter of our surveys. As a matter of fact, in this last budget, we got an increase in $10 million to NOAA surveys. I've supported over $100 million of ocean acidification work with regard to NOAA and pushed back on the Trump administration on surveys as it related to the Oscar Dyson, which is now homeported here, got almost a $100 million contract to make sure they could do the surveys for NOAA, and we got a new vessel, the Fairweather, homeported in Ketchikan for NOAA surveys as well.

Thank you. This is the last segment of the forum. Each candidate will have 1 minute to present their closing statements. Dan Sullivan, if you'd go first. Well, thank you.

Thank you, Chamber. Fishing is the heart and soul of Alaska. It is the cornerstone of our culture and has been the cornerstone of my work in the Senate. Getting things done, not just talking. Healthy fisheries and strong fishing communities are not just campaign talking points for me.

I have a very strong record in this area. These are complicated issues. They take hard work and consensus, issues that have been in the heart of our state since statehood. Fisheries demand full focus from your senator, a workhorse who's going to give these issues their all and seniority in the Senate, particularly on the Commerce Committee that oversees fisheries. I have that seniority and look forward to chairing that committee in the next 6 years.

I want to thank all of you, particularly the Chamber. I've learned so much from so many here. Alaska's fishermen are quintessential small business men and women. You are a model for grit and determination. On November 3rd, Alaskans have a choice: someone who gets things done and someone who talks.

I'd be honored by your vote.

Thank you. Mary Peltola, your closing statement please. Thank you so much for having me, and I look forward to partnering with all of you in the Senate. For us, fish is more than food. It's our way of life.

It's who we are. I started commercial fishing in Alaska when I was 6 years old. I've spent my life fighting for Alaska fisheries, and it'd be a privilege for me to continue that lifelong fight as your senator. Alaskans need a senator who understands the ins and outs of commercial fishing and will work with anyone to deliver for our fishermen and our communities. This fight is bigger than any one person.

We're part of a movement together. Look around, there's a tidal shift happening in Alaska right now. We need a senator who's going to respond to the sea change, not fight against Alaskans on these issues like we've had for the last 12 years. We don't need a senator fueled by corporate greed of Lower 48 out-of-state factory trawlers and only offers half-hearted solutions when an election year rolls around. In the Senate, I'll always put Alaska fishermen first.

I'll crack down on the Lower 48 factory trawler interests that are bleeding our state dry, and I'll fight every day to support Alaska fishermen and secure the future Manager of Alaska Fisheries. Thank you.

Thank you to everyone here in person, everyone who's listened from KMXT and other stations in the Alaska Public Radio Network, and to all the viewers who have streamed the debate online. Thank you to everyone that submitted questions and topics to the chamber, and a big thank you to the Kodiak Chamber of commerce fisheries debate committee members who worked very hard on this debate: Ryan McNeil, Tracy Welch, Brian Himmelblum, Julie Matwayu, Julianne Curry, Davis Hovey, Mary Beth Lowen, and Rebecca Skinner. Thank you again to our sponsors for helping to make this event possible: Madsen, Kodiak Trident Seafoods, North Pacific Seafood, Alaska Whitefish Trawlers, the City of Kodiak, Alaska Pollock Fishery Alliance, The Truth, Pacific Seafood Processors Association, United Fishermen of Alaska, Alaskan Quota and Permits LLC, and the Freezer Longline Coalition. Let's have a last applause for both of our wonderful candidates.

Again, again, this fishery program forum has been a collaboration between the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce and KMC Public Radio, the only event of its kind completely focused on Alaska's seafood industry. Hope that you have had a lot of— learned a lot from this program, that you're more informed about the issues and motivated to cast your ballot. Have a good afternoon. Good fishing. Thanks for tuning in.