Alaska Fisheries Debate 2024: Nick Begich, John Wayne Howe, and Mary Peltola

*Note that this transcript of the debate has been edited lightly for clarity and grammar.

Terry Haines, KMXT (Moderator): “Good evening, I’m Terry Haines, your moderator for tonight’s Alaska Fisheries Debate which features candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

First of all, welcome to everyone here at the Gerald C. Wilson Auditorium in Kodiak, to KMXT’s listeners, and all those tuning in from other public radio stations around the state, as well as folks watching online.

This forum is hosted and 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 three decades.

A quick thank you to our debate sponsors: Alaskan Quota & Permits, Alaska Groundfish Databank, Alaskan Whitefish Trawlers Association, At-Sea Processors Association, City of Kodiak, Freezer Longline Coalition, F/V Silver Spray, Highmark Marine Fabrication, Groundfish Forum, Kodiak College Maritime Workforce Development Program, Kodiak Diesel, Kodiak Seiners Association, Koniag Inc., Matson, North Pacific Fisheries Association, Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Samson Tug & Barge, Trident Seafoods, and United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA).

Tonight we’ll hear from three of the four candidates running for Alaska’s sole U.S. House seat - Mary Peltola, Nick Begich and John Wayne Howe. The fourth candidate that will be on the ballot for November’s general election is Eric Hafner and he was unable to join us tonight in person.

As we get to each round of the debate I’ll go over the ground rules, but first I would like a promise from each of our candidates to abide by our time limits with a thumbs-up.
We will be using a timer system that has flashing lights. The green light will be lit when your time begins, 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.

All of tonight’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.”

Opening Statements:

Moderator: “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.

Rep. Peltola, since you are the incumbent, you will go first, however we will rotate the order in which candidates answer questions, so each of you will have a turn to answer first.”

Mary Peltola: Thanks Terry, Happy National Salmon Day everyone. The work on fisheries that my team, both our senators and I, have done over the last two years is extensive and robust, and it will never be enough, and it will always be my priority. I've pried loose hundreds of millions of dollars from disasters as far back as 2018 and I'm working to streamline the process going forward. I've gotten federal seafood purchases for national food programs. I sponsored the Bristol Bay Protection Act, which will provide durable protection for an area that's far too fish important to risk a large scale mine. I'm pressuring NOAA to define allocation, bycatch, and community within the national standards. Regarding my bycatch bills, one tasks councils to develop more accurate definitions of things like pelagic or bottom trawling, examine ocean habitats where trawling and other fisheries occur and protect certain areas. Over the last two years, chum bycatch has been reduced by 80%, that is huge. I sponsored the bycatch reduction and mitigation act to provide money to continue this work. The bill helps get resources to test and get new gear improvements to help keep salmon out of the cod end of the trawl. I forced the administration to close the loophole that brought Russian seafood through China. I shocked people in the administration when I began threatening to call for resignations if we couldn't get this done after 10 years of Senator Sullivan's work on this.

Nick Begich: I'd like to thank everybody for coming out tonight, and I would like to thank the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce and KMXT Public Radio, UFA, and all the sponsors of this event. Thank you for making this a priority, and certainly you get the attention of statewide candidates every two years by holding this forum. It's such an important issue. This is the number one employer statewide...is our fisheries and fishery related businesses, and that's why it's so critical that we talk about these issues statewide. And I've had an opportunity to travel throughout coastal Alaska for the last several years and meet folks who are reliant upon a healthy, sustainable, predictable fishery. And it's very important to me. It's very important to me as an Alaskan, it's important to me as a small business owner, it's important to me that you have the ability to stay in your state for not just yourself, but for your kids and for your grandkids, that there's opportunities for them that endure in Alaska and in your coastal communities in Alaska. So I look forward to the debate tonight, and I look forward to the opportunity to get into some of these issues. Thank you.

John Wayne Howe: I'm John Wayne Howe. I am along with... well, I'm a third party candidate in here... as it turns out, some would call the third wheel. I am the Alaskan Independence Party chairman. Also, I think I'm the only one that really believes in Alaska first, Alaska always. While there are other people want Alaska as a bipartisan thing with the two sides working together with the federal government, I think that we need to do stuff more for Alaska. I think the bigger thing is not just catching fish, but making sure it's here for Alaskans, and that does include subsistence. I am not a biologist. I don't know that much about it. I know that fishermen kill fish, and that's good because then we get to eat them. I am at a loss on this somewhat, but I am more malleable to what needs to be done in the fact that I talked to a lot of people today, nobody's got a consensus. I am willing to listen and figure out what is the best and to balance it with things like the mining, which... I'm from the mining community. There's no reason why some of these mining systems can't be set up to be fish hatcheries at the same time when they're shutting down their mines.

Round 1 of questions:

Moderator: For Round 1, our two panelists Matt Alward, President of United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) and Mary Beth Loewen, President of the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce, will provide some background on an issue and then ask a series of questions about that topic to the candidates.

Topic: Integrating seafood into the farm bill and USDA Programs and supporting  domestic and international seafood markets

Mary Beth Loewen, Kodiak Chamber of Commerce: The Farm Bill includes multiple provisions to support farmers and ranchers, including subsidies, USDA purchases, domestic marketing support, and loan programs to mitigate volatility of the farming industry. The seafood industry plays a critical role in American food security, and Alaska seafood makes up 60% of domestic production.”

1.) How will you ensure seafood is fully included in the Farm Bill, along with other policies and programs that address comprehensive food security, food production and nutrition in the same manner as farming and ranching?

Nick Begich: I think this is such an important issue, so often we see other farmers around the United States that are taken care of through the Farm Bill, and unfortunately, Alaskan seafood has been largely excluded from that bill for generations. So I'm a strong supporter of making sure that that Alaskan seafood is included in the Farm Bill. I think we've got to do more, actually in this respect. We've got to make sure that we're included in USDA programs, in military food programs, and other programs of this nature, in order to ensure that there's a strong demand for healthy Alaskan seafood.

John Wayne Howe: The Farm Bill has been a thing that seems like it would be good for farmers, but it basically keeps it better for big farmers. It doesn't really help the small ones that much. At times, it helps all of them, but the overall content is that it hurts them. I would just as soon cut the Farm Bill altogether rather than include it into manipulation over the lives of fishermen.

Mary Peltola: Thank you. I think there are a lot of opportunities here, and things that I consider no brainers or low hanging fruit are things as you mentioned, having a seafood liaison within the USDA. This has been an issue the Alaska delegation has championed for a long time, and fishermen have been talking about this a long time. There's a big disconnect between when the resources are in the water and under NOAA management, and then when it comes out of the water and it becomes a food product. I believe, we need to have loan programs that work for the unique business situations that fishing families face, we need to have more seafood included in WIC baskets and continuing the federal purchases for all national food programs. ASMI has a great program, International Seafood Marketing, and we need to protect that. I want to keep working on getting an Alaskan presence within the USDA Food Aid and grant programs equal to that of the other food producers and protein providers. There will always be uncertainty within fishing, especially fishing wild stocks. We can't control the weather. We can't control the markets a lot of times, and every fishing season has its own unique challenges, as you all know better than I do. We are not farmers and ranchers. We don't have the same kind of protections they have. They have a lot more programs that help kind of smooth out the bumps in the road in terms of markets and harvests. I think we need to be looking at all of those programs and finding matching ones for the fishing community. And we need to be on equal footing, the same equal footing, as farmers and ranchers. I was joking with the group, we don't want the same kind of power the corn producers have just beans.

2.) Alaska’s seafood industry is currently facing an economic crisis, including significantly reduced fish prices on a global scale, increased operating costs for fuel, labor, repairs and maintenance. As a U.S. representative, what kinds of programs and solutions would you push forward to alleviate industry challenges?

John Wayne Howe: The number one thing is, we need a stable currency. The US dollar is going to fail, everybody knows that. It's a matter of when and whether they come up with a digital currency, or whether they use a Bitcoin digital currency. We need to get to where we no longer rely on a phony dollar. We need to have... we need to get used to exchanging within ourselves and saving precious things. We need to change, as far as a US House of Representatives, would be to allow good banking within the state of Alaska, so that we can have where individuals can have banks of copper, of silver, of gold, and they don't have to be registered by anybody. They just have to be ensured that the metal is there as a stand up, so that it is a solid, understandable currency that we can work with. Not 100% that we have to have a currency, and we definitely don't need one that is declared by a government. That's like when Nebuchadnezzar declared that he needed to have gold, he added a fiat balance value to it that wasn't there before, and he started the whole fiat currency game that's going on now, and that's why our currency today is worth about the same as a piece of newspaper. You can heat with it, but it has no real value. When the BRICS currency comes out and Donald Trump is already talking about... him and Elon Musk, who has a major stake in Bitcoin, about running the whole economy of the world off of the Bitcoin. And you know, the other side over there has similar ideas. You need a strong currency. That is the key to this issue.

Mary Peltola: Yeah, this is a very big problem to get our arms around, because the same challenges that you're facing in the industry, in the fishing industry, we're facing everywhere. High freight costs... but the role that seafood plays in freight within itself is critical to Alaska. We need to make sure we have we are exporting as much seafood as we can, because that helps with the backhaul rates. It reduces the cost of our freight statewide by about 20%...And it's not the USDA, but within the Department of Commerce, I'd like to see fishermen eligible for the SBA economic injury disaster loans, because the disaster, the disaster funding program that our fishermen are now going through right now, is a disaster within itself. I think that is something that we need... Like I said we're trying to unclog the system from disaster funding that was approved by Congress as far back as 2018 and it's it's been stuck at OMB... And I'm all ears. I'm working with folks nationally on a seafood caucus, the National American Seafood Caucus, because, like you say, Alaska produces about 60% of America's seafood, it's in all of our best interest to be marketing not only Alaskan seafood, but American seafood. And I'm very proud of the work that I've done creating the seafood caucus. It's got four members. It's bipartisan. All coasts are represented. A lot of different fisheries are included. And I am all ears. One of the... we had an open house last night. We had a meet and greet last night. And the best thing about being in Kodiak is people come to the discussion, not only to share challenges, but solutions, action items, take away things that I'm happy to work on. Thank you.

Nick Begich: I think there's two parts to answering this question. One, you're talking about market demand. Two, you're talking about operating expenditures for the fleet, for operators. One on the market demand side, we've got to do a better job marketing our fish products, our seafood products internationally. I think that's important. I think it's also important to for Congress to take a role, and the State Department to take a role in preventing dumping of seafood products into American markets, and I think we've seen that with Russia, we've seen that with China, we've seen that with other international operators. And then long term, I think it's important for us to make sure that we harmonize the environmental practices and the operating practices of these operators internationally, so that they're not engaging in what I call environmental arbitrage, where they're going out and they have a different set of standards, different set of regulations that they're operating under that are lower than ours. We need to make sure that we raise those standards internationally and harmonize them in order to have a level playing field. Then on the OPEX side, we've got to make sure that people have the ability to fill their tanks with fuel. That's something I hear about from fishermen all over the state that the rising cost of fuel has been a major deterrent for their ability to go out and fish, particularly when market prices are depressed right now. So that's an issue. We've got to make sure that we're drilling. We've got to make sure that we're developing those resources that are going to allow us to drive the cost of fuel down. We've got to do more with ports and infrastructure. We have to make sure that we're training a labor force inside of Alaska that can go out and support the vessels. I was over at Highmark Marine today and got an opportunity to tour that facility. It's a great success story here in Kodiak. I'd like to see that same success story replicated throughout coastal Alaska to ensure that we can maintain the vessels that we have and we have the labor force to do so.

3.) How do you plan to build buy-in and support from other members of Congress on these issues?

Mary Peltola: I really believe the best way to build a relationship and forge a bond is through breaking bread, and I have had wonderful opportunities to do this in DC already. We had a reception in November of last year that the staff said was the best reception of the year, on a on a group chat. I'm very proud to bring other members up to Alaska and bring as many as I can to experience Alaska firsthand. I really believe building relationships begins outside of the meeting room. It's not a relationship if you just see each other at the meeting. I'm a member of the Western Caucus. The Western caucus is comprised of 106 Republicans and me. I think that is a good way to get to know people, is on on on trips and fact finding missions, and there's, there's certainly been a lot up to Alaska. As I said a minute ago, I'm a founding member of the bipartisan American Seafood Caucus. It represents all four corners of the United States. Scott myself, Derek Kilmer from Washington State, Garrett Graves from Louisiana, Rob Whitman from the state of Virginia, members with various degrees of seniority who also have a lot of expertise from their state in terms of market downturns and working with niche markets. I think the only way you can succeed in Congress is by forging relationships. No one's ever going to help you out if they can't stand you, or if you've double crossed them. And I have a long successful history of being very easy to work with and getting things done.

Nick Begich: Well, I will tell you, fish is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. This is an issue that is one of the few issues I will say at the moment that we should be able to work in a bipartisan fashion in DC. I'm proud to say that I'm endorsed by the House Resources Chair Bruce Westerman. And in speaking with Chairman Westerman, he has asked if I'd be willing, if elected, to serve with him on the House Resources Committee. And the answer is an absolute Yes. I think it's important that when we talk about bills that are going to improve our fisheries. We need to make sure that those bills are introduced early in the session. It's important that those things be introduced right up front, early on, so that they can actually be worked on and amended and dealt with. You can go out and get co-sponsors. There's been a few bills that have been talked about this evening from my opponent that was introduced late in May and in June of this year, instead of early on and in the session of the 118th Congress. And unfortunately, those bills have very few co-sponsors. There's two co-sponsors on one, one co-sponsor on another, and zero on the other. And no bill is going to move through the Congress late in the session, no bill is going to move through the Congress with no co-sponsors. Now, fortunately, there are bills that have co-sponsors. You talk about the Fishes act, something that was started over on the Senate side, picked up by Byron Donalds, has 47 co-sponsors in that case. So I think it's important, as you're talking about, how do you actually effectively move legislation that's going to be... that's going to be helpful to people here in Alaska. It's got to be done early. It's got to be done in a bipartisan way. It's got to be done in a broad way where you get the co-sponsors, you need to actually prioritize the legislation, move it through committee, get it to the House floor, and get it over to the Senate so that it can be passed and then signed into law.

John Wayne Howe: I am the odd man out in that I need... I'm not a fisheries person, and I'm not going to pretend to. I'm not going to pretend to be a biologist or anything else. And the position you're looking for, you're not really looking for the smartest man to do the job anyway, the best looking maybe, maybe some people vote for that whatever. I'm not the top tier that you would have if you wanted to have a dictator, but if you can decide together what the heck it is that you want to do, and I am all for the Alaskan people getting together and deciding what we want to do. Then how do I do that in Congress, when we have this split between the Democrats and the Republicans? They tell me that it's quite a split, that this one extra seat is supposed to be quite important, whether it becomes mostly a Democratic controlled or mostly Republican controlled. Well with me, as long as I'm a reasonable individual, I will have more of them pulling at me and working with me, because I do work with people. I work with lots of people in my business, all kinds of employees I have to train, and sometimes they have to train me. And I think I'm trainable.

Topic: Economic health of the seafood industry, coastal communities and the State of Alaska

Matt Alward, UFA: Alaska fisheries and communities are interconnected and interdependent. Laws and associated regulations intended to affect one fishery or community can have far-reaching ripple effects on other fisheries and communities. Currently reduced fishery resource availability, rapidly changing environmental conditions, and adverse market conditions mean our coastal communities are constantly struggling to maintain a consistent quality of life.

1.) Before supporting a specific law or policy proposal, how would you evaluate the economic ripple effects in order to understand and balance the needs of all Alaska’s communities?

John Wayne Howe: That's a good question. And one thing that I would say was talking to a man today that's in the seafood advertising business, and he was saying that the prices are currently rising. And just, I wish I could ask somebody out here, what are you getting paid today for, say, sockeye salmon? Could anybody yell out at price? $1.15. Okay... he said that he was looking at $1.60 was what they figured the price was going to be very soon. I had somebody else that was telling me it was 18 cents, and I figured he was full of you know, that just didn't make sense to me. And I know it was 50 cents last year, but we get back to economy, and economics, and that's what this... a lot of this is when a person's talking about making a living, it is about economics. It is about carrying on. And I forget what the question was, to be honest. It was about, uh economic ripple effects. The economic ripple effects? Yes, okay, yes, there are economic ripple effects. We have to work as Alaskans. One of the things a friend of mine was mentioning was some of the fishermen he talked to were talking about going in mining on their off season. And he is a mining engineer, and he's got several fishermen talk to him about going mining. Sometimes you got to change now and then. And especially, let's say it's a family business. You want to keep passing it down generation to generation. Make better boats, get more... there's a limit to it. We all know there's a limit to it. I'm sorry, but physics still overrules all the other bovine, male mature manure; male bovine manure, also known as BS.

Mary Peltola: Yeah, this is a question about listening. How will the member listen? And I really appreciated a couple weeks ago, the United fishermen of Alaska had a zoom for House candidates, and it was a very good zoom. There was a lot of information provided. There was a lot of opportunity to share what our ideas are as candidates. I appreciate that the forum was recorded so that people who were actually out fishing at the time could come back and watch it later. UFA is a really diverse coalition of different commercial fishermen who fish different species and all the all the gear types. I've had an open door and accepted all invitations to join all the UFA meetings. This will continue. It's important to listen to community leaders like many of you here in the auditorium are tonight, like many of the folks listening on the radio across the state are. We need to make sure we're listening to all of the user groups. We need to listen to the harvesters and the processors, shipping companies and individual Alaskans. And if there's one thing people love to talk about in Alaska, it's fish. I actually had a young little boy come up and ask me, was it hard to get the fishermen to talk to you when you were doing your commercial? And I burst out laughing, and I said, no, it is not hard to get a fisherman to talk to you, and they will talk to you for a very long time. We're out there in the boat and we're thinking while we're drifting or working on our motors, we're thinking about about all of these issues. And no, it is not hard to get a fisherman to share their opinions with you. So I continue to look forward to hearing from all of you.

Nick Begich: So whenever we think about resources, I think it's important to remember Alaska is a resource state, this is how we make our living up here. And whether you are in a resource industry like the fishing industry, or has been discussed tonight, the mining industry or the oil and gas industry, any of these industries are resource industries. And the reason they're so important is because they bring in primary dollars into Alaska. Primary dollars. Once those dollars are here, they have the opportunity to circulate. They go to a grocery store, they go to a gas station, they go to the real estate agent, the insurance company, the auto sales guy. You know, it's that money cascades throughout the economy, but it doesn't have the opportunity to cascade if we don't have healthy resource industries in our state. And the one of the most important, of course, is going to be fisheries, in part because A: it employs so many people. As was mentioned earlier, it's the largest single employer as an industry in the state of Alaska. But it also is critical, because it's a perpetual industry. It's not a one time thing, and if it's properly managed, we have the opportunity to ensure that this industry continues on for generations, in perpetuity. So any decision that gets made, getting back to the heart of the question, any decision that gets made in Congress has to take those factors into account, recognizing that we can't sacrifice a permanent, perpetual industry in Alaska that provides so many jobs for so many people for temporary resources. So that's an important way that you sort of manage the balance among priorities in the Congress. But I do think it's important that we have healthy, sustainable fisheries, and it's important that when you make a capital investment as a fishing family, and you put that money at risk, and you go out and you say, I'm taking a loan from the bank to go out and do this. Every year you go out, you should have a reasonable expectation that you're going to earn a profit and that that investment will be able to be paid back. And right now, we have too many people here in Kodiak and throughout the state that don't see that future for themselves in Alaska's fisheries.

2.) Alaska’s coastal community residents are concerned about aging marine infrastructure which is critical for US seafood ports and healthy working waterfronts. What plans do you have as a future or current congress member for securing federal funding for marine infrastructure?

Mary Peltola: Thank you, Matt. Infrastructure has always been an impediment to economic development in Alaska. We're a young state, and we are a humongous state, and it takes a lot of money to build infrastructure in Alaska, and it takes a lot of planning. I've worked to make sure that Alaska gets our fair share within the infrastructure bill and the other bills that were passed in the 100 and 17th Congress that are really generational funding, investment pieces of legislation that are competitive and Alaska deserves every single dollar. We have got to prove that we are competitive, because we are, we need those infrastructure projects. Already the Infrastructure Bill has delivered funding for roads, bridges, ports and broadband. All of our great Alaskan leaders, Ted Stevens, Don Young, they work tirelessly on infrastructure, and I'm following in their wake. I'm working to secure a... a seat on House Appropriations, if I'm so lucky to go back in the 100 and 19th Congress. I think that's a very important position for anyone from Alaska to be on. I brought critical projects to each of our six regions in Alaska and for Kodiak in particular: $500,000 for surveys, for dredging on St Paul harbor. $213,772,142 for the US Coast Guard base here in Kodiak. $1.4 million for the Kodiak airport Infrastructure Grant Program. $5 million for Canada's expansion of the Kodiak Health Center. Over $8 million for the food systems, vulnerability assessment and many other infrastructure programs. Infrastructure is the name of the game when you're a member of the Alaska delegation, and I will always work on infrastructure for Alaska, especially ports. Kodiak needs a haul out. Every community in Alaska needs upgrades on their ports and harbors. Thank you.

Nick Begich: Well, I am a strong supporter of infrastructure investment. I think it's critically important, particularly in Alaska, as a young state, we've got to make sure that we're making investments in infrastructure. We missed out on so much of the Federal Highway Investment that occurred prior to the formation of our state. And look, we are way behind, and we are still way behind. And this is something that our late congressman, Don Young, talked a great deal about. He was passionate about it, and he was not finished in terms of his views on our need to continue to invest in infrastructure. Infrastructure in coastal Alaska requires Marine Highway System investments, and we have to remember that what we often call on the mainland, the ferry system is a marine highway system for those in coastal Alaska. So that's a priority for me. I think it's also important that that when we do make these investments, things like the Infrastructure Bill, need to be hard infrastructure. So much of that bill was not actually hard infrastructure investment. In fact, many on the other side might, the other side of the aisle to me, have called it a climate bill, and one of the most successful climate change bills that they've implemented. And so, you know, I think we need to make sure that the investment is focused on what it's labeled as. And if we're going to invest in infrastructure, make it infrastructure. I think it's also important here in Kodiak and throughout the state to invest in our Coast Guard. You know, the Coast Guard maintenance has been underfunded for some time. And I think anyone who's had an opportunity to see the base recognizes that there are some maintenance opportunities on base that we need to invest in, and so that's an important part of infrastructure as well, in addition to the ports and harbors, as was mentioned.

John Wayne Howe: The infrastructure in Alaska should be a lot more, but it shouldn't need to have money stolen from the US. We have been making a living here on less than 1% of the land of Alaska, most of it has been locked up. We have 24% that we could actually do something with right now, but the state government is being puppets of the feds, and they don't want to let things out. Now, as to the exact infrastructure that's getting old, corrosion is going to be a serious issue, but a lot of that also could be looked at when you're not trying to just spend money and make things look like it's a big, lot of numbers you're given to people by repairs. I don't know what the current condition is, but I know I repair an awful lot of equipment that people say should have been thrown away. And I'm sure that people like Highmark that you've got here can work on that. There's a very different thing in the fishing community from the others. You do not work on 1% of the Alaskan area. You cover most of the Alaskan waters one way or another. Even though your harbors may be a small area, you get to use a whole lot more area than the farmers in this state that should be here. And we need to quit looking like a third world nation. We need to quit thinking that way. The important thing with the fish that you get is to make sure that it's feeding Alaskans the same as the oil we've got here. If we can't provide oil cheaply to Alaskans, just shut the damn pipeline off. It doesn't matter if we don't have it for us to use here in Alaska first. Alaska for Alaskans.

3.) Our fishing communities must be highly adaptable and vigilant for new opportunities, for example by increasing mariculture and value-added processing; How would you support resilient fishing communities?

Nick Begich: Well, I do think it's so important for fishing communities to have multiple productive fisheries, and we certainly have that in Kodiak. I think that's one of the ways that in the past, we've been successful. When one fishery, you know, is not producing, another fishery is producing. But I am encouraged by some of the things that I've seen here in Kodiak to help manage this even better. I know it's early in the process, but things like kelp farming have the potential to grow into something economically solid and sound, not just for Kodiak, but for the rest of the state. And that's the kind of innovation that I think we need to continue to invest in and look at, to make sure that we have the ability to ride out some of the extraordinary volatility that we've seen in fisheries in Alaska in recent years. So I think that's important. I'm a supporter of it, and I'd like to see, to see that kind of innovation and entrepreneurship rewarded throughout Alaska.

John Wayne Howe: I think the kelp is a wonderful idea, along with any other product, products that you can have. Come back to gold here for a minute, or silver, or any other precious metal, and that's important for the economy, because unlike a manipulated currency, you can actually save it. If you save gold in a non-manipulated market, since we have only had 1% plus or minus throughout all of mankind's history, of the amount of gold, either mined or you used up, that is a consistent value. And as technology goes forward, the 2% that the modern monetary theft system normally says is good. That's because they know there's that much increase. Now, as far as branching out again, 1% of our property, let's take some of these forests that we're not using. You ever heard of lumber? Lumber is a good thing, too. Lumber, pulp. There's a lot we can be doing, but there's no reason to kill more fish than what is viable. And sometimes a fishery may not be viable tomorrow, and if the market is too low at a certain time, and that's the only fishery that's viable, you need to be able to back off and just say, piss on them. Let it set. You don't need to be flooding your market when it's off, but we don't have a steady currency. Without a steady currency, everything else is just modern monetary theft or a game.

Mary Peltola: Thanks, Matt. I think Kodiak is a perfect example of all of the benefits provided to a community that has year round fishing. The fact that your processors are going year round and a base tenant for your powerhouse means that your electric rates are lower and your.... are stable. I recently learned, you know, one of the new burgeoning fields that we all hear a lot about is kelp. Everybody's very excited about kelp and the possibilities of kelp. One of the things I learned is that pig farmers have discovered that putting kelp in the pig feed... number one, it decreases their gassiness, which helps with methane emissions. And number two, it increases the number of piglets that the sows have. This is amazing. Think of the possibilities in Alaska for kelp that will help food security in a number of other ways. And we we see... chefs doing new things with kelp. We see new products with kelp, but it's these big industrial things that have a really broad application that get me really excited. Seafood plays such a vital role in providing jobs, food and economic benefits in Alaska, but our federal law really hasn't kept up. Magnuson Stevens hasn't been reauthorized in 18 years, and we need... You know, the last time it was reauthorized, it was a different paradigm. We need to reauthorize Magnuson Stevens. And yes, I do have a bill regarding this as well. And you know, even if I had submitted all bills without talking with fishermen first, right out of the gate, those bills wouldn't be going anywhere. Going anywhere. This Congress has the fewest bills passed of almost any Congress in history. This has been a do nothing Congress. Even if I was in the majority and a ranking member, my bills probably wouldn't go forward, because not much is happening in the 118th.

Topic: Role of Congress in addressing Bycatch

Mary Beth Loewen: Bycatch is a controversial topic in the State of Alaska. The Magnuson Stevens Act, known as the MSA, is the primary law that governs marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. The MSA requires balancing 10 National Standards, including preventing overfishing while achieving optimal yield, reducing bycatch to the extent practicable, and providing for sustained participation of fishing communities.

1.) What do you see as Congress’s role in addressing bycatch?

Mary Peltola: Thanks Mary Beth. I do think that Congress has a very large role in making sure that funding is available for research, as well as management. Congress is supposed to see the eight regional councils such as the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, it's our job to appropriate, Congress has the purse. We need to make sure that we don't have seasons like we recently had for halibut where they didn't have enough money to go do surveys. That is unacceptable. We need every survey every year, weather permitting. It should not be the lack of Congress providing the funds. After the Supreme Court's recent decision on the Chevron case, which was actually brought about by East Coast fishermen regarding observers on their boats; I think Congress is going to be much more involved in a lot of the work that NOAA does. There are some things that excite me about that, and there are some things that make me very nervous about that. Having 435 people from the Lower 48, actually 535 people with the Senate, involved in these really specific management decisions. But in some cases it might be very good. Any Magnuson Stevens update will definitely have something about bycatch, and I welcome that conversation. I have a bill that would make money available to test new gears such as cameras and active Excluder Devices to let salmon go before they end up at the end of the trawl net. We've got to keep making sure that we have in our funding any kind of new developments and new technologies to keep bycatch out of trawl nets. And my legislation, the bycatch reduction and mitigation act, provides funding to test and implement new gear to promote innovation.

Nick Begich: Well I think Congress absolutely has a role in addressing bycatch. It's part of the reason that they formed the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and in fact, standard, national standard, nine, deals exclusively with bycatch. So Congress has delegated its authority to the council to address the bycatch issue. But ultimately, it is Congress's responsibility, and it's an acknowledged responsibility. You know, one of the things that gets talked about a lot when it comes to bycatch is the part of the standard, national standard nine on the MSA, referring to minimizing the mortality of bycatch. And I think it is important that when bycatch comes on board, it shouldn't be discarded. And that's, that's a position that I've held since running for office, and I think that it's an important consideration that, you know, we shouldn't have any of this go to waste. I think that's, that's important as we look to reauthorize Magnuson Stevens. But I do think that it's important for everyone in Alaska that's involved in fisheries to recognize that you really don't want Congress coming in and starting to set policy. If you think that the council process is slow, try Congress. It's a process that's going to be a lot slower and a lot less responsive to the needs of the fisheries. And so I think that's part of the reason that it was constructed in the first place, to provide a council of experts that can get together and ensure that that they are responsive, that they are adaptive, that they're able to address issues that are emergent in the fisheries. We need to make sure, though, that the representation of that council is representative of the user groups in Alaska. And as Alaskans, we have more seats on the council than anybody else, but we need to make sure that it's representing all the interests of all the user groups in Alaska in a balanced fashion that takes economic considerations into account.

John Wayne Howe: Yes, bycatch can be a problem for fishermen. It can also be a boon for some of them. I was talking to a man today that he said some of the trawlers were specifically targeting their bycatch portion because they could get more money in it sometimes. So there's a lot of games being played here. It's not just a simple situation. One of the things that I think needs to be done on the Magnuson Stevenson act if we are to reauthorize it is, I think we should seriously look at the fact of the Alaskan fisheries requiring people from Washington and Oregon to be on the board. I think their input might be good, but I think it should be mostly Alaskans.

2.) What are reasonable and realistic ideas for research & technology improvements to reduce bycatch?

Nick Begich: Well I think some of the things that we've seen already is investments in gear types that more specifically target the targeted species. And that's really important. I think it's also important that we recognize that the gear types that we have are not being repurposed for other purposes. So making sure that, you know something that's mid water stays mid water. I think that's an important component of ensuring that the gear types are being used properly. But I am a strong supporter of innovation in any marketplace. I think one of the innovations that we're going to see rolled out here shortly is electronic monitoring, and that's certainly an improvement as we talk about observers and reducing the cost of observers and making sure that everyone's operating under the same rules and being good operators out there. And so I think that's encouraging. I think it's important. I think it will address some of the bycatch issues. But of course, that's a job that will never be done. Anyone who's gone fishing, whether it's subsistence, sport or commercial, recognizes that there's always going to be some bycatch involved. And of course, the goal long term should be to drive that as close to zero as we practically can.

John Wayne Howe: I would say that it mostly should go into an economic vein. And I think the ones that are catching too many fish, that they don't want, too many crab, whatever they're picking up, there should be a quantity for each of these that they are assessed so that it's… everything is a catch that counts. And if they diminish the quality of say, like when the king salmon... I was talking to a man today said that the king salmon would get squished in the bottom of other fish, because I had suggested, what about the king salmon that the villagers really love? What about shipping that to the village? He said that's been suggested lots of times, but the way we do it, it squishes them. They're not good anymore. Well, if they got squished king salmon, that would then, since it's not as valuable, would count even less. As far as it would count more against them as catch that they took, more so than if they had caught one, to where it was a good fish. So there's some things we can do there, and as far as the equipment goes, if you set limits so that you're not using too many fish, a big processor ship is going to figure out how to get the right fish. He's going to get the computer guided cameras. He's going to get whatever he needs, and they're going to figure it out. If you say this is all you can get.

Mary Peltola: We certainly need more cameras and more excluders, active excluders. My bill, the bycatch reduction and mitigation act, it provides funding to test and to implement new gear to promote innovation, and again, we're really teeing this up for the 100 and 19th when we have a much more productive Congress that wants to pass legislation and get things done. This bill, it provides an increase of money. I think it went up to $10 million, from $4 or $5 million to NOAA. And it also allows for a provision, if there's more demand than $10 million across the country, there's a provision for philanthropists to be able to donate money to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, so they'll be able to help get that money to NOAA for this program. I think this is a good way to start looking at things. There are a lot of philanthropists who are very, very concerned about bycatch and ocean health and want to find things that they can participate in to help the situation. Bycatch is one of the number one reasons I was interested in this position is to elevate the issue of... not really bycatch in particular, but just elevate the issue of the lack of abundance that we are seeing in the ocean and all of our river systems. Every river system in Alaska has seen a decline in Chinook runs. That's really troubling. It's scary to see that coming, and I think that we just can't talk about this issue enough. I think that a lot of people in the Lower48 when they heard I was pro fish, they thought it was a laugh line, and there's nothing funny about fish. This is our livelihood. This is the way we feed our families, and this is our identity, and we need to make sure that we're preserving this, whether it's the bycatch issue or the myriad of other issues that are presenting challenges to our fisheries today.

Topic: Subsistence Priority

Matt Alward, UFA: Fishery resources in Alaska are governed by multiple laws and regulations and utilized by multiple user groups, including commercial, recreational, and subsistence.

1.) How could you simplify and reduce the multiple layers of laws and regulations to improve resource management and ensure Alaskans can continue to have access to fish for subsistence uses and food security?

John Wayne Howe: I don't know that I could. The federal government continues to grow. It uses the state as a puppet. I'll try. I don't know that a guy can. You know, especially after talking with people today that there's a lot of people against each other's throats, just within the communities. Subsistence, I would think, is, is very high. It's a very small portion of the use, and we need to get on with, as I've said before, using more of this state, using more of this nation state. We can't just say we're running out of something and then jump on to the next thing that we don't have. I'll try. I wish I had a better answer for you, but I am not a magic box. I'm not going to come up with phony answers. I'm just going to tell you the truth.

Mary Peltola: Well, I think that we need to work together. And I think that a lot of scientists do work together. I think the people who don't work together are the people at the very top, the policy makers, the people who should, who should be most invested in solving these problems. I think that there is a lot of collaboration between the state and the federal government. You can see that on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the seats that are held by federal agencies really defer completely to the Department of Fish and Game. It is really challenging, actually, in my opinion, to get them to be at odds with each other. I think that one of the groups that we need to hear more from are people with local knowledge, are people with traditional knowledge, the fishermen who are out there fishing. They know what is going on even more than the scientists. You're out in the field, you're out there every day. You know the conditions. You know the stocks better than anybody. I think we need to be listening to Alaskans a lot, a lot more, and not just listening, but actually figuring out ... how we can get your data to our managers in a much more timely way. In-season management is the most complicated thing that humans do, because we don't have indexes necessarily for run timing or run strength, but a lot of people with local knowledge, a lot of people with traditional knowledge have indicators that not everybody knows. There are subtle cues, different relationships between birds and fish, Canadian geese and king salmon. There's a strong correlation. And this is something I learned through traditional knowledge, how the migratory birds come back in the spring has a direct correlation to how Chinook return in the fall. That's the kind of information managers need to be working with.

Nick Begich: I think it's important that we just have a greater emphasis put on state management. I think that this was part of the original state compact that we would have greater control than we currently do over all resources in Alaska. And I think the State of the State of Alaska is closer to the fisheries than people thousands of miles away in D.C. are ever going to be. And so it's important to me that people who are closest to the issues and have a greater stake in the game are the ones that are involved in setting policy and enforcing that policy. I think it's also important that we engage in a science based approach, and the more real time that data collection and reporting can be, the better the decision making is going to be in our fisheries. And so that's really important. I think when we do talk about cultural knowledge, there are opportunities there, but I think it's important that any cultural knowledge be proven scientifically before it's taken at face value. We need to make sure that what we're hearing around the state bears out in the data, and if we see it, then that's fantastic, but we need to make sure that we're making decisions based on real time scientific information in order to ensure that the fisheries remain healthy and stable and predictable and provide the returns that we're all counting on every year in order to run these family fishing businesses.

***End of hour one of the debate****

Brian Venua

/

KMXT

2.) Managing Alaska’s salmon resource occurs in both state and federal waters- how would you interact with and promote cooperation between state and federal management agencies?

Mary Peltola: I think the real question is, how do we get back to abundance? Because we will not need... federal management is not needed unless there's a shortage. If there is a shortage of a species, if a species is threatened, then the federal law under ANILCA says that the residents of Alaska closest in proximity to that resource get priority. This is not jiving with the state's constitution, and that's why federal management is opposed. And it's not necessarily from Washington, DC. It's the agencies that are here within Alaska and those agency managers, Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, it would be the managers from those places that… horribly if there is a species that needs to be managed, would then have to manage. And they often do work very collaboratively with local people. But our first preference, of course, is abundance and have state managers managing under the state system. I think it's really important that we always be striving to achieve abundance. The only reason that any region or any river system or any fishery is under any threat of federal management is because it's so depleted that there, you know, we're all fighting over crumbs. This should not be the position we're in. We are not accustomed to this. This is something that we're learning as we go, and it's really important to have an open door policy to see the best intent in the other people. But you know, as you mentioned, user groups, subsistence users have only used less than 1% and this was in times of abundance. Now people on the Yukon are being told they have access to 0% because what less than 1% apparently was far too much. I think that that is a real disservice to Alaskans.

Nick Begich: So it's my view that the state needs to be the one that is responsible, because the state is closest to the issue. And I think that it, it doesn't make any sense to me that we say in times of scarcity we need the federal government to come in and tell us what to do. I don't think that's how it works in Alaska. I don't think that's how it should work in Alaska. And in my view, it should be the state that has jurisdiction, whether we're in times of abundance or in times of scarcity. And I think any time that you ask the federal government to get involved in a local issue, you're asking for trouble. And I think that what you've seen from the feds time and time again is, you give them an inch, and they take a mile, and they come into the state, and they start to decide what you can fish for, when you can fish for it, where you can fish for it, what you can use for fishing. And you know, asking for federal guidance to come in when those decisions, again, are being made thousands of miles away from Alaska in most cases, I think is a mistake. So that's my view. I think we need to do all we can to make sure that the state of Alaska retains the ability to manage our fisheries in the state.

John Wayne Howe: If you look at the U.S. House position, a lot of people say, why if you believe that Alaska should be an independent nation, at least act like one, why do you want to be in the U.S. House of Representatives? The fact is, the U.S. government is default of their contract with the individual citizens. Their contract is the Bill of Rights. You can go down all of the Bill of Rights, you can pretty well see that they do not pay attention to them. They... Franklin D Roosevelt, he started out violating the Second Amendment back in 1933 when he said you couldn't mail a handgun. The First Amendment, your free speech, go into a court, be before a jury, the place where it's a matter of your life and death when they're trying to have you convicted of something and you can't speak unless the judge says you can. So they are in default, but they're not out of power, and that is what this is all about, is giving Alaskans back the power to have what they should have in the nation state of Alaska, and then after that, of course, we do have to learn to get along.

3.) Bycatch is a hot-button issue between user groups. How do you as a representative plan to balance working with all stakeholders to keep fisheries viable while also involving Alaska Native communities to maintain their subsistence lifestyle and culture?

John Wayne Howe: I believe they need to all be brought to the table together if they're willing to come. And I think that it's going to be a tough decision. For some it's going to be tough. We can't just... there's physics. You can only take so many fish out of the fisheries, and certain people absolutely need them, and others, it's economics. But if we open some more things up, there's other stuff we can do here. We can't just say, because we're fishermen we can build bigger fishing vessels, we can put more net in, we can tighten up the grid. We can become better killers of fish. After a while, you kill all the fish, but yes, they need to get together. Definitely the subsistence users. On the other hand, of that, though, I will also admit, and I've talked with some people, it's not a lot, but there are people that use subsistence as an excuse to catch fish commercially. And that may not happen very much, but I know it's happened a little bit because some friends of mine have bought such and everybody to a certain extent, is subsistence fishing. I mean, that's why you're fishing, so you can subsist by buying fuel for your house, so you can run your truck. It's all subsistence to a certain point. And we use technology today, so it's a totally different world than what it was 300 years ago, before the Russians came in here. Yes, we got to talk a lot, and I can't just be a mouthpiece somewhere. It's got to be the people talking together that are local.

Mary Peltola: Well, I feel like for the last two years, I have been involved in these discussions and really being sensitive to all of the user groups. Like I said a minute ago, we have subsistence as a user group, sport fishermen as a user group and commercial fishermen as a user group, but not all three of... and we talk about each of those groups as if each gets a third, and it's not. And I'm not saying it should be. I know that commercial fishermen are here to capture as many fish as they can and be the highliner and sell in bulk and sell in big markets, but I think that it is really challenging when the poorest people in the state, people who are really living hand to mouth, living off the land... it's not their goal to be rich people. They're happy living in the bush, living off the land. But that is becoming almost impossible to do with the severe lack of abundance that we have. And it's not just in seafood. It's sometimes in migratory birds, it's in caribou, it's in marine mammals. There is just a real dearth of renewable resources that communities have counted on for thousands of years. The relation... the reason those communities are in that place, is because of a relationship to that food source. The most powerful and the most connected cannot get everything, that is not the way our state constitution is designed, that's not who we are as a state. We believe in in prosperity for all, and I think that it's just really important to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to share their perspective, and that we're not vilifying any any one group or another, that we're really coming together to find solutions and collaborate. I think that's what Alaskans do. Well, I'm really encouraged to see all the high school kids here tonight. I'm encouraged to see all the families who brought their children, and that is what it's all about.

Nick Begich: I think it's important to start with the idea that, look, we all have a common interest. We want to see the fisheries prosper. We want to see the fisheries in abundance, in a state of abundance across all species. And we want to make sure that we have economic prosperity and the ability to go out and know that you're going to be able to have a successful harvest, whether you're on the sports side, the subsistence side, of the commercial side. I think that's a common interest that everyone has, and I think we need to make sure that we recognize that as a starting point for discussions on this issue. I think it's also important that we recognize we need to have broad representation on the council. I think the council's representation needs to reflect the folks that are within those user groups and that rely on this resource, and I don't think that necessarily creates additional conflict. I think it creates opportunities for discussion so that those issues can be resolved through the council process, which is why it was put into place in the first place. I think also, we need to make sure that whatever priority that we're supporting as a representative, that set of policies puts the economic interests of Alaskans first. And I think sometimes we see the process, you know, enrich and prioritize people from outside of our state. And if you're representing the state of Alaska, you need to make sure that you're representing the people of Alaska and that the people of Alaska get the priority. And there's other members from other states that can prioritize their people, but the job of the representative of Alaska is to represent the people of Alaska and put them first.

Lightning Round questions

What is the most important committee assignment for a U.S. Representative to hold that will affect the fishing industry?

Nick Begich: House Resources is the most important committee assignment for a representative representing the fisheries. It's, as I mentioned earlier in the discussion this evening, that's a priority for me, and I've already been endorsed by the House Resources chair, and he will be in our state supporting this campaign to hopefully get elected and represent you in D.C.

John Wayne Howe: I honestly don't know what is the best situation for that, and I wouldn't have the allying of the Republicans or the Democrats quite to the same point, but I'm very good at watching and learning and seeing what's going on, and after a person gets done with two years in the House, even if I may not have made a big advantage there, we can do some things here at home, once we learn how the crooks work.

Mary Peltola: Thank you. I currently serve on resources and transportation. These are both great committees. Transportation oversees the Coast Guard, and I'm an appropriator because of the position that I have on Transportation and the Coast Guard oversight subcommittee. I do think that besides reauthorizing Magnuson Stevens Act, which is critical, and I'm also really proud that it has the name of our senator, Ted Stevens attached to it. But again, I will be working hard to get myself a seat on the Appropriations Committee, because we need a lot of financial help here.

How will you prioritize seafood issues in your office???

John Wayne Howe: Equally with other Alaskans.

Mary Peltola: Well, seafood is a priority in my office because it's a priority for me. I have a fish guy who works entirely on fish. He lives in Alaska. He lives in Juneau. He's a fisherman himself, has a processor, small processor outfit himself on the side, and right now he actually needs a government job, a wage income, because times are tight when you have a small fishing business. And I think he adds a really good voice to the office. But everyone on my staff is a fish person, including me.

Nick Begich: I think it's so important to have a dedicated fish staffer. That's something that I will have if elected to Congress, someone who has, ideally, experience on the commercial side, on the sports side, understands these issues, has dealt with the regulatory bodies both at the state and federal level, and can provide some good input on how we can actually harmonize some of these regulatory frameworks and make life a little bit easier for the folks who are out there making a living in our fisheries.

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?

Mary Peltola: Again, you know, we are very fortunate in Alaska. We had Ted Stevens on appropriations on the Senate side. More recently, we've had Senator Murkowski on Appropriations. And all of this has been very beneficial to Alaska, and I want to continue the work and be on the House Appropriations Committee to get in the weeds and figure out programs that will help fishermen on the ground, help you here in Kodiak with your small business ideas, help find markets for your fish.

Nick Begich: The best way to move things through Congress is to get them attached to must pass legislation. For the Coast Guard getting them included in the National Defense Authorization Act that gets passed every year. We've talked about today getting Alaska fisheries integrated into the farm bill, that's must pass legislation, making sure that we get priorities passed as a part of the budget reconciliation bill that will pass in the first 100 days of the 119th Congress. Those are three ways that I think that we can ensure that we're properly funding our fisheries and the support thereof.

John Wayne Howe: I would rather see it be done by a private organization. I don't think it should be done by the federal government. If we can steal some money from them while they're stealing money from all of us, then that's a good place to get the money from, but I'd rather see us get on a crowdfunding for this so that we can get people that are behind us to work for it, and we know that we have the amount of money that we both need and want for something, instead of just taking stolen money that came from someone else.

Alaska Native tribes do not have designated seats on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, yet, Council decisions have real impacts on tribal member access to fishery resources and habitat. Should any of the six Alaska council seats be tribally designated? And if so, how many?

 
Nick Begich: No, I don't believe that they should be tribally designated. I think that those user groups can be better represented if they're appointed by the governor, regardless of their ethnic background. And I think that it's important that all user groups, as I've said more than once in this discussion this evening, need to be represented, but I don't believe we should have a designated tribal seat.

John Wayne Howe: I would have to agree with Nick Begich on that one.

Mary Peltola: I do think that the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council should reflect the diversity of Alaskans. It currently… It hasn't for a long time, and it's getting closer. Every year we have more people from more diverse backgrounds on the AP, on other subcommittees that they their process goes through. But I do think that all of our councils and boards should be reflective of Alaska.

How would you describe the importance of the seafood industry to Alaska's economy and culture?

John Wayne Howe: I'd say it's very important. And yeah, it is very important. It is the largest, not just from a dollar standpoint, not just from pounds, but the most mature, because again, you have had over a larger portion, percentage wise, than anybody else has been available in this state. And we need to work not only to keep this an active fishery and good for everybody, we need to figure out how to get it to the Alaskans so that Alaskans can feed off of the fish.

Mary Peltola: Seafood is the number one private employer in Alaska. This is how I see it, and I would describe it. We feed the world. We feed the world real food, food that fills you up, not lab created food that does not fill you up. We have so many things in the background or unseen things, like I mentioned earlier, the reduction in freight costs throughout the state and the seafood industry and seafood resources are part of our self-identity in Alaska.
 
Nick Begich: I think seafood and the very act of fishing is something that we derive a lot of pride as Alaskans from. I think it's part of our history. It's part of our present, and we need to make sure we do all we can to ensure that it's part of our future… we provide 60% of the nation's seafood. We need to have a role in this nation, and when it comes to our role in this nation, we're a resource state, and fishing is a key part of that story.

Given that scientists continue to provide evidence that the primary drivers in Alaska's fisheries are climate related, what do you think Congress's role is in preparing for or improving our ability to adapt to climate change?

Mary Peltola: I'm working to work on any renewable project that I can and invest in those projects. I'm proud to say that I secured $206.5 million for Grid Resilience Project on the rail belt, on the road system. The goal is by 2040, 75% of Alaskans who live on the road system will be 85% powered by renewables when this line goes in, and then when we get the extension up to Fairbanks, that's phase two. Okay, I'm out of time. Lots of ideas.

Nick Begich: I think we need to make sure that we are investing in climate resiliency. When you see so much erosion occurring in coastal Alaska and even inland, you know, that's a real problem, and it's threatening communities, and it's threatening ports and harbors, and it's a real issue that we need to invest in. We need to also invest in some of these alternative technologies, like hydro, which is a classic renewable energy resource that we use throughout coastal Alaska, particularly in Southeast and I think that there's a great deal of opportunity that remains untapped for Alaska when it comes to hydro potential.
 
John Wayne Howe: Climate change is an issue that's continuing on, as far as how to deal with it, that's got to be on a personal level. Anybody that's got more than about 30 years of life as an adult would realize the things that they've seen that have changed. Things will continue to change. As far as CO2 goes. We need to not look at that as a negative. That is what grows plants. That is what grows plankton. That is what makes not only the fish that we eat, but the other foods that we eat. It all comes from CO2. We need more in the atmosphere.

Long Answer questions

What improvements do you think are necessary to the federal fishery disaster program to make it more effective for Alaska stakeholders?

John Wayne Howe: That they’d give it to you in silver and gold.
 

Mary Peltola: Well, like I said earlier, the disaster program is a disaster within itself. When we have fishermen who have overhead, who have continued payments, not having their disaster money come in from as far back as 2018, it's hundreds of millions of dollars that's being kept from Alaskans. And really the hang up is within the Office of Management and Budget in the White House. It's authorized by Congress to them. It goes through some systems, it comes back for one last check off, and it never moves. We have got to fix that, that is where the hang up is, and that is where the senators and I are working very hard to bust that jam loose, because this impacts everyone that you know in Kodiak and so many families across the state. So that is what I would do to help on the disastrous disaster fund funding.

Nick Begich: Well the Fishes Act is an act that intends to address some of this in the Congress, and it would accelerate the payments to some extent that have been delayed for far too long. I talked with folks all over the state that tell me they're waiting for payments from as far back as 2018 for disaster declarations. And what's unfortunate, in addition to the fact that those payments haven't been made for so long, they're sitting out there, they're having to pay interest payments on their vessels. They're having to pay interest payments on their equipment. They're having to pay for all their overhead, and that money's not available, and they have to take out loans that are interest bearing loans. And at a minimum, those delayed disaster relief payments need to come with an interest component that's at least keeping up with inflation and keeping up with the interest payments that these owners are having to bear while they're awaiting that disaster funding to show up. But more needs to be done to accelerate disaster relief payments, they need to be made available very quickly. And as we talked about earlier, inclusion of Alaskan fisheries in the farm bill would help to accelerate some of this deployment of disaster relief funds.
 

Rebuttals:

John Wayne Howe: I would say that obviously, if there is a disaster fund, if it's a disaster, it needs to be paid right away. That's absurd otherwise. But also, and you look at all of this, the real disaster comes back to the same thing with the finances, the dollar that is broken, the dollar that is worthless. The reason why you have the interest you have to pay on it is because people just make up money. And it's the Social Security program is another one. In case you never noticed it, when you look at a social security document, it doesn't say it's a savings account, it says Social Security tax, and they spend it on tanks and bombs and bombs and guns.

Mary Peltola: I'd like to add that another thing that I'm looking at after talking with a fisherman just yesterday, is, and a lot of you will know these acronyms. It's the SBA EIDL, and the real words for that is the Small Business Administration's Economic Injury Disaster Loans. I think that we need to look at some of the programs that farmers and ranchers get during their disasters and make sure we have the same kind of things that help smooth out the bumps in the road, like I said earlier. Farmers can't ensure that their crops are going to be successful every year, and we certainly can't ensure that wild fishing stocks are going to be successful. There will be ups and downs, and our government needs to make sure that our businesses aren't going out of business during some of those fluctuations.

Nick Begich: Well, I think John Wayne Howe has brought up some interesting comments, and as long as I got some time, I might as well talk about some of these things. He's absolutely right. The federal government has been spending like crazy. And when we see the inflation that we experience in the fisheries, you know, that's a huge problem. And people say, ‘Well, why are we experiencing this kind of inflation? What's causing this? What's causing fuel to rise, what's causing the price of labor to go up? What's causing all these things?’ Well, what it is, is it's a government that is paying its bills by printing new money, and when you pay bills by printing new money, you're going to get inflation. And there's been a lot of talk about tax and what's the amount of revenue that we should be taking in, etc. But inflation is the absolute worst possible tax you can get, and it's one that comes directly from an undisciplined Congress. And the reason I say it's the worst kind of tax is because it impacts the people that can afford it the least, more than anybody else. So if you're sitting there in line at McDonald's, maybe you make $100,000 a year in your household, but there's someone in front of you that makes 50,000. They're paying the same amount for their meal that you are paying for yours. But it's a hard thing for people who can't afford it to deal with inflation, and we have got to get government spending and this money printing under control.

What are the top two fisheries issues on which you can make a meaningful difference for Alaska? And why do you choose these two issues?

Mary Peltola: It's really hard to narrow it down to top two. I think getting that disaster funding and in terms of commercial fishermen is one of the biggest things. Another thing that I'm very happy to have worked on is the ban on Russian caught trawled fish that had been, being routed through China and bought. And that has done more to damage a lot of the fishing industry than anything else is having a glut of very, very inexpensive trawl caught fish that was caught in an unsustainable way in Russia and then processed through not humanitarian ways in China, through Uyghur slave labor. And again, this is something that Dan Sullivan worked through multiple administrations on for 10 years, and we were able to push that executive order through banning that. I think it's important that we work with other countries, the G7. I've met with the ambassador of Japan, and making sure that the other G7 countries, the largest economies in the world, these largest seven economies, are also recognizing the sustainable practices that we use in Alaska, the humanitarian ways that we process our fish and prioritize purchasing American seafood, Alaskan seafood first, and rejecting Russian and Chinese seafood.

Nick Begich: I think the two priorities are bycatch and disaster funding acceleration. I mean, we talked a bit a moment ago about the need to accelerate disaster relief payments directly to the people that are affected. That's got to happen. You can't wait six years to get a payment from a disaster program. If it's a disaster, you need that money right away, and there are better ways that we can administer those funds, whether that's through forgivable grants or forgivable loans, or some way that we can more quickly bypass the current process, because the truth is, it's not working for people. We know we need to address bycatch, that's a major issue throughout the state, and in times of scarcity, it becomes an even bigger issue. You know, as we start to recognize ... how much that can impact the sustainability and predictability of all fisheries throughout Alaska. I know you asked for two, but I'm going to throw in a third, loan programs for young fishermen I think are so important. You know, it's… I've heard stories even here on this trip to Kodiak from people who are telling me, I'd love to be able to participate in the fisheries. I'd love to build a business of my own here, but I can't get a loan for a vessel. I can't get afford the IFQ. And you know, how am I going to participate? I want to be here. I want to stay in Kodiak, or maybe they're in a different part of coastal Alaska. They want to fish too. We got to make sure that those fishing families and those early stage entrepreneurs have an on ramp into the fishery as well.

John Wayne Howe: Obviously the first one for me is finances. We need to, as I've said before, we need to work on having finances that we can do here in Alaska, that helps everybody in Alaska. We need to have our resources. We need to have so that on the off time you can do... But as far as direct legislation, yes, banking reform of a freedom type of banking that we can do here without government intervention, and now that I've been made aware of this disaster relief, that needs to be pushed through, that needs to be pushed through. I don't know about paying future payments, but any back payments that are owed, that needs to be brought up all at once and needs to be paid 100%, all of them that have been promised. It's just Fiat dollars, but it needs to move forward immediately. 

Rebuttals:

Mary Peltola: Yeah, I think infrastructure is something that constantly needs working on. All of our seafood, all of our fishing communities have aged infrastructures, like I said earlier, I am well aware that Kodiak needs a haul out across the state. We need upgrades and improvements and renovations and new technology in ports, harbors, roads, airports. This is a constant investment. And in terms of things like Russian caught seafood, there is the Marine Stewardship Council, and the Marine Stewardship Council is now saying that Russian seafood is sustainable. This needs to be exposed, this needs to be fixed. We need a third party that can do honest sustainability certification, not allowing really predatory fish products to be sold in America. And I also think…and I know this is like the fifth priority, but fishing is… it's all priorities, but we do need to make sure that we're protecting the market access program that funds ASMI's international efforts to tell the great story of Alaska fishing and Alaska fishermen and Alaska fishing families.
 

Nick Begich: I think it's so important that we build those relationships in the Congress. You know, as I said earlier, fishing is not a democrat or republican issue, and it's something that we should be able to work across the aisle to achieve progress on. It's unfortunate that we haven't seen a lot of progress in the 118th Congress. And you know…look, I applaud my opponent for putting together the fish caucus. That's four people that are on board. Unfortunately, she wasn't able to get four people to sign on to her three bills. So, you know, that's unfortunate, but it's a step in the right direction. We need to have a fish caucus that is bipartisan. And I think that's important. I think it's also important that we be honest in politics. And you know, I'm seeing ads right now from, again, one of my opponents up here on stage, it says, if you elect Nick Begich, there'll be no more fish. Well, that is ridiculous, and that is shameful, and for her to run ads like that that she approves from her campaign, lying to the people of Alaska, that's wrong. 

John Wayne Howe: No rebuttal

Alaska is dependent on multiple, diverse global markets to sell its seafood. What specific efforts could your office and Congress take to hep ‘level the playing field,’ improve our global competitiveness, and provide more fair trade of Alaska seafood?

 
Nick Begich: Well, I think this is something we need to see some leadership out of the presidential administration on. This is a State Department issue as well as a congressional issue. And I think it's really important that we elect people that are going to put America first and put Alaska first. And we haven't seen that from the Biden administration. You know, they have prioritized the needs of people outside of Alaska by sending hundreds of billions of tax dollars to foreign nations to support foreign wars, while people here in Kodiak and in coastal Alaska are waiting six years for disaster relief payments. That's not prioritizing people, that's not prioritizing the American people, that's prioritizing people somewhere else, and I think it's wrong. And so I think it starts at the presidential level, and I think it starts with a State Department that's willing to go out and make those hard international agreements to ensure that we're operating under the same regulatory frameworks, that there's not a regulatory or environmental arbitrage that's occurring among these various international fisheries, so that we are competing on the same level playing field, as Alaskans, with the rest of the world. And I think when we do that, we will win. And I think what we've seen over the last several years is that arbitrage process taking place and people being allowed to have access to our markets in ways that they shouldn't.

John Wayne Howe: I don't think we really own the markets. Markets are a natural thing. If the Russians are over fishing and damaging their fisheries, I think that's bad for them. But I think it's going to come to an end, and when it does… in the meantime, our fisheries will build up more as long as we're able to look at it realistically and say there may be a time when we have to have a timeout and not sell a fish. Same thing as where there was a time when our oil was down at $12 a barrel, and they were saying, well how are we going to....? We're going to have to start paying... No, there's a point where you turn the pipeline off. There's a point where you don't sell your fish. We need to keep the fish for Alaskans. We need to keep some things going, but there are times when economics just tell you to do something that makes more sense, and if you […] yourself into doing other things long term, it's not going to work, even if it does short term; just like if the Russians long term are screwing their environment, it's going to be their problem more than ours.

Mary Peltola: Okay, I think one of the things that we need to do is reduce our backlog of the H1B visas. We need to make sure that we have programs up and running for workforce training for skills like welding, marine electricians, and all the other support industries and things that fishermen need in Alaska currently. I think that it's also important to be working on housing availability. It's hard to stay competitive if we don't have housing for the people that we're bringing in to help us get our fish to market. I think that, again, it's really important that we have sustainability certification process or group or gold star that is honest about sustainability and not giving the go ahead to truly unsustainable fisheries that negatively impact Alaska. The Russian government has said that they are in a war on Alaskan seafood. We need to make sure we're fighting back. We need to make sure that the State Department knows about this sustainability certification issue and helps us work to make sure that the G7, the other economies that are buying a lot of seafood, are well aware of this sustainability issue going forward.

Rebuttals:
 

Nick Begich: Well again, I think it's really important that we are working internationally… that we are exerting pressure internationally to ensure that we're all working from the same set of rules. And if we can do that, I have high confidence that Alaska fishermen are going to be right at the top of the stack. But when you have governments that are subsidizing their fishing operations, that are subsidizing the labor inside those operations, it becomes really difficult for people here to pull it off, and I think that's a huge challenge. I think it's also interesting that I've been criticized again by one of my opponents up here on stage for having an international business, and she just got done telling you how we need to bring in more foreign workers into Alaska in order to do Alaskan jobs. There's a 4% unemployment rate in Alaska. I want to make sure that we're prioritizing Alaskans who want to work first, before we start prioritizing people from outside of our nation to come in and take those jobs.

John Wayne Howe: Yes I do. The infrastructure that we talk about is also subsidizing to our industry here. It's not obvious all the time … [that] anything that we're putting in is adding to it. You got to keep that in mind too, when you start talking level playing fields. On another point of this is we talked about the price of fish, a little bit early, $1.40 ish, something like that. I don't remember exactly. The bigger thing here is we have a major, major disconnect. And I know it costs a lot to process it, but I looked at Safeway over here. I looked at $17.99 in Kodiak for this same salmon. I don't get it. I don't get it. I can understand if we want to price that like they do oil where…our oil here should be $1 a gallon or less because we're making it. And it's the same with our fish. If we could, in the Interior get your fish… I'm in the Interior of Alaska, if we could get it for $4 pound, $5 pound, we'd love it. We'd buy a lot of it. And by the way, the scallops I had today were the best I've ever had.

Mary Peltola: Yeah Terry, you know, I came here tonight excited to talk about fish and fishermen and fishing families and the fishing industry. And I think it's pathetic that there's… it's devolved a bit into petty backbiting. I am not interested in that. I don't know what attack ad is being referred to. I know nothing of this. That was not my ad. There are a lot of ads out there. I know I've had $7 million in attack ads over the last few weeks, and it's time that I stand up for myself and stand up for Alaskans and say enough is enough. I'm not here to do any petty bickering. I'm here to talk about fishing fishermen and fishing families and the fishing industry. Thank you Kodiak.

Closing statements:

John Wayne Howe: I am the most independent minded, probably the most flexible, also. Even though I say I'm pretty stout on states’ rights, that's what I'm stout on. I'm stout on rights for individual Alaskans. And if you vote for me, whether you like ranked choice voting or not, please vote the one for me first, and then you can choose either one of these you like with a number two, it doesn't diminish your choice of them any at all, because if I don't win, then you still get to choose from either one of them as a number two. But putting me first, you're showing that you care about Alaskans.

Mary Peltola: Thank you all for having me here today. I appreciate Ellen, Marybeth, Linea and the rest of the board for all the work that you do here in Kodiak. Thank you to all the sponsors of this event and the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce. I want to really thank you at KMXT and the many other radio stations statewide who've tuned in. Since the beginning, I have made it crystal clear that fish is my top priority. Representing Alaskans, every Alaskan, is my top priority. This is unique to me and not something that applies to everyone in the field. I'm excited to continue representing Alaska and to highlight the state of our fisheries and the importance of pro fish policies that will rehabilitate and preserve fish well into the future. Our children and our grandchildren deserve to know that the fisheries that have been here and sustained us for generations and helped Alaskans make a living year after year will still be around when they grow up. Thank you.

Nick Begich: There's 435 members of the House. Alaska gets just one. Alaska gets just one member. When you think about that one member, who do you want down there fighting for you? Do you want somebody who's going to be tough, who's going to get involved in the discussions, who's going to encounter people in the hallway, grab him by the neck, like Don Young did, right? He was tough, and he was there for 49 years. We need that toughness again. We need that voice again in the Congress to be heard as Alaskans. If we don't have that, we're going to be left out of the conversation. We need to be back in the conversation. That's what I want to do for you. Yes, I'm tough, and I'm going to stay that way, and I appreciate your vote on November 5.

Brian Venua

/

KMXT