Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
01/29/2026 09:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 29-BAN ON RUSSIAN SEAFOOD
9:03:01 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29, Supporting the extension of the
national emergency declared in Executive Order 14024; supporting
the continued national prohibition on Russian seafood imports
effected by Executive Orders 14024, 14066, and 14068; and urging
the President of the United States, federal agencies, and the
United States Congress to maintain and strengthen federal
measures that ensure fair trade, protect the state's seafood
industry, and promote sustainable and ethical seafood
production.
9:03:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 29, Version 34-LS1314\N, Bullard,
1/28/26, as a working document. There being no objection,
Version N was before the committee.
9:04:08 AM
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the bill sponsor, the House Special
Committee on Fisheries. He said that the changes associated
with Version N came from the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) and people associated with the fishing industry.
MR. GRUENING said that Alaska's seafood industry is facing a
serious threat from Russia's seafood industry. He said that
Russia has unfair trade and market practices that include
dumping unsustainably managed seafood into international and
domestic markets. This has created strain on Alaska fishermen.
He said that Federal Executive Order (EO) 14024 was originally
implemented in 2021 and was expanded by EOs 14068 and 14114. He
said that EO 14068 amended the original EO 14024 to include
seafood. He said that EO 14114 further closed the loophole that
allowed for Russian seafood imports into the U.S. when using an
intermediary country.
MR. GRUENING said that EO 14024 was extended on April 10, 2025,
and is set to expire on April 15, 2026. The resolution calls on
President Donald Trump, federal agencies, and U.S. Congress to
extend the executive orders and enhance enforcement to ensure
fair trade practices for the Alaska seafood industry while
promoting sustainable and ethical seafood. He said that this
would require additional funding since only a small percentage
of containers are checked while in the process of importing
seafood. He said the resolution looks to Congress to assist
with putting these measures in place.
9:06:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked that Russians are selling pollock
to European markets using the Alaska brand and whether this was
something that the federal executive orders have been able to
address. She was unsure whether addressing this problem should
be included in the proposed resolution.
MR. GRUENING responded that anything that strengthens
protections of Alaska seafood against Russian seafood imports,
particularly rebranding, was appropriate for the proposed
resolution. He deferred to upcoming invited testifiers to help
address these concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that in addition to complications with
Russian seafood, there were complications with Asian boats
impacting Alaska's fisheries. She asked whether there had been
any discussions regarding placing restrictions on Asian markets
that have been detrimentally impacting the domestic seafood
industry.
MR. GRUENING responded that he worked directly with ASMI on the
specific wording of this resolution. He said that their
specific request was to extend the existing ban, but he was sure
the institute would be open to conversations regarding
implementing additional language and legislation that would
address other unfair trade practices. He noted that Mr. Woodrow
could address this in upcoming invited testimony.
9:08:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that several reports from the
summertime highlighted fishing fleets that caught fish in Alaska
waters; loaded directly onto intermediary vessels headed for
Asia; and never touched Alaska's shores. He asked whether the
state was funding ASMI to label this type of seafood product
under the Alaska brand. He reiterated that it never touches
Alaska's shores and the states gets minimal money from it. He
wondered how the state could justify spending money marketing
the Alaska brand if it never benefits Alaska. He said the catch
might even go to Russia and it is a "thorny" problem. He said
that there was one boat parked the previous summer outside of
Dillingham that allegedly took a considerable number of fish to
Asia and not once did the boat cross into Alaska's waters. He
said this is something that needs to be addressed eventually,
especially if the state was spending money to "label" these fish
without any benefit from them.
9:10:38 AM
CHAIR STUTES said that she does not disagree with the sentiment
and it was a topic that the committee could hear in future
discussions. However, it is not pertinent to the current issue
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said it may not be pertinent for the
hearing, unless those fish were going to Russia. He said once
these types of boats leave, they cannot be tracked.
CHAIR STUTES said that ship destination is something that could
be discussed in the future.
9:11:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he is excited about the message
that the proposed resolution sends. He said it is a timely
message for Alaska's fishing industry. In 2022, fishermen were
getting 47 to 50 cents a pound for sockeye salmon in Bristol
Bay. Last summer, people got up to $1.60 a pound for fish. He
said that a significant part of this price increase was due to
these emergency orders prohibiting the importation of Russian
seafood. He said this supports the entire industry and makes a
viable fishery.
9:12:29 AM
JULIE DECKER, President, Pacific Seafood Processors Association
(PSPA), gave invited testimony in support of HJR 29. She said
that it is a trade association which represents major seafood
processors with 50 facilities in 22 coastal communities. This
included places like Ketchikan, Cordova, Kodiak, Unalaska, and
Bristol Bay. She said that PSPA affiliated companies buy fish
from thousands of independent commercial fishermen across the
state and in almost every fishery. She remarked that the health
of the seafood industry, as the committee knew, is crucial to
Alaska as it generates $6 billion in economic activity in Alaska
annually and provides 48,000 direct jobs. It is Alaska's
largest manufacturing and export sector.
MS. DECKER said that PSPA strongly supports HJR 29, Version N,
as it is one of the few levers that Alaska could pull to protect
the state's seafood industry from unfair Russian trade
practices. She said that maintaining these sanctions is
essential for enabling fair competition for Alaska seafood in
the US market. She said that more must be done to address the
sever negative impacts of Russia's acts, policies, and practices
which restrict U.S. commerce and greatly disadvantage the Alaska
seafood industry in domestic and export markets across the
globe.
MS. DECKER explained that in August 2014, Russia first
prohibited imports of U.S. seafood as a countermeasure to U.S.
sanctions against Russia after it invaded and annexed a part of
Ukraine. Therefore, U.S. seafood has not had access to the
Russian market and has not been qualified to export for almost
twelve years. Yet, through May 2024, imports of Russian seafood
into U.S. markets have continued to climb. She firmly stated
that this is the exact opposite of fair trade for the U.S.
seafood industry.
MS. DECKER said that in 2023, the Alaska seafood industry faced
historically challenging economic conditions. The estimated
losses felt by Alaska in 2023 were approximately $1.8 billion.
She said that Russia was a key part of this economic downturn,
as it is a direct competitor with Alaska seafood due to its
proximity to Alaska. Both countries harvest wild salmon, wild
crab, wild cod, and wild pollock, all of which constitute the
majority of species harvested in Alaska. She said that Russia's
fisheries are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship
Council and it sells its salmon as "Pacific salmon" and it's
pollock as "Alaskan Pollock." This has eroded the ability for
consumers to differentiate these products from true Alaska
seafood in the marketplace.
MS. DECKER explained that in 2024, a complete ban on all Russian
seafood in the United States began in May. She noted that prior
to the ban there were increased imports of Russian seafood into
the U.S. via China. She said that Russian seafood product were
on U.S. shelves until approximately January 1, 2025. Throughout
2025, the prohibition of Russian seafood has helped to stabilize
the Alaska seafood industry.
MS. DECKER commented that since 2014, Russia, China, and North
Korea have been investing in the strategic development of a
seafood hub that consists of building new infrastructure for the
harvest, movement, processing, and trade in the region where the
three countries share a border. She referenced the City of
Hunchun, a Chinese city on the Tumen River, where new seafood
processing facilities, roads, railways, and ports have been
built, all of which has made the movement of Russian harvested
seafood into Chinese processing facilities and the shipment of
finished goods very efficient. She said that reports indicate
that North Koreans are used on the Chinese fishing vessels and
in the processing facilities. She remarked that the level of
strategic cooperation and investment in a region with
questionable environmental and labor standards was concerning
and leaves U.S. seafood companies noncompetitive. She said that
in 2026, there are still many unknown risks related to trade and
tariffs. However, if the prohibition of Russian seafood imports
is extended, this will provide some continued stability in the
domestic market. She said that the proposed resolution is in
alignment with the Federal Executive Order titled "Restoring
American Seafood Competitiveness."
9:17:59 AM
JEREMY WOODROW, Executive Director, Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute, gave invited testimony in support of HJR 29 and
discussed current seafood market conditions. He said that the
resolution speaks for itself, and Ms. Decker spoke to the high
points associated with the importance of the Russian seafood
ban. He said that he would like to speak to some anecdotal
information regarding what is happening in the marketplace
currently. Things that cannot be put on paper since numerical
summaries have not been finalized yet.
MR. WOODROW noted that as Ms. Decker had referred, when the
initial Russian Seafood ban was instituted, there was a grace
period. When the full ban was instituted in December 2022, the
grace period extended to May 2024 for seafood companies in the
U.S. to stockpile foreign caught seafood, mainly Russian
seafood. This included seafood imports directly from Russia or
through China as an intermediary. Based on estimates, that
stockpile lasted around 12 to 18 months, well into 2025. He
said that this was evident with what ASMI saw engaging with
various partnerships and different seafood companies.
MR. WOODROW said that in late 2025, there has been a monumental
shift in conversation. He noted that conversations with both
retail and food service operators have changed and these
companies are interested in purchasing 100 percent Alaska
seafood and discovering how it can be promoted.
MR. WOODROW said that the packaging is changing as well. He
said that as Ms. Decker alluded to, consumer differentiation
between foreign and domestic caught seafood has been
challenging. Previously, packages used labels that said,
"Pacific salmon" or "wild cod," and this would apply to both
Russian and Alaska seafood. Now the call-out is "Alaska
salmon," "Alaska cod," or even "Alaska pollock" on the front of
packaging. He said that moving forward, consumers in the U.S.
can be confident that the fish is indeed coming from Alaska.
MR. WOODROW said that this allows ASMI to put both the
fishermen's partner dollars and the dollars that this
legislature and Governor Mike Dunleavy appropriated in this last
legislature toward promotional dollars in the U.S. marketplace,
where value can be grown for their products. The U.S. market is
the single largest market for Alaska seafood products, and he
advised that the state needed to continue to capitalize on this
and grow it.
MR. WOODROW said that as Ms. Decker had pointed out, Alaska has
a lot of challenges in the international marketplace.
Reciprocity with Russia is only fair if there is no U.S. access
to Russia's markets and Russia cannot access U.S. markets. He
said that until this is corrected, it is important to ensure
that Alaska fishermen and processors have a fair opportunity to
compete in the U.S. marketplace.
MR. WOODROW said that as the markets were beginning to see
positive change for Alaska, it is important that the current
Russian seafood ban stays in place. He said that while prices
came up last year, it does not mean that the entirety of the
state's seafood issues have been solved. He said that seeing
the ban continue would provide stability, fisherman can get back
on their feet and processors can actually predict what is going
to happen in the future and get profits returned back to the
State of Alaska.
9:21:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there has been consideration
including conversations about the impact of Russia and Chinese
strategic partnerships, she noted that at one point it was 30
percent of the domestic market. She said the resolution is
great but there is a bigger picture and China was part of that
picture.
MR. WOODROW said that this has not been discussed at a great
level of detail, but it is something worth bringing up.
Domestic and international trade relations have been an
incredible challenge over the last few years. He said that
Alaska seafood exports have changed "substantially." He noted
that prior to 2018, China used to be a large export market at
around $1 billion; now exports are approximately $500 million.
He affirmed that there were challenges associated with increased
cooperation between North Korea, China, and Russia, and it has
made it more difficult for Alaska to compete.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented that she had no intention of
slowing down the resolution but thought that conversations for a
second resolution might be appropriate in order to highlight
other issues in the seafood markets.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that Alaska used to have a stack in
the Ukrainian market for some time. She asked whether that
market has been able to open up at all in the recent year given
shifts in the current war.
MR. WOODROW responded that Eastern European markets continue to
be volatile due to ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. He
said that Ukraine was a growing export market for Alaska seafood
products: however, there is still some limited product going
into this market. He said that there were increased exports
going into neighboring countries. This could be attributed to
outward migration of Ukrainian residents or simply because it is
easier to do business in adjacent countries.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether it would help the resolution
by including topics pertaining to Russian seafood sales to
European markets using Alaska branding. Additionally, she asked
whether mentioning previous markets in Ukraine was appropriate
or would make the resolution too convoluted.
MR. WOODROW responded that it would substantially increase the
size of the resolution. He was unsure whether it would hurt the
proposed resolution because it covers a similar topic regarding
challenges with Russia and competition in the global
marketplace. He explained that as currently proposed HJR 29,
Version N, was very specific to the U.S. marketplace. He said
that if it was the committee's will, ASMI could help with adding
more components to highlight issues in international markets,
including the issue with false Alaska branding. He said that
ASMI could assist drafting another resolution as well.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE appreciated the clarification and noted
that a separate resolution might be most appropriate to address
these other issues.
9:25:42 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that HJR 29, Version N, was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 29 Fiscal Note-Legislature 1.23.26.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2026 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 29 Redline Comparison ver A to N.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2026 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 29 Sponsor Statement 1.28.26.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2026 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR 29 ver A 1.28.26.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2026 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR29 Executive Orders 1.28.26.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2026 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 29 ver N 1.28.26.pdf |
HFSH 1/29/2026 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 29 |