Agenda 21 Chapter 4, 17-18, 35
NOAA is using consensus science phony data generated by a computer model to close the fishing industry.
Please see the testimony below and the response from NOAA.
NOAA agency is following UN Agenda 21.
We have in effect right now a virtual complete embargo on accessing our ABUNDANT natural marine resources right off our coast which were closed down 18 months ago on fabricated data as testified to in a Congressional Hearing July 26th which I attended and was part of presenting this testimony.
We might as well have a closed gate across Florida, GA. NC & SC Inlet’s prohibiting fishing boats from leaving and returning with some of the purest and healthiest seafood on the planet.
Your alternative is going to the supermarket and purchasing a product that was raised in a cesspool in Communist China or Viet Nam or sitting down at one of our “fine” restaurants and having this toxic crap served to you. Do you prefer eating this filth or would you prefer fresh caught local Red Snapper, Grouper, Sea Bass, Golden Tile fish or Swordfish???
Agenda 21 is a 40 Chapter Policy document adopted by the U.S. federal government via executive order. Every chapter details re-distribution of wealth. Closing down access to America’s natural resources fits the Agenda 21 mandates.- we can’t produce our own energy and we can’t access our abundant natural resources but we sure as hell can ship our money to foreign countries.
I will let you decide who is responsible for this.
If YOU are part of it (perhaps unwittingly) I suggest you do some soul searching and perhaps start to do a little RESEARCH on Agenda 21.
Captain Sid Preskitt
Senator Scott Brown says NOAA “unresponsive” to document requests; Says Agency considers itself “above Congressional oversight”
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) August 1, 2011 — Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) wrote last week to NOAA Fisheries chief Eric Schwaab expressing his “continued disappointment” with NOAA’s unresponsiveness to his “numerous requests for documents concerning systemic problems at the National Marine Fisheries Service.”
The Senator noted that on May 27, his subcommittee staff sent a request for a list of documents to NOAA Fisheries’ Legislative Affairs staff asking that they be delivered by June 14 in order to be reviewed for a June 20 field hearing. NOAA representatives were not made available to meet with his staff until the morning of June 17 – the Friday before the hearing, and did not bring any of the requested documents to that meeting. Later that afternoon a small fraction of the documents requested arrived by courier.
On June 30, the Senator asked NOAA to provide the remaining documents in the course of post-hearing questions for the official record. The Senator gave NOAA thirty days, until July 29, to respond. On July 11, the Senator’s staff received a reply saying “Often our ability to provide QFRs [Questions for the Record] within the Committee timeframe is compromised by the extensive clearance process the responses must undergo, but we will do our best to meet your deadline.”
According to the Senator’s letter, two months after the documents were originally requested on May 27, they have still not been delivered, nor has the senator received answers necessary to complete the hearing record.
Senator Brown wrote, “I must now consider the logical conclusion that your agency feels itself to be above Congressional oversight. This behavior is disrespectful to the American people, Congress, and the Massachusetts fishermen who have suffered because of NOAA’s mismanagement of the fisheries.”
NOAA spokesperson Monica Allen told Saving Seafood that Mr. Schwaab will respond directly to the Senator.
The text of the letter follows:
Eric C. Schwaab
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration United States Department of Commerce
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
July 29, 2011
I am writing about my continued disappointment with your office’s unresponsiveness to my numerous requests for documents concerning systemic problems at the National Marine Fisheries Service.
On May 27, my subcommittee staff sent a list of documents to your Legislative Affairs staff. Since the requested documents were germane to a field hearing held in Boston on June 20, a reasonable deadline of June 14 was provided. NOAA representatives were not made available to meet with my staff until the morning of June 17 – the Friday before the hearing.
NOAA’s representatives did not bring any of the requested documents to that meeting, thereby depriving my staff of the ability to ask questions about them. Later that afternoon, a courier arrived with a letter from NOAA Legislative Director John Gray and a small fraction of the documents my staff requested.
On its face, that kind of response to a Congressional office would be interpreted by most Americans as evidence of an agency with a transparency problem. I pointed this out at the hearing, which you attended as a witness, and reiterated my interest in seeing the missing documents produced.
On June 30, I made a direct request to you for those documents in the course of asking post-hearing questions for the official hearing record. As you will recall, the distinguished chairman asked that all witnesses promptly respond to those questions. Accordingly, I set a July 29 deadline.
On July 11, a NOAA employee wrote back to my staff, stating that work was underway on answering my questions, adding that “Often our ability to provide QFRs within the Committee timeframe is compromised by the extensive clearance process the responses must undergo, but we will do our best to meet your deadline.”
Today is July 29 and I have not received the missing documents or the answers necessary to complete the hearing record. No further timeline for completion has been provided by NOAA. While NOAA’s initial unwillingness to provide certain documents was an unfortunate situation with a number of plausible explanations, I must now consider the logical conclusion that your agency feels itself to be above Congressional oversight. This behavior is disrespectful to the American people, Congress, and the Massachusetts fishermen who have suffered because of NOAA’s mismanagement of the fisheries.
It is clear that NOAA has thus far failed to honor President Obama’s stated commitment to transparency. It is concerning to me that an agency which has issued large fines to fishermen for paperwork errors has not produced documents when requested to do so by a Member of Congress. My concern is amplified by NOAA’s history of shredding documents while under investigation.
In addition, because this letter seeks additional information in connection with this duly authorized investigation on a matter within the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, I take strong issue with the Department’s previous determination to treat my requests for information as requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The text and legislative history of the Freedom of Information Act make explicitly clear that FOIA was intended to have “absolutely no effect upon congressional access to information.” H.R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2429 (describing provision codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)); accord Federal Public Records Law: Hearings Before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Government Operations (Part I), 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 23, 142-43 (1965). As the Senate Judiciary Committee has commented, “the nonapplicability of the FOIA to Congress cannot be overstated.” S. Rep. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 35 (1974). Indeed, the Executive Branch has long understood that the bills that evolved into FOIA “in no way concerned, indeed they expressly exclude from their scope, the question of the reach of the investigative power of the Congress vis-a-vis executive agencies.” Federal Public Records Law: Hearings Before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Government Operations (Part II), 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 523 (1965) (letter of Assistant HEW Secretary Wilbur J. Cohen).
Obviously, in their private capacity, Members of Congress have the same rights under FOIA to obtain government information enjoyed by “any person,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), but as the legislative history of FOIA makes clear, “the Congress has the additional rights of access to all Government information which it deems necessary to carry out its functions.” H.R. Rep. No. 1497, at 12, 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2429.
In furtherance of this investigation, please provide all documents related to the Commerce Department legal review that Secretary Locke relied upon when he chose not to discipline NOAA employees whose poor conduct was described by Special Master Charles B. Swartwood, III.
In his May 17, 2011 Decision Memo responding to Special Master Swartwood’s report, Secretary Locke wrote the following:
In light of this systemic failing, I find after legal review that none of the conduct described in the report undertaken by any individual NOAA lawyer or law enforcement officer warrants disciplinary action against any employee mentioned in Judge Swartwood’s report. At bottom, these problems were not the product of individual bad acts, but rather the result of conduct enabled and even encouraged by the management and enforcement culture in place at the time.
In order to better understand Secretary Locke’s decision, I am requesting that you provide me with all documents related to that legal review.
Additionally, I am requesting all memoranda from the Commerce Department Office of Assistant General Counsel for Administration Barbara Fredericks (or staff) regarding the possibility of discipline for current or former leadership at the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement or Office of General Counsel for Enforcement Litigation. My request as a Member of Congress includes the forty-one documents you located but did not release in response to a November 24, 2010 request from a private attorney (NOAA FOIA Request No. 2011-00113).
As you heard at the Boston field hearing, there is bipartisan concern among members of both chambers about the lack of accountability at NOAA. My constituents have trouble trusting an agency that declines to clear its ranks of those who broke their trust for so long. On their behalf, I asked you at the hearing what it took to get fired from NOAA. Today I am left wondering what it takes to get NOAA to fulfill a simple document request.
I echo the President’s assertion that “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” NOAA has an opportunity to meet the worthy bar he has set in this area by providing these documents without delay.
Scott P. Brown United States Senator
The Hon. Gary Locke
Secretary, United States Department of Commerce
The Hon. Jane Lubchenco, PhD
Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, United States Department of Commerce Administrator, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Chapter 17.1 – PROTECTION OF THE OCEANS, ALL KINDS OF SEAS, INCLUDING ENCLOSED AND SEMI-ENCLOSED SEAS AND COASTAL AREAS AND THE PROTECTION RATIONAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR LIVING RESOURCES . In addition, this executive order clearly states its intent of “pursuing the United States’ accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.”
The Senate refused to ratify the Law of The Sea Treaty (LOST). The President does not care what the people want since he is following Agenda 21, so he created an Executive Order to implement LOST.
Read More about the National Oceans Council