Hr 645 ih

[cottonzway]

GovTrack: H.R. 645: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

HR 645 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 645

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 22, 2009

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--

(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;

(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and

(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.

(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--

(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;

(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;

(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;

(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;

(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;

(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:

(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and

(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and

(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.

(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:

(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.

(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.

(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.

(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.

(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.

(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.

(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.

(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.

(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.

(g) Reports-

(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--

(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;

(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;

(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;

(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and

(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).

(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--

(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);

(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site--

(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.

SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

This Act does not affect--

(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or

(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions apply:

(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘closed military installation’ means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:

(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.

(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.

(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.

(2) EMERGENCY- The term ‘emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term ‘major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term ‘military installation’ has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

PDF:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h645ih.txt.pdf

 

[pixelsmith]

here we go... :frown:

 

[CapnG]

There is nothing the least bit sinister about that bill (and yes, I did read every word). It's a sensible, efficient and inexpensive response to the mess that was (and still is) Katrina to ensure that future "Katrinas" are dealt with in a responsible manner.

It's just government business as usual, you guys simply WANT to look through the paranoia lens and frame this in a NWO context.

 

[mike]

sounds like a sensible plan to me,
i remember thinking, watching the unfolding of katrina, that this nation could do better than they were in the situatuation.
it would be a reasonable criticism of the last admin, to say they botched that one.
makes sense a new admin would address the issue.

edit: Snap

 

[cottonzway]

OK Cap, have fun there.

 

[cottonzway]

I bet it sounded real "reasonable" to Germans and Russians as well prior to their countries falling apart as well.

Seeing as we are am ignorant, snickering, ill-informed society maybe we just deserve this? I'll tell you what, to those of you who think this is "reasonable", have fun there. I'll stay home.

 

[thefoundryman]

....Please report to your nearest National Emergency Center....This is NOT a test!....The dead are returning to life and praying on the flesh of the living....

 

[mike]

actually in review i would have to say this countrys "Govt" could do better, but i did also notice lots and lots of good people heading down to help any way they could.

 

[CapnG]

OK Cap, have fun there.

Snark all you want, you still have yet to tell me why this bill is a problem.

So they're going to recycle disused military bases and turn them into emergency centers... GOOD. Those buildings were built with taxpayer money and now they're just sitting there rotting. Don't you think they should be used for something? Plus it's negating the need to build NEW facilities, saving more money.

The Russians and Germans made no bones about what they were doing when they built their camps. Your conspiracy knob is stuck on 11.

 

[cottonzway]

Snark all you want, you still have yet to tell me why this bill is a problem.

So they're going to recycle disused military bases and turn them into emergency centers... GOOD. Those buildings were built with taxpayer money and now they're just sitting there rotting. Don't you think they should be used for something? Plus it's negating the need to build NEW facilities, saving more money.

The Russians and Germans made no bones about what they were doing when they built their camps. Your conspiracy knob is stuck on 11.

The arrogant manner in which you call this a "conspiracy knob" is pretty pathetic.

How about instead of trying to "debunk" what you think are people trying to promote "NWO conspiracy theories" you just use some common sense on what is/isn't constitutional and look a basic history?

Maybe everything is about a "Gernmanic death cult" or whatever the hords of snickering folks attempt to magrinalize it as? You would have thought I coppied and pasted that from Infowars or something, rather then sharing the actual bill.

It's called HISTORY, not fringe conspiracy or whatever you (and others) would like to call it. You obvious DO NOT know about Russia and Germany in terms of the manner and times leading up to their entire government, military, and soceity loving their every loving minds. Do you really think they build those things calling them "death camps" and shared what was to be the purpose of them? That is not only naive, but un-informed.

Countries go bad, empries go bad, and if you study history you will see when they are toally morally and financially bankrupt they tend to go totally nuts. It happens the MAJORITY of the time.

Instead of trying to rationalize it in your own head or "debunk" things from some "NWO conspiracy" angle, maybe you should just read the LAWS/BILLS that no doubt people have reasons to be concerned about? Along with this one, HR 6166, HR 5122, PDD-51, Section 802 of the US Patriot Act, ect.

You look at that and just how bankrupt the US is in terms of our total economy to go along with the horrible things (like Iraq) that we accept and it doesn't take any "conspiracy" angle to have a concern when we are putting up in public bills to have "camps" for American people on military bases.

History CAN repeat itself, and often does. Instead of trying to act as some "James Randi" UFO debunker type I would suggest just being honest with yourself and for the proper reasons take this into consideration instead of trying to snicker at in a light that clear it was not put forth as.

 

[CapnG]

Do you really think they build those things calling them "death camps" and shared what was to be the purpose of them? That is not only naive, but un-informed.

Yes cotton, that's exactly what I've always thought and continue to believe even now. Do you even bother to read my posts or do you just skim them looking for keywords to trigger this frothing of yours?

Countries go bad, empries go bad, and if you study history you will see when they are toally morally and financially bankrupt they tend to go totally nuts. It happens the MAJORITY of the time.

Yes... and? Your forgetting something vital here: there has never been a world like it is now. No nation exists in isolation anymore, the global nature of the modern world prevents individual nations from collapsing, no matter how corrupt. Either we all go or nobody goes.

Instead of trying to rationalize it in your own head or "debunk" things from some "NWO conspiracy" angle, maybe you should just read the LAWS/BILLS that no doubt people have reasons to be concerned about? Along with this one, HR 6166, HR 5122, PDD-51, Section 802 of the US Patriot Act, ect.

I've read some of those documents and they do indeed have some alarming potentials (documented cases of miscarriages of justice under the umbrella of the Patriot Act come to mind) but realistically there's nothing to be done, the laws are passed and on the books.

Centralising emergency response management in disaster prone areas doesn't strike me as particularily evil though. Unless of course you believe these laws combine into a juggernaught of evil, like a legislative Voltron gone bad.

You look at that and just how bankrupt the US is in terms of our total economy to go along with the horrible things (like Iraq) that we accept and it doesn't take any "conspiracy" angle to have a concern when we are putting up in public bills to have "camps" for American people on military bases.

You say that like you expected it would be otherwise. As if America would just go on from strength to strength, growing ever richer, ever more powerful, ever more just, until the end of time. Weren't you the guy who just said "countries go bad"?

More to the point, they're EX-military bases (ie vacant buildings) and state and local authorities retain jurisdiction (SEC4, PARA2). And the word "camps" has been used so far exclusively by you, purely for it's inflammatory tone, I might add.

I would suggest just being honest with yourself and for the proper reasons take this into consideration instead of trying to snicker at in a light that clear it was not put forth as.

If I wasn't taking this into consideration would have even bothered to read the bill or respond to this post? I read it, I understand your position but I don't agree with your conclusion, that's all. The other bills you mentioned are for more suspicious than this.

 

[cottonzway]

I read your posts, but you said you "don't agree with my conclusion" prior to me even adding on. Are you aware of this? What makes me "frothing" angry is this type of dialog where people take a position where they are either defending/debunking serious issues in a manner that is not how the topic should be looked it.

When you make a "NWO" claim as a point to disagree, even before I post ANYTHING other then the text of the bill from the acutal source, yeah it pisses me off. This is not just you though or some members of the Paracast forums, but a large portion of society in general.

Obviously this is VERY frustrating to me and it is why I have little patience anymore.

This along with much of what I mentioned previously in terms of laws on the books now, along with a totally failing global economy and a totally morally bankrupt society in general, draw a different light to these "camps" (I am calling them what they are, should I call them vacation resorts? semantics anyways) when you understand in history what that has meant in other countries when their government and monetary system fell upon itself. There is no need to add (or suggest) weird conspiracy theories about this as the FACTS alone are enough of a concern IMO.

I just have little patience when I post something like this that should have a reasonable debate and I get replies about "the NWO and zombies", to me that is just absurd nonsense in the face of an issue that is a serious concern to at least consider instead of making it something that it has nothing to do with. So when I take something with a serious manner and speak from it with a serious manner and get those same kind of replies I tend to reply in a different manner then having an open dialog where people agree or disagree with each other.

 

[CapnG]

I read your posts, but you said you "don't agree with my conclusion" prior to me even adding on. Are you aware of this? What makes me "frothing" angry is this type of dialog where people take a position where they are either defending/debunking serious issues in a manner that is not how the topic should be looked it.

Alright, yes, you're right, you have not in fact made any conclusive statements. I should have said something more along the lines of "I don't agree with the implied direction of your reasoning."

But let's be honest here, when cottonzway makes a post like this on this board (and pixelsmith chimes in immediately) the NWO subtext is implicit (at least to those of us who have been here long enough to recognize topics of interest to you).

However, in the spirit of that reasonable debate you're after, how's this: if this bill were passed in times not-so economically and socially depressed as they currently are, would you still consider it sinister or merely bureaucracy in action?

 

[cottonzway]

Dude, I can't help who replies after me or what they say. lol

If I wanted to post on that "other" angle then I would have put it in that other forum.

It depends on the situation and rhetoric at the time it got passed. It depends on the situation. Either way I would not like it. It would follow alarming trends regardless. Exactly how I would take it or look at it would be how it is presented and the rhetoric that followed with it.

 

[CapnG]

If I wanted to post on that "other" angle then I would have put it in that other forum.

Ah yes, well that'd be my own fault then, see I don't search by forums I just check for recent posts.:redface:

It depends on the situation and rhetoric at the time it got passed. It depends on the situation. Either way I would not like it. It would follow alarming trends regardless. Exactly how I would take it or look at it would be how it is presented and the rhetoric that followed with it.

Is this thing even ratified yet? Your OP lists an introduction date but doesn't mention a vote (or at least I didn't see one). Your concerns (legitimate or not) may be unecessary. For all we know this thing could simply get shot down (although I'm sure a similar bill would be introduced post haste).

 

[Ron Collins]

My comments are just on the Bill itself.

Basically, what I see is military bases (with a preference to closed ones) converted into emergency centers. There are requirements as the scaling up or dawn dynamically depending on the state of emergency. Housing, medical facilities, and command posts to organize it all. There is language describing what these bases need to have to be effective. There is language to create a sense of urgency.

If this was in place in during Katrina we could all marval at the effective disaster management and care for victims. During Katrina and other large natural disasters people need places to go. I dont know if anyone remembers the conditions at some of those places but it was horrid. I actually like the spirit of this bill. I dont see anything wrong with it. In fact it seems responsible.

If I have missed something, and it is entirely possible that I have, please point it out. I would genuinely like to know.

 

[bobheck]

I bet it sounded real "reasonable" to Germans and Russians as well prior to their countries falling apart as well.

Seeing as we are am ignorant, snickering, ill-informed society maybe we just deserve this? I'll tell you what, to those of you who think this is "reasonable", have fun there. I'll stay home.

I also read the entire bill. I really have no problem with it, keeping a wary eye out for some ulterior motives. But, it all seems really sensible. Just because they are using existing structures to prepare places to house hundreds of thousands of people on short notice is not in and of itself bad. As others have stated, after Katrina that was one of the largest problems -- finding places for the fleeing masses. This is just good planning.

The bill you need to worry about is the one that would allow them to take you away unwillingly and without a warrant issued by a local judge to one of these places. As it is now, you would be going to these places on your own -- and be damned glad it's there. If you want to stay home, there is nothing in this bill that will stop you -- nothing.

I gotta say cottonz, I don't get what you are bowing up and showing hair about on this bill.

 

[pixelsmith]

I gotta say cottonz, I don't get what you are bowing up and showing hair about on this bill.

dont worry, you will.

 

[bobheck]

dont worry, you will.

Cute answer -- makes you sound all-knowing with some foreboding information. Care to expound, instead of just throwing out a cautionary quip?

 

[CapnG]

Jeezus, Bob... your new avatar is 100% pure nightmare fuel! I'm gonna have trouble sleeping tonight...