National Emergency Centers Act (H.R. 645)

January 22, 2009 By Leave a Comment
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 estab
lishment 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).
Filed Under: Civil Unrest, Legislation

The International Central Bank and the New Global Monetary Standard

January 17, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Global Bank
Though I have not read Naomi Klein’s book “Shock Doctrine” and am not particularly familiar with her work, I have been told that her theory goes something like this:

Crises that are either deliberately produced or purposefully magnified for public theater have consistently served the interests of elite societal actors as platforms on which they can launch agendas that they have been pushing for years.

An example of this would be 911, where neoconservatives in the Bush Administration took advantage of the attacks to launch an agenda that they had been developing for over a decade. The most current “manufactured” crisis that we now face is the one that has gripped the entire country – the global financial crisis. Although there are deep fundamentals that are driving this disaster, those fundamentals are also being exploited to create and perpetuate an environment of fear that is being used by very influential people to pass the next stage of an agenda that has been ongoing for decades.

I recently heard a question and answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) given by John P. Lipsky, First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He was certainly clever in the way he spoke about what he and his international banker buddies have in store for us, but anyone worth his salt understands that these pranksters are going to use this crisis to give us an international central bank, based eventually on fiat liabilities just like our own Fed. Here are some important comments made by Mr. Lipsky:

“One of the proposals under consideration is to convert the IMFC from its current advisory form into an executive body or council. Creating such a council would increase the direct connection between ministerial authority and the Fund’s day-to-day activities.”

Day-to-day activities can only be construed as open market operations, and so what Mr. Lipsky is saying is that the IMF will simply evolve its charter so that it may set global monetary policy – an evolutionary process that will most likely follow the EMU model.

Now, this is great in principle, since we already have global financial markets and having a global currency could make these volatile markets far more stable. However, the problem is that the central banking model that is currently employed in places like the US and the EU is a scam. We don’t have sound money. Instead, we have currencies that are backed by nothing and that are issued by privately owned central banks that can keep the VAST majority of the users of a given currency in perpetual serfdom through ever mounting debt.

Mr. Lipsky said a lot more than the two sentences that I quoted on this page, and I would urge those interested to read the script that I have posted on this blog titled “Talk on International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.” The implications for all of us of having a global central bank cannot be understated. Controlling the issuance of a nation’s currency (and in this case the world’s currency) means implicit control over the population. We would not be in the financial mess we are in today if the banking system were subject to market forces (i.e. if the Fed’s currency issues were exchangeable for a fixed sum of gold). Unfortunately, these issues have become so purposefully obfuscated by the banking elite that the masses can’t put their economic plight and these sort of “legislative initiatives” into any sort of meaningful context.

Filed Under: Banks, ECB, Federal Reserve, G20, G7, Global Governance, IMF

Zimbabwe Central Bank Praises Fed

January 6, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Zimbabwe's Infation School

In a fantastic and comical twist, Zimbabwe’s central bank came out with a statement endorsing the Fed’s “quantitative easing” policy. Have a look:
“Banks, including those in the USA and the UK, are now not just talking of, but also actually implementing flexible and pragmatic central bank support programmes where these are deemed necessary in their national interests. That is precisely the path that we began over 4 years ago in pursuit of our own national interest and we have not wavered on that critical path despite the untold misunderstanding, vilification and demonization we have endured from across the political divide.”
Super. I’m so proud of my country.
Filed Under: Dollar Collapse, Hyperinflation

Favorite Revolutionaries: Fidel Castro

January 1, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Young Castro

This was a great moment of decision. The conflict struck my personality like a cyclone. Alone, on the beach, facing the sea, I examined the situation. Personal danger…made my return to the University an act of unheard-of temerity. But not to return would be to give in to threats, to give in before bullies…I decided to go back, and I went back – with arms in my hands.
- Fidel Castro
Filed Under: Civil Unrest