PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 13, 2016
State and High-Risk Urban Area Working Group Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require any state or high-risk urban area receiving a grant under the State Homeland Security Grant Program or the Urban Area Security Initiative to establish an urban area working group to assist in preparation and revision of the state, regional, or local homeland security plan or the threat and hazard identification and risk assessment.
The bill adds to the stakeholders who shall have at least one representative on such a committee or working group:
public health officials and other appropriate medical practitioners,
individuals representing educational institutions,
state and regional interoperable communications coordinators, and
state and major urban area fusion centers.
(A fusion center serves as a focal point within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners.)
People & committees
Rep. Payne, Donald M., Jr. [D-NJ-10] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1665)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1665)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4509.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1665-1667)
Mr. Donovan moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 373.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-491.
Reported by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 114-491.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4509 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4509 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4509 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4509 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.