PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 7, 2011
Metropolitan Medical Response System Program Act of 2011 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct a Metropolitan Medical Response System Program that shall assist state and local governments in preparing for and responding to public health and mass casualty incidents resulting from natural disasters, terrorist acts, and other man-made disasters. (Repeals provisions of the Post-Katrina Management Reform Act of 2006 regarding a Metropolitan Medical Response Program.)
Authorizes the Secretary, through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to make grants to state and local governments for such purposes. Authorizes the use of grant funds to support the integration of emergency management, health, and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass casualty incidents caused by any hazard.
Sets forth eligibility requirements. Directs the Administrator to ensure that each jurisdiction that receives a grant, as a condition of receiving such grant, is actively coordinating its preparedness efforts with surrounding jurisdictions, with the official with primary responsibility for homeland security (other than the governor) of the government of the state in which the jurisdiction is located, and with emergency response providers from all relevant disciplines, to effectively enhance regional preparedness.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator: (1) in coordination with the Assistant Secretary, Office of Health Affairs, and a National Metropolitan Medical Response System Working Group, to issue performance measures that enable objective evaluation of the performance and effective use of funds provided in any jurisdiction; and (2) together with the Assistant Secretary and the Working Group, to conduct a review of the Program.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-9] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.1411 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.1411 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.1411 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.1411 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.