PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 2010
Metropolitan Medical Response System Program Act of 2010 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a Metropolitan Medical Response System Program to support state and local jurisdictions in preparing for and maintaining all-hazards response capabilities to manage public health and mass casualty incidents resulting from natural and man-made disasters, terrorist acts, and epidemic disease outbreaks, by systematically enhancing and integrating first responders, public health personnel, emergency management personnel, and other participants in mass casualty management. (Repeals provisions of the Post-Katrina Management Reform Act of 2006 regarding a Metropolitan Medical Response Program.)
Directs the Assistant Secretary, Office of Health Affairs, to develop programmatic and policy guidance for the Program in coordination with the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Authorizes the Secretary, through the Administrator, to enter in contracts with local jurisdictions to assist in preparing for and responding to mass casualty incidents. Authorizes the use of contracts to support the integration of emergency management, health, and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass casualty incidents caused by any hazard.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth eligibility requirements. Encourages local jurisdictions receiving assistance under the Program to develop and maintain memoranda of understanding and agreement with neighboring jurisdictions to support a system of mutual aid among the jurisdictions.
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 for each local jurisdiction that enters a contract under this Act; and (2) together with the Assistant Secretary and the Working Group, to conduct a review of the Program.
People & committees
Rep. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA-7] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to House Homeland Security
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 House Energy and Commerce
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.4580 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.4580 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.4580 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.4580 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.