USDA Domestic Food Assistance Programs: FY2019 Appropriations

Summary: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) was enacted on February 15, 2019. This omnibus bill included appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), of which USDA's domestic food assistance programs are a part. Prior to its enactment, the federal government had continued to operate for the first six months of the fiscal year under continuing resolutions (CRs). This report focuses on the enacted appropriations for USDA's domestic food assistance programs and, in some instances, policy changes provided by the omnibus law. CRS Report R45230, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2019 Appropriations provides an overview of the entire FY2019 Agriculture and Related Agencies portion of the law as well as a review of the reported bills and CRs preceding it. USDA experienced a 35-day lapse in FY2019 funding and partial government shutdown prior to the enactment of P.L. 116-6.

Summary: Domestic food assistance funding is primarily mandatory but also includes discretionary funding. Most of the programs' funding is for open-ended, appropriated mandatory spending—that is, terms of the authorizing law require full funding and funding may vary with program participation (and in some cases inflation). The largest mandatory programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) and the child nutrition programs (including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program). Though their funding levels are dictated by the authorizing law, in most cases, appropriations are needed to make funds available for obligation and expenditure. The three largest discretionary budget items are the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP); and federal nutrition program administration.

Summary: The domestic food assistance funding is, for the most part, administered by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The enacted FY2019 appropriation provides over $103 billion for domestic food assistance (Table 1). This is a decrease of approximately $1.7 billion from FY2018. Declining participation in SNAP is responsible for most of the difference. Approximately 94% of the FY2018 appropriations for domestic food assistance are for mandatory spending. Highlights of the associated appropriations accounts are summarized below.

Summary: For SNAP and other programs authorized by the Food and Nutrition Act, such as The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) commodities, the FY2019 appropriations law provides approximately $73.5 billion. Certain provisions of the law affect SNAP policies. For example, it continues a policy in the FY2017 and FY2018 appropriations laws that limited USDA's implementation of December 2016 regulations regarding SNAP retailers' inventory requirements. USDA must amend its final rule to define "variety" more expansively and must "apply the requirements regarding acceptable varieties and breadth of stock."

Summary: For the child nutrition programs (the National School Lunch Program and others), the enacted law provides approximately $23.1 billion. This includes discretionary funding for school meals equipment grants ($30 million) and Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) demonstration projects ($28 million), and a general provision that provides an additional $5 million for farm-to-school grants. The law includes policy provisions related to processed poultry from China, requirements for schools' paid lunch pricing, vegetables in school breakfasts, and the use of commodities in child nutrition programs.

Summary: For the WIC program, the law provides nearly $6.1 billion while also rescinding $500 million in prior-year carryover funding. The law includes new funding for telehealth grants.

Summary: For the Commodity Assistance Program account, which includes funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), TEFAP administrative and distribution costs, and other programs, the law provides over $322 million. The law increases discretionary funding for TEFAP administrative and distribution costs through the annual appropriation and through a $30 million transfer of prior-year CSFP funds.

Summary: For Nutrition Programs Administration, the law provides nearly $165 million.

T he Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) was enacted on February 15, 2019.This omnibus bill included appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), of which USDA's domestic food assistance is a part. Prior to its enactment, the government had continued to operate for the first six months of the fiscal year under continuing resolutions (CRs). USDA experienced a 35-day lapse in FY2019 funding and partial government shutdown prior to the enactment of the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-5 ), a continuing resolution enacted prior to the Omnibus bill. (See the Appendix .)

This report focuses on USDA's domestic food assistance programs; their funding; and, in some instances, policy changes provided by the enacted FY2018 appropriations law. USDA's domestic food assistance programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the child nutrition programs (such as the National School Lunch Program). The domestic food assistance funding is, for the most part, administered by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). CRS Report R45230, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2019 Appropriations provides an overview of the entire FY2019 Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations law as well as a review of the reported bills and CRs preceding its enactment.

With its focus on appropriations, this report discusses programs' eligibility requirements and operations minimally. See CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs for more background.

Domestic food assistance—SNAP and child nutrition programs in the mandatory spending accounts, and WIC and other programs in the discretionary spending accounts—represents over two-thirds of the FY2018 Agriculture appropriations act ( Figure 1 ).

The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.

Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget resolution process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary. Mandatory spending —though carried in the appropriation—is controlled by budget rules during the authorization process. Appropriations acts then provide funding to match the parameters required by the mandatory programs' authorizing laws. For the domestic food assistance programs, these laws are typically reauthorized in farm bill and child nutrition reauthorizations.

Domestic food assistance funding ( Table 1 ) largely consists of open-ended, appropriated mandatory programs—that is, it varies with program participation (and in some cases inflation) under the terms of the underlying authorization law. The largest mandatory programs include SNAP and the child nutrition programs (including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program). Though their funding levels are dictated by the authorizing law, in most cases appropriations are needed to make funds available.

The three largest discretionary budget items are WIC, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and federal nutrition program administration.

The enacted FY2019 appropriation would provide over $103 billion for domestic food assistance ( Table 1 ). This is a decrease of approximately $1.7 billion from FY2018. Declining participation in SNAP is responsible for most of the difference. Over 95% of the FY2019 appropriations are for mandatory spending.

Table 1 summarizes funding for the domestic food assistance programs, comparing FY2019 levels to those of prior years. In addition to the accounts' appropriations language, the enacted appropriation's general provisions include additional funding, rescissions, and/or policy changes. These are summarized in this report.

Table 1 compares the enacted funding to the House- and Senate-reported bills, prior years' enacted funding, and the President's FY2019 budget request. The President's budget request includes the Administration's forecast for programs with open-ended funding such as SNAP and the child nutrition programs; this assists the appropriations committees in providing funding levels expected to meet obligations. The budget also includes the Administration's requests for discretionary programs. Additionally, it is a place for the Administration to include legislative requests. The FY2019 request did include SNAP legislative proposals.

Most significantly for the FNS programs, the President's FY2019 budget request did the following:

It included 14 legislative proposals pertaining to SNAP. The majority of these would have restricted SNAP eligibility and made changes to the benefit calculation. This request also proposed to replace a portion of the SNAP benefit with a box of USDA-purchased foods and to limit federal funding for states' administrative costs, nutrition education, and performance bonuses. Together, these proposals were estimated by both the Administration and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reduce program spending in FY2019 and over the 10-year budget window. None of these policies were enacted as part of the FY2019 appropriation. Some of these policies were debated in the formulation of the 2018 farm bill (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334 ), but ultimately only the elimination of performance bonus funding was enacted in the December 2018 law. It requested no funding for a number of discretionary spending programs, including the following: school meals equipment grants, which have received discretionary funding since FY2009; the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), which has received annual discretionary funding since 1992; and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which has received annual discretionary funding since 1969.

Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations Accounts and Related General Provisions

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

For the Under Secretary's office, the enacted FY2019 appropriation provides approximately $0.8 million. This office received approximately equal funding in FY2018.

The enacted appropriation (§734) continues to require the coordination of FNS research efforts with USDA's Research, Education and Economics mission area. This is to include a research and evaluation plan submitted to Congress.

SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act

Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1) SNAP (and related grants); (2) a nutrition assistance block grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (all in lieu of SNAP); (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); (4) the cost of commodities for TEFAP, but not administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance Program budget account; and (5) Community Food Projects.

The enacted appropriation provides approximately $73.5 billion for programs under the Food and Nutrition Act. This FY2019 level is approximately $540 million less than FY2018 appropriations. This difference is largely due to a forecasted reduction in SNAP participation. The enacted appropriation provides $3 billion for the SNAP contingency reserve fund.

The SNAP account also includes mandatory funding for TEFAP commodities. The enacted appropriation provides nearly $295 million, according to the terms of the Food and Nutrition Act. This is an increase ($5.0 million, 1.7%) over $289.5 million provided in FY2018. (TEFAP also receives discretionary funding for storage and distribution costs, as discussed later in " Commodity Assistance Program .")

SNAP Account: Other General Provisions and Committee Report Language

SNAP-Authorized Retailers. The FY2017 and FY2018 appropriations law limited USDA's implementation of December 2016 regulations regarding SNAP retailers' inventory requirements, and the enacted FY2019 appropriation (§727) continues those limits.

Only SNAP-authorized retailers may accept SNAP benefits. On December 15, 2016, FNS published a final rule to change retailer requirements for SNAP authorization. The final rule would have implemented the 2014 farm bill's changes to inventory requirements for SNAP-authorized retailers ( P.L. 113-79 , §4002). Namely, the 2014 farm bill increased both the varieties of "staple foods" and the perishable items within those varieties that SNAP retailers must stock. In addition to codifying the farm bill's changes, the final rule would have changed how staple foods are defined, clarified limitations on retailers' sale of hot foods, and increased the minimum number of stocking units.

Section 727 in the enacted appropriation continues to require that USDA amend its final rule to define "variety" more expansively and that USDA "apply the requirements regarding acceptable varieties and breadth of stock" that were in place prior to P.L. 113-79 until such regulatory amendments are made. In the meantime, USDA-FNS implemented other aspects of the 2016 final rule, such as increased stocking units. On April 5, 2019, USDA did publish a proposed rule, proposing amendments to the definition of "variety".

Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These include the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Special Milk Program (SMP), assistance for state administrative expenses, procurement of commodities (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA), state-federal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations ("Administrative Reviews"), "Team Nutrition" and education initiatives to improve meal quality and food safety, and support activities such as technical assistance to providers and studies/evaluations. (Child nutrition efforts are also supported by permanent mandatory appropriations and other funding sources discussed in the section " Other Nutrition Funding Support .")

The enacted FY2019 appropriation provides approximately $23.1 billion for child nutrition programs. This is approximately $1.1 billion less (-4.6%) than the amount provided in FY2018, and reflects a transfer of more than $9.1 billion from the Section 32 account.

The enacted appropriation funds certain child nutrition discretionary grants. These include the following:

School Meals Equipment Grants. The law provides $30 million, the same amount as FY2018. Summer EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) Demonstration Projects. These projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children in order to make up for school meals that children miss when school is out of session and as an alternative to Summer Food Service Program meals. The projects were originally authorized and funded in the FY2010 appropriations law ( P.L. 111-80 ). The enacted appropriation provides $28 million, the same amount as FY2018.

The child nutrition programs and WIC were up for reauthorization in 2016, but it was not completed. Many provisions of the operating law nominally expired at the end of FY2015, but nearly all operations continued via funding provided in appropriations laws since that time, including the enacted FY2018 appropriation. The enacted appropriation also continued to extend, through September 30, 2019, two expiring provisions: mandatory funding for an Information Clearinghouse and food safety audits. (See the Appendix for information about the child nutrition programs during the partial government shutdown.)

Child Nutrition Programs: General Provisions

One general provision in the enacted FY2019 appropriation included additional funding for child nutrition programs:

Farm to School Grants. Section 754 of the enacted appropriation provides $5 million for competitive grants to assist schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs. The same amount was provided in FY2018. This is in addition to $5 million in permanent mandatory funding (provided annually by Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act), for a total of $10 million available in FY2019.

FY2019 general provisions also included policy provisions :

Processed Poultry from China. The enacted appropriation includes a policy provision (§749) to prevent any processed poultry imported from China from being included in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program. This policy has been included in enacted appropriations laws since FY2015. Paid Lunch Pricing . For school year 2019-2020, Section 760 of the enacted appropriation changes federal policy on the pricing of paid (full-price) meals. Included in the 2010 child nutrition reauthorization, and first implemented in the 2011-2012 school year, this policy required schools annually to review their revenue from paid lunches and to determine, using a calculation specified in law and regulation, whether paid prices had to be increased. The purpose of the calculation was to ensure that federal funding intended for F/RP meals was not instead subsidizing full-price meals. For school year 2019-2020, the enacted appropriation requires a smaller subset of schools—only those with a negative balance in their nonprofit school food service account as of December 31, 2018—to be subject to this calculation and potentially to be required to raise prices. The same provision was included in the FY2018 enacted appropriation for school year 2018-2019. Vegetables in School Breakfasts. Section 768 of the enacted appropriation increases the frequency with which starchy vegetables can be substituted for fruits in the School Breakfast Program. Under current regulations, schools are allowed to substitute vegetables for the required servings of fruits (at least one cup daily, and at least five cups weekly) in school breakfasts. The regulations also specify that, "the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or 'Other vegetables' subgroups." This excludes the starchy vegetable subgroup, which includes corn, plantains, and white potatoes. The enacted appropriation specifies that FY2019 funds cannot be used to enforce this requirement, thereby allowing schools to substitute any type of vegetables for any or all of the required daily and weekly servings of fruits. Child Nutrition Program Commodities. Section 775 of the enacted appropriation changes the calculation of commodity assistance in child nutrition programs. Under current law, commodity assistance in child nutrition programs must comprise at least 12% of total funding provided under Sections 4 and 11 (reimbursements for school lunches) and Section 6 (commodity assistance) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Section 775 eliminates the inclusion of bonus commodities in this calculation as of September 30, 2018, thereby ensuring that only appropriated funds inform the required level of commodity assistance.

Although WIC is a discretionary funded program, since the late 1990s the practice of the appropriations committees has been to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all projected participants.

The enacted FY2019 appropriation provides $6.075 billion for WIC; however, the law also rescinds available carryover funds from past years. This funding level is $175 million less than the FY2018 appropriation. The enacted appropriation also includes set-asides for WIC breastfeeding peer counselors and related activities ("not less than $60 million") and infrastructure ($19.0 million). The peer counselor set-aside is equal to FY2018 levels. The infrastructure set-aside is an increase of $5 million from FY2018, and further sets aside $5 million for telehealth competitive grants to increase WIC access as specified in the law.

The enacted law (§723) rescinds $500 million in prior-year (or carryover) WIC funds. The House-reported and Senate-passed bills also would have rescinded carryover funds: H.R. 5961 (§723) would have rescinded $300 million; H.R. 6147 (§724) would have rescinded $400 million.

The Commodity Assistance Program budget account supports several discretionary programs and activities: (1) Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), (2) funding for TEFAP administrative and distribution costs, (3) the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), and (4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the Marshall Islands) and areas affected by natural disasters.

The enacted appropriation provides over $322 million for this account, no change from FY2018. Within the account,

CSFP receives just below $223 million (a decrease of approximately $15 million or 6.8%); TEFAP Administrative Costs receives nearly $110 million—this includes $79.6 million in FY2019 funding (+$15.2 million compared to FY2018) as well as a transfer of $30.0 million in prior-year (carryover) CSFP funds; in addition to this discretionary TEFAP funding, the law allows the conversion of up to 15% of TEFAP entitlement commodity funding (included in the SNAP account discussed above) to administrative and distribution costs; and WIC FMNP receives $18.5 million, the same level as FY2018.

This budget account funds federal administration of all the USDA domestic food assistance program areas noted previously; special projects for improving the integrity and quality of these programs; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which provides nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides).

The enacted appropriation provides nearly $165 million for this account, an increase of approximately $11 million from FY2018. As in FY2018 and prior years, the law sets aside $2 million for the fellowship programs administered by the Congressional Hunger Center.

Domestic food assistance programs also receive funds from sources other than appropriations:

In addition to appropriated funds from the child nutrition account for commodity foods (which provides over $1.4 billion), USDA purchases commodity foods for the child nutrition programs using "Section 32" funds—a permanent appropriation. For FY2019, the enacted appropriation specifies that up to $485 million from Section 32 is to be available for child nutrition entitlement commodities, compared to $465 million in FY2018. The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) for selected elementary schools nationwide is financed with permanent, mandatory funding from Section 32. The underlying law (Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act) provides funds at the beginning of every school year (July). For FY2019, there is $171.5 million available for FFVP, which is consistent with the FY2018 base amount adjusted for inflation. The Food Service Management Institute (technical assistance to child nutrition providers, also known as the Institute of Child Nutrition) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $5 million. The Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition program receives nearly $21 million of mandatory funding per year (FY2002-FY2023) outside of the regular appropriations process.

Appendix. USDA-FNS Programs during the FY2019 Partial Government Shutdown

USDA was one of the departments affected by a lapse in FY2019 funding and the resulting 35-day partial government shutdown (during parts of December 2018 and January 2019).

Most of USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs, whether mandatory or discretionary, rely on funding provided in appropriations acts. As a result, the lapse in FY2019 appropriations required the execution of contingency plans, including staff furloughs, and at times the operating status of programs was in flux.

FNS program operations during a government shutdown vary based on the different programs' available resources, determined by factors such as contingency or carryover funds and terms of the expired appropriations acts as well as USDA's decisionmaking. Beginning in late December 2018, FNS released program-specific memoranda to states and program operators describing the status of different nutrition assistance programs during the funding lapse.

In addition to the impact on programs' funding discussed below, furloughs of FNS staff during this time period may have affected program operations (for example, the availability of technical assistance) on a case-by-case basis.

This appendix summarizes some of the key issues and impacts on the SNAP, Child Nutrition, and WIC programs during this partial government shutdown. Further detail can be found in the FNS documents referenced above. It is important to note that because circumstances during a lapse in appropriations and executive-branch decisionmaking can vary, operations during this partial shutdown are not necessarily how a future shutdown would proceed.

States issue SNAP benefits on a monthly basis. As in the FY2019 appropriations law, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P.L. 115-141 ) provided one year of SNAP funding as well as a contingency fund of $3 billion that can be spent in FY2018 or FY2019. The $3 billion is less than the cost of one month of SNAP benefits, so the contingency fund alone would not fund a month of SNAP benefits in the case of a lapse of funding.

At the start of the partial shutdown, when a continuing resolution ( P.L. 115-298 ) expired after December 21, 2018, December 2018 benefits had already been provided. In addition, during the shutdown period, a provision of the continuing resolution allowed for payments to be made 30 days after the continuing resolution's expiration; this allowed states to issue January 2019 benefits. On January 8, 2019, USDA interpreted the provision to authorize issuance of February 2019 benefits as well, so long as states conducted early issuance—before January 20, 2019.

By the end of the partial shutdown, recipients had received their December 2018, January 2019, and February 2019 benefits. However, at the beginning of the shutdown, it was not clear that benefits would be provided for these months. USDA-FNS provided a series of memoranda to states during the shutdown that included answers to frequently asked questions.

Unlike SNAP, the appropriations language for the child nutrition programs (National School Lunch Program and others) and WIC accounts provides funding that can be obligated over a two-year period. WIC also has a contingency fund. In addition, the child nutrition programs may have more flexibility to continue operating during a shutdown because federal funds are generally provided retroactively (on a reimbursement basis).

During the FY2019 lapse in funding, the Administration had carryover and contingency funds to maintain program operations. This includes FY2018 appropriations that are available for spending through FY2019 and contingency funds (in the case of WIC). Programs with this source of funding potentially available are those with two-year funding from the Child Nutrition Programs account and the WIC account. How long these operations could continue would depend on (1) the funding lapse's duration and (2) the amount of carryover or contingency funding available.

Ultimately, for child nutrition and WIC programs,

USDA continued operating the child nutrition programs "with funding provided under the terms and conditions of the prior continuing resolution [P.L. 115-245]"; USDA stated that the programs had enough funding to continue operating at least through March 2019 if the shutdown were to continue; and USDA continued WIC and WIC FMNP operations using funding that had already been allocated to states and, for WIC, prior-year carryover funding.


Cloud Computing: Background, Status of Adoption by Federal Agencies, and Congressional Action

Summary: Cloud computing is a new name for an old concept: the delivery of computing services from a remote location, analogous to the way electricity, water, and other utilities are provided to most customers. Cloud computing services are delivered through a network, usually the internet. Utilities are also delivered through networks, whether the electric grid, water delivery systems, or other distribution infrastructure. In some ways, cloud computing is reminiscent of computing before the advent of the personal computer, where users shared the power of a central mainframe computer through video terminals or other devices. Cloud computing, however, is much more powerful and flexible, and information technology advances may permit the approach to become ubiquitous.

Summary: As cloud computing has developed, varied and sometimes nebulous descriptions of what it is and what it is not have been commonplace. Such ambiguity can create uncertainties that may impede innovation and adoption. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has developed standardized language describing cloud computing to help clear up that ambiguity:

Summary: Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.

Summary: Since 2009, the federal government has been shifting its data storage needs to cloud-based services and away from agency-owned, in-house data centers. This shift is intended to achieve two goals: reduce the total investment by the federal government in information technology (IT), which currently stands at about $90 billion each year, and realize other stated advantages of cloud adoption: efficiency, accessibility, collaboration, rapidity of innovation, reliability, and security. However, challenges remain as agencies shift to cloud services. According to a survey conducted in September 2018, federal IT managers expressed concerns about security in certain cloud environments, the complexity of migrating existing ("legacy") applications to the cloud, a lack of skilled staff to manage certain cloud environments, and uncertain funding.

Summary: Planning for cloud adoption by federal agencies began with the 2010 publication of "A 25-Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal IT Management." More recently, in the 2017 "Report to the President on Federal IT Modernization," the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pledged to update the government's legacy Federal Cloud Computing Strategy ("Cloud First"). Fulfilling this requirement, the Administration developed a new strategy, "Cloud Smart," which was published on September 24, 2018. The new strategy is founded on what the Administration considers the three key pillars of successful cloud adoption: security, procurement, and workforce.

Summary: In the 116 th Congress, there has been one cloud-related bill introduced and two hearings directly related to cloud computing:

Summary: The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) Authorization Act ( H.R. 3941 ) was introduced on July 24, 2019, by Representative Gerald Connolly. The bill would formally establish within the General Services Administration a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014." On July 17, 2019, the House Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations held a hearing, "To the Cloud! The Cloudy Role of FedRAMP in IT Modernization." The purpose of the hearing was to examine the extent to which FedRAMP has reduced duplicative efforts, inconsistencies, and cost inefficiencies associated with the cloud security authorization process. On October 18, 2019, the Committee on Financial Services Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) held a hearing, "AI and the Evolution of Cloud Computing: Evaluating How Financial Data Is Stored, Protected, and Maintained by Cloud Providers." Among other topics, the hearing explored how AI could be used to improve cloud management functions.

Summary: Additionally, there have been two hearings on the implementation status of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act. These hearings provide an update on data center optimization, which is an indication of the extent of agency adoption of cloud computing.

Since 2009, the federal government has been shifting its data storage needs to cloud-based services and away from agency-owned, in-house data centers. This shift is intended to achieve two goals: reduce the total investment by the federal government in information technology (IT), which currently stands at about $90 billion each year, and realize other stated advantages of cloud adoption , including efficiency, accessibility, collaboration, reliability, and security. However, challenges remain as agencies shift to cloud services. According to a survey conducted in September 2018, federal IT managers continue to express long-held concerns about security in certain cloud environments, the complexity of migrating existing ("legacy") applications to the cloud, a lack of skilled staff to manage certain cloud environments, and uncertain funding.

This report explains what cloud computing is, including different models for cloud deployment and services, and describes the federal government's planning for IT reform. It also provides information on assessments that have been conducted on agency cloud adoption. Finally, the report provides a summary of recent congressional action and presents some possible mechanisms for Congress to monitor agencies as they implement cloud computing.

Cloud computing is a new name for an old concept: the delivery of computing services from a remote location. Cloud computing services are delivered through a network, usually the internet. Some analysts see this approach as analogous to the networked delivery of electricity, water, and other utilities through the electric grid, water delivery systems, and other distribution infrastructure. In some ways, cloud computing is reminiscent of computing before the advent of the personal computer, when users shared the power of a central mainframe computer through video terminals or other devices. Cloud computing, however, is much more powerful and flexible, and information technology advances may permit the approach to become nearly ubiquitous.

Cloud computing differs from local computing, in which local machines perform most tasks and store the relevant data. Some cloud services are adaptations of familiar applications, such as email and word processing. Others are new services that never existed as a local application, such as social networks.

As cloud computing has developed, varied and sometimes nebulous descriptions of what it is and what it is not have been commonplace. Such ambiguity can create uncertainties that may impede innovation and adoption. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed standardized language describing cloud computing to help clear up that ambiguity:

The first sentence of the definition basically states that cloud computing is a way of providing convenient, flexible access to a broad range of computing resources over a network. The characteristics and models referred to in the second sentence provide the specificity necessary to clarify what cloud computing is and is not, described below.

Cloud computing differs from local computing in many ways. NIST has identified five characteristics in particular:

On-demand self-service: A user can directly access the needed computing capabilities from the source, no matter what specific resource is required. An analogy is that a television viewer or radio listener can change stations at will. Broad network access: A user is not tied to one location but can access resources from anywhere the network (typically the internet) is available. Resource pooling: Many users share the same overall set of resources from a provider, using what they need, without having to concern themselves with where those resources originate. An analogy is that homeowners and businesses do not need to know which specific power plants generated the electricity they are using [although some do care, and specifically buy power from "green" sources]. Rapid elasticity: Users can quickly increase or decrease their use of a computing resource in response to their immediate needs. An analogy is that electricity customers can use as little or as much power as they need, within the capacity of their connections to the grid. Measured service: The amount of usage by a customer is monitored by the provider and can be used for billing or other purposes. An analogy is the metered use of electricity, water, natural gas, and other utilities.

NIST has identified four standard models, or types, of cloud computing that can be implemented to satisfy the varying needs of users or providers. Those modelsâpublic, private, community, and hybridâvary in where the hardware is located, what entity is responsible for maintaining the system, and who can use system resources. An extensive list of deployment model adoption by federal agencies is in the April 2019 report by the Government Accountability Office, Cloud Computing: Agencies Have Increased Usage and Realized Benefits, but Cost and Savings Data Need to Be Better Tracked .

In public cloud (sometimes called external cloud ) computing, a provider supplies one or more cloud-computing services to a large group of independent customers, such as the general public. Customers use the service over the internet through web browsers or other software applications. Providers usually sell these services on a metered basis, an approach that is sometimes called "utility computing." Some common examples of services using a public cloud model include internet backup and file synchronization and web-based media services. Public clouds may have price and flexibility advantages over other deployment models, but security and other concerns could restrict federal use. The public cloud deployment model is used predominantly by businesses with low privacy concerns.

A private cloud (sometimes called an internal cloud ) works like public cloud computing, but on a private network controlled and used by a single organization. It is a cloud used by a company itselfârather than its customers. Private clouds may provide services that are similar to those provided by public cloud providers, but potentially with fewer risks. Potential disadvantages include cost and logistical challenges associated with purchasing and managing the required hardware and software. Private clouds can provide internal services such as data storage as well as external services to the public or other users.

A community cloud allows a group of organizations with similar requirements to share infrastructure, thereby potentially realizing more of the benefits of public cloud computing than is possible with a purely private cloud. Because a community cloud has a much smaller user base than a public cloud, it may be more expensive to establish and operate, but it may also allow for more customization to meet the users' needs. It may also meet user-specific security and other requirements more effectively than a public cloud. Just like private cloud, community cloud is technically no different from public cloud. The only difference is who is allowed to use it.

A hybrid cloud uses a combination of internal (private or community) and external (public) providers. For example, a user could employ a private or community cloud to provide applications and store current data, but use a public cloud for archiving data. The flexibility of this deployment model may make it particularly attractive to many organizations. By combining different deployment models, users can choose the right balance for their organization between legal compliance, security, and scalability.

Cloud computing can provide various kinds of services, ranging from basic computing tasks to the provision of sophisticated applications. While these services can be categorized in different ways, the NIST definition uses three basic service models , described below.

In the SaaS model, customers use applications that the provider supplies and makes available remotely on demand, rather than using applications installed on a local workstation or server. SaaS is the most readily visible and simplest service model to the end user. In many cases, SaaS applications are accessible through hardware or software "thin clients." Examples include web-based services such as Google Apps and online storage such as DropBox.

With PaaS, customers create applications on the provider's infrastructure using tools, such as programming languages, supplied by the provider. Facebook is one example of such an application. Such a platform could include hosting capability and development tools to facilitate building, testing, and launching a web application. The user controls the applications created via the platform, and the provider controls and maintains the underlying infrastructure, including networks, servers, and platform upgrades.

IaaS providers supply fundamental computing resources that customers can use however they wish. Customers can install, use, and control whatever operating systems and applications they desire, as they might otherwise do on desktop computers or local servers. The provider maintains the underlying cloud infrastructure. Examples of IaaS are Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure.

A simple local-computing analogy for these three kinds of services would be the purchase of a desktop computer, which serves as infrastructure on which the user installs a chosen operating system such as Windows or Linux and uses it as a platform to create custom applications and run whatever software is needed. By providing these infrastructure, platform, and software services remotely, a cloud provider frees its customers from having to provide local infrastructure and support. In the case of IaaS, the user need not have a local workstation, using instead a thin client with minimal need for computing power.

Planning for cloud adoption by federal agencies began with the 2010 publication by the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) of "A 25-Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal IT Management." The reforms put forth in the plan were focused on eliminating barriers that were impeding effective management of IT programs throughout the federal government. In the plan, the Federal CIO recognized that too many past federal IT projects had run over budget, fallen behind schedule, or failed to deliver promised functionality. The plan stated that the federal government would shift to a "Cloud First" strategy, which it stated would be more economical, faster, and more flexible.

Increased cloud adoption is also a stated goal of the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), enacted on December 19, 2014. Among other provisions, FITARA required the Federal CIO, in conjunction with federal agencies, to refocus the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) to include adoption of cloud services. The FDCCI was superseded by the Data Center Optimization Initiative (DCOI) in August 2016.

In the 2017 "Report to the President on Federal IT Modernization," the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pledged to update the federal government's legacy Federal Cloud Computing Strategy ("Cloud First"). Fulfilling this requirement, the Administration developed a new strategy, Cloud Smart, published as a draft on September 24, 2018.

The DCOI was updated in June 2019. Among other requirements, the updated DCOI placed a freeze on funds or resources to build new agency-owned data centers or significantly expand existing agency-owned data centers without approval from OMB. It also requires agencies to evaluate options for the consolidation and closure of existing data centers, in alignment with the Cloud Smart Strategy.

On June 24, 2019, the Federal CIO issued the Cloud Smart Strategy to provide agencies with practical implementation guidance to achieve the potential of cloud-based technologies. The new strategy is founded on three pillars:

Security: Modernize security policies to focus on risk-based decisionmaking, automation, and moving protections closer to data. Procurement: Improve the ability of agencies to purchase cloud solutions through repeatable practices and sharing knowledge. Workforce: Upskill, retrain, and recruit key talent for cybersecurity, acquisition, and cloud engineering.

Across these areas, the strategy identifies 22 "action items" to be completed not later than December 2020. As of November 2019, over half had been completed. (See Table 1 and Table 2 . )

In April 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report examining the status of cloud adoption at 16 agencies. GAO found that 10 of the agencies reported increasing their use of cloud services from FY2016 through FY2019. All 16 agencies had made progress in implementing cloud services, meaning they had established assessment guidance, performed assessments, and implemented services, but the extent of their progress varied. For example, not all had followed OMB guidance that directs agencies to review all IT investments for compatibility with cloud services. GAO also found that

16 agencies reported an increase in their cloud service spending since 2015. 13 of the 16 agencies saved a total of $291 million to date from using cloud services. 15 of the 16 agencies identified significant benefits from acquiring cloud services, including improved customer service and the acquisition of more cost-effective options for managing IT services. 15 of the 16 agencies identified nine cloud investments that enhanced the availability of weather-related information; facilitated collaboration and information sharing among federal, state, and local agencies related to homeland security; and provided benefits information to veterans.

In collecting the information requested by GAO, agency CIOs identified the following challenges:

Spending data were not consistently tracked. Different methods were used to calculate cloud spending costs. Interpreting changes in OMB and related guidance created confusion regarding what spending data should be tracked.

As a result of these challenges, GAO concluded that agency-reported cloud spending and savings figures were likely underreported.

GAO made one recommendation to OMB on cloud savings reporting, and 34 recommendations to the 16 agencies on cloud assessments and savings. To OMB, GAO recommended that agencies be required to explicitly report, at least on a quarterly basis, the savings and cost avoidance associated with cloud computing investments. The 34 recommendations to the agencies included directing CIOs to

establish guidance to assess new and existing IT investments for suitability for cloud computing services; complete an assessment of existing IT investments for suitability for migration to a cloud computing service; and establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings and cost avoidances from the migration and deployment of cloud services.

Congress has conducted ongoing oversight of IT acquisitions, including cloud computing activity, for many years. This section summarizes cloud-related legislation and hearings in the 116 th Congress.

The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) Authorization Act ( H.R. 3941 ), introduced on July 24, 2019, by Representative Gerald Connolly, would establish a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to "leverage cloud computing services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014."

On July 17, 2019, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations held a hearing titled "To the Cloud! The Cloudy Role of FedRAMP in IT Modernization." The purpose of this hearing was to examine the extent to which FedRAMP has reduced duplicative efforts, inconsistencies, and cost inefficiencies associated with the cloud security authorization process.

Since November 2015, a year after FITARA became law, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has held two FITARA oversight hearings per year. These hearings provide a "scorecard" on various aspects of FITARA implementation, including data center optimization, which is an indication of the extent of agency adoption of cloud computing. Thus far in the 116 th Congress, these hearings were held on June 26, 2019, and December 11, 2019.

As Congress monitors the progress of federal departments and agencies in implementing cloud computing, its options for ongoing oversight include holding hearings; requesting review of an agency's status by either the agency itself or the GAO; and assessing the agency's progress and projected goals against the stated goals of the Cloud Smart Strategy.

Committees might choose to focus hearings on OMB, which oversees the management of the Cloud Smart Strategy at the agency level. This role makes OMB the central point of information regarding the status of agency planning and implementation. If OMB management practices for cloud computing are lacking, the impact could potentially affect the performance of all agencies. Consistent congressional review of OMB's management practices with respect to the Cloud Smart Strategy could help to detect and correct problems in a timely manner.

Alternatively, or in addition, committees might choose to hold hearings to receive status reports directly from the CIOs of particular agencies under their jurisdictions.

Review of Agency Cloud Computing Plans and Implementation Assessments

As plans to migrate to cloud services within the federal government are created and implemented, policymakers may choose to monitor how agencies are following federal directives and responding to GAO assessments. Such monitoring could be achieved through assessments conducted internally by a department or agency itself, externally by GAO, or directly by a committee of jurisdiction. A model for internal assessments and reporting could be based on progress made on the uncompleted items of the Cloud Smart Strategy.

GAO conducts status reports on cloud adoption across the federal agencies, such as the April 2019 report discussed above, but it has not issued separate reports focused on the status of individual departments or agencies.

When examining shortcomings in individual agencies' implementation of the Cloud Smart Strategy, as identified by GAO, Congress might consider requesting follow-up reviews focused on particular challenges.


Proposals for a COVID-19 Congressional Advisory Commission: A Comparative Analysis

Summary: Throughout U.S. history, Congress has created advisory commissions to assist in the development of public policy. Among other contexts, commissions have been used following crisis situations, including the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the 2008 financial crisis. In such situations, advisory commissions may potentially provide Congress with a high-visibility forum to assemble expertise that might not exist within the legislative environment; allow for the in-depth examination of complex, cross-cutting policy issues; and lend bipartisan credibility to a set of findings and recommendations. Others may determine that the creation of an advisory commission is unnecessary and instead prefer to utilize existing congressional oversight structures, such as standing or select committees.

Summary: This report provides a comparative analysis of five congressional advisory commissions proposed to date that would investigate various aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak, governmental responses, governmental pandemic preparedness, and the virus's impact on the American economy and society. The overall structures of each of the proposed commissions are similar in many respects, both to each other and to previous independent advisory commissions established by Congress. Specifically, the proposed commissions would (1) exist temporarily; (2) serve in an advisory capacity; and (3) report a work product detailing the commission's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. That said, each proposed commission has unique elements, particularly concerning its membership structure, appointment structure, and time line for reporting to Congress.

Summary: Specifically, this report compares and discusses the (1) membership structure, (2) appointment structure, (3) rules of procedure and operation, (4) duties and reporting requirements, (5) commission powers, (6) staffing, and (7) funding of the five proposed commission structures. The five proposals are found in H.R. 6429 (the National Commission on COVID-19 Act), H.R. 6431 (the Made in America Emergency Preparedness Act), H.R. 6440 (the Pandemic Rapid Response Act), H.R. 6455 (the COVID-19 Commission Act), and H.R. 6548 (the National Commission on the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Act).

As Congress considers its range of responses to the coronavirus pandemic, the creation of one or more congressional advisory commissions is an option that could provide a platform for evaluating various pandemic-related policy issues over time. Past congressional advisory commissions have retrospectively evaluated policy responses, brought together diverse groups of experts, and supplemented existing congressional oversight mechanisms. Policymakers may determine that creating an advisory commission is unnecessary and instead prefer to utilize existing congressional oversight structures, such as standing or select committees, or already established oversight entities.

This report provides a comparative analysis of five proposed congressional advisory commissions that would investigate various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The five proposed commissions are found in H.R. 6429 (the National Commission on COVID-19 Act, sponsored by Representative Stephanie Murphy), H.R. 6431 (the Made in America Emergency Preparedness Act, sponsored by Representative Brian Fitzpatrick), H.R. 6440 (the Pandemic Rapid Response Act, sponsored by Representative Rodney Davis), H.R. 6455 (the COVID-19 Commission Act, sponsored by Representative Bennie Thompson), and H.R. 6548 (the National Commission on the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Act, sponsored by Representative Adam Schiff). The overall structures of each of the proposed commissions are similar in many respects, both to each other and to previous independent advisory entities established by Congress. Specifically, the proposed commissions would (1) exist temporarily; (2) serve in an advisory capacity; and (3) report a work product detailing the commission's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. That said, each particular proposed commission has distinctive elements, particularly concerning its membership structure, appointment structure, and time line for reporting its work product to Congress.

This report compares the (1) membership structure, (2) appointment structure, (3) rules of procedure and operation, (4) duties and reporting requirements, (5) powers of the commission, (6) staffing issues, and (7) funding for each of the proposed COVID-19 commissions. Table 1 (at the end of this report) provides a side-by-side comparison of major provisions of the five proposals.

Several matters related to a commission's membership structure might be considered. They include the size of a commission, member qualifications, compensation of commission members, and requirements for partisan balance.

In general, there is significant variation in the size of congressional advisory commissions. Among 155 identified congressional commissions created between the 101 st Congress and the 115 th Congress, the median size was 12 members, with the smallest commission having 5 members and the largest 33 members.

The membership structure of each of the five proposed commissions is similar to previous independent advisory entities created by Congress. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 would each create a 10-member entity. H.R. 6455 would create a 25-member entity.

Past legislation creating congressional commissions has often required or suggested that commission members possess certain substantive qualifications. Such provisions arguably make it more likely that the commission is populated with genuine experts in the policy area, which may improve the commission's final work product.

H.R. 6455 would provide that commissioners "shall be a United States person with significant expertise" in a variety of fields related to public health and public administration. H.R. 6440 , H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , and H.R. 6548 would provide "the sense of Congress" that commission members should be "prominent U.S. citizens" who are nationally recognized experts in a variety of fields relevant to the pandemic and response efforts. In addition, H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 all prohibit the appointment of federal, state, and local government employees and officers. H.R. 6455 would prohibit federal employees from being commission members.

Some congressional commissions have compensated their members. For example, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission provided that commission members could be compensated at a daily rate of basic pay. Nearly all have reimbursed members for travel expenses. Those that have provided for commissioner compensation most frequently provided compensation at the daily equivalent of level IV of the Executive Schedule.

Each of the five proposals would provide that commission members be compensated at a rate "not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay" for level IV of the Executive Schedule, "for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of duties of the Commission." Members of three proposed commissions would receive travel expenses, including a per diem.

Each proposal provides a limit on the number of members appointed from the same political party. H.R. 6455 would provide that not more than 13 of its 25 members may be from the same party. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 would provide that not more than 5 (of 10) members are from the same party. Most previous advisory entities created by Congress do not impose formal partisan restrictions on the membership structure. It may also be difficult to assess the political affiliation of potential members, who may have no formal affiliation (voter registration, for example) with a political party. Instead, most past advisory commissions usually achieve partisan balance through the appointment structure; for instance, by providing equal (or near-equal) numbers of appointments to congressional leaders of each party.

Past congressional commissions have used a wide variety of appointment structures. Considerations regarding appointment structures include partisan balance, filling vacancies, and the time line for making commission appointments.

The statutory scheme may directly designate members of the commission, such as a specific cabinet official or a congressional leader. In other cases, selected congressional leaders, often with balance between the parties, appoint commission members. A third common statutory scheme is to have selected leaders, such as committee chairs and ranking members, recommend candidates for appointment to a commission. These selected leaders may act either in parallel or jointly, and the recommendation may be made either to other congressional leaders, such as the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate, or to the President.

Each of the five commission proposals would delegate most or all appointment authority to congressional leaders (including chamber, party, and committee leaders; see Table 1 for details). Additionally, H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 provide for one appointment to be made by the President. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , and H.R. 6548 would have the President appoint the commission's chair. H.R. 6455 has its membership appointed by the chairs and ranking members of designated House and Senate committees, and the Joint Economic Committee. H.R. 6455 does not provide any executive branch appointments.

Attention to the proper balance between the number of members appointed by congressional leaders and by other individuals (such as the President), or to the number of Members of Congress required to be among the appointees, or to the qualifications of appointees, can be significant factors in enabling a commission to fulfill its congressional mandate.

In general, a commission's appointment scheme can impact both the commission's ability to fulfill its statutory duties and its final work product. For instance, if the scheme provides only for the appointment of Members of Congress to the commission, it arguably might not have the technical expertise or diversity of knowledge to complete its duties within the time given by statute. Similarly, if the appointment scheme includes qualifying provisos so specific that only a small set of private citizens could serve on the panel, the commission's final work product may arguably only represent a narrow range of viewpoints. None of the proposed COVID-19 commissions specify whether Members of Congress may serve on the commission.

Partisan Balance in Appointment Authority

Most previous congressional advisory commissions have been structured to be bipartisan, with an even (or near-even) split of appointments between leaders of the two major parties. By achieving a nonpartisan or bipartisan character, congressional commissions may make their findings and recommendations more politically acceptable to diverse viewpoints. The bipartisan or nonpartisan arrangement can give recommendations strong credibility, both in Congress and among the public, even when dealing with divisive public policy issues. Similarly, commission recommendations that are perceived as partisan may have difficulty gaining support in Congress.

In some cases, however, bipartisanship also can arguably impede a commission's ability to complete its mandate. In situations where a commission is tasked with studying divisive or partisan issues, the appointment of an equal number of majority and minority commissioners may serve to promote partisanship within the commission rather than suppress it, raising the possibility of deadlock where neither side can muster a majority to act.

Each of the five proposals employs a structure where leaders in both the majority and minority parties in Congress would make appointments. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , and H.R. 6548 would provide for five majority and five minority appointments, including one for the President. H.R. 6440 would include two each by the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, and the Speaker of the House, with one appointment by the House minority leader and one by the President, and the chair appointed by the Speaker and vice chair appointed by the Senate majority leader. H.R. 6455 would have 12 majority and 12 minority appointments made by the 12 committee chairs and ranking members and one member jointly appointed by the chair and vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee.

All five proposals provide that vacancies on the commission will not affect its powers and would be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

Three of the bills propose specific deadlines for the appointment of commissioners. H.R. 6429 and H.R. 6548 provide that appointments are made between specific dates in January or February 2021. Further, H.R. 6429 provides that commission members could be appointed in September 2020, if there is no longer a COVID-19 public health emergency in effectâas determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Servicesâas of August 31, 2020. H.R. 6440 would require all appointments be made by December 15, 2020. H.R. 6455 would require appointments to be made within 45 days after enactment. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 would start the commission's work in early 2021, as the commission cannot operate without the appointment of members. H.R. 6429 , however would provide that the proposed commission's work would begin no later than October 31, 2020, if members are appointed in September 2020. H.R. 6431 does not specify a deadline for the appointment of members.

Typically, deadlines for appointment can range from several weeks to several months. For example, the deadline for appointments to the Antitrust Modernization Commission was 60 days after the enactment of its establishing act. The deadline for appointment to the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan was 120 days from the date of enactment. The deadline for appointment to the 9/11 Commission was December 15, 2002, 18 days after enactment of the act.

While most statutes that authorize congressional advisory commissions do not provide detailed procedures for how the commission should conduct its business, the statutory language may provide a general structure, including a mechanism for selecting a chair and procedures for creating rules. None of the five COVID-19 commission proposals contain language that directs the process for potentially adopting rules of procedure. For a comparison of each proposed commission's specified rules of procedures and operations, see Table 1 .

Each bill provides for the selection of a chair and/or vice chair of the commission. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , and H.R. 6548 would have the chair appointed by the President and the vice chair appointed by congressional leaders of the political party opposite the President. H.R. 6440 would have the chair appointed by the Speaker of the House (in consultation with the Senate majority leader and the House minority leader) and the vice chair appointed by the Senate majority leader (in consultation with the Speaker of the House and the Senate minority leader). H.R. 6455 would have the chair and vice chair chosen from among commission members by a majority vote of the commission, and would require the chair and vice chair to have "significant experience" in areas to be studied by the commission.

As with the timing of commission appointments, some authorizing statutes are prescriptive in when the commission's first meeting should take place. Three of the bills analyzed here provide specific time lines for the commission's first meeting. H.R. 6429 would require the first meeting to be no later than March 15, 2021, unless members are appointed in September 2020 (if no public health emergency exists). H.R. 6455 would require the first meeting within 45 days after the appointment of all commission members, which isâgiven the 45-day deadline for appointmentâeffectively a maximum of 90 days after enactment. H.R. 6548 would direct the commission to hold its initial meeting "as soon as practicable," but not later than March 5, 2021. H.R. 6431 and H.R. 6440 do not provide for an initial meeting deadline. Instead, they direct the commission to meet "as soon as practicable."

Most commission statutes provide that a quorum will consist of a particular number of commissioners, usually a majority, but occasionally a supermajority. All five bills would provide for a quorum requirement. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 would define a quorum as 6 (of 10) members. H.R. 6455 would provide that a quorum is 18 of 25 members (72%).

All five commission bills would require commission meetings to be open to the public. Each bill would also require that reports be made publicly available.

Formulating Other Rules of Procedure and Operations

Absent statutory guidance (eithe r in general statutes or in individual statutes authorizing commissions), advisory entities vary widely in how they adopt their rules of procedure. In general, three models exist: formal written rules, informal rules, and the reliance on norms. Any individual advisory entity might make use of all three of these models for different types of decisionmaking.

The choice to adopt written rules or rely on informal norms to guide commission procedure may be based on a variety of factors, such as the entity's size, the frequency of meetings, member preferences regarding formality, the level of collegiality among members, and the amount of procedural guidance provided by the entity's authorizing statute. Regardless of how procedural issues are handled, protocol for decisionmaking regarding the following operational issues may be important for the commission to consider at the outset of its existence: eligibility to vote and proxy rules; staff hiring, compensation, and work assignments; hearings, meetings, and field visits; nonstaff expenditures and contracting; reports to Congress; budgeting; and procedures for future modification of rules. None of the five COVID-19 commission proposals specify that the proposed commission must adopt written rules.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) mandates certain structural and operational requirements, including formal reporting and oversight procedures, for certain federal advisory bodies that advise the executive branch. Three proposals ( H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , and H.R. 6548 ) specifically exempt the proposed commission from FACA. Of the remaining two, FACA would also likely not apply to the commission proposed in H.R. 6455 because it would be appointed entirely by Members of Congress, although it only specifies that its final report is public, not whether it is specifically sent to Congress and/or the President. It is not clear that FACA would apply to the commission proposed in H.R. 6440 . Although it includes a presidential appointment and its report would be sent to both Congress and the President, its establishment clause specifies that the commission "is established in the legislative branch," and a super-majority of its members would be appointed by Congress.

Most congressional commissions are generally considered policy commissionsâtemporary bodies that study particular policy problems and report their findings to Congress or review a specific event.

All five of the proposed commissions would be tasked with duties that are analogous to those of past policy commissions. While the specific mandates differ somewhat, all proposed commissions are tasked with investigating aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic and submitting one or more reports that include the commission's findings, conclusions, and recommendations for legislative action. H.R. 6440 would specifically require the commission to avoid unnecessary duplication of work being conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), congressional committees, and executive branch agency and independent commission investigations.

Each proposed commission would be tasked with issuing a final report detailing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 would provide that the commission "may submit" interim reports to Congress and the President, but do not provide time lines on when those reports might be submitted. In each case, the interim report would need to be agreed to by a majority of commission members. H.R. 6431 would also require the commission to submit a report on actions taken by the states and a report on essential products, materials, ingredients, and equipment required to fight pandemics.

H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 also specify that final reports shall be agreed to by a majority of commission members. H.R. 6455 does not specify a vote threshold for approval of its report.

None of the bills make specific provisions for the inclusion of minority viewpoints. Presumably this would leave each commission with discretion on whether to include or exclude minority viewpoints. Past advisory entities have been proposed or established with a variety of statutory reporting conditions, including the specification of majority or super-majority rules for report adoption and provisions requiring the inclusion of minority viewpoints. In practice, advisory bodies that are not given statutory direction on these matters have tended to work under simple-majority rules for report adoption.

H.R. 6429 would require a final report one year after the commission's initial meeting. H.R. 6431 and H.R. 6440 would require a final report not later than 18 months after enactment. H.R. 6455 would require a final report to be published not later than 18 months after the commission's first meeting.

H.R. 6548 would require a final report by October 15, 2021. This deadline could be extended by 90 days upon a vote of no fewer than 8 (out of 10) commission members. The commission could vote to extend its final report deadline up to three times, and would be required to notify Congress, the President, and the public of any such extension.

While such a deadline would potentially give the commission a defined period of time to complete its work, setting a particular date for report completion could potentially create unintended time constraints. Any delay in the passage of the legislation or in the appointment process would reduce the amount of time the commission has to complete its work, even with the opportunity for the commission to extend its own deadline up to three times.

The length of time a congressional commission has to complete its work is arguably one of the most consequential decisions when designing an advisory entity. If the entity has a short window of time, the quality of its work product may suffer or it may not be able to fulfill its statutory mandate on time.

On the other hand, if the commission is given a long period of time to complete its work, it may undermine one of a commission's primary legislative advantages, the timely production of expert advice on a current matter. A short deadline may also affect the process of standing up a new commission. The selection of commissioners, recruitment of staff, arrangement of office space, and other logistical matters may require expedited action if short deadlines need to be met.

Of the five proposed commissions, four ( H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 ) are directed to submit their reports to both Congress and the President. H.R. 6455 requires that the report is made public.

Most congressional advisory commissions are required to submit their reports to Congress, and sometimes to the President or an executive department or agency head. For example, the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing's final report was submitted to both Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Congressional commissions are usually statutorily mandated to terminate. Termination dates for most commissions are linked to either a fixed period of time after the establishment of the commission, the selection of members, or the date of submission of the commission's final report. Alternatively, some commissions are given fixed calendar termination dates.

All five commission proposals would provide for the commission to terminate within a certain period of time following submission of its final report. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6455 would each direct the commission to terminate 60 days after the submission; H.R. 6548 specifies a time line of 90 days after submission.

Each of the five proposals would provide the proposed commission with certain powers to carry out its mission (see Table 1 for specifics). One general issue for commissions is who is authorized to execute such powers. In some cases, the commission itself executes its powers, with the commission deciding whether to devise rules and procedures for the general use of such power. In other cases, the legislation specifically authorizes the commission to give discretionary power to subcommittees or individual commission members. Finally, the legislation itself might grant certain powers to individual members of the commission, such as the chair.

All five bills would provide the proposed commission with the power to hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence. All five commissions would also be provided the power to administer oaths to witnesses.

Four of the bills would provide the commission with subpoena power. H.R. 6440 would not provide subpoena power to the commission. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , and H.R. 6548 would provide that subpoenas could only be issued by either (1) agreement of the chair and vice chair, or (2) the affirmative vote of 6 (of 10) commission members. H.R. 6455 would require that a subpoena could only be issued by either agreement of the chair and vice chair or an affirmative vote of 18 (of 25) commission members. All four bills that would provide subpoena power contain substantially similar judicial methods of subpoena enforcement.

All five of the bills would provide that the commission receive administrative support from the General Services Administration (GSA). The GSA provides administrative support to dozens of federal entities, including congressional advisory commissions. Each of the five bills would provide that GSA be reimbursed for its services by the commission. Each bill also provides that other departments or agencies may provide funds, facilities, staff, and other services to the commission.

Without explicit language authorizing certain activities, commissions often cannot gather information, enter into contracts, use the U.S. mail like an executive branch entity, or accept donations or gifts.

All five bills direct that federal agencies provide information to the commission upon request. H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , and H.R. 6548 would also provide that the commission could use the U.S. mails in the same manner as any department or agency, enter into contracts, and accept gifts or donations of services or property.

The proposed COVID-19 commissions contain staffing provisions commonly found in congressional advisory commission legislation. Congressional advisory commissions are usually authorized to hire staff. Most statutes specify that the commission may hire a lead staffer, often referred to as a "staff director," "executive director," or another similar title, in addition to additional staff as needed. Rather than mandate a specific staff size, many commissions are instead authorized to appoint a staff director and other personnel as necessary, subject to the limitations of available funds.

Most congressional commissions are also authorized to hire consultants, procure intermittent services, and request that federal agencies detail personnel to aid the work of the commission.

Four of the bills provide that the commission may hire staff without regard to certain laws regarding the competitive service; H.R. 6440 does not specifically exempt the commission from such laws. Four bills ( H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6431 , H.R. 6455 , and H.R. 6548 ) would authorize, but not require, the commission to hire a staff director and additional staff, as appropriate. Four proposals would limit staff salaries to level V of the executive schedule. Three of the bills would specifically designate staff as federal employees for the purposes of certain laws, such as workman's compensation, retirement, and other benefits.

When authorized, some commissions can have federal agency staff detailed to the commission. All five bills would provide that federal employees could be detailed to the commission. Four bills would provide that the detailee would be without reimbursement to his or her home agency. H.R. 6440 would allow detailees on a reimbursable basis.

All five bills would provide the commission with the authority to hire experts and consultants. Four of the bills limit the rate of pay for consultants to level IV of the Executive Schedule. H.R. 6440 does not specify a specific limit.

Four bills would provide that federal agencies and departments shall cooperate with the commission to provide members and staff appropriate security clearances. H.R. 6440 does not contain a security clearance provision.

Commissions generally require funding to help meet their statutory goals. When designing a commission, therefore, policymakers may consider both how the commission will be funded, and how much funding the commission will be authorized to receive. Four of the five proposals specify a funding mechanism for the commission.

How commissions are funded and the amounts that they receive vary considerably. Several factors can contribute to overall commission costs. These factors might include the cost of hiring staff, contracting with outside consultants, and engaging administrative support, among others. Additionally, most commissions reimburse the travel expenditures of commissioners and staff, and some compensate their members. The duration of a commission can also significantly affect its cost; past congressional commissions have been designed to last anywhere from several months to several years.

It is difficult to estimate or predict the potential overall cost of any commission. Annual budgets for congressional advisory entities range from several hundred thousand dollars to millions of dollars annually. Overall expenses for any individual advisory entity depend on a variety of factors, the most important of which are the number of paid staff and the commission's duration and scope. Some commissions have few full-time staff; others employ large numbers, such as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which had a full-time paid staff of nearly 80. Secondary factors that can affect commission costs include the number of commissioners, how often the commission meets or holds hearings, whether or not the commission travels or holds field hearings, and the publications the commission produces.

Three of the bills ( H.R. 6429 , H.R. 6440 , and H.R. 6548 ) would authorize the appropriation of "such sums as may be necessary" for the commission, to be derived in equal amounts from the contingent fund of the Senate and the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives. H.R. 6429 and H.R. 6548 would provide that funds are available until the commission terminates. H.R. 6455 would authorize the appropriation of $4 million for the commission, to remain available until the commission terminates. H.R. 6431 does not include an authorization of appropriations.

Comparison of Proposals to Create a COVID-19 Commission

Table 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of major provisions of the five proposals. For each bill, the membership structure, appointment structure, rules of procedure and operation, duties and reporting requirements, proposed commission powers, staffing provisions, and funding are compared.