In the 111 th Congress, Members have introduced several proposals to establish a commission that would make potentially far-reaching recommendations on how to address the federal government's long-term fiscal situation. The proposed commissions might as a group be called "fiscal commissions." Generally speaking, the measures would include Members of Congress as some or most of a commission's membership, provide for a majority of commission members to be appointed by congressional leaders, have varying degrees of partisan balance in membership, and require supermajority votes of commission members to approve recommendations. Each of the bills also would provide special legislative procedures to encourage expedited consideration of a commission's recommendations. This report provides an overview of four of these proposals— S. 2853 , S. 1056 , H.R. 1557 , and S. 276 (listed in order of most recent introduction)—and discusses potential, related issues for Congress. Potential issues for Congress include, among others, whether the use of a commission, coupled with expedited consideration of the commission's proposals, may be appropriate for addressing the federal government's long-term fiscal situation; and, if a commission proposal were considered, how a commission proposal might be structured. The report begins with recent history related to the legislative proposals and brief summaries of the four bills. Next, the report discusses legislative precursors that may help inform assessments of the proposals. Experience with these precursors, which include past commissions and proposals for commissions, appears to have informed how some of the current fiscal commission proposals were designed. Analyses of potential issues for Congress follow thereafter, including discussion of some advantages and disadvantages of using a commission, potential implications of expedited legislative procedures, and matters related to the structure of proposed commissions. Finally, Appendix A provides a more detailed side-by-side comparison of provisions of each bill. Appendix B discusses the long-term fiscal situation and three major entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—that are widely perceived as important for understanding the federal government's long-term fiscal situation. At the end of the report, a table provides a list of CRS subject matter experts who are available to answer questions related to many aspects of these legislative proposals. Observers have expressed concerns for decades about the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government. Amid debates over the direction of federal revenue and spending policies, they focused on the overall balance between revenues and spending as well as on long-term trends for entitlement program spending. Congress routinely faces questions of when and how to address such concerns. In recent years, these concerns have been widespread and considerable. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), "[u]nder current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path—meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run." Shared perception of a problem does not necessarily generate consensus on what should be done to address the problem. Reaching agreement on changes to specific policies is difficult. In addition, policy makers often disagree about the process, sequence, and timing that should be used to make such decisions (e.g., using the regular legislative process or a commission). Matters of process, sequence, and timing are not necessarily neutral. A change of procedures in handling legislative proposals, or in changing the extent of discretion available to the President or agencies, may result in changes to power relationships and the ability to influence which policy choices are implemented. When deciding when or how to address multi-dimensional policy challenges such as the federal government's overall fiscal situation or the restructuring of multiple policies, programs, and agencies, Congress often considers a variety of procedural strategies. Most often, Congress has used the regular legislative process to address difficult problems like reducing the annual budget deficit or making complex organizational changes after a national emergency. The framers of the Constitution, however, established a relatively cautious system for enacting legislation. Perhaps as a consequence of the U.S. system of government, observers sometimes express frustration with perceptions of Congress and the President not addressing policy problems in a timely or sufficient way. Less often, Congress has used alternative approaches. One of these alternatives has been to establish what might be called a "blue-ribbon" commission that reviews multiple agencies, operations, or policies. Such commissions may be used to help identify potential solutions for the federal government as a whole or for individual policy areas (e.g., military installations). At the same time, issues of representation may arise, raising questions of whether commission members will fairly represent all of the interests that should be considered. Much more rarely, Congress has provided for expedited legislative consideration of a commission's recommendations. In recent Congresses, several legislative proposals have been introduced to establish a special commission whose recommendations could have the effect of addressing some, or all, aspects of the federal government's fiscal balance. The proposals have differed in significant ways. All of them, however, provided for a commission that would review multiple agencies and programs and, in some cases, revenue policies. Such a commission then would make recommendations for changes in government operations, policies, and structure. Some of the proposals would have required a commission's recommendations to be considered by Congress under expedited, or "fast-track," procedures, such as prohibitions of amendments. In the 111 th Congress, similar legislation has been discussed and introduced. This category of legislation includes a more specific group of measures that were referred to as "bipartisan process" proposals at a November 2009 Senate Budget Committee hearing. These measures also have been called "fiscal commission" and "deficit commission" proposals. Generally speaking, these proposals focus on addressing the federal government's long-term fiscal situation. The proposals call for some or most of a commission's membership to be Members of Congress, provide for a majority of commission members to be appointed by congressional leaders, have varying degrees of partisan balance in membership, and require supermajority votes of commission members to approve recommendations. Each bill also provides special legislative procedures to encourage expedited consideration of legislation (i.e., a commission's approved recommendations). The special procedures, among other things, would restrict the amendment process, limit floor consideration or debate, and, in some cases, require a supermajority for final chamber passage. The Senate Budget Committee hearing cited specific legislation in this category of commission-related proposals, including, from the 111 th Congress, S. 1056 / H.R. 1557 , the Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act (SAFE Commission Act), which would establish the Securing America's Future Economy Commission (SAFE Commission); from the 111 th Congress, S. 276 , the Social Security and Medicare Solvency Commission Act (SSMSC Act), which would establish a National Commission on Entitlement Solvency (NCES); and from the 110 th Congress, S. 2063 / H.R. 3655 , the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2007 (BTFRFA Act of 2007), which would have established a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action (BTFRFA), and which also became known as the "Conrad-Gregg proposal" after its original Senate sponsors. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad indicated at the November 2009 hearing that he and Ranking Member Judd Gregg soon would release a revised proposal. This measure, S. 2853 , the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009 (BTFRFA Act of 2009), was introduced on December 9, 2009. Member statements and press reports suggest that some Members are seeking a legislative vehicle by which such commission legislation could be enacted. After the new Conrad-Gregg proposal was announced, CongressDaily reported that Senator Conrad "and other Democrats are negotiating with Senate Democratic leaders to attach the bill to the legislation needed to increase the debt limit." A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that the "White House was likely to make its own proposal for a panel, which could have less power than the proposed Conrad-Gregg commission." The following section includes brief summaries of the four fiscal commission bills that are the subject of this report. For more detail, see a side-by-side comparison of the legislation in Appendix A . The Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action (BTFRFA) Act of 2009 would establish a temporary commission with 18 members. Of the 18 members, two would be appointed by the President (one of whom would be the Secretary of the Treasury), and 16 would be appointed by the House and Senate leadership from among Members of Congress. If S. 2853 were enacted, the sitting President were a Democrat, and both chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats, 10 commission members would be appointed by Democrats (two by the President, four by the Speaker of the House, and four by the Senate majority leader) and eight would be appointed by Republicans (four each by the minority leader of the House and Senate). Sixteen of the commission members would be Members of Congress. The bill would direct the commission to review the "fiscal imbalance" of the federal government, identify factors that affect the long-term fiscal imbalance, analyze potential courses of action, and provide recommendations and legislative language to Congress. The commission report would be voted on between November 3, 2010, and November 9, 2010; would need to be approved by 14 of the 18 commissioners; and could include minority opinions and additional views. S. 2853 would authorize a transfer of $9 million from amounts appropriated or made available and remaining unobligated under Division A of the economic stimulus package that was enacted earlier in 2009. The bill would provide for a staff director, the hiring of additional staff, member travel reimbursements, and contract authority. The bill also would require the public announcement of meeting dates, times, and places; authorize the commission to hold hearings; and prohibit proxy voting. The bill would provide for expedited consideration of the proposed legislation submitted by the commission, including a prohibition on amendments.