A bipartisan traffic jam is forming to demand a painstaking investigation into the missteps and policy holes that led to a massive coronavirus outbreak in the U.S.

Lawmakers are circulating at least four proposals in the House intended to establish a coronavirus commission that delves deeply into the government decision-making that failed to prevent the mass illness and death now wracking the country — and to help guide preparations for any future pandemic.

It's a case study in crisis legislating. Though all four proposals are overwhelmingly similar — modeled after the 9/11 Commission that reviewed the failure to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — the backers are making competing cases for why their specific bills should advance. And the reactions they're generating have more to do with the identity of the sponsors than the substance of the measures, though Republican resistance could be an obstacle for any of the plans.

For example, a proposal by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — who President Donald Trump has fashioned as an archrival — drew instant derision from Republicans, who labeled it an effort meant to harm Trump and launch "another bogus impeachment." Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), who helped lead Trump's impeachment defense, said it is too soon for Schiff to begin discussing a long-term lookback at what went wrong.

Yet Schiff's proposal is nearly identical to a measure offered by Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) and John Katko (R-N.Y.), who have hailed it as a model of even-keeled bipartisanship.

"There's no room for politics during a pandemic," Murphy said in a phone interview. "I think having a bipartisan proposal is one of the key ways you can assure people you're not trying to make a political tool but rather that you're trying to get to real results and improved capabilities for the American people."

But the competing proposals arrive at a time of extreme distrust between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Though Congress passed three massive coronavirus relief bills with overwhelming bipartisan support last month, any hope of a moment of national unity has been dashed amid the rising tension of a presidential campaign and a freewheeling response to the crisis by President Donald Trump, who has lashed out at his rivals from a White House podium on a daily basis.

Any commission would also be in addition to the proposed House select committee responsible for real-time oversight of the emergency relief packages, as well as the various panels established by the $2 trillion CARES Act tasked with monitoring the funds.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Trump's meandering handling of the virus has cost lives, and her proposal for a select committee to oversee the administration's actions, helmed by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) met immediate resistance from Republicans who called it a thinly veiled effort to undermine Trump.

"It’s an open question as to whether we have our members participate in something like that. I’m not sure I would," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "It’s so transparently political. This is just a committee to harass the president when he’s in the middle of dealing with a national crisis."

Clyburn, however, said Sunday that he didn't intend his panel to dwell on the past so much as ensure the response is handled properly going forward.

"We're not going to be looking back on what the president may or may not have done back before this crisis hit. The crisis is with us," he said on CNN's "State of the Union." "The American people are now out of work, millions of them out of work. The question is whether or not the money that's appropriated will go to support them and their families, or whether or not this money will end up in the pockets of a few profiteers."

But the rapidly multiplying proposals for a forensic review of where the nation went wrong suggest the appetite for that kind of retrospective investigation is rising.

Under Schiff and Murphy's proposals, a 10-member commission would be evenly divided among Republicans and Democrats and the president would pick the chair. In each plan, the commission — armed with subpoena power – would likely begin its work after the 2020 election, an effort to insulate the panel from campaign season sniping and provide distance from the immediate coronavirus crisis as well.

A third proposal from Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), which also has bipartisan sponsors, is nearly identical as well. Under his plan, the chair of the 10-member commission would be selected jointly by the House speaker and Senate majority leader.

The three plans closely track the structure of the 9/11 commission, which was a 10-member panel, evenly divided among the political parties. Schiff and Murphy's proposal also borrow the 9/11 panel's powers: to issue subpoenas and refer any defiance for prosecution. They also require federal agencies to expedite security clearances to commission members and staff. Davis' proposal does not include these features.

The most distinct proposal comes from House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the panel's other Democratic members. Their proposal features a 25-member commission selected entirely by the leaders of House and Senate committees. The panel would be required to begin an 18-month investigation within 45 days of the plan's passage.

Pelosi has voiced support for the concept of an "after-action" review but emphasized last week that she's more focused on the immediate crisis and would consider the structure of a commission later.

"It has to be bipartisan," she said at a Thursday news conference. "And, again, anything that affects this many people in our country, their health and affects our economy in such a major way, involves the allocation of so many trillions of dollars, we really do have to subject to an after‑action review, not to point fingers but to make sure that it doesn't happen again in the manner in which it happened, hopefully not at all."

Schiff and Thompson told POLITICO they've spoken to Pelosi about their plans but declined to characterize her response. They also indicated they've had conversations with each other about convening all of the commission sponsors to "harmonize" their plans and agree on a path forward.

Schiff said despite his reputation as a bogeyman to Republicans, he's confident he can lead a bipartisan push. He noted that even during Trump's impeachment trial, while Schiff was leading the prosecution on the Senate floor, he helped drive a bipartisan House effort to recognize the Armenian genocide.

"I can't worry about what the Republicans who view this from a partisan point of view are going to do," Schiff said, contending that most of his GOP colleagues would "support good policy, notwithstanding the fact that Fox demonizes me."

"I'm certainly doing whatever I can do to make the structure of this something that can be embraced by both parties,” he added.

Schiff said he's been conferring with Tim Roemer, a former architect of the 9/11 Commission, to structure his proposal. Murphy, on the other hand, cites her experience as a national security official, who joined the Pentagon after the Sept. 11 attacks and focused on strategic planning. Murphy, a leader of the House's moderate Blue Dog Democrats, has warned her caucus against appearing too partisan in their responses to coronavirus.

"Both parties can share some responsibility for having played a little bit of politics on this issue," she said.

Thompson said the goal of a commission would be distinct from the multiple layers of oversight that Congress has approved to monitor the ongoing coronavirus response, including the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up the economy amid the pandemic.

The recently passed $2 trillion CARES Act included a congressional commission to oversee the Trump administration's handling of the funds, a special inspector general to review the funding decisions and a committee of federal watchdogs to oversee the entire implementation of the law.

"I think it's not too soon to start thinking about how can we guarantee the American people that if something like this would happen again, there is a doable plan in place that can be executed," Thompson said. "I don't think there's any question about [whether] this helter-skelter response to this pandemic is orderly, transparent or effective."

"I just think the interest of the American public would be better served," Thompson continued, "if we can look back on this pandemic and make America stronger."

Sarah Ferris contributed reporting to this story.

Senators are responding to President Donald Trump’s firing of the intelligence community’s top watchdog with a muddled message, with some calling for hearings and others saying lawmakers have far more important issues to tackle.

The scattershot response suggests Congress is unlikely to urgently address Trump’s decision to sack Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general — and it underscores how difficult it will be for the Senate and House to conduct oversight of the surprising firing, especially in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.

But the matter is an urgent priority to some, including Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who said the Senate should hold a hearing.

King, who sits on the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, said officials such as Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell and Atkinson himself — whom Trump fired late Friday night — should be put under oath.

“It should be an open hearing to have members of the administration come forward and provide an explanation,” King, who caucuses with the Democrats, said in a phone interview, calling Trump’s decision to fire Atkinson “terrible on a lot of levels.”

Trump has defended the firing, telling reporters on Saturday during a White House coronavirus task force briefing that the longtime public official was a “total disgrace” for the way he handled a whistleblower complaint that led to the president’s impeachment.

But King cautioned that even a public hearing might not yield many answers because “this was a decision made principally by the president, probably without consulting much of anyone else.”

“We don’t need to know why he did it — he said it. The president yesterday said it!” King quipped.

A spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the panel’s plans. The Senate is scheduled to return to regular session on April 20, but several senators have cast doubt on that timeline given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has yet to comment on Atkinson’s removal.

Meanwhile, Atkinson released a lengthy statement Sunday night about his firing, asserting that Trump removed him simply for doing his job.

“It is hard not to think that the president’s loss of confidence in me derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General,” Atkinson wrote.

Democrats have condemned the firing as an abuse of power and a brazen act of politically motivated retribution by a president emboldened after the Senate acquitted him in his impeachment trial. Republicans have been tepid in their criticism of the action, but some, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said the firing “demands an explanation,” while others largely deferred to the president’s unorthodox leadership style.

“Obviously those people serve at the pleasure of the president and as is usually the case, it’s not something that we have any control over,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the GOP whip. “The president made it pretty clear why he did. But he has the prerogative. We don’t always have to agree with his actions. As we’ve learned in the past he’s going to do what he’s to do.”

Thune said it was too early to assess whether the firing was unwarranted: “I want to talk to the people who are close to it and get some context on it. I don’t understand it at this point. But that’s a question for another day when I can figure out what went into it.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who presided over a pro forma session of the Senate on Monday morning, also said more information was needed.

“I think we should get more detail. I agree with that,” she said. “It’s such an odd time it’s hard to say how we’re going to get that info — I mean, you know what kind of priority that information is going to have — but I think that’ll all come out.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a top Trump ally, said he was more consumed with reforming the foreign surveillance courts than Atkinson’s firing. But he also made clear it didn’t trouble him, either: “I don’t necessarily have any issues with it.”

“My view is that this is the president’s decision, it’s a decision that’s his to make. It doesn’t give me enormous heartburn,” Hawley said in an interview on Monday. “It’s not the main issue.”

President Trump informed Congress late Friday that he intends to fire Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson after a mandatory 30-day period but also said he was placing Atkinson on immediate administrative leave. "Inspectors general are traditionally removed for 'cause' — usually involving misconduct," The Washington Post notes. "In Atkinson's case, there was no apparent misconduct. Rather, Trump said in a letter to Congress on Friday night that it was 'no longer the case' that Atkinson had his 'fullest confidence.'"In a press conference Saturday, Trump strongly suggested he was sacking Atkinson for informing Congress about the Ukraine whistleblower complaint that, once largely confirmed, led to Trump's impeachment. "I thought he did a terrible job, absolutely terrible," Trump told reporters. "He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report and he brought it to Congress." Atkinson released an unusual statement Sunday night defending his handling of the Ukraine matter and saying "it is hard not to think that the president's loss of confidence in me derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial inspector general."Democrats and some Senate Republicans criticized the late-night sacking, and Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general and chairman of a council of federal inspectors general, said Atkinson was known by his peers for "integrity, professionalism, and commitment to the rule of law and independent oversight," including "his actions in handling the Ukraine whistleblower complaint, which the then-acting director of national intelligence stated in congressional testimony was done 'by the book' and consistent with the law."Trump also announced Friday night he intends to nominate a White House lawyer, Brian Miller, as special inspector general for a $500 billion coronavirus relief fund and replace Glenn Fine, the well-regarded acting inspector general of the Defense Department, with Jason Abend, a senior policy adviser at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Horowitz had tapped Fine as inspector general of the entire $2.2 trillion coronavirus rescue package.More stories from theweek.com 5 funny cartoons about social distancing Health experts say official U.S. coronavirus death toll is understated 5 brutally funny cartoons about Trump's TV ratings boast

The ousted inspector general of the intelligence community says he is “disappointed and saddened” that President Donald Trump fired him, but he also encouraged other inspectors general to continue to speak out when they are aware of wrongdoing. Trump notified Congress late Friday evening that he intended to fire Michael Atkinson, a pivotal figure in his impeachment last year, because he had lost confidence in him. On Saturday, Trump made it clear that the move had been retaliatory, telling reporters that Atkinson was a “disgrace” and had done “a terrible job” because he had provided an anonymous whistleblower complaint to Congress — a move that was required by law.