Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 3, 2007
Securing America's Future Economy Budget Process Reform Act, or SAFE Budget Process Reform Act - Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA) to require adoption of a joint resolution by the House and Senate to extend discretionary spending caps in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act).
Amends the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act to extend Pay-As-You-Go requirements, and certain deficit control rules.
Makes it out of order in the Senate to consider direct spending or revenue legislation that would cause a deficit or increase the deficit for any one of three applicable time periods.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Amends CBA to require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to prepare an estimate for legislation reported from committee (except measures within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations) or placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar, including related amendments or conference reports, on whether the measure would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion in any of the five 10-year periods beginning with the budget year.
Federal Insurance Budgeting Act of 2005 - Requires that, starting FY2012, the President's budget submission to Congress be based upon the risk-assumed cost of federal insurance programs for accrual budgeting purposes. Amends cost requirements of federal insurance programs.
Requires agencies responsible for federal insurance programs to develop models to estimate their risk-assumed cost by year.
Amends CBA to revise the federal and congressional budget processes by establishing a two-year budgeting and appropriations cycle and timetable. Defines the budget biennium as the two consecutive fiscal years beginning on October 1 of any odd-numbered year.
Establishes the Commission on Federal Budget Concepts.
Repeals Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act requirements for emergency adjustments to spending legislation.
Amends CBA to prescribe requirements for such adjustments, including a reserve fund for emergencies.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1279 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1279 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1279 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1279 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.