Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 486.0

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 417 (1998)

441

Opinion of the Court

budgetary effect” insofar as it prevents Congress and the
President from spending the savings that result from the
cancellation. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10.32 The text of the Act
expressly provides, however, that a cancellation prevents a
direct spending or tax beneﬁt provision “from having legal
force or effect.” 2 U. S. C. §§ 691e(4)(B)–(C). That a can-
celed item may have “real, legal budgetary effect” as a result
of the lockbox procedure does not change the fact that by
canceling the items at issue in these cases, the President
made them entirely inoperative as to appellees. Section 968
of the Taxpayer Relief Act no longer provides a tax beneﬁt,
and § 4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 no longer
relieves New York of its contingent liability.33 Such signiﬁ-
cant changes do not lose their character simply because the
canceled provisions may have some continuing ﬁnancial ef-
fect on the Government.34 The cancellation of one section
of a statute may be the functional equivalent of a partial
repeal even if a portion of the section is not canceled.

direct spending or limited tax beneﬁts are devoted to deﬁcit reduction and
are not available to offset a deﬁcit increase in another law.” H. R. Conf.
Rep. No. 104–491, at 23. Thus, the “pay-as-you-go” cap does not change
upon cancellation because the canceled item is not treated as canceled.
Moreover, if Congress enacts a disapproval bill, “OMB will not score this
legislation as increasing the deﬁcit under pay as you go.”

Ibid.

32 The Snake River appellees have argued that the lockbox provisions
have no such effect with respect to the canceled tax beneﬁts at issue.
Because we reject the Government’s suggestion that the lockbox pro-
visions alter our constitutional analysis, however, we ﬁnd it unnecessary
to resolve the dispute over the details of the lockbox procedure’s
applicability.

33 Thus, although “Congress’s use of infelicitous terminology cannot
transform the cancellation into an unconstitutional amendment or repeal
of an enacted law,” Brief for Appellants 40–41 (citations omitted), the
actual effect of a cancellation is entirely consistent with the language of
the Act.

34 Moreover, Congress always retains the option of statutorily amending
or repealing the lockbox provisions and/or the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Act, so as to eliminate any lingering ﬁnancial effect of canceled items.