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

524US2

Unit: $U93

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

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

479

Breyer, J., dissenting

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act requirement that, when Con-
gress enacts a “budget busting” appropriation bill, automati-
cally reduces authorized spending for a host of federal pro-
grams in a pro rata way; (2) notes that cancellation of an item
(say, a $2 billion item) would, absent the “lockbox” provision,
neutralize (by up to $2 billion) the potential “budget bust-
ing” effects of other bills (and therefore potentially the Pres-
ident could cancel items in order to “save” the other pro-
grams from the mandatory cuts, resulting in no net deﬁcit
reduction); and (3) says that this “neutralization” will not
occur (i. e., the pro rata reductions will take place just as if
the $2 billion item had not been canceled), so that the can-
celed items truly provide additional budget savings over
and above the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings regime. See gen-
erally H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104–491, pp. 23–24 (1996) (“lock-
box” provision included “to ensure that the savings from the
cancellation of [items] are devoted to deﬁcit reduction and
are not available to offset a deﬁcit increase in another law”).
That is why the Government says that the Act provides a
“lockbox,” and why it seems fair to say that, despite the Act’s
use of the word “cancel,” the Act does not delegate to the
President the power truly to cancel a line item expenditure
(returning the legal status quo to one in which the item had
never been enacted). Rather, it delegates to the President
the power to decide how to spend the money to which the
line item refers—either for the speciﬁc purpose mentioned
in the item, or for general deﬁcit reduction via the “lock-
box” feature.

These features of the law do not mean that the delegated
power is, or is just like, a power to appoint property. But
they do mean that it is not, and it is not just like, the repeal
or amendment of a law, or, for that matter, a true line item
veto (despite the Act’s title). Because one cannot say that
the President’s exercise of the power the Act grants is, liter-
ally speaking, a “repeal” or “amendment,” the fact that the
Act’s procedures differ from the Constitution’s exclusive pro-