Full opinion text
PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of certain features of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Pub.L. No. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1037, popularly known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, signed into law by President Reagan on December 12, 1985. The principal issues presented are whether the plaintiffs, Members of Congress and the National Treasury Employees Union, have standing to litigate the points they raise; whether the Act unconstitutionally delegates legislative powers that may be exercised only by Congress; and, if not, whether it confers upon the Comptroller General executive powers that may not constitutionally be given to an officer removable by Congress. We find that plaintiffs in both cases have standing, and that the powers in question may lawfully be delegated, but that the delegation to the Comptroller General violates the constitutionally requisite separation of powers. I In the Act, Congress has set a “maximum deficit amount” for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1991, its size progressively reducing to zero in fiscal year 1991. Section 251 provides that each year the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) shall estimate the amount of the deficit for the upcoming fiscal year, and, if it exceeds the maximum deficit amount for that fiscal year by more than a specified amount, shall calculate, program by program pursuant to rules specified in the Act, the budget reductions necessary to ensure that the deficit does not exceed the maximum deficit amount for that year. The Directors must jointly report their deficit estimates and budget reduction calculations to the Comptroller General. After reviewing the Directors’ report, the Comptroller General must issue his own report, containing his deficit estimates and budget reduction calculations, to the President and Congress. Section 252 of the Act requires the President to issue a “sequestration” order containing the budget reductions specified by the Comptroller General. After a prescribed time, the sequestration order becomes effective and the spending reductions included in that order are automatically made. The automatic deficit reduction process for fiscal year 1986 has progressed to the point of issuance, on February 1, 1986, of the presidential sequestration order, which will take effect on March 1, 1986. See Order, Emergency Deficit Control Measures for Fiscal Year 1986 (Feb. 1, 1986). The Act also provides what might be called a “fallback” deficit reduction process, to take effect if any of the reporting procedures of the above-described “automatic” deficit reduction process are found unconstitutional. Under the fallback process, the report prepared by the Directors of the OMB and the CBO is submitted, instead of to the Comptroller General, to a special joint committee of Congress, which must in five days report to both Houses a joint resolution setting forth the contents of the Directors’ report. The joint resolution is then considered under special rules, and, if passed and signed by the President, serves as the basis for the presidential sequestration order under section 252. Civil Action No. 85-3945, seeking declaratory relief against the United States, was commenced on December 12, 1985 by Mike Synar, a Member of the House of Representatives who voted against the Act. An amended complaint, filed on December 19, 1985, added as plaintiffs eleven other Representatives who voted against the Act. Jurisdiction is averred to exist pursuant to subsection 274(a)(1) of the Act, which authorizes any Member of Congress to bring an action in this court “for declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that any [presidential] order that might be issued pursuant to section 252 violates the Constitution.” The complaint alleges that the automatic deficit reduction process, under which the President is required by section 252 to issue a sequestration order implementing the report issued by the Comptroller General pursuant to section 251, is unconstitutional in two respects. Plaintiffs’ first contention, briefly and essentially, is that the delegation of power by Congress to the President and other government officials is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Their second contention is that the powers assigned to the Comptroller General and the Director of the CBO, both deemed legislative branch officials by plaintiffs, constitutionally must be assigned to executive branch officials. The Representatives allege that these unconstitutional provisions injure them by (1) interfering with their constitutional duties to enact laws regarding federal spending; (2) causing automatic reductions in their salaries, staff salaries, and office expenses; and (3) causing automatic reductions in a variety of programs benefiting their constituents. They seek a judgment declaring that the automatic deficit reduction process is unconstitutional and that the President is without power, therefore, to order spending reductions pursuant to that process. In response to the Synar complaint, the United States filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the congressional plaintiffs lack standing to bring the action. The United States Senate and the Comptroller General moved for leave to intervene as defendants and also filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the Act is constitutional. The unopposed motions to intervene were granted on December 31, 1985. Civil Action No. 85-4106, challenging the constitutionality of the automatic deficit reduction process on legal theories identical to those presented in the Synar action, was filed on December 31, 1985 by the National Treasury Employees Union (“NTEU”). NTEU, an unincorporated association representing the interests of both active and retired federal employees, alleges that its retired members have been injured as a result of the Act’s automatic spending reduction provisions, which have operated to suspend cost-of-living adjustments (“COLAs”) otherwise due federal retirees on January 1, 1986, and which will operate to cancel those COLAs and other COLAs due in the future. NTEU invokes the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.G. § 1331 and to subsection 274(a)(2) of the Act, which provides, in pertinent part, that “any other person adversely affected by an action taken under this title, may bring an action [in this court] for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief concerning the constitutionality of this title.” By Order dated January 2, 1986, the NTEU suit was consolidated with the earlier action. Subsequent to consolidation, the congressional plaintiffs and NTEU filed their respective motions for summary judgment on January 6, 1986. The congressional plaintiffs also filed an opposition to the motion of the United States to dismiss their complaint for lack of standing. Thereafter, on January 8, 1986, the Speaker and Bipartisan Leadership Group of the United States House of Representatives, granted leave to intervene as a defendant in the consolidated cases, filed a memorandum of law in support of the constitutionality of the Act. The United States filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, again contending that the complaint of the congressional plaintiffs must be dismissed for lack of standing but conceding that NTEU appears to have standing. On the merits, the position of the United States is that the Act does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority but that the role of the Comptroller General in the automatic deficit reduction process violates the principle of separation of powers. The motions of plaintiffs for summary judgment, as well as the cross-motion of the United States for summary judgment on the merits, are opposed by the Senate, the Comptroller General, and the Speaker and Bipartisan Leadership Group of the United States House of Representatives. Argument on these dispositive motions was heard on January 10, 1986, and the cases taken under advisement. By Order dated January 23,1986, the Senate and the Comptroller General were granted leave to intervene in the NTEU action. II In view of the established rule that “consolidation ... does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another,” Johnson v. Manhattan Railway, 289 U.S. 479, 496-97, 53 S.Ct. 721, 727-28, 77 L.Ed. 1331 (1933); see also McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574 (5th Cir.1982), we find it necessary to make separate standing determinations with respect to the plaintiffs in each case under consideration. Moreover, even though the standing of NTEU has not been directly challenged, we must satisfy ourselves that NTEU has standing before we can proceed to consider its claims. Article III circumscribes the power of federal courts, and “[tjhose who do not possess Art. Ill standing may not litigate as suitors in the courts of the United States.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 475-76, 102 S.Ct. 752, 760, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). Before turning to a particularized analysis of whether NTEU and the congressional plaintiffs have made the necessary showing for standing in their respective cases, a brief general discussion of the applicable principles is appropriate. While the plaintiffs invoke this court’s jurisdiction under the judicial review provisions contained in section 274 of the Act, they concede, as they must, that Congress may not abrogate the constitutional limitations imposed by Article III upon the power of the federal courts. See Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed.2d 246 (1911). Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases or controversies,” and “whether the plaintiff has made out a ‘case or controversy’ between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. Ill . . . is the threshold question in every federal case.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). Principles of standing ensure that one who invokes the power of a federal court satisfies this “case or controversy” requirement. Although the Supreme Court has noted that “the concept of ‘Art. Ill standing’ has not been defined with complete consistency in all of the various cases decided by this Court which have discussed it,” Valley Forge Christian College, 454 U.S. at 475, 102 S.Ct. at 760, the Court has repeatedly recognized that the concept entails certain basic requirements. The first and most fundamental of these is that a party must allege a “distinct and palpable injury to himself.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. This injury must be a “particular concrete injury,” United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 177, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 2946, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974), which must amount to “a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 14, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2326, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972). A plaintiff need not await the consummation of a threatened injury in order to have standing; it is sufficient that the injury is imminent. Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979). The further requirements of Article III standing are set forth in the Supreme Court’s recent formulation that “at an irreducible minimum, Art. Ill requires the party who invokes the court’s authority to [show] ... that the injury ‘fairly can be traced to the challenged action’ and ‘is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.’ ” Valley Forge Christian College, 454 U.S. at 472, 102 S.Ct. at 758 (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 38, 41, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 1925, 48 ,L.Ed.2d 450 (1976)); see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). Thus, at a minimum, Article III requires NTEU and the congressional plaintiffs to show (1) actual or threatened injury, (2) traceable to the defendant, and (3) amenable to judicial remedy. In analyzing whether they have done so, we must accept as true all material allegations of the complaints and construe them in favor of the complaining parties. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206. We therefore assume, for the limited purpose of the following standing analysis, that the automatic deficit reduction process challenged by plaintiffs is unconstitutional. A NTEU contends that it has standing to bring this action because subsection 252(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, as part of the automatic deficit reduction process, has operated to suspend payment of annual COLA benefits otherwise due those of its members who are federal retirees. NTEU also complains that, effective March 1, 1986, the presidential sequestration order issued on February 1, 1986 will permanently cancel retirees’ COLA benefits for this fiscal year. It claims that these actual and threatened injuries have been and will be caused by the automatic deficit reduction process and would be redressed if that process were declared unconstitutional. It is well established that an association such as NTEU has .standing to sue solely as the representative of its members, provided that they individually would have standing. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. at 511, 95 S.Ct. at 2211. There is no question that NTEU’s federal retiree members have suffered actual injury by the suspension of their COLA benefits pursuant to the Act, and that they will suffer further injury by the permanent cancellation of those benefits on March 1, 1986, under the terms of the President’s February 1 sequestration order. See Order, Emergency Deficit Control Measures for Fiscal Year 1986 1, 4 (Feb. 1, 1986). We conclude that NTEU has made a sufficient showing of injury to satisfy Article Ill’s threshold requirement of injury-in-fact. We must also consider the question of redressability, i.e., whether it is likely that the relief requested will redress the injury complained of, before a finding of standing can be made. As to at least the second of the injuries of which NTEU complains — the imminent permanent cancellation of its members’ COLA benefits by the operation of the presidential sequestration order — it is unquestionable that a judicial remedy exists. If we declare the automatic deficit reduction process invalid, no cancellation of the COLA benefits will occur as a result of that process. Rather, the fallback deficit reduction process established by subsection 274(f) will come into play, and any cancellation of COLAs under that process will require the passage of legislation. The mere possibility that subsequent legislation might produce the same harm for which a judicial remedy is sought is not sufficient to eliminate redressability and hence standing. Cf. Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 272, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 1108, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979). Because the threatened injury of permanent cancellation of the COLA benefits pursuant to an unconstitutional process may be redressed, we conclude that NTEU has standing to bring its action. B Of the three types of injury that the congressional plaintiffs rely upon for standing, briefly outlined above, we need consider only their claim that the automatic deficit reduction process interferes with their constitutional duties to enact laws regarding federal spending and infringes upon their lawmaking powers under the Constitution, in that spending reductions made pursuant to the challenged process will, in effect, override earlier, duly enacted appropriations laws in a manner other than that prescribed by Article I, section 7. In response, the United States contends that this injury is nothing more than a generalized grievance shared by all other citizens and thus insufficient to support standing. Under the law of this Circuit, which recognizes a personal interest by Members of Congress in the exercise of their governmental powers, limited by an equitable discretion in the courts to withhold specific relief, we conclude that standing exists. Although it is somewhat difficult to reconcile the various cases on congressional standing in this Circuit, and in particular to tell which denials of relief in earlier cases, seemingly for lack of standing, are now to be explained, in light of later cases, as resting upon an exercise of equitable discretion, the cases clearly recognize that specific injury to a legislator in his official capacity may constitute cognizable harm sufficient to confer standing upon him. See, e.g., Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 779, 83 L.Ed.2d 775 (1985); Vander Jagt v. O’Neill, 699 F.2d 1166 (D.C.Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823, 104 S.Ct. 91, 78 L.Ed.2d 98 (1983); Riegle v. Federal Open Market Committee, 656 F.2d 873 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082, 102 S.Ct. 636, 70 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981). More specifically, our Court of Appeals has held that “unconstitutional deprivations of a legislator’s constitutional duties or rights ... may give rise to standing if the injuries are specific and discernible.” Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d at 952 (citing Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C.Cir.1974); Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d 190 (D.C.Cir.1977); and American Federation of Government Employees v. Pierce, 697 F.2d 303 (D.C. Cir.1982) (per curiam)). Put another way, a Member of Congress may have standing where he alleges a “ ‘specific and cognizable’ [injury] arising out of an interest ‘positively identified by the Constitution.’ ” United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375, 1381 (D.C.Cir.1984) (quoting Moore v. United States House of Representatives, 733 F.2d at 951). Applying these standards to the instant case, we conclude that plaintiffs have alleged specific and cognizable injury sufficient to establish standing in their official capacities. The congressional plaintiffs claim that they are and will continue to be injured by the operation of the automatic deficit reduction process because it interferes with their “constitutional duties to enact laws regarding federal spending” and infringes upon their lawmaking powers under Article I, section 7. Accepting as true plaintiffs’ allegations, as we must for purposes of determining their standing, the Act unconstitutionally gives to the Comptroller General and the President formal power to amend or repeal appropriations legislation that was lawfully passed, and thus effectively to nullify plaintiffs’ votes on that earlier legislation. This claim of injury is “specific” and “discernible”; and it arises out of an interest “identified by the Constitution,” that is, a congressional interest in having all laws made in the manner prescribed under the general lawmaking provision contained in Article I, section 7. This interest differs significantly from the more abstract and generalized interest unsuccessfully asserted by lawmakers in United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d at 1375, and Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d at 190, viz., the interest in preventing unlawful executive enforcement of a statute from “diminishing the effectiveness” of, or “nullifying,” past votes on that statute. Permitting lawmakers to assert the latter interest would be tantamount to giving them standing to challenge the lawfulness of all executive action taken under a statute; entertaining the present suit would not. Finally, we find no occasion to consider exercising the equitable discretion held by this Circuit’s cases to justify denial of specific or declaratory relief to Members of Congress. Section 274 of the Act specifically provides for such relief to such plaintiffs, thus eliminating whatever equitable discretion might exist and leaving only the limitations of Article III. Ill Plaintiffs contend that the Act’s delegation to administrative officials of the power to make the economic calculations that determine the estimated federal deficit and hence the required budget cuts violates the constitutional provision vesting “all legislative power” in the Congress. See Art. I, § 1. It is strictly unnecessary for us to reach this point, since we hold in Part IV of this opinion that the challenged provisions of the Act are unconstitutional on other grounds. We think it appropriate, however, in light of the injunction of subsection 274(c) of the Act that we “expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition” of these cases, and in light of the direct appeal to the Supreme Court provided by subsection 274(b), that we depart from normal prudential practice and provide our views obiter dicta. We thereby avoid the necessity that the Supreme Court, if in its judgment the point must be reached, must either proceed without the usual benefit of a lower-court opinion or else delay final disposition by remanding for that purpose. A The delegation doctrine is rooted in the principle of separation of powers that underlies the three-branch system of government established by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court stated in Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692, 12 S.Ct. 495, 504, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1892): “That Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the President is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” In the first century and a half of the nation’s history, however, the Court uniformly held that challenged statutes did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power. See, e.g., Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage, 289 U.S. 266, 53 S.Ct. 627, 77 L.Ed. 1166 (1933); J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed.2d 624 (1928); United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 S.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563 (1911). As Chief Justice Taft explained in a passage that has become the classic exposition of the governing test, the separation-of-powers principle does not prevent the legislative branch from seeking the “assistance” of coordinate branches; “the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental coordination”; and so long as Congress “lay[s] down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.” J. W. Hampton, 276 U.S. at 406, 409, 48 S.Ct. at 351, 352. In 1935, however, the Court used the delegation doctrine to strike down portions of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. See A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 1570 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241, 79 L.Ed. 446 (1935). In these cases, the Court concluded that Congress had failed to articulate a policy or set of standards which would serve to confine the discretion of the individuals exercising the delegated authority. See Schechter, 295 U.S. at 541-42, 55 S.Ct. at 848; Panama Refining, 293 U.S. at 430, 55 S.Ct. at 252. These two cases are the only cases in which the Court has declared a statute unconstitutional by reason of undue delegation. In the fifty years since Schechter was decided, the Court has consistently rejected delegation challenges. Nominally, it has continued to apply the same test (as Schechter and Panama Refining themselves nominally applied the same test as JW. Hampton), scrutinizing the challenged statutes for intelligible standards and statements of purpose which could provide guidance to the officials to whom authority was delegated. See, e.g., Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 424-25, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944); Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 165-66, 61 S.Ct. 908, 918, 85 L.Ed. 1251 (1941); Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126, 144, 61 S.Ct. 524, 532, 85 L.Ed. 624 (1941); United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U.S. 533, 574, 59 S.Ct. 993, 1013, 83 L.Ed. 1446 (1939). Pragmatically, however, the Court's decisions display a much greater deference to Congress’ power to delegate, motivated in part by concerns that, “[i]n an increasingly complex society Congress obviously could not perform its functions if it were obliged to find all the facts subsidiary to the basic conclusions which support the defined legislative policy.” Opp Cotton Mills, 312 U.S. at 145, 61 S.Ct. at 532. In Yakus, 321 U.S. at 425-26, 64 S.Ct. at 667-68, the Court noted: It is no objection that the determination of facts and the inferences to be drawn from them in the light of the statutory standards and declaration of policy call for the exercise of judgment, and for the formulation of subsidiary administrative policy within the prescribed statutory framework____ ... Only if we could say that there is an absence of standards for the guidance of the Administrator’s action, so’ that it would be impossible in a proper proceeding to ascertain whether the will of Congress has been obeyed, would we be justified in overriding its choice of means for effecting its declared purpose____ The Supreme Court has endeavored to narrow the application of Schechter and Panama Refining by noting that those cases involved “delegation of a power to make federal crimes of acts that never had been such before and to devise novel rules of law in a field in which there had been no settled law or custom,” Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245, 249, 67 S.Ct. 1552, 1554, 91 L.Ed. 2030 (1947), and that Schechter concerned a statute which delegated regulatory power to private individuals, see Yakus, 321 U.S. at 424, 64 S.Ct. at 667. These attempts at narrowing the cases, and the Supreme Court’s failure to use the delegation doctrine to strike down a statute in fifty years, have led some to conclude that the delegation doctrine is dead, or at least “moribund.” See National Cable Television Association v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 353, 94 S.Ct.. 1146, 1156, 39 L.Ed.2d 370 (1974) (Marshall, J., dissenting). The Court has continued to use the doctrine, however, in an interpretive mode, finding that statutory texts conferring powers on the Executive should be construed narrowly where broader construction might represent an unconstitutional delegation. See, e.g., Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 646, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 2866, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980) (opinion of Stevens, J.); National Cable Television Association, 415 U.S. at 342, 94 S.Ct. at 1149; Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17-18, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 1281, 14 L.Ed.2d 179 (1965); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1119, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958). Such cases indicate that while the delegation doctrine may be moribund, it has not yet been officially interred by the Court. Our analysis of the delegation challenged in the instant cases thus proceeds on the assumption that the delegation doctrine remains valid law, but that its scope must be determined on the basis of the deferential post-Schechter cases decided by the Supreme Court. We note, moreover, that the mode of analysis applied by the Supreme Court in this field relies substantially upon factual comparison of the delegation under challenge with delegations previously adjudicated. See, e.g., Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138, 144-46, 68 S.Ct. 421, 424-25, 92 L.Ed. 596 (1948); American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90, 104-05, 67 S.Ct. 133, 141-42, 91 L.Ed. 103 (1946); Opp Cotton Mills, 312 U.S. at 146, 61 S.Ct. at 533; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 398, 60 S.Ct. 907, 914, 84 L.Ed. 1263 (1940). With that teaching firmly in mind, we' turn to the arguments raised by plaintiffs. B Plaintiffs advance a number of arguments that attempt to establish what might be termed per se nondelegability of the powers at issue here — as opposed to arguments, which we will discuss in the following section, going to deficiency in the standards governing the delegation. Plaintiffs begin by arguing that the type of authority delegated by the Act is “so central to the legislative function” that it may not be delegated. They cite the dictum of Chief Justice Marshall in support of the notion that there exist certain nondelegable “core functions” of Congress: The line has not been exactly drawn which separates those important subjects, which must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself, from those of less interest, in which a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details. Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 43, 6 L.Ed. 253 (1825). The legislative power over appropriations conferred by Article I, section 8, clause 1 and Article I, section 9, clause 7 is said to constitute such a nondelegable “core function,” particularly where the delegated authority could affect the functioning of a broad range of federal programs and, plaintiffs allege, would allow “unelected bureaucrats” to “override” portions of duly enacted appropriations laws. We reject this “core functions” argument for several reasons. First, plaintiffs cite no case in which the Supreme Court has held any legislative power, much less that over appropriations, to be nondelegable due to its “core function” status. Indeed, in Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 778-79, 68 S.Ct. 1294, 1313, 92 L.Ed. 1694 (1948), the Court stated flatly that “[a] constitutional power implies a power of delegation of authority under it sufficient to effect its purposes.” Second, judicial adoption of a “core functions” analysis would be effectively standardless. No constitutional provision distinguishes between “core” and “non-core” legislative functions, so that the line would necessarily have to be drawn on the basis of the court’s own perceptions of the relative importance of various legislative functions. Finally, if there were any nondelegable “core functions,” there is no reason to believe that appropriations functions would be among them. The appropriations power is not functionally distinguishable from other powers successfully delegated by Congress, and is particularly akin to the taxing power, which is similarly derived from Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution. In upholding a statute which delegated the latter power by permitting the President to determine whether to increase duties on certain articles in foreign commerce, the Supreme Court said: It is conceded by counsel that Congress may pse executive officers in the application and enforcement of a policy declared in law by Congress, and authorize such officers in the application of the Congressional declaration to enforce it by regulation equivalent to law. But it is said that this never has been permitted to be done where Congress has exercised the power to levy taxes and fix customs duties. The authorities make no such distinction. The same principle that permits Congress to exercise its rate making power in interstate commerce, by declaring the rule which shall prevail in the legislative fixing of rates, and enables it to remit to a ratemaking body created in accordance with its provisions the fixing of such rates, justifies a similar provision for the fixing of customs duties on imported merchandise. J. W. Hampton, 276 U.S. at 409, 48 S.Ct. at 352; see also Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. at 680-94, 12 S.Ct. at 500-05. The second contention that may viewed as going to per se nondelegability of the authority conferred by the Act (though it is related to the issue of inadequate standards) concerns the breadth of the power allocated to administrative officials, which plaintiffs assert is constitutionally excessive. There is no doubt that the Act delegates broad authority, but delegation of similarly broad authority has been upheld in past cases. In Yakus, for example, the Court upheld a statute which delegated to an unelected Price Administrator the power “to promulgate regulations fixing prices of commodities.” 321 U.S. at 420, 64 S.Ct. at 665. In Bowles v. Willing-ham, 321 U.S. 503, 512, 514-15, 64 S.Ct. 641, 646, 647, 88 L.Ed. 892 (1944), it upheld the delegation of power to institute rent controls on real property anywhere in the nation under specified circumstances. Finally, in Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Connolly, 337 F.Supp. 737, 745, 763 (D.D. C.1971), a three-judge district court upheld a delegation of authority to the President “to issue such orders and regulations as he deems appropriate to stabilize prices, rents, wages and salaries.” The authority conferred by the present Act, which permits administrators to affect spending levels for a specified range of federal programs, and only to a certain degree, seems to us no broader than these delegations that have been upheld. We think, in any event, that the ultimate judgment regarding the constitutionality of a delegation must be made not on the basis of the scope of the power alone, but on the basis of its scope plus the specificity of the standards governing its exercise. When the scope increases to immense proportions (as in Schechter) the standards must' be correspondingly more precise. As we shall see, the standards governing the power here are much more specific than in the cases just described. Nor is it the law, as plaintiffs assert, that a broad delegation such as this must be supported by some rigorous “principle of necessity” which is allegedly not met here because Congress has exercised sole power over appropriations in the past ' and presumably could continue to do so. ..To be sure, in delegation cases the Supreme Court has occasionally recognized the “necessity” for a delegation. See, e.g., Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 496, 24 S.Ct. 349, 355, 48 L.Ed.2d 525 (1904). It is doubtful, however, that the word “necessity” in that context, any more than the •word “necessary” in the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution, refers to an “absolute physical necessity.” See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 413-15, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). Rather, necessity refers to a strong utility and convenience, which can certainly be considered to exist here. In any case, while “necessity” has been noted by the Court in upholding a delegation, “lack of necessity” has never been invoked to strike one down. The same response may be made to plaintiffs’ argument based upon what they consider the long (six-year) duration of the present broad delegation: while extremely limited duration has been invoked as one of the elements sustaining a delegation, lengthy duration has never been held to render one void. The delegations upheld in J.W. Hampton, 276 U.S. at 394, 48 S.Ct. at 348, and Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. at 649, 12 S.Ct. at 495, for example, were for indefinite terms. Finally, plaintiffs argue that the present delegation is per se invalid because it allows administrators to “nullify” or “override” laws. Again we disagree. The Supreme Court previously has upheld delegations which permit officials to determine when, if ever, a law should take effect. See, e.g., Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U.S. at 577-78, 59 S.Ct. at 1014-15; Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 15-16, 59 S.Ct. 379, 386-87, 83 L.Ed. 441 (1939); Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. at 693, 12 S.Ct. at 504; The Cargo of the Brig Aurora v. United States, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 382, 388, 3 L.Ed. 378 (1812). In such cases, the Court classifies Congress’ action as legislating in contingency. The instant Act is no more than a form of such contingent legislation. Throughout the Act, Congress has stipulated that the full effectiveness of all appropriations legislation enacted for fiscal years 1986 to 1991 will be contingent upon the administrative determination whether all appropriated funds, when measured against revenues, result in a budget deficit in excess of required target figures. Viewed in this context, the authority delegated by the Act does not differ in kind from that approved in prior eases. C We come, then, to what is the plaintiffs’ principal argument on the excessive delegation point: that because of the lack of standards and the inherent imprecision of the duties conferred upon the administrators, the Act fails adequately to confine the exercise of administrative discretion. The search for adequate standards to restrict administrative discretion lies at the heart of every delegation challenge. The essential inquiry is whether the specified guidance “sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that it may be known whether he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative will.” Yakus, 321 U.S. at 425, 64 S.Ct. at 668. Our consideration of this objection requires a careful review of the statute. The Act begins by establishing a “maximum deficit amount” for each fiscal year between 1986 and 1991. Act § 201(a)(1). It then requires the Directors of the OMB and the CBO to estimate the anticipated “budget base levels of total revenues and budget outlays” for a given fiscal year, to determine whether the projected deficit for that year will exceed the maximum deficit amount for that year by more than a specified amount, and to estimate the rate of real economic growth that will occur during that fiscal year, as a whole and by quarters, and the rate of real economic growth that occurred during each of the last two quarters of .the preceding fiscal year. Id. § 251(a)(1). The Directors are then jointly to report their conclusions to the Comptroller General. Id. § 251(a)(2). The Comptroller General is instructed to “review and consider the report” and, “with due regard for the data, assumptions, and methodologies used in reaching the conclusions set forth therein,” issue his own report making the same type of estimates and determinations contained in the Directors’ report. Act § 251(b)(l)-(2). The Comptroller General’s report is to “be based on the estimates, determinations, and specifications of the Directors and shall utilize the budget base, criteria, and guidelines set forth” ‘in specified sections of the Act. Id. § 251(b)(1). The report must “fully explain” any differences between its determinations and those included in the report of the Directors. Id. § 251(b)(2). In considering whether this scheme contains constitutionally adequate legislated standards, we first observe that it does set forth specific assumptions that are to be used in calculating the budget base. See Act § 251(a)(6). The administrative officials are directed to assume, with some specified exceptions, “the continuation of current law in the case of revenues and spending authority,” id. § 251(a)(6)(A), (C) and, in all areas to which the preceding assumption is inapplicable, “appropriations equal to the prior year’s appropriations except to the extent that annual appropriations or continuing appropriations for the entire fiscal year have been enacted.” Id. § 251(a)(6)(B). They must assume that “expiring provisions of law providing revenues and spending authority ... do expire, except that excise taxes dedicated to a trust fund and agricultural price support programs administered through the Commodity Credit Corporation are extended at current rates.” Id. § 251(a)(6)(C). Additionally, they must assume that “Federal pay adjustments for statutory pay systems” will be as recommended by the President and will not result in pay reductions and that Medicare spending levels for inpatient hospital services will be based upon specified regulations. Id. § 251(a)(6)(D). Finally, certain spending deferrals proposed by the President are not to be included in the calculation. Id. All of these directions relate to the required calculation of “budget base levels of total revenues and total budget outlays” for a fiscal year. The Act provides further guidance and limitation by way of definition. The “real economic growth" to be calculated is defined as “the growth in the gross national product during such fiscal year, adjusted for inflation, consistent with Department of Commerce definitions.” Act § 257(6). “Budget outlays” and “budget authority” are defined by reference to provisions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. “Deficit” is defined as “the amount by which total budget outlays for such fiscal year exceed total revenues for such fiscal year.” Id. §§ 257(4), 201(a)(1). Moreover, the latter definition provides certain criteria for calculation of the deficit. See id. § 201(a)(1). These required assumptions and definitions are given additional meaning by reference to years of administrative and congressional experience in making similar economic projections and calculations under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The present Act’s references to the 1974 Act and to Department of Commerce regulations manifest Congress’ intent that past practice should inform the administrators’ calculations. The standards set by this Act thus “derive much meaningful content from the purpose of the Act, its factual background and the statutory context in which they appear.” American Power & Light Co., 329 U.S. at 104, 67 S.Ct. at 142; see also Lichter, 334 U.S. at 785, 68 S.Ct. at 1316 (“Standards prescribed by Congress are to be read in the light of the conditions to which they are to be applied.”); Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 337 F.Supp. at 748 (standards set by statute are defined in part by consideration of experience under previous wage and price stabilization statutes). Additionally, we note that the economic calculation standards, which might seem vague and confusing to laymen, will have more precise meaning to officials accustomed to making such determinations. Here, as in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co., 310 U.S. at 398, 60 S.Ct. at 915, “in the hands of experts the criteria which Congress has supplied are wholly adequate for carrying out the general policy and purpose of the Act.” We are of the clear view that the totality of the Act’s standards, definitions, context, and reference to past administrative practice provides an adequate “intelligible principle” to guide and confine administrative decisionmaking. It is unquestionably true, as plaintiffs point out, that in making the assessments of current facts and the predictions of future facts that the statute requires, a good deal of judgment is involved, and different individuals faithfully seeking to follow Congress’ instructions may reach different results. Nevertheless, the discretion involved in assessing current facts and predicting future ones is inseparable from administration of the law, and it is one of the reasons we consider it important to elect our Chief Executive. If the facts and predictions here are difficult to ascertain, they are no more so than many others committed to the charge of administrative officials, such as the complex economic calculations required of the agencies that determine the discount rate, the consumer price index, and the gross national product. What is significant about this case, and what distinguishes it from many other cases in which delegation has been upheld, is that the only discretion conferred is in the ascertainment of facts and the prediction of facts. The Comptroller General is not made responsible for a single policy judgment as to, for example, what is a “fair price,” see Yakus, 321 U.S. at 414, 64 S.Ct. at 660, or when it would be “appropriate” to freeze wages and prices, see Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 337 F.Supp. at 737, or wherein lies the “public interest,” see National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 63 S.Ct. 997, 87 L.Ed. 1344 (1943). Compared with the cases upholding administrative resolution of such issues, the present delegation is remote from legislative abdication. Congress “is not confined to that method of executing its policy which involves the least possible delegation of discretion to administrative officials.” Yakus, 321 U.S. at 425-26, 64 S.Ct. at 667-68. D Finally, we consider plaintiffs’ argument that the delegation is unlawful because of the preclusion of judicial review. Section 274(h) of the Act provides that “[t]he economic data, assumptions, and methodologies used by the Comptroller General in computing the base levels of total revenues and total budget outlays ... shall not be subject to review in any judicial or administrative proceeding.” This is of course not a total preclusion of judicial review with respect to all action taken under the Act. It does not restrict the bringing of constitutional challenges; indeed, in subsection 274(a), the Act endeavors to facilitate this type of judicial review by broadly designating those who may bring such suits. In addition, subsection 274(g) preserves the rights guaranteed by other laws; thus, there is nothing to prevent a court from determining whether the operation of the Act improperly infringes upon such rights. Moreover, by its terms, subsection 274(h) would not prevent a court from determining whether the Comptroller General failed to make one of the assumptions required by subsection 251(a)(6). Additionally, since the judicial review preclusion extends only to determination of “base levels of total revenues and total budget outlays,” a court presumably could determine whether the Comptroller General had complied with the deficit calculation criteria contained in subsection 201(a)(1). Nor are courts precluded from considering whether any allocation of spending reductions is made pursuant to statutory standards. Finally, the Act expressly provides for review of the presidential sequestration orders to determine their compliance with statutory requirements. See Act § 274(d). The Act does insulate, however, those exercises of judgment by the Comptroller General that the plaintiffs challenge and that we have approved above. Plaintiffs argue that a condition of the validity of, if not all delegations, at least a delegation as broad as that here at issue, is the availability of judicial review of its exercise. We do not agree. To be sure, the Supreme Court has sometimes alluded to the availability of judicial review in its catalogue of factors such as “necessity” and “limited duration,” discussed above, validating the delegation. In Opp Cotton Mills, for example, it said that where ... the standards set up for the guidance of the administrative agency, the procedure which it is directed to follow and the record of its action which is required by statute to be kept or which is in fact preserved, are such that Congress, the courts and the public can ascertain whether the agency has conformed to the standards which Congress has prescribed, there is no failure of performance of the legislative function. 312 U.S. at 144, 61 S.Ct. at 532 (emphasis added). And more recently, in INS v. Chadha, it noted in dictum that the exercise of delegated authority “is always subject to check by the terms of the legislation that authorized it; and if that authority is exceeded it is open to judicial review as well as the power of Congress to modify or revoke the authority entirely.” 462 U.S. at 953-54 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. at 2785 n. 16. These allusions cannot be thought to establish the principle that judicial review is essential to sustain a delegation, since the exercise of many validly delegated authorities is statutorily insulated from judicial review. See, e.g., Southern Railway v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., 442 U.S. 444, 454-64, 99 S.Ct. 2388, 2394-99, 60 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1979) (construing provision of Interstate Commerce Act); Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 404-05 (D.C.Cir.1984) (construing provision of Regulatory Flexibility Act). Even the more limited principle that judicial review can “save” a delegation that would otherwise be invalid is questionable, since if the requisite minimum standards have in fact not been established by Congress, permitting them to be invented by the courts rather than by the administrator is no less a delegation of political power, and arguably a worse one, since it is to a nonpolitical branch, and a branch even less subject to congressional controls. In any event, since we do not regard the present delegation as close to the line of invalidity, and since judicial review of almost all of the administrative determinations remains available, we find that insulating from judicial review the “economic data, assumptions, and methodologies used ... in computing the base levels of total revenues and total budget outlays” provides no basis for finding the delegation invalid. ¡JC >}S !*C * # In sum, our review of the aggregate effect of the factors identified by the plaintiffs leads us to conclude that the delegation made by the Act passes constitutional muster. Apart from the technicalities of the matter, the realities produce the same conclusion. It seems to us not true, as plaintiffs have asserted, that Congress has declined to make the “hard political choices.” To the contrary, it has decided to impose the severe constriction of federal spending necessary to produce a balanced budget by fiscal year 1991, it has established an intricate administrative mechanism to address that goal, and it has specified in meticulous detail which program budgets will be reduced in order to achieve that result, and by how much. See generally Act §§ 251(a)(3), 255, 256. All that has been left to administrative discretion is the estimation of the aggregate amount of reductions that will be necessary, in light of predicted revenues and expenditures, and we believe that the Act contains standards adequately confining administrative discretion in making that estimation. While this is assuredly an estimation that requires some judgment, and on which various individuals may disagree, we hardly think it is a distinctively political judgment, much less a political judgment of such scope that it must be made by Congress itself. Through specification of maximum deficit amounts, establishment of a detailed administrative mechanism, and determination of the standards governing administrative decisionmaking, Congress has made the policy decisions which constitute the essence of the legislative function. It “has defined the circumstances when its announced policy is to be declared opera-five and the method by which it is to be effectuated. Those steps constitute the performance of the legislative function in the constitutional sense.” Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. at 514, 64 S.Ct. at 647. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ delegation challenge is rejected. IV We turn to the next major objection to the Act’s automatic deficit reduction process, pressed in particular by the United States: that the role of the Comptroller General in that process is invalid because he does not possess the constitutional qualifications to perform it. The objection takes various forms, but the only one we find it necessary to address is the contention that the Act confers upon the Comptroller General powers which are executive in nature, and which therefore cannot be conferred upon an officer who lacks the degree of independence from Congress that their exercise constitutionally requires. Specifically, the government objects to the fact that the Comptroller General, while appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is removable not only by impeachment (as are all officers of the United States) but also by joint resolution of Congress for specified causes, including inefficiency and neglect of duty. A Three threshold objections are raised to our consideration of this issue as a basis for invalidating the automatic deficit reduction process. First, intervenors argue that, until removal is attempted, the issue of the effect of the Comptroller General’s removability upon his powers is not ripe for adjudication. This argument is flatly contradicted by the decision in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). There the Supreme Court adjudicated (and in fact found meritorious) the claim that bankruptcy judges who were appointed to fixed fourteen-year terms, subject to removal for cause by the judicial council of the circuit in which they served, and whose salaries were not immune from possible diminution, could not constitutionally exercise certain of the powers granted them by the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 — notwithstanding the fact that no removal or salary diminution had been attempted. 458 U.S. at 60-61, 87, 102 S.Ct. at 2865-66, 2880 (plurality opinion). Intervenors seek to distinguish Northern Pipeline on the asserted ground that the Court focused its attention on what they describe as the constitutionally defective tenure provision that had already been exercised (viz., under their analysis, the provision appointing bankruptcy judges to a fixed term), rather than the ones that had not yet been exercised (viz., the provisions permitting removal during the fixed term and reduction of salary). As a factual matter, the assertion is not true. The Northern Pipeline Court focused no more of its attention on the fixed-term provision than on the removal-for-cause provision or the absence of statutory protection against diminution in salary; it simply noted all three problems, drawing no distinction among them on “ripeness” or any other grounds. Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S. at 60-61,102 S.Ct. at 2865-66. Moreover, the very notion that the constitutional vice in Northern Pipeline had been “exercised,” while in the present case the asserted constitutional vice has not been, strikes us as little more than semantic legerdemain. In the same sense in which the bankruptcy judges had already been appointed to positions with a fixed term, the Comptroller General has already been appointed to a position subject to congressional removal; and in the same sense that the congressional removal provision has not yet been applied in this ease, neither had the provision requiring judges to step down after fourteen years in Northern Pipeline. It is true, of course, that the expiration of fourteen years was certain to occur while in the present case congressional removal is not. But that is quite irrelevant to whether the two provisions differ in their immediate impact, so that one is more “ripe” for review than the other. The immediate impact in Northern Pipeline came not from the certainty of expiration of fourteen years, but from the bankruptcy judge’s awareness of the possibility of non-reappointment. It is his presumed desire to avoid that possibility by pleásing the appointing power, just as in the present case it is the Comptroller General’s presumed desire to avoid removal by pleasing Congress, which creates the here-and-now subservience to another branch that raises separation-of-powers problems. The second threshold argument, made by the Senate, is that, since the manner of removal that the Comptroller General’s tenure statute embodies is functionally the same as new legislation, there is no more reason for us to consider whether the existence of that tenure statute invalidates the present Act than there would be to consider, in the absence of such a statute, whether the possibility of Congress’ passing a law removing the Comptroller General would invalidate the Act. We disagree. Insofar as justiciability and ripeness are concerned, the mere possibility that Congress might seek to remove an officer is no more comparable to its formal assertion (by legislation) of the power to do so, than is the mere possibility of an agency’s punishing certain conduct comparable to its formal assertion (by rule) of the power to do so. Cf Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). It is the prior assertion of authority to remove embodied in the tenure statute that has the immediate effect, and presumably the immediate purpose, of causing the Comptroller General to look to the legislative branch rather than the President for guidance. And it is this, in turn, that constitutes the asserted evil of which the plaintiffs complain. The logic of the Comptroller General’s argument leads to the conclusion that a tenure statute providing for removal of a judge exercising Article III powers by joint resolution could similarly not be challenged, a prospect we are not prepared to entertain. Intervenors’ last threshold argument is that, even if the powers granted to the Comptroller General under the Act cannot be conferred upon an officer removable by Congress, that conclusion does not necessarily invalidate the Act, but rather requires us to choose which of the two incompatible provisions (the powers in the Act or the removal authority) should be set aside. That decision, they assert, should turn primarily upon our estimation of which of the two provisions Congress would have wished to survive — which they maintain is the Act. Intervenors do not refer us to, nor are we aware of, any case in which a court confronted with separate statutes, constitutionally incompatible in combination, has even considered choosing which of the two to invalidate, much less resolved that choice as intervenors suggest. To the contrary, as the eases specifically involving incompatible authorization and tenure (or appointment) statutes amply demonstrate, the courts set aside that statute which either allegedly prohibits or allegedly authorizes the injury-in-fact that confers standing upon the plaintiff. See Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 48 S.Ct. 480, 72 L.Ed. 845 (1928) (removing from office, in quo warranto proceeding brought by Philippine Governor-General, officials exercising executive power but appointed by officers of Philippine legislature); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926) (setting aside tenure-of-office statute that was the basis of postmaster’s claim of unlawful presidential removal). Indeed, the Supreme Court has taken that approach even when the incompatible authorization and removal (or appointment) provisions are contained within the same enactment. See Northern Pipeline, 458 U.S. at 50, 102 S.Ct. at 2860 (setting aside exercise of adjudicatory authority over plaintiff by bankruptcy judge who lacked Article III life tenure); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam) (setting aside Federal Election Campaign Act provisions granting authority over plaintiffs to officials appointed in a manner incompatible with the exercise of such authority). Even if we were to agree, however, that when confronted with two separate provisions that cannot both be constitutionally sustained, we are free to choose between them, and are to make our choice on the basis of presumed congressional intent, we would conclude that in the present case it is the grant of powers under the Act that would have to fall. As the brief of Intervenor Speaker and Bipartisan Leadership Group of the House meticulously details, the grant of authority to the Comptroller General was a carefully considered protection against what the House conceived to be the pro-executive bias of the OMB. It is doubtful that the automatic deficit reduction process would have passed without such protection, and doubtful that the protection would have been considered present if the Comptroller General were not removable by Congress itself — much less if he were removable (as validation of his functions under this legislation might constitutionally require, a point we do not reach) at the discretion of the President, like the Director of the OMB himself. A congressional intent that it is the Comptroller General’s powers under this Act, rather than his manner of removal, that should yield if both cannot coexist is also stron