Participation in Congressional Hearings During an

Appropriations Lapse

Under the Antideficiency Act, an officer or employee of the Department of Justice may participate 

in a congressional hearing during a lapse in appropriations for the Department if he or she is 

a Senate-confirmed officer, if appropriated funds are available for his or her participation, if he 

or she is subpoenaed, or if there exists other express or necessarily implied authorization to participate in the hearing.

November 16, 1995 

M e m o r a n d u m O pin io n fo r t h e At t o r n e y G e n e r a l

The Department of Justice has been informed that various congressional

committees intend to hold hearings at which Department of Justice officials have

been requested to testify, during the period in which the Department lacks appropriations to pay for the services of those officials. You have asked under what

circumstances Department officials may participate in these hearings.

The Antideficiency Act (“ Act” ) provides that “ [a]n officer or employee of

the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may

not . . . involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment

of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law.” 31 U.S.C.

§ 1341(a)(1)(B). In addition, the Act establishes that “ [a]n officer or employee

of the United States Government . . . may not accept voluntary services . . .

or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 31

U.S.C. §1342. These provisions are enforceable by criminal sanctions and their

requirements must be observed. All federal officers and employees must comply

with the law, whether they serve in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch.

Where the Act applies, it restricts the functions that federal officers and employees

may perform during an appropriations lapse to only those functions that are

encompassed by one of the exceptions to the Act’s general prohibitions. The question thus becomes under what conditions, if any, does participation in congressional hearings constitute an excepted function for employees subject to the Act’s

restrictions.

Before addressing those exceptions, we note that the Act is not implicated at

all by the activities of federal employees for whom no obligation in advance of

an appropriation is incurred by employing a particular individual, even when

appropriations are currently lacking for that individual. A prominent example is

provided by those officers who are appointed by the President with the advice

and consent of the Senate. These officers are entitled to their salaries by virtue

of the office that they hold and without regard to whether they perform any services during the period of appropriations lapse. See United States v. Grant, 237

301
Opinions o f the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 19

F.2d 511 (7th Cir. 1956). Therefore, no federal officer or employee incurs an

obligation in advance of appropriations when these officers perform services;

instead, this obligation arises by virtue of their status and cannot be obviated by

placing them on furlough status.1

Where the Act does not apply, as in cases like these, officers and employees

may participate in congressional hearings, although the participation of Senateconfirmed officers is subject to the significant limitation that support persons to

whom the Act does apply may not assist those officers unless these activities

are independently justified under the Act’s exceptions. You have indicated that

you do not intend to make available Senate-confirmed officials of the Department

to participate in congressional hearings unless they have adequate and thorough

support to ensure full preparation. This effectively means that the exceptions of

the Act define the limits of the Department’s ability to comply with requests for

testimony. We turn, therefore, to address the scope of those exceptions.

There are two major exceptions to the Act. First, there is an exception for functions that relate to “ ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.’ ” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. The Act states that this phrase “ does not

include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would

not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

Id. In the highly unusual event that suspension of the Department’s participation

in a congressional hearing would imminently threaten the safety of human life

or the protection of property, the Department may legally participate in the

hearing.

The Act also states that governmental functions that are otherwise authorized

to be undertaken despite a lack of appropriations may continue during an appropriations lapse. See 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B); id. §1342. In the context of the

Department’s participation in congressional hearings, there are two types of

authority that satisfy this “otherwise authorized” exception: express authorization

and necessarily implied authorization. See Authority for the Continuance of

1 Similarly, the Act would not forbid a furloughed officer or employee from participating in a congressional hearing 

if that officer or employee participated in his or her individual capacity. So, for instance, an officer or employee 

who is nominated for a position that is subject to Senate confirmation may, while on furlough status, participate 

in his or her own confirmation hearing.

Another analogous situation may arise when a non-Senate confirmed officer or employee reports for work because 

his or her duties fall within an exception to the Act, but there are intervals during the day when the officer or 

employee is not engaged in an excepted function. If these intervals are anticipated to be brief, such that the officer 

or employee could not be dismissed from work and then recalled in time to perform the next excepted function 

activity, then the employee may remain at w ork throughout the intervals. During these intervals, officers and 

employees may perform non-excepted functions, because the need for the officer or employee's availability would 

justify the Department in keeping the officer o r employee in the close vicinity of his or her duty station to await 

the onset o f the excepted function. Consequently, the Department would be obligated to compensate such employees 

while they are awaiting the excepted function work whether they spend this interval performing the non-excepted 

function or simply sit idle. During these intervals, then, such officers and employees are akin to Senate-confirmed 

presidential appointees in that they must be paid for these intervals regardless of whether they perform a non-excepted 

function, and thus the government incurs no additional obligation by virtue o f that work being performed. The nonexcepted functions that such officers or employees may perform during these bnef intervals between excepted functions include services relating to participation in congressional hearings where participation is not otherwise authorized.

302
Participation in Congressional Hearings During an Appropriations Lapse

Government Functions During a Temporary Lapse in Appropriations, 5 Op.

O.L.C. 1,3-5(1981).

Officers and employees of the Justice Department may participate in congressional hearings that take place during a lapse in appropriations if there is express

legal authority to participate despite a lack of appropriations, or an express requirement to do so. We are not aware of any statute that grants the officers and

employees of this Department such authority in the case of general requests for

congressional testimony. Express authority would exist, however, if Congress or

a committee were to issue a subpoena requiring the Department or specific officials to participate in a hearing during an appropriations lapse. Departmental policies with respect to responsibilities to the judicial system provide a precedent:

it has long been the Department’s position that, during an appropriations lapse,

attorneys representing the government are to comply with a court order that they

continue with litigation even though the litigation does not fall within an exception

to the Act. See Memorandum for William P. Tyson, Director, Executive Office

for United States Attorneys, from Robert Shanks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, att. at 2 (Mar. 24, 1982) (“ Tyson Memorandum” );

see also Rojas v. United States, 55 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1995) (scheduling order

imposes a duty on attorney, nonperformance of which can subject attorney to contempt sanctions under 18 U.S.C. §401(3)). We would follow the same principles

with respect to a congressional order that imposes a legal duty. See 2 U.S.C.

§§192, 194 (imposing legal duty to comply with a duly issued legislative summons or subpoena).

The Department’s officers and employees may also participate in a hearing

despite an appropriations lapse if authority for such participation arises by necessary implication from another specific statutory duty or duties. See 5 Op. O.L.C.

at 3-5. In the context of congressional hearings, this exception permits the Department to participate where there is express authority or an express and specific

appropriation for the hearing itself, and the Department’s participation is necessary

for the hearing to be effective, even though there is no specific authority or appropriation available for the Department to participate. This exception also operates

where there is express authority for a specific Department official to participate —

such as might arise from a subpoena— but no express authority for support or

assistance of the witness. The Department would regard support and assistance

to the otherwise authorized participation as being justified by necessary implication. This approach follows from the well-settled practice with respect to Social

Security. See 5 Op. O.L.C. at 5 n.7.

We are not aware of any other exceptions to the Act that would permit the

Department to participate in congressional hearings during an appropriations lapse.

It has from time to time been suggested that the “ authorized by law” exception

to the Act includes all activities that derive from or relate to a constitutional

power, such as the “ legislative power.” Such a construction would authorize Con303
Opinions of the Office o f Legal Counsel in Volume 19

gress to continue holding hearings during an appropriations lapse and would allow

the Department to participate. Such a construction, however, is impermissible

because it would necessarily nullify the Antideficiency Act. The Federal Government is a government of limited and expressly enumerated powers. Those powers

are denominated in the Constitution, and the Federal Government may only undertake those activities that are constitutionally authorized. See United States v.

Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Consequently, if all constitutionally authorized functions— legislative, executive, and judicial — were excepted, the Act would not

apply to any activity of the Federal Government.

We have also considered whether a decision by Congress to go forward with

hearings in which Department officers cannot participate would result in a

congressional encroachment upon the President’s constitutional authority.2 We

conclude that no encroachment would occur. The Supreme Court has repeatedly

pronounced that statutes are to be construed to avoid serious constitutional questions, where such a construction is permissible. See, e.g., Crowell v. Benson, 285

U.S. 22, 62 (1932). Attorney General Civiletti recognized in his 1981 opinion

that it would “ raise grave constitutional questions” if the Act were to be read

to prohibit the President from exercising his constitutional powers. 5 Op. O.L.C.

at 6. Construing the Act as covering executive branch participation in congressional hearings generally, however, does not raise grave concerns over impermissible congressional encroachment on the Executive’s constitutional role.3 The Constitution grants the President authority to “ recommend to [Congress’s] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” U.S. Const, art.

II, §3. Congress does not encroach upon this power by refusing to include the

participation of the President or his subordinates in a regular congressional

hearing, however unwise and counterproductive such a decision might be. So long

as the President retains a means of making legislative recommendations, Congress

generally is not obligated to grant the executive a platform at its hearings.4

The Antideficiency Act places a substantial limit on the functioning of federal

officers and employees generally, including officers and employees of the Department of Justice. These limits extend to participation in congressional hearings con2 We have applied this same analysis in examining the application of the Act to the judicial branch. See Tyson 

Memorandum at 2; cf. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (striking down congressional encroachment on the judicial branch).

3 This assertion is made with the exceptions to the Act in mind. We believe that any instances where grave concerns 

might otherwise be raised would fall within the emergency exception or one of the other exceptions to the Act. 

We also note that the Act does not raise corresponding encroachment concerns when applied to Congress. Whereas 

the Attorneys General and the courts appropriately remain vigilant against congressional encroachment, there is no 

“ grave constitutional” obstacle that prevents Congress, through the Act, from deciding to curtail — or to postpone 

until appropriations are available— regular legislative, investigative, or oversight hearings. Moreover, the Act does 

not prohibit members of Congress by themselves from conducting hearings, because their salaries are paid from 

permanent appropriations. It is extremely difficult to see how interpreting the Act to preclude Department of Justice 

officers or employees from participating in those hearings would raise a grave question as to whether Congress 

has encroached on its own constitutionally-based authority to conduct hearings.

4 That said, the decision to exclude the President from the deliberations at crucial moments in the legislative 

process would be relevant in a presidential decision to veto such a bill.

304
Participation in Congressional Hearings During an Appropriations Lapse

ducted during a period of lapsed appropriations. During such a period, an officer

or employee of the Department of Justice may participate in congressional

hearings if he or she is a Senate-confirmed officer, if appropriated funds are available for his or her participation, if he or she is subpoenaed, or if the hearing

falls within one of the categories set forth above.

WALTER DELLINGER

Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

305