BNUMBER:  B-262013
DATE:  April 8, 1996
TITLE:  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Use of
Appropriated Funds to Install Telephone Lines in Private
Residence

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Use of 
          Appropriated Funds to Install Telephone Lines in Private 
          Residence

File:     B-262013

Date:     April 8, 1996
        
DIGEST

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services, may not use appropriated funds to install 
telephone lines in the private residence of its Director.  31 U.S.C.  sec.  
1348(a)(1).

DECISION

This responds to a letter, dated July 11, 1995, from the Director, 
Financial Management Office, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services, regarding 
CDC's authority to use appropriated funds to install telephone lines 
between the personal residence of the Centers' Director and CDC 
offices.  More specifically, CDC requests an advance decision under       
31 U.S.C.  sec.  3529 on whether its appropriated funds are available to 
install three telephone lines into the Director's residence, "one 
regular 'talking' line, one dedicated line for remote access to his 
computer, and one dedicated fax line."  CDC contends, generally, that 
because of the emergency nature of the Director's "around the clock" 
telephone correspondence, an exception should be made to the statutory 
prohibition governing such use of appropriated funds.  As explained 
below, however, CDC has not demonstrated that the telephones are 
essential to CDC operations, or that adequate safeguards would be in 
place.  Therefore, we conclude that CDC's appropriated funds are not 
available to install telephone lines between the personal residence of 
its Director and CDC.

The issue raised by CDC focuses on the general statutory prohibition 
against the use of appropriated funds to finance the installation of 
telephones in private residences.  Codified at 31 U.S.C.  sec.  1348(a)(1), 
the prohibition states that "appropriations are not available to 
install telephones in private residences."  The statutory language in 
section 1348 is "plain and comprehensive."  11 Comp. Gen. 87, 88 
(1931).  The prohibition applies even though the telephones are to be 
extensively used in the transaction of public business and even though 
"from an official standpoint the telephones were desirable or 
necessary," and regardless of the burden imposed on the family's use 
of the employee's personal telephone.            59 Comp. Gen. 723, 
724 (1980).  

CDC notes, correctly, that in limited circumstances, we have found 
exceptions to this prohibition where the agency demonstrates the 
installation of a telephone line in an employee's residence (these 
exceptions have typically been granted in the military or national 
security area)[1] is essential to the effective operation of the 
government.  In those instances, we have insisted on adequate 
safeguards to prevent misuse of the telephones.  In 1987, for example, 
we approved the installation of government telephones in the 
residences of certain high Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
officials for use in responding to nuclear accidents.  B-223837, Jan. 
23, 1987.  NRC presented convincing evidence to establish the 
essential nature of the telephones and noted that the telephones were 
capable of dialing only internal NRC telephone numbers.  In other 
instances, agencies have proposed logging and recording telephone 
conversations in order to aid audit of usage.  61 Comp. Gen. 214 
(1982); 32 Comp. Gen. 431 (1953); B-128144, June 29, 1956.

CDC argues that the three telephone lines it proposes for its 
Director's private residence are essential.  CDC states that it "is on 
alert around the clock to respond to health emergencies nationally and 
around the world."  As examples of epidemic situations requiring 
immediate response, CDC points to "[t]he recent Ebola outbreak in 
Zaire and last year's Hantavirus outbreak in the Southwest United 
States."  Furthermore, CDC contends that the Director must be able to 
access all available information concerning such outbreaks of disease, 
"research, and staff availability at a moment's notice.  This often 
requires the simultaneous use of the CDC mainframe files and incoming 
faxes while conversing telephonically with top level U.S. and world 
health officials." 

We do not question the need for the Director's involvement in crafting 
CDC's response to emerging or urgent health crises, nor do we question 
his need for access to appropriate information in that regard.  This 
is not enough to overcome the statutory bar.  CDC has not explained 
the nature of its role in response to such problems and the 
consequences for public health and safety if it were to fail to 
respond immediately upon learning of the problems.  In this regard, 
the only statutory authority directly touching on CDC's responding to 
national and international health emergencies that we have located is 
42 U.S.C.  sec.  247d(a).  This statutory provision authorizes the 
Secretary of HHS to consult with CDC in determining the existence of a 
public health emergency.  In the event of such an emergency, the 
Secretary may choose to have CDC take appropriate action, "including 
making grants and entering into contracts and conducting and 
supporting  investigations into the cause, treatment, or prevention 
of" the emergency.  42 U.S.C.  sec.  247d(a).  We are not convinced that 
the installation of telephone lines in the Director's residence is 
essential, as our decisions have developed that concept, to CDC's 
carrying out these statutory responsibilities.  (NRC, in establishing 
its need for communications capability with particular NRC officials, 
provided compelling evidence of the calamitous consequences for the 
public that could result if it were to fail to respond quickly to 
manage and control nuclear accidents.)  The statute is plain on its 
face and although in today's era of instant communications the statute 
may appear outdated, we may not rewrite the statute to fit a 
fashionable view of what the norm should be.  Certainly if the statute 
is to retain any meaning, we may not, under the guise of being 
essential, routinely grant exceptions of convenience, however 
beneficial the result may appear.  

For these reasons, we conclude that CDC is prohibited under 31 U.S.C.  sec.  
1348(a)(1) from using its appropriated funds to install telephone 
lines in the personal residence of its Director.

/s/Robert P. Murphy
for Comptroller General
of the United States

f:\projects\afmd\201301d.wp5

1. In 1984, the Secretary of Defense was statutorily authorized to 
install telephones into private residences "if necessary for national 
defense purposes."  31 U.S.C.       sec.  1348(d).