BNUMBER:  B-272985
DATE:  December 30, 1996
TITLE:  Central Intelligence Agency--Meal Expenses For Security
Detail

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

Matter of:Central Intelligence Agency--Meal Expenses For Security 
          Detail 

File:     B-272985

Date:December 30, 1996

DIGEST

The Central Intelligence Agency may not use appropriated funds to pay 
all or part of the cost of meals purchased by members of the Director 
of Central Intelligence's security detail while providing 24-hour 
security to the Director or Deputy Director.  Appropriated funds may 
not be used to provide subsistence or to purchase meals for federal 
employees while working at their normal duty station, even when 
working under unusual circumstances.  Exceptions to this rule may be 
made only in extreme emergency situations involving danger to human 
life or destruction of federal property.

DECISION

The General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has asked 
whether the CIA may reimburse from appropriated funds members of the 
Director of Central Intelligence's security detail for meals purchased 
by them while on duty.  For the reasons indicated below, we conclude 
that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for these meals.

BACKGROUND

According to the CIA, the security detail is responsible for providing 
24-hour personal protection for the Director and Deputy Director of 
Central Intelligence.  The duties of the security detail require that 
its members travel with the Director or Deputy Director to 
appointments and engagements and remain in line of sight of the 
official they are protecting.  On occasion members of the detail must 
accompany one of the officials to restaurants in the Washington 
metropolitan area.  To maintain line-of-sight contact with the 
official and not draw attention to themselves, members of the detail 
sit at a nearby table in the restaurant.  Some restaurants require 
that members of the detail order meals while sitting at these tables.  
The cost of these meals, often substantial, has been borne by the 
individual members of the detail.  

The CIA suggests that because the meals for the security detail would 
not be purchased but for the need to provide protection to the 
Director or Deputy 
Director, the government rather than security detail members should 
pay the cost of the meals.

DISCUSSION

Section 5536, of title 5, United States Code, provides that no 
employee of the government may receive any pay or allowances in 
addition to that provided by statute "unless specifically authorized 
by law."  Because of this prohibition, without specific statutory 
authority, the government may not pay subsistence expenses in addition 
to an employee's regular compensation, or furnish free food to 
civilian employees at headquarters even if the employees are working 
under unusual circumstances.  E.g., B-234813, November 9, 1989; 42 
Comp. Gen. 149 (1962).

There are numerous examples in which the Congress has overridden the 
restriction in 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5536 to specifically authorize agencies to 
pay for employees' meals. E.g., 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5536a (subsistence and 
travel expenses authorized for law  enforcement personnel and their 
families when their lives are threatened).  There is no applicable 
statute in this case.  Even where there is no specific statutory 
authority, we have not objected to the purchase of meals for employees 
working in unanticipated emergency situations involving danger to 
human life or destruction of federal property.  B-232487, January 26, 
1989; 53 Comp. Gen. 71 (1973).   As we recognized in 53 Comp. Gen. 71, 
this is a narrow exception:

     ". . .  whether payment of such expenses would be proper in 
     similar cases that may arise in the future would necessarily 
     depend on the facts and circumstances present in each case, 
     having in mind that work in occupations such as those of 
     policemen, firemen, security guards, etc., often is required to 
     be performed under emergent and dangerous conditions and that 
     fact alone does not warrant departure from the general rule 
     against payment for employees' meals from appropriated funds."

53 Comp. Gen. at 75.  Here, the CIA concedes that members of the 
security detail may not receive meals at government expense under the 
emergency exception because they are not faced with extreme life 
threatening emergencies.

We addressed an almost identical situation in B-202104, July 2, 1981.  
In that case the Department of the Treasury asked whether it could 
reimburse Secret Service agents all or part of the cost of meals they 
were required to purchase while providing 24-hour protection to public 
officials.  We concluded that the Department could not use its 
appropriated funds for that purpose:

     "We do not find the usual 24-hour-a-day protective service 
     satisfies the extreme emergency situation involving danger to 
     human life criterion that is necessary to fit within the 
     exception to the rule.  And under the rule the increased cost of 
     food due to unusual working conditions is not a sufficient reason 
     by itself to pay for the costs of meals out of appropriated 
     funds. . . .

     "Accordingly, payment of an allowance to the Secret Service 
     agents for meals during their 24-hour-a-day protective service at 
     headquarters may not be made from the Department of the 
     Treasury's appropriations.  Further, purchase of meals for these 
     agents while they are required to stay in high cost hotels during 
     24-hour-a-day protective assignments is not authorized . . . ."

The CIA asks that we create another exception to the requirement for 
specific statutory authority to permit payment for meals out of 
appropriated funds when the members of the security detail purchase 
the meals in order to carry out their assigned duties.  The agency 
suggests that it is fundamentally unfair to require members of the 
detail to purchase meals at their own expense when the only reason 
they purchase the meals is to carry out their task of guarding the 
Director or Deputy Director.  The CIA asks that we view the costs of 
the meals (and presumably any other increased expenses incurred by 
members of the security detail in the discharge of their duties) as 
necessary expenses of the agency's overall operations because guarding 
the Director and Deputy Director is clearly an authorized function of 
the CIA.

We understand that the cost of purchasing meals may be a hardship for 
members of the detail.  There are, however, many unusual situations in 
which federal employers must bear expenses as a result of their 
employment, including the purchase of more expensive meals than they 
would otherwise buy.  E.g., B-204104, July 2, 1981;       B-194798, 
January 23, 1980.  While we have not objected to the use of 
appropriated funds for meals in some emergency situations, the 
situation presented by the CIA provides no basis for avoiding the 
statutory scheme.  To the extent the hardship of purchasing meals 
interferes with the CIA's ability to recruit and retain qualified 
staff for security details, it should seek specific statutory 
authority to permit it to buy meals for its employees. 

Comptroller General 
of the United States