B-306748, Customs and Border Protection--Relocation Expenses, July 6, 2006

B-306748 Jul 06, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Customs and Border Protection's Salaries and Expenses appropriations are available to pay for relocation expenses that agency employees incur to relocate their primary residences from Canada and Mexico to the United States in order to comply with a new agency requirement that Customs employees assigned to duty stations in the United States maintain their primary residence in the United States. Customs has determined that U.S. residency enables its border workforce to better carry out its mission. Accordingly, GAO does not object to Customs using its appropriations to pay relocation costs if Customs chooses to do so. View Decision B-306748, Customs and Border Protection--Relocation Expenses, July 6, 2006 Decision Matter of: Customs and Border Protection—Relocation Expenses File: B-306748 Date: July 6, 2006 DIGEST Customs and Border Protection's Salaries and Expenses appropriations are available to pay for relocation expenses that agency employees incur to relocate their primary residences from Canada and Mexico to the United States in order to comply with a new agency requirement that Customs employees assigned to duty stations in the United States maintain their primary residence in the United States. Customs has determined that U.S. residency enables its border workforce to better carry out its mission. Accordingly, GAO does not object to Customs using its appropriations to pay relocation costs if Customs chooses to do so. DECISION The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) has requested an advance decision under 31 U.S.C. sect. 3529 on whether it may pay the expenses that its employees who currently reside in Canada or Mexico will incur in order to comply with an agency directive that their primary residence be in the United States. The employees in question work at border stations within the United States. For reasons of national security, Customs is requiring that its employees who are stationed at the U.S. border live within the United States. As explained below, we would not object to Customs using its appropriated funds if it chooses to do so to pay the relocation costs that its employees incur to comply with the residency requirement. BACKGROUND Customs has employees who are assigned to border stations or ports within the United States but who reside across the border in Canada or Mexico. Letter from Anthony L. Smith, Certifying Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to the Comptroller General, GAO, Sept. 28, 2005 (Smith Letter). In the past, Customs did not have a policy addressing employee residence. However, as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, the agency views foreign residence as a security concern. Id. Accordingly, in August 2005, the Commissioner issued a directive requiring employees assigned to duty stations in the United States to maintain their primary residence in the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Directive No. 51332-016 (Aug. 22, 2005). Employees who fail to comply with the directive's requirement are subject to disciplinary action, including separation from employment. Id. Customs asks if it may use its appropriated funds to pay the expenses that its employees will incur in moving their primary residences. It notes that the Federal Travel Regulation is silent on the question of benefits for employees' relocations that do not involve a change in duty station. 41 C.F.R. chs. 300--304. The agency argues that its appropriations should be available for the employees' expenses under the necessary expense rule. Smith Letter. DISCUSSION Appropriated funds are available only for the objects for which they were made except as otherwise provided by law. 31 U.S.C. sect. 1301(a). However, every item of expenditure need not be specified in an appropriation act. B-306424, Mar. 24, 2006. Under the necessary expense rule, appropriations are available for expenses which are necessary or incident to the proper execution or achievement of the object of the appropriation. B-303145, Dec. 7, 2005. The necessary expense rule recognizes that when Congress makes an appropriation for a particular purpose, by implication it authorizes the agency involved to incur expenses which are necessary or incident to the accomplishment of that purpose. See 6 Comp. Gen. 619, 621 (1927). We employ a three-part test to determine whether an appropriation is available for a particular expenditure under the necessary expense rule: (1) the expenditure must bear a logical relationship to the purpose of the appropriation sought to be charged; (2) the expenditure may not be prohibited by law; and (3) the expenditure must not be provided for by another appropriation. 63 Comp. Gen. 422, 427--428 (1984).