About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-304587 1 (2005-04-06)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptarat0001 and id is 1 raw text is: S=GAO Accountability * Integrity * Reliability United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 B-304587 April 6, 2005 The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives Subject: Review of Issues Relating to a Study on Expedited Removal Pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter dated February 4, 2005, concerning the study issued by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) under section 605 of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA).' Specifically, you asked us to analyze: (1) whether USCIRF's appropriation was available to fund the study, and (2) whether USCIRF requested that the Attorney General invite the experts designated by the Commission to conduct the study, as described in section 605, and what actions were taken in response to such request. In order to respond to this inquiry, we obtained information and documents from USCIRF and analyzed both issues under relevant law. As explained more fully below, USCIRF's use of carryover funds to fund the study was permissible under title II of IRFA and the relevant appropriations laws. Section 208(c)(2) of IRFA directed the Commission to provide the funds for the Section 605 study, subject to the availability of appropriations. In annual appropriations acts, Congress appropriated funds for necessary expenses of the Commission, as authorized by title II of IRFA, and provided that the funds were to be available indefinitely, without fiscal year limitation. The funds that USCIRF set aside and used for the study were therefore available for that purpose. With respect to the invitation of experts, USCIRF requested the invitations contemplated by section 605 of IRFA from both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security. There was no statutory requirement that either the request or the invitations be in writing. Both agencies communicated extensively with the experts through their lead representative and provided written protocols for the experts' access to the immigration proceedings, records, and other information 'Pub. L. No. 105-292, 112 Stat. 2787, 2814 (1998) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 6474).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most