Presidential Signing Statements, and More from CRS
President Obama has used “signing statements” to take exception to provisions of law enacted by Congress with significantly less frequency than did President George W. Bush. He has also abandoned reference to the “unitary executive” concept that was favored by the Bush Administration.
In most other respects, however, the Obama Administration’s use of signing statements is consistent and continuous with recent past practice, according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. The report reviewed the basis for signing statements, their legal implications, and the controversy that has surrounded them. See Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications, January 4, 2012.
Some other new or newly updated CRS reports that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).
Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, January 23, 2012
“Who is a Veteran?” — Basic Eligibility for Veterans’ Benefits, January 23, 2012
Federal Aid to Roads and Highways Since the 18th Century: A Legislative History, January 6, 2012
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, January 6, 2012
Iran Sanctions, January 6, 2012
DNA synthesis and export controls remain the primary regulatory safeguards against de novo production of harmful biological agents, yet governance frameworks lack the situational awareness and enforcement capacity to keep pace with rapidly falling technical barriers.
Called today to speak on behalf of U.S. science and technology, Dr. Jedidah Isler, astrophysicist, educator, strategist, policy-maker, and science communicator, will provide constructive, nonpartisan feedback to the House Committee’s hearing “American Global Competitiveness at 250: Legislative Proposals to Secure U.S. Technology Leadership.”
“Federal data and access to it is not a partisan issue. It is a people issue. Our country cannot achieve greatness without access to the data that measure what we value, who we are, and where we’re heading.”
The United States’ biosecurity governance system is structurally incapable of detecting and responding to certain classes of threats. U.S. biosecurity tools have not kept pace with technological advancements or a changing threat landscape.