[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2494-S2495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 2856. A bill to streamline certain feasibility studies and avoid
duplication of effort; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2856
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Corps' Obligation to Assist
in Safeguarding Texas Act'' or the ``COAST Act''.
SEC. 2. COASTAL TEXAS PROTECTION AND RESTORATION STUDY.
(a) In General.--In carrying out the Coastal Texas
Protection and Restoration Study--
(1) the Secretary of the Army shall take into consideration
studies, data, or information developed by the Gulf Coast
Community Protection and Recovery District to expedite
completion of the Study; and
(2) any studies, data, or information used in the
development of the final recommendations of the Chief of
Engineers shall be credited against the non-Federal share of
study costs.
(b) Expedited Completion.--The Secretary shall expedite
completion of the reports for the Coastal Texas Protection
and Restoration Study and, if the Secretary determines that a
project described in the completed report is justified,
proceed directly to project preconstruction, engineering, and
design.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2857. A bill to direct the Secretary of State to develop a
strategy to obtain membership status for India in the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC), and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2857
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION OF INDIA IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC
ECONOMIC COOPERATION REGIONAL ECONOMIC FORUM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Republic of India is the world's ninth largest
economy in nominal terms and the third largest economy based
on purchasing-power parity.
(2) The United States-India partnership is vital to United
States strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region and
across the globe, and is an integral aspect to the
Administration's Rebalance to Asia.
(3) United States-India bilateral trade and investment
continue to expand, supporting thousands of United States
jobs.
(4) The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) regional
economic forum is the premier Asia-Pacific economic forum
with a goal to support sustainable economic growth and
prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.
(5) APEC works to champion free, open trade and investment,
to promote and accelerate regional economic integration, to
encourage economic and technical cooperation, to enhance
human security, and to facilitate a favorable and sustainable
business environment.
(6) APEC held a moratorium on new membership from 1997 to
2010, which has since been lifted.
(7) India has pursued membership in APEC for over 20 years,
and became an APEC observer in November 2011 at the
invitation of the United States, when the forum met in
Hawaii.
(8) India enjoys a location within the Asia-Pacific region
which provides an avenue for continued trade and investment
partnerships with APEC member states.
(9) India has been or is pursuing bilateral or multilateral
trade agreements with the majority of APEC member states.
(10) India's ``Look East, Act East'' strategy to expand
economic engagement with East and Southeast Asia demonstrates
its effort to pursue external oriented, market-driven
economic policies.
(b) Actions.--The Secretary of State shall--
(1) develop a strategy to obtain membership status for
India in APEC, including participation in related meetings,
working groups, activities, and mechanisms; and
(2) actively urge APEC member states to support such
membership status for India.
[[Page S2495]]
(c) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to
Congress a report, in unclassified form, describing the
United States strategy to obtain membership status for India
in APEC. Such report shall be updated and submitted annually
until such time as India obtains membership in APEC. Each
such report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the efforts the Secretary has made to
encourage APEC member states to promote India's bid to obtain
membership status.
(2) The further steps the Secretary will take to assist
India in obtaining membership status for APEC.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2862. A bill to amend section 3606 of title 18, United States
Code, to grant probation officers authority to arrest hostile third
parties who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the performance
of official duties; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Probation Officer
Protection Act, which I introduced today with Senator Feinstein. I
would like to begin by thanking Senator Feinstein for cosponsoring this
bill and also thank Representatives Reichert and Pascrell for
introducing companion legislation in the House.
Under current law, a Federal probation officer may arrest a
probationer or individual on supervised release if the officer has
probable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition of
his or her probation or release. The officer may make the arrest with
or without a warrant.
In practice, formal arrests by probation officers are rare. Rather,
probation officers use this authority to lawfully engage in less
restrictive uses of force, such as ordering an offender to stand aside
during a search; instructing an offender not to interfere with the
officer's movements; or, in rare cases, temporarily restraining an
offender who poses a physical danger.
Current law does not, however, address a probation officer's arrest
authority in situations where a third party attempts to physically
obstruct the officer or cause the officer physical harm. Although
obstructing a probation officer in the performance of his or her
official duties is illegal, when a probation officer encounters an
uncooperative or violent third party, the officer may be forced to
retreat because he or she lacks authority to restrain the third party.
This lack of authority and resulting need to retreat exposes probation
officers to greater risk of harm and allows the third party--along with
any evidence or individual the third party is attempting to shield--to
elude capture. As a result, evidence that an offender has violated a
condition of his or her probation or supervised release, or evidence of
other criminal activity, may be lost.
In some circumstances, a probation officer may be able to enlist the
assistance of local police in responding to a hostile third party. But
this is not, in and of itself, an adequate solution. First, unless the
probation officer knows in advance that he or she is likely to
encounter a hostile third party and can find an available police
officer to accompany him or her, the probation officer must wait for
police backup to arrive. This is often not a viable option. Second,
even if a local police officer is available to accompany the probation
officer, because the probation officer lacks arrest authority, he or
she cannot lawfully assist the police officer if the police officer is
accosted. Third, requiring federal probation officers to rely on local
law enforcement in responding to uncooperative or violent third parties
burdens local police departments and diverts police resources from
other uses.
My bill addresses these problems by authorizing Federal probation
officers to arrest a third party if there is probable cause to believe
the third party has forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded,
intimidated, or interfered with the officer, or a fellow probation
officer, while the officer was engaged in the performance of official
duties. This language parallels 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111, which makes it a
crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or
interfere with an officer or employee of the United States while the
officer or employee is engaged in the performance of official duties.
The bill additionally provides that this arrest authority shall be
exercised in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
It is important to note, that this legislation does not give
probation officers general arrest authority. Rather, it merely
authorizes arrest in the narrow circumstance where a third party
forcibly interferes with a probation officer in the course of the
officer's performance of his or her official duties. This limited
arrest authority will protect officers, offenders, and third parties
alike by preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence,
consistent with the rehabilitative mission of the Federal probation
system. State probation officers in many jurisdictions have similar
third-party arrest authority.
This legislation has the strong support of the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
and numerous other law enforcement groups. It will make a meaningful
difference in the lives of our Federal probation officers and local
police officers and in the homes and communities they serve.
____________________