[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.

                          ____________________