[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4248-H4251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENIOR SAFE ACT OF 2016
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4538) to provide immunity from suit for certain individuals
who disclose potential examples of financial exploitation of senior
citizens, and for other purposes, as amended.
[[Page H4249]]
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4538
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 ``Senior Safe Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. IMMUNITY.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act--
(1) the term ``Bank Secrecy Act Officer'' means an
individual responsible for ensuring compliance with the
requirements mandated by subchapter II of chapter 53 of title
31, United States Code;
(2) the term ``broker-dealer'' means a broker or dealer, as
those terms are defined, respectively, in section 3(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a));
(3) the term ``covered agency'' means--
(A) a State financial regulatory agency, including a State
securities or law enforcement authority and a State insurance
regulator;
(B) each of the Federal financial institutions regulatory
agencies;
(C) the Securities and Exchange Commission;
(D) a law enforcement agency;
(E) and State or local agency responsible for administering
adult protective service laws; and
(F) a State attorney general.
(4) the term ``covered financial institution'' means--
(A) a credit union;
(B) a depository institution;
(C) an investment advisor;
(D) a broker-dealer;
(E) an insurance company; and
(F) a State attorney general.
(5) the term ``credit union'' means a Federal credit union,
State credit union, or State-chartered credit union, as those
terms are defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union
Act (12 U.S.C. 1752);
(6) the term ``depository institution'' has the meaning
given the term in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c));
(7) the term ``exploitation'' means the fraudulent or
otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper act or process
of an individual, including a caregiver or fiduciary, that--
(A) uses the resources of a senior citizen for monetary
personal benefit, profit, or gain; or
(B) results in depriving a senior citizen of rightful
access to or use of benefits, resources, belongings or
assets;
(8) the term ``Federal financial institutions regulatory
agencies'' has the meaning given the term in section 1003 of
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of
1978 (12 U.S.C. 3302);
(9) the term ``investment adviser'' has the meaning given
the term in section 202 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-2);
(10) the term ``insurance company'' has the meaning given
the term in section 2(a) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a));
(11) the term ``registered representative'' means an
individual who represents a broker-dealer in effecting or
attempting to affect a purchase or sale of securities;
(12) the term ``senior citizen'' means an individual who is
not less than 65 years of age;
(13) the term ``State insurance regulator'' has the meaning
given such term in section 315 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
(15 U.S.C. 6735); and
(14) the term ``State securities or law enforcement
authority'' has the meaning given the term in section
24(f)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78x(f)(4)).
(b) Immunity From Suit.--
(1) Immunity for individuals.--An individual who has
received the training described in section 3 shall not be
liable, including in any civil or administrative proceeding,
for disclosing the possible exploitation of a senior citizen
to a covered agency if the individual, at the time of the
disclosure--
(A) served as a supervisor, compliance officer (including a
Bank Secrecy Act Officer), or registered representative for a
covered financial institution; and
(B) made the disclosure with reasonable care including
reasonable efforts to avoid disclosure other than to a
covered agency.
(2) Immunity for covered financial institutions.--A covered
financial institution shall not be liable, including in any
civil or administrative proceeding, for a disclosure made by
an individual described in paragraph (1) if--
(A) the individual was employed by, or, in the case of a
registered representative, affiliated or associated with, the
covered financial institution at the time of the disclosure;
and
(B) before the time of the disclosure, the covered
financial institution provided the training described in
section 3 to each individual described in section 3(a).
SEC. 3. TRAINING REQUIRED.
(a) In General.--A covered financial institution may
provide training described in subsection (b)(1) to each
officer or employee of, or registered representative
affiliated or associated with, the covered financial
institution who--
(1) is described in section 2(b)(1)(A);
(2) may come into contact with a senior citizen as a
regular part of the duties of the officer, employee, or
registered representative; or
(3) may review or approve the financial documents, records,
or transactions of a senior citizen in connection with
providing financial services to a senior citizen.
(b) Training.--
(1) In general.--The training described in this paragraph
shall--
(A) instruct any individual attending the training on how
to identify and report the suspected exploitation of a senior
citizen;
(B) discuss the need to protect the privacy and respect the
integrity of each individual customer of a covered financial
institution; and
(C) be appropriate to the job responsibilities of the
individual attending the training.
(2) Timing.--The training required under subsection (a)
shall be provided as soon as reasonably practicable but not
later than 1 year after the date on which an officer,
employee, or registered representative begins employment with
or becomes affiliated or associated with the covered
financial institution.
(3) Bank secrecy act officer.--An individual who is
designated as a compliance officer under an anti-money
laundering program established pursuant to section 5318(h) of
title 31, United States Code, shall be deemed to have
received the training described under this subsection.
SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or limit
any provision of State law, except only to the extent that
section 2 provides a greater level of protection against
liability to an individual described in section 2(b)(1) or to
a covered financial institution described in section 2(b)(2)
than is provided under State law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine
Waters) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
add extraneous material to the bill therein.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4538. It is the Senior Safe
Act of 2016, and I would like to thank the sponsors, principally the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin), also the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), for all of their hard work in bringing this
bill to the floor of the House today.
Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time in our committee and this
Congress debating ways in which we can help Americans achieve a secure
and dignified retirement. And while there are often disagreements about
how to achieve that goal, one issue that is not debatable is that we
must do everything in our power to stop fraudsters and scam artists
from preying on the vulnerable senior citizen.
Currently, Americans over the age of 50 account for roughly 75
percent, over three-quarters of the financial assets of the U.S.; and
unfortunately, one in five of those seniors, that is 20 percent, over
the age of 65, have been the victim of fraud--one in five. Think of
that. This costs senior citizens almost $2.9 billion every year, not to
mention the stress and the pain that comes along with it for a person
who has been victimized, trying to rebuild their financial security.
Oftentimes, employees of banks or financial advisers are on the front
lines against such fraud when they see that one of their clients may be
a potential target. Unfortunately, current laws make it very difficult
for employees of such institutions to report the occurrences of those
frauds.
So what do we do? We come to the floor tonight for something called
the Senior Safe Act.
What does it do? It provides a very simple fix that would allow a
supervisor or a compliance officer of a bank or investment adviser to
report instances of fraud to a Federal or State regulator so long as
they reported the matter in good faith and, of course, with reasonable
care.
{time} 2000
Employees at these institutions want to protect their clients just as
much as any regulator does, and so this bill would allow them to speak
up when they see fraud that is being unreported. This bill passed the
Financial Services Committee last month unanimously, so
[[Page H4250]]
I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support it today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4538 is a bill intended to better aid our law
enforcement agencies, State and Federal regulators, and agencies
assisting seniors to quickly respond to and prevent financial abuse of
elders.
Currently, financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, and
financial advisers are required to report suspicious activity,
including cases of suspected abuse of our Nation's seniors.
Nevertheless, industry has raised concerns that they are prevented from
doing so out of fear that they might later be sued.
Even though our regulators have taken considerable steps to allay
such concerns, it seems that congressional action may be necessary to
ensure that financial institutions take actions to stop elders from
being swindled in their vulnerable years.
Like Ms. Sinema, I also want to ensure that when any employee at a
financial institution sees something suspicious, she immediately says
something to the appropriate authorities and regulators. Indeed, I
recently introduced legislation with a similar objective of ensuring
the continued flow of critically important reporting of suspicious
activity as it relates to terrorism, money laundering, and other
serious illicit activities.
Although it is not explicitly specified in the legislation before us
today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should also use its
existing authority to set standards for this training, and is
authorized to ensure that the training is being conducted.
H.R. 4538 is a good first step, but should not be the end of our
efforts to rein in elder abuse. For example, State regulators are going
further and mandating that financial firms make such reports to
authorities instead of making the reports voluntary. The States and
FINRA, the regulator of broker-dealers, also want to authorize
financial advisers to put holds on financial transactions before a
swindler can run off with the retirement savings of our Nation's
grandparents.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the numerous changes Ms. Sinema
has incorporated to improve the bill. These edits ensure that the bill
covers all financial institutions and will enhance reporting of
suspected elder abuse. However, more changes are still needed before
the bill can be enacted, including language suggested by the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, and other advocates. I hope that the Senate's sponsors will
work with the administration and others to ensure their suggested
changes are incorporated into the bill before it is enacted into law.
However, today, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4538.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin) who has brought so much to this
committee, and I very much appreciate all of his hard work on that and
especially on the legislation that is here before us today.
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Our great State of Maine has the oldest average age in the country.
Like thousands of fellow Mainers, I help care for my special 86- and
88-year-old parents.
Now, it is scary to realize that our vulnerable seniors, whom we love
so much, are increasingly being victimized by aggressive financial
scams. This fraud is costing them not only sleepless nights, but about
$3 billion each year.
So today, Mr. Speaker, here in the House, Republicans and Democrats
have a chance to show our compassion and to help our seniors.
Now, our Senior Safe Act will help local bank and credit union
tellers and retirement and insurance advisers and others to identify
and stop these crimes before they happen. Our bill enables
professionals in the financial sector and the institutions they work
for to report this crookery to the proper authorities. We must do
everything humanly possible, Mr. Speaker, to stop these scams before
our parents and grandparents are fooled into draining and transferring
their savings accounts and their nest eggs.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to work with Democrat
Congresswoman Sinema and Congressman Murphy of Florida and for
Republican Congressman Mulvaney to write this important legislation. I
thank Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Garrett for quickly moving this
bill through our Financial Services Committee.
I also want to congratulate and thank our Maine Senator, Susan
Collins, for authoring the original legislation in the Senate. I am
proud to work and join with Senator Collins by authoring this companion
legislation here in the House. As we all know in Maine and throughout
the country, Senator Collins has been a national leader and a champion
on all sorts of issues important to aging adults throughout our
country.
Finally, I want to thank Judy Shaw, Maine's Securities Administrator,
who has been instrumental in developing this type of program in our
great State of Maine where it has been so successful in preventing
financial fraud against our seniors.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we Americans are facing many challenges here at
home and abroad. But that doesn't mean that we can't find solutions
that we can agree upon--commonsense solutions--to the serious problems
that hurt our seniors, and this is one case. As a result, Mr. Speaker,
I urge all of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to support
the Senior Safe Act.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), the
sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, Ranking Member
Waters, Congressman Poliquin, Congressman Murphy of Florida, and
Congressman Mulvaney for working with me on our bipartisan legislation
to help law enforcement combat senior financial exploitation.
In 2014, Tinna Kay Lujan, while employed as a certified nursing
assistant at Amber Lights, an assisted living facility in Tucson, my
home State of Arizona, took 87-year-old Donald Hansen out of his
facility and into her own home where he was later found dehydrated and
suffering from an infection.
Lujan not only moved Mr. Hansen into her home against his will, she
also exploited him financially. As reported in the Arizona Republic,
Washington Federal Bank staff contacted law enforcement because they
were suspicious when Lujan and Hansen, who had been a long-time
customer, visited the bank together.
Ms. Lujan provided the bank with a power-of-attorney document signed
by Hansen. She also requested bank cards and checks from Hansen's
accounts and added Hansen's grandchildren as beneficiaries. But bank
staff knew that Hansen had no grandchildren, and later they learned
those beneficiaries were, in fact, Ms. Lujan's children.
Donald Hansen is only one of thousands of Arizona seniors who are
victims of financial exploitation every year. Recent studies estimate
that nearly one in five American seniors may be a target for fraud or
financial abuse, and seniors lose at least $2.9 billion annually to
financial exploitation.
But even when financial institutions suspect abuse, the abuse may go
unpunished because current laws lack flexibility to allow these
companies to report suspected abuse to authorities. Our bill, the
Senior Safe Act, helps individuals and financial institutions
communicate with appropriate agencies when they suspect financial
exploitation of seniors.
The bill also encourages firms to train employees to identify and
stop financial fraud targeting seniors.
Seniors deserve to retire with dignity, and they shouldn't have to
worry that their hard-earned savings are at risk of fraud. Our
legislation protects these firms and advisers from liability when they
report suspected financial exploitation of a senior citizen.
It is a commonsense solution to help ensure financial institutions
can identify fraud, report it, and stop financial abuse of the elderly.
Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their
work and support to protect seniors and end financial exploitation.
[[Page H4251]]
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her work and
her bipartisan effort on this legislation. I very, very much, as I
said, thank the gentleman from Maine for all of his contributions to
the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, today I urge unanimous support in the House like we had
in committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4538, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________