[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S447-S451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FLAKE:
S. 195. A bill to expedite the deployment of highway construction
projects; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak of legislation I am
introducing today--the Transportation Investment Recalibration to
Equality Act, or the TIRE Act. The TIRE Act would suspend the Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage requirement on all transportation-related
infrastructure contracts. This would free up billions more in taxpayer
dollars to be spent on jobs and on projects.
For those who are not familiar, Davis-Bacon is a Depression-era law
that requires contractors on Federal construction projects to pay
workers no less than the so-called local prevailing wage. Now, since
its enactment over 80 years ago, the Department of Labor has been
unable to devise an effective system for determining prevailing wages.
In fact, a 2004 Department of Labor inspector general report revealed
that Federal wage reporting surveys, which are a key metric used to
determine prevailing wages, are fundamentally flawed. Of all the wage
report surveys reviewed by the IG, 100 percent contained flaws. Let me
say that again: 100 percent of all the surveys were flawed.
In addition, some of the wage surveys have not been updated since the
1980s. The bottom line is that every time Davis-Bacon applies to a
Federal project, less money is going to construction and more money is
going to meet onerous wage requirements. According to the Beacon Hill
Institute, Davis-Bacon forces taxpayers to pay 22 percent above the
market rate for labor on Federal infrastructure projects.
This is largely the result of disproportionate union participation in
flawed wage surveys that skew Federal decisionmaking. Now, despite
representing only 4 percent of the construction industry, unions are
able to leverage their clout with Federal bureaucrats to inflate more
than 60 percent of prevailing wages--talk about benefitting a few at
the expense of the many.
Here is some perspective on what it means in real dollars. In 2016,
the Federal Government spent $23 billion on Federal construction
projects, and 2.1 billion of these dollars was spent on above-rate
labor costs.
Again, $2.1 billion of the $23 billion spent was on above-market-rate
labor costs. This means that nearly 10 percent of all Federal
construction spending last year went to inflated contracts. Not only
does this translate into less construction funding going to actual
construction, but according to George Mason University, it results in
roughly 30,000 lost construction jobs.
So we lose both on the projects and the jobs that are created. More
broadly, it discriminates against small businesses that don't have the
resources to meet onerous Federal reporting and compliance
requirements. Now, while it may be well-intentioned, Davis-Bacon ends
up eliminating decent-paying construction jobs and hampering
infrastructure spending.
I have often talked to State and local officials who will say that if
you have two bridges across the same river, even if they are just 100
yards or 200 yards or a mile apart with the same underlying costs--or
what should be the same underlying costs--if there are Federal moneys
involved in one and no Federal moneys involved in the other, the one
with Federal moneys will cost significantly more, and a big portion of
that is because of Davis-Bacon requirements.
Now, in this body, we have to look for issues to bridge the partisan
divide. It turns out that one of these issues is bridges, roads, dams,
and other infrastructure projects. Fixing our Nation's crumbling
infrastructure is a top priority for many in Congress, and the new
administration has touted a large infrastructure package as one of its
agenda items.
However, despite the bipartisan consensus on both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue for infrastructure investment, visions for the road
ahead actually diverge. With a projected pricetag north of $800 billion
for highways and bridges alone, every Federal dollar needs to be spent
as efficiently as possible.
The TIRE Act will return wage determinations for Federal
transportation projects where they belong, and that is the market.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Cruz):
S. 201. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure
that new wind turbines located near certain military installations are
ineligible for the renewable electricity production credit and the
energy credit; to the Committee on Finance.
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. 201
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 ``Protection of Military
Airfields from Wind Turbine Encroachment Act''.
SEC. 2. NEW WIND TURBINES LOCATED NEAR CERTAIN MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``Such
term'' and all that follows through the period and inserting
the following: ``Such term shall not include--
``(A) any facility with respect to which any qualified
small wind energy property expenditure (as defined in
subsection (d)(4) of section 25D) is taken into account in
determining the credit under such section, or
``(B) any facility which is originally placed in service
after the date of the enactment of the Protection of Military
Airfields from Wind Turbine Encroachment Act and is located
within a 30-mile radius of--
``(i) an airfield or airbase under the jurisdiction of a
military department which is in active use, or
``(ii) an air traffic control radar site, weather radar
site, or aircraft navigation aid which is--
``(I) owned or operated by the Department of Defense, and
``(II) a permanent land-based structure at a fixed
location.''.
(b) Qualified Small Wind Energy Property.--Paragraph (4) of
section 48(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D),
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) Exception.--The term `qualifying small wind energy
property' shall not include any property which is originally
placed in service after the date of the enactment of the
Protection of Military Airfields from Wind Turbine
Encroachment Act and is located within a 30-mile radius of
any property described in clause (i) or (ii) of section
45(d)(1)(B).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
[[Page S448]]
______
By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. Portman):
S. 206. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow the
Secretary of Education to award job training Federal Pell Grants; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, by 2020, it is estimated that 65 percent of
all jobs will require at least some form of postsecondary education and
training. The National Skills Coalition estimates that nearly half of
all job openings between now and 2022 will be middle skill jobs that
require education beyond high school, but not a four-year degree. While
the number of students pursing postsecondary education is growing, the
supply of skilled workers still falls short of industry demand.
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 5.5 million U.S. jobs
are currently vacant, in part, because of a shortage of qualified
workers.
Our current Federal higher education policy must be improved to help
solve this problem. Pell Grants, needs-based grants for low-income and
working students, can only be awarded towards programs that are over
600 clock hours or at least 15 weeks in length. These grants cannot be
used to support many of the short-term occupational training programs
at community and technical colleges and other institutions that provide
skills and credentials employers need and recognize. When it comes to
higher education, Federal policies need to support the demands of the
changing labor market and support career pathways that align with
industry demand. According the Georgetown University Center on
Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay
off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 20 percent higher
lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma.
Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman,
the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The
JOBS Act would close the ``skills gap'' by expanding Pell Grant
eligibility to cover high-quality and rigorous short-term job training
programs so workers can afford the skills training and credentials that
are in high-demand in today's job market. Since job training programs
are shorter and less costly, Pell Grant awards would be half of the
current discretionary Pell amount. The legislation defines eligible job
training programs as those providing career and technical education
instruction at an institution that provides at least 150 clock hours of
instruction time over a period of at least 8 weeks and that provides
training that meets the needs of the local or regional workforce. These
programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or
credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in
the field for which the job training is offered.
The JOBS Act also ensures that students who receive Pell Grants are
earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the
credentials meet the standards under the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act, are recognized by employers, industry, or sector
partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in the
States or local economies. In Virginia, the Virginia Community College
System has identified approximately 50 programs that would benefit from
the JOBS Act including in the fields of manufacturing, architecture/
construction, energy, health care, information technology,
transportation, and business management and administration.
The JOBS Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help
workers and employers succeed in today's economy. As Congress works to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I hope that my colleagues ensure
that Pell Grants are accessible for individuals participating in high-
quality, short-term occupational training programs that are leading to
industry-recognized credentials and certificates.
______
By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 212. A bill to provide for the development of a United States
strategy for greater human space exploration, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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. 212
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 ``Mapping a New and Innovative
Focus on Our Exploration Strategy for Human Spaceflight Act
of 2017'' or the ``MANIFEST for Human Spaceflight Act of
2017''.
SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY AND FINDINGS.
(a) Reaffirmation of Policy.--Congress reaffirms that the
long-term goal of the human space flight and exploration
efforts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth
orbit and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving
international partners, as stated in section 202(a) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18312(a)).
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In accordance with section 204 of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-267; 124 Stat. 2813), the National
Academy of Sciences, through its Committee on Human
Spaceflight, conducted a review of the goals, core
capabilities, and direction of human space flight, and
published the findings and recommendations in a 2014 report
entitled ``Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches
for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration''.
(2) The Committee on Human Spaceflight included leaders
from the aerospace, scientific, security, and policy
communities. With input from the public, the Committee on
Human Spaceflight concluded that many practical and
aspirational rationales together constitute a compelling case
for human space exploration. These rationales include
economic benefits, national security, national prestige,
inspiring students and other citizens, scientific discovery,
human survival, and a sense of shared destiny.
(3) The Committee on Human Spaceflight affirmed that Mars
is the appropriate long-term goal for the human space flight
program.
(4) The Committee on Human Spaceflight recommended that the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration define a series
of sustainable steps and conduct mission planning and
technology development as needed to achieve the long-term
goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars.
SEC. 3. HUMAN EXPLORATION STRATEGY.
(a) Human Exploration of Mars.--Section 202(b) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18312(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) to achieve human exploration of Mars, including the
establishment of a capability to extend human presence to the
surface of Mars.''.
(b) Exploration Strategy.--
(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall submit an interim report and final
report setting forth a strategy to achieve the objective in
paragraph (5) of section 202(b) of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, as
amended by subsection (a) of this section, through a series
of successive, sustainable, free-standing, but complementary
missions making robust utilization of cis-lunar space and
employing the Space Launch System, Orion crew capsule, and
other capabilities provided under titles III, IV, V, and IX
of that Act (42 U.S.C. 18301 et seq.).
(2) Strategy requirements.--In developing the strategy
under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include--
(A) the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar
space toward enabling missions to various lunar orbits, the
lunar surface, asteroids, Mars, the moons of Mars, and other
destinations of interest for future human exploration and
development;
(B) the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar
space for economic, scientific, and technological advances;
(C) the opportunities for collaboration with--
(i) international partners;
(ii) private industry; and
(iii) other Federal agencies, including missions relevant
to national security or scientific needs;
(D) the opportunities specifically afforded by the
International Space Station (ISS) to support high priority
scientific research and technological developments useful in
expanding and sustaining a human presence in cis-lunar space
and beyond;
(E) a range of exploration mission architectures and
approaches for the missions identified under paragraph (1),
including capabilities for the Orion crew capsule and the
Space Launch System;
(F) a comparison of architectures and approaches based on--
(i) assessed value of factors including cost effectiveness,
schedule resiliency, safety, sustainability, and
opportunities for international collaboration;
[[Page S449]]
(ii) the extent to which certain architectures and
approaches may enable new markets and opportunities for
United States private industry, provide compelling
opportunities for scientific discovery and technological
excellence, sustain United States competitiveness and
leadership, and address critical national security
considerations and requirements; and
(iii) the flexibility of such architectures and approaches
to adjust to evolving technologies, partners, priorities, and
budget projections and constraints;
(G) measures for setting standards for ensuring crew health
and safety, including limits regarding radiation exposure and
countermeasures necessary to meet those limits, means and
methods for addressing urgent medical conditions or injuries,
and other such safety, health, and medical issues that can be
anticipated in the conduct of the missions identified under
paragraph (1);
(H) a description of crew training needs and capabilities
(including space suits and life support systems) necessary to
support the conduct of missions identified under paragraph
(1);
(I) a detailed plan for prioritizing and phasing near-term
intermediate destinations and missions identified under
paragraph (1);
(J) an assessment of the recommendations of the report
prepared in compliance with section 204 of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-267; 124 Stat. 2813), including a
detailed explanation of how the Administrator has ensured
such recommendations have been, to the extent practicable,
incorporated into the strategy under paragraph (1); and
(K) technical information as needed to identify interest
from potential stakeholder or partner communities.
(3) Independent review.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to review
and comment on each interim report pursuant to paragraph (1).
Under the arrangement, the National Academy of Sciences shall
review each interim report on the strategy described in
paragraph (1) and identify the following:
(i) Matters in such interim report agreed upon by the
National Academy of Sciences.
(ii) Matters in such interim report raising concerns for
the National Academy of Sciences.
(iii) Such further recommendations with respect to matters
covered by such interim report as the National Academy of
Sciences considers appropriate.
(B) Timing of review and comment.--The Administrator shall
ensure that the review and comment on an interim report
provided for pursuant to subparagraph (A) is conducted in a
timely manner to comply with the requirements of this
subsection and, to the maximum extent practicable, to
facilitate the incorporation of the comments of the National
Academy of Sciences pursuant to subparagraph (A) into the
applicable final report required by this subsection.
(4) Deadlines.--
(A) Interim reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and not less than every five
years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to the
National Academy of Sciences an interim report on the
strategy required by paragraph (1) in order to facilitate the
independent review and comment on the strategy as provided
for by paragraph (3).
(B) Final reports.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and not less than every five
years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress
a final report on the strategy required by paragraph (1),
which shall include and incorporate the response of the
National Academy of Sciences to the most recent interim
report pursuant to paragraph (3).
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Lee, Mr.
Johnson, and Mr. Rubio):
S. 221. A bill to allow a State to submit a declaration of intent to
the Secretary of Education to combine certain funds to improve the
academic achievement of students; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, as a fifth-generation Montanan and product
of Montana public schools from kindergarten through college, husband to
an elementary school teacher, and father of four children, I understand
how important a first rate education is to our kids' future. That is
why I am reintroducing the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success, or
A-PLUS, Act this Congress. This measure will help expand local control
of our schools and return Federal education dollars where they belong:
closer to the classrooms. By shifting control back to the States,
individual and effective solutions can be created to address the
multitude of unique challenges facing schools across the country.
Through these ``laboratories of democracy,'' Americans can watch and
learn how students can benefit when innovative reforms are implemented
on the local level. This bill would give states greater flexibility in
allocating federal education funding and ensuring academic achievement
in their schools. With A-PLUS, States would be freed from Washington-
knows-best performance metrics and failed testing requirements. Should
this legislation be adopted, states would need to adhere to all civil
rights laws and work towards advancing educational opportunities for
disadvantaged children as well. States would be held accountable by
parents and teachers because a bright light would shine directly on the
decisions made by State capitals and local school districts. With
freedom from Federal mandates comes more responsibility, transparency,
and accountability on States. It would also reduce the administrative
and compliance burdens on state and local education agencies, and
ensure greater public transparency in student academic achievement and
the use of federal education funds. Increasing educational opportunity
in Montana and across the country isn't going happen through federal
mandates or one-size-fits-none regulations. We need to empower our
States, our local school boards, our teachers, and parents to work
together to develop solutions that best fit our kids' unique needs.
That is precisely what my A-PLUS Act does. Washington is the problem--
and we have the solutions in Montana and in states across the country.
The A-PLUS Act goes a long ways towards returning the responsibility
for our kids' education closer to home and reduces the influence of the
Federal Government over our classrooms. I want to thank Senators Cruz,
Perdue, Johnson, Lee, and Rubio for helping reintroduce the A-PLUS Act
this Congress. I ask my other Senate colleagues to join us in
empowering our schools to serve their students, not DC bureaucrats, and
support this important piece of legislation.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Casey, Mr. Tillis, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Shaheen,
Mrs. Capito, Mr. Tester, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Donnelly, Mr.
Heller, Mr. King, and Mr. Kaine):
S. 223. A bill to provide immunity from suit for certain individuals
who disclose potential examples of financial exploitation of senior
citizens, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Aging
Committee, I am delighted to introduce, with my good friend and former
ranking member, Senator Claire McCaskill, the Senior$afe Act of 2017, a
bill that would help protect American seniors from financial fraud. I'm
pleased that Senators Isakson, Casey, Tillis, Klobuchar, Wicker,
Shaheen, Capito, Tester, Barrasso, Donnelly, Heller, and King have
joined us in sponsoring this bill.
According to the GAO, financial fraud targeting older Americans is a
growing epidemic that costs seniors an estimated $2.9 billion annually.
Stopping this tsunami of fraud is one of the top priorities of the
Aging Committee. Last Congress, we held several hearings examining an
endless variety of financial abuses targeting our nation's seniors.
These range from the notorious IRS phone scam that burst onto the scene
in 2015, to the incredible ``drug mule'' scam, where trusting seniors
have been tricked by international narcotics traffickers into
unwittingly serving as drug couriers, and then find themselves arrested
and locked-up in foreign jails. The common denominator in these schemes
involves innocent seniors falling prey and being tricked out of their
hard-earned savings.
Sadly, not all scammers are strangers to their victims, in too many
cases, seniors are exploited by someone they know well. Sometimes, that
abuse is perpetrated by ``friends'' or family members who are handling
the victim's affairs informally. Other times, the abuse is committed
under color of a fiduciary relationship, such as a Power of Attorney or
guardianship.
No matter the scheme, one factor is common to all--the fraudsters
need to gain the trust and active cooperation of their victims. Without
this, their schemes would fail. That is why it is so important that
seniors recognize as quickly as possible the red flags that signal
potential fraud.
Unfortunately, many seniors do not see these red flags. Sometimes
they are
[[Page S450]]
too trusting or are suffering from diminished capacity, but, just as
often, they miss the signs because the swindlers who prey on them are
extremely crafty and know how to sound convincing. Whatever the reason,
a warning sign that can slip by a victim might trigger a second look by
fmancial service representatives trained to spot common scams, who know
enough about a senior's habits to question a transaction that doesn't
look right. In our work on the Aging Committee, we have heard of many
instances where quick action by bank and credit union employees has
stopped a fraud in progress, saving seniors untold thousands of
dollars.
Let me give you an example. Last year, an attorney in the small
coastal city of Belfast, ME, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for
bilking two elderly female clients out of nearly a half a million
dollars over the course of several years.
The lawyer's brazen theft was uncovered when a teller at a local bank
noticed that he was writing large checks to himself on his clients'
accounts. When confronted by authorities, he offered excuses that the
prosecutor later described as ``breathtaking.'' For example, according
to press reports, he put one of his clients into a nursing home to
recover from a temporary medical condition, and then kept her there for
four years until the theft of her funds came to light. Meanwhile, he
submitted bills for ``services,'' sometimes totaling $20,000 a month,
including charging her $250 per hour for 6 to 7 hours to check on her
house, even though his office was just a one-minute drive down the
road.
In another example, in 2015, a senior citizen in Vassalboro, Maine,
was looking to wire funds from his account at Maine Savings Federal
Credit Union to an out-of-state location, supposedly to bail out a
relative who was in jail. Something about this transaction did not
sound right to the credit union employee. She asked the customer, and
he said he had received a call from an ``official'' at the jail--but
that ``official'' had instructed him not to speak to anyone about this.
The ``official,'' of course, turned out to be a con artist.
Fortunately, the credit union worker recognized this as a scam, and
her quick thinking saved her customer from falling victim and losing
his savings.
These stories demonstrate the critical nexus that financial
institutions occupy between fraudsters and their victims. Their
employees, if properly trained, can be the first line of defense
protecting our seniors from these criminals. Regrettably, various state
and federal laws can inadvertently impede efforts to protect seniors,
because financial institutions that report suspected fraud can be
exposed to litigation. The Senior$afe Act encourages financial
institutions to train their employees, and shields them from lawsuits
when they make good faith, reasonable reports of potential fraud to the
proper authorities.
There is no doubt that financial fraud and scams targeting seniors is
a growing problem that we must act on. Last November, the Aging
Committee heard testimony from Jaye Martin, the Executive Director of
Maine Legal Services for the Elderly, who told the Committee that her
organization has seen a 24 percent increase in reports of elder abuse
in just one year. Many of these cases involve financial fraud.
In a letter describing her support for the Senior$afe Act, Ms. Martin
says that:
In a landscape that includes family members who often wish
to keep exploitation from coming to light because they are
perpetrating the exploitation, the risk of facing potential
nuisance or false complaints over privacy violations is all
too real. This is a barrier that must be removed so that
financial institutions will act immediately to report to the
proper authorities upon forming a reasonable belief that
exploitation is occurring. These professionals are on the
front lines in the fight against elder financial exploitation
and are often the only ones in a position to stop
exploitation before it is too late.
Our bill is based on Maine's innovative Senior$afe program, a
collaborative effort by Maine's regulators, financial institutions, and
legal organizations to educate bank and credit union employees on how
to identify and help stop financial exploitation of older Mainers. This
program, pioneered by Maine Securities Administrator Judith Shaw, also
serves as the template for model legislation developed for adoption at
the state level by the North American Securities Administrators
Association, or NASAA. The Senior$afe Act and NASAA's model state
legislation are complementary efforts, and I am pleased that NASAA has
endorsed our bill.
I am pleased that our bill has received bipartisan support in both
houses of Congress. Last year, the House Financial Services Committee
approved a version of the Senior$afe Act by a vote of 59 to zero, and
it passed the full House by voice vote in July. In the Senate, the
Senior$afe Act was cosponsored by a quarter of the Members of this
body, balanced nearly evenly on both sides of the aisle, and was
discharged out of the Banking Committee. Unfortunately, just one member
of this body blocked it and prevented it from becoming law.
Besides receiving broad support in Congress, our bill has the support
of a wide range of stakeholders, ranging from the State securities
administrators and insurance commissioners to advocates for seniors.
Combating financial abuse of seniors requires regulators, law
enforcement and social service agencies at all levels of government to
work collaboratively with the private sector. The Senior$afe Act
encourages financial institutions to train their employees, and shields
them from lawsuits when they make good faith, reasonable reports of
potential fraud to the proper authorities.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Legal Services
for the Elderly,
Augusta, ME, December 5, 2016.
Re Senior$afe (S. 2216).
Hon. Susan Collins,
Chair, Senate Special Committee on Aging, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: I want to thank you for inviting me
to speak with the Senate Special Committee on Aging about the
serious problem of financial exploitation of seniors by
guardians and others in a position of power. I also want to
thank you for your leadership in working to ensure there is
training of financial institution employees in reporting
elder abuse and an improvement in the timely reporting of
financial exploitation when it is suspected through passage
of the Senior$afe Act. I strongly support this legislation
that is based upon work done here in Maine.
I served for over two years on the working group that
developed Maine's SeniorSafe training program for financial
institution managers and employees. It is a voluntary
training program. Through that work I came to fully
appreciate the very real concerns of the financial industry
regarding the consequences of violating, or being perceived
as violating, the broad range of state and federal privacy
laws that apply to their industry. I also came to appreciate
that absent broad immunity for reporting of suspected
financial exploitation, privacy regulations would continue to
be a barrier to good faith reporting of suspected financial
exploitation. In a landscape that includes family members who
often wish to keep exploitation from coming to light because
they are perpetrating the exploitation, the risk of facing
potential nuisance or false complaints over privacy
violations is all too real.
This is a barrier that must be removed so that financial
institution employees will act immediately to make a report
to the proper authorities upon forming a reasonable belief
that exploitation is occurring. These professionals are on
the front lines in the fight against elder financial
exploitation and are often the only ones in a position to
stop exploitation before it is too late.
I want to add that tying the grant of immunity to required
training for not just supervisors, compliance officers, and
legal advisors, but to all who come in contact with seniors
as a part of their regular duties, will have the direct
result of bringing more cases of exploitation to the timely
attention of the proper authorities because it will
significantly increase the knowledge and awareness in the
industry of the red flags for elder abuse. In Maine, where
our training program is entirely voluntary and carries no
legal status or benefit, we have already seen what a
difference training can make.
Senior$afe is a much needed step in the fight against
financial exploitation of seniors and there is no doubt it
will make our nation's seniors safer. I thank you again for
your leadership in this important area.
Sincerely,
Jaye L. Martin,
Executive Director.
[[Page S451]]
____
North American Securities
Administration Association, Inc.,
Washington, DC, January 24, 2017.
Re The Senior$afe Act of 2017.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Chair, U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the North American
Securities Administrators Association (``NASAA''), I am
writing to express strong support for your work to better
protect vulnerable adults from financial exploitation through
the introduction of the Senior$afe Act of 2017. Your
legislation will better protect persons aged 65 and older
from financial exploitation by increasing the likelihood it
will be identified by financial services professionals, and
by removing barriers to reporting it, so that together we as
state securities regulators and other appropriate
governmental authorities can help stop it.
Senior financial exploitation is a growing problem across
the country. Many in our elderly population are vulnerable
due to social isolation and distance from family, caregiver,
and other support networks. Indeed, evidence suggests that as
many as one out of every five citizens over the age of 65 has
been victimized by a financial fraud. To be successful in
combating senior financial exploitation, state and federal
policymakers must come together to weave a new safety net for
our elderly, breaking down barriers for those who are best
positioned to identify red flags early on and to encourage
reporting and referrals to appropriate local, county, state,
and federal agencies, including law enforcement.
The Senior$afe Act consists of several essential features.
First, to promote and encourage reporting of suspected
elderly financial exploitation by financial services
professionals, who are positioned to identify and report
``red flags'' of potential exploitation, the bill would
incentivize financial services employees to report any
suspected exploitation by making them immune from any civil
or administrative liability arising from such a report,
provided that they exercised due care, and that they make
these reports in good faith. Second, in order to better
assure that financial services employees have the knowledge
and training they require to identify ``red flags''
associated with financial exploitation, the bill would
require that, as a condition of receiving immunity, financial
institutions undertake to train certain personnel regarding
the identification and reporting of senior financial
exploitation.
The Senior$afe Act's objectives and benefits are far-
reaching. Older Americans stand to benefit directly from such
reporting, because early detection and reporting will
minimize their financial losses from exploitation, and
because improved protection of their finances ultimately
helps preserve their financial independence and their
personal autonomy. Financial institutions stand to benefit,
as well, through preservation of their reputation, increased
community recognition, increased employee satisfaction, and
decreased uninsured losses.
In conclusion, state securities regulators strongly support
passage of the Senior$afe Act of 2017. Please do not hesitate
to contact me, or Michael Canning, NASAA Director of Policy,
if we may be of any additional assistance.
Sincerely,
Mike Rothman,
NASAA President and Minnesota,
Commissioner of Commerce.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. Manchin):
S. 228. A bill to ensure that small business providers of broadband
Internet access service can devote resources to broadband deployment
rather than compliance with cumbersome regulatory requirements, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, small businesses are the backbone of
America. They generate more than half of the country's private GDP and
support millions of families. In Montana, small businesses are
innovating, offering new products and services, and creating jobs.
The business community relies on the Internet to access the global
marketplace. In rural states like Montana where it is costly to provide
internet access, consumers and businesses depend on small businesses to
provide connectivity. Without small broadband providers, many Montanans
would not have the internet access that most of us take for granted.
Burdensome regulations like the FCC's net neutrality rules are
strangling our small businesses and preventing growth and investment.
The enhanced transparency requirements in particular require small
businesses to disclose an excess amount of information including
network packet loss, network performance by geographic area, network
performance during peak usage, network practices concerning a
particular group of users, triggers that activate network practices,
and the list goes on. Small companies operate with a small team of
employees and do not have a team of attorneys dedicated to regulatory
compliance. Small businesses simply do not have the bandwidth to take
on additional regulatory burdens.
That is why I am proud to introduce the Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act of 2017 with my colleague Senator Manchin. The bill
provides a temporary small business exception to the net neutrality
enhanced transparency requirements. There is broad support in the
record for this exception, including support from the American Cable
Association, Rural Wireless Association, Competitive Carriers
Association, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, CTIA--The
Wireless Association, Rural Broadband Provider Coalition, WTA--
Advocates for Rural Broadband.
Providing relief from burdensome disclosure rules will allow small
businesses to focus on deploying infrastructure and serving their
customers rather than spending time on regulatory compliance. I ask my
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this much needed legislation.
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. 228
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 ``Small Business Broadband
Deployment Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS EXEMPTION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives;
(2) the term ``broadband Internet access service'' has the
meaning given the term in section 8.2 of title 47, Code of
Federal Regulations;
(3) the term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission; and
(4) the term ``small business'' means any provider of
broadband Internet access service that has not more than
250,000 subscribers.
(b) Exception for Small Businesses.--The enhancements to
the transparency rule of the Commission under section 8.3 of
title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as described in
paragraphs 162 through 184 of the Report and Order on Remand,
Declaratory Ruling, and Order of the Commission with regard
to protecting and promoting the open Internet (adopted by the
Commission on February 26, 2015) (FCC 15-24), shall not apply
to any small business.
(c) Sunset.--Subsection (b) shall not have any force or
effect after the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(d) Report by FCC.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report that contains
the recommendations of the Commission, and data supporting
those recommendations, regarding whether--
(1) the exception provided under subsection (b) should be
made permanent; and
(2) the definition of the term ``small business'' for the
purposes of the exception provided under subsection (b)
should be modified from the definition in subsection (a)(4).
____________________