PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-424
======================================================================
SENIOR SAFE ACT OF 2017
_______
November 28, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hensarling, from the Committee on Financial Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3758]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3758) to provide immunity from suit for certain
individuals who disclose potential examples of financial
exploitation of senior citizens, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
On September 12, 2017, Representatives Kyrsten Sinema and
Bruce Poliquin introduced H.R. 3758, the ``Senior Safe Act of
2017'', which provides that: (1) a supervisor, compliance
officer, or legal advisor for a covered financial institution
who has received training regarding the identification and
reporting of the suspected exploitation of a senior citizen (at
least 65 years old) shall not be liable for disclosing such
exploitation to a covered agency if the individual made the
disclosure in good faith and with reasonable care; and (2) a
covered financial institution shall not be liable for such a
disclosure by such an individual if the individual was employed
by the institution at the time of the disclosure and the
institution had provided such training.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The goal of H.R. 3758 is to protect seniors from financial
exploitation. According to a study conducted by MetLife,
seniors lose at least $2.9 billion annually in reported cases
of financial exploitation. It also has been estimated that one
in five seniors, age 65 and older, have been the victim of
financial fraud. However, despite the prevalence of senior
financial fraud, the National Adult Protective Services
Association estimated that only 1 in 44 cases of financial
abuse is ever reported.
H.R. 3758 protects banks, credit unions, investment
advisers, broker-dealers and their employees from civil or
administrative liability, as long as employees receive training
on how to identify and report predatory activity against
seniors and that reports are made ``in good faith'' and ``with
reasonable care.'' Current bank privacy laws make it difficult
for these entities listed above to report any potentially
fraudulent activity without incurring legal liability, and as a
result, few cases of financial abuse are reported. H.R. 3758 is
based on Maine's Senior Safe program, an initiative launched in
2014 that is designed to train financial professionals to
detect and report senior financial abuse.
HEARINGS
The Committee on Financial Services held a hearing
examining matters relating to H.R. 3758 on April 26, 2017,
April 28, 2017, September 7, 2017, and March 22, 2017.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on
October 11, 2017, and October 12, 2017, and ordered H.R. 3758
to be reported favorably to the House without amendment by a
recorded vote of 60 yeas to 0 nays (Record vote no. FC-93), a
quorum being present.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The
sole recorded vote was on a motion by Chairman Hensarling to
report the bill favorably to the House without amendment. The
motion was agreed to by a recorded vote of 60 yeas to 0 nays
(Record vote no. FC-93), a quorum being present.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the findings and recommendations of
the Committee based on oversight activities under clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 3758
will reduce financial fraud against seniors by providing that
certain employees of a covered financial institution that
receive training, and financial institutions that provide
training regarding the identification and reporting of the
suspected exploitation of a senior citizen, would not be liable
for disclosing such exploitation to a covered agency, provided
that the individual made the disclosure in good faith and with
reasonable care.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 30, 2017.
Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
Chairman Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3758, the Senior
Safe Act of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3758--Senior Safe Act of 2017
H.R. 3758 would exempt financial institutions and some of
their employees from liability in any civil or administrative
proceeding in situations where those employees make a report
about the potential exploitation of a senior citizen to a
governmental agency. Based on information from the federal
banking regulators, CBO concludes that the bill would not
change their policies towards such reporting. Accordingly, CBO
estimates that enacting the bill would have no effect on the
federal budget.
Enacting H.R. 3758 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 3758 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 3758 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting
state laws that provide a lower level of liability protection
for certain financial institutions and their employees than
would be provided under the bill. The bill would exempt from
liability financial institutions and employees of those
institutions that have received training on the financial
exploitation of senior citizens and have filed reports of such
exploitation to an appropriate government authority. Although
the preemption would limit the application of state laws and
regulations, CBO estimates that the bill would impose no duty
on state, local, or tribal governments that would result in
additional spending or a loss of revenues.
H.R. 3758 also would impose a private-sector mandate by
removing a private right of action. The bill would eliminate
the right of plaintiffs to file a civil action against some
financial institutions and employees of such institutions for
disclosing information about the potential exploitation of a
senior citizen in compliance with the bill. Similar to the
intergovernmental mandate, the scope of the private-sector
mandate is narrow, applying liability protection to only those
employees that have received training and filed reports as
outlined in the bill. The protection is similarly narrow for
financial institutions. The cost of the mandate would be the
forgone net value of awards and settlements that would have
been awarded for such claims in the absence of the bill.
Therefore, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate in any
one year would fall below the annual threshold for private-
sector mandates established in UMRA ($156 million in 2017,
adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Sarah Puro
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental
and private-sector mandates). The estimate was approved H.
Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
This information is provided in accordance with section 423
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Committee has determined that the bill does not contain
Federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee has
determined that the bill does not impose a Federal
intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of the section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
EARMARK IDENTIFICATION
With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed
the provisions of the bill and states that the provisions of
the bill do not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits within the meaning of the
rule.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
In compliance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no
provision of the bill establishes or reauthorizes: (1) a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program; (2) a program included in any report
from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant
to section 21 of Public Law 111-139; or (3) a program related
to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Pub. L. No. 95-220, as amended by Pub. L. No.
98-169).
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULEMAKING
Pursuant to section 3(i) of H. Res. 5, (115th Congress),
the following statement is made concerning directed
rulemakings: The Committee estimates that the bill requires no
directed rulemakings within the meaning of such section.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
This Section cites H.R. 3758 as the ``Senior Safe Act of
2017''
Section 2. Immunity
This section sets various forth definitions, including for
the terms ``covered financial institution''--which means: (a) a
credit union; (b) a bank; (c) an investment adviser; (d) a
broker-dealer; (e) an insurance company; (f) an insurance
agency; and (g) a transfer agent--and ``covered agency.''
This section also sets forth that individuals who receive
training are not liable for any civil or administrative
proceeding if they disclose the exploitation of a senior
citizen to a covered agency with reasonable care. In addition,
covered financial institutions that provide training to
employees are not liable for any civil or administrative
proceeding arising from the individual's disclosure.
Section 3. Training
This section outlines the training that is required for
employees or financial institutions that interact with senior
citizens. The training shall be maintained by the covered
financial institution, shall instruct individuals how to
identify suspected exploitation of a senior citizen, shall
instruct individuals how to respect the privacy of customers,
and shall be appropriate to the individual in the training. The
training shall be provided no later than 1 year after
employment.
Section 4. Relationship to State Law
This section states that this Act shall be construed to
preempt or limit any provision within state law, except in the
case of State Law providing a greater level of protection.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 3758 does not repeal or amend any section of a statue.
Therefore, the Office of Legislative Counsel did not prepare
the report contemplated by clause 3(e)(1)(B) of rule XIII of
the House of Representatives.
[all]
