79–006 

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 

2 

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. 

3 


Insert graphic folio 4 here HR424.001
4 

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 poVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:19 Nov 29, 2017 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR424.XXX HR424
5 

tential 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 privatesector 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. 

6 

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 

7 

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. 

Æ