U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–797 PDF 2009

ELDER JUSTICE ACT, THE ELDER ABUSE VICTIMS 

ACT OF 2008, THE SCHOOL SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS ACT OF 2007, AND THE A CHILD 

IS MISSING ALERT AND RECOVERY CENTER 

ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1783, H.R. 5352, H.R. 2352 and H.R. 5464 

APRIL 17, 2008 

Serial No. 110–146 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 17, 2008 

Page 

TEXT OF THE BILLS 

H.R. 1783, the ‘‘Elder Justice Act’’ ......................................................................... 2 

H.R. 5352, the ‘‘Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008’’ ............................................... 25 

H.R. 2352, the ‘‘School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007’’ ................................. 34 

H.R. 5464, the ‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act’’ .................. 36 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 37 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 39 

The Honorable Hank Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 44 

The Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 44 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

The Honorable Joe Sestak, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52 

The Honorable Steven R. Rothman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 53 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 55 

The Honorable Ron Klein, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 56 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58 

Mr. Robert Blancato, National Coordinator, Elder Justice Coalition, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 65 

Ms. Sherry Friedlander-Olsen, Founder and CEO, A Child Is Missing Alert 

Program, Fort Lauderdale, FL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 80 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 82 

Page

IV 

Mr. Vernon M. Keenan, Director, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Decatur, 

GA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 83 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 85 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Member, Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................ 44 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Peter T. King, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York ................................................................ 47 

Prepared Statement of Joseph D. O’Connor, Chair, American Bar Association 

Commission on Law and Aging, the American Bar Association (ABA) ........... 99 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 101 

(1) 

ELDER JUSTICE ACT, THE ELDER ABUSE VICTIMS ACT OF 2008, THE SCHOOL SAFETY 

ENHANCEMENTS ACT OF 2007, AND THE A 

CHILD IS MISSING ALERT AND RECOVERY 

CENTER ACT 

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Waters, Johnson, Jackson Lee, Baldwin, Gohmert, Coble, and Chabot. 

Staff present: Mario Dispenza, Fellow/ATF Detailee; Karen 

Wilkinson, Fellow/Federal Public Defender Office Detailee; 

Veronica Eligan, Majority Professional Staff Member; Caroline 

Lynch, Minority Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you to this hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Today, we 

will be considering four public safety bills pending before the 

House, H.R. 1783, the ‘‘Elder Justice Act,’’ H.R. 5352, the ‘‘Elder 

Abuse Victims Act of 2008,’’ H.R. 2352, the ‘‘School Enhancements 

Act of 2007,’’ and H.R. 5464, the ‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act.’’ 

H.R. 1783, the ‘‘Elder Justice Act,’’ is sponsored by the gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel. H.R. 5352, the ‘‘Elder Abuse Victims 

Act of 2008’’ is sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Sestak. They form a comprehensive plan for preventing and combating elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 1783, follows:] 

2 

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1783 

To amend the Social Security Act to enhance the social security of the Nation by 

ensuring adequate public-private infrastructure and to resolve to prevent, detect, 

treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. EMANUEL (for himself and Mr. KING of New York) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 

Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Social Security Act to enhance the social security of the Nation by 

ensuring adequate public-private infrastructure and to resolve to prevent, detect, 

treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and for 

other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 

of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Elder Justice Act’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Findings. 

Sec. 3. Purposes. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Sec. 101. Definitions. 

Sec. 102. Elder Justice. 

‘‘PART A—BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL SERVICES

‘‘PART B—ELDER JUSTICE

‘‘Sec. 2011. Definitions. 

‘‘Sec. 2012. General provisions. 

‘‘Subpart 1—National Coordination of Elder Justice Activities and Research 

‘‘CHAPTER I—ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL AND ADVISORY BOARD ON

ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION

‘‘Sec. 2021. Elder Justice Coordinating Council. 

‘‘Sec. 2022. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. 

‘‘Sec. 2023. Research protections. 

‘‘Sec. 2024. Authorization of appropriations. 

‘‘CHAPTER II—ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION FORENSIC CENTERS

‘‘Sec. 2031. Establishment and support of elder abuse, neglect, and Exploitation 

forensic Centers. 

3 

‘‘Subpart 2—Programs to Promote Elder Justice 

‘‘Sec. 2041. Enhancement of long-term care. 

‘‘Sec. 2042. Adult protective services functions and grant programs. 

‘‘Sec. 2043. Long-term care ombudsman program grants and training. 

‘‘Sec. 2044. Provision of information regarding, and evaluations of, elder justice 

programs. 

‘‘Sec. 2045. Report. 

‘‘Sec. 1150A. Reporting to law enforcement of crimes occurring in federally funded long-Term care facilities. 

‘‘Sec. 1150B. Ensuring safety of residents when federally funded Long-Term care 

facilities close. 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Sec. 201. Model State laws and practices. 

Sec. 202. Elder justice plan and strategy. 

Sec. 203. Victim advocacy grants. 

Sec. 204. Supporting local prosecutors in elder justice matters. 

Sec. 205. Supporting State prosecutors in elder justice matters. 

Sec. 206. Increased support for Federal cases involving elder justice. 

Sec. 207. Supporting law enforcement in elder justice matters. 

Sec. 208. Evaluations. 

TITLE III—TAX PROVISIONS 

Sec. 301. Long-Term care facility worker employment tax credit. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The proportion of the United States population age 60 years or older will 

drastically increase in the next 30 years as more than 76,000,000 baby boomers 

approach retirement and old age. 

(2) Each year, anywhere between 500,000 and 5,000,000 elders in the 

United States are abused, neglected, or exploited. 

(3) Elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation have no boundaries, and cross all 

racial, social class, gender, and geographic lines. 

(4) Victims of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation are not only subject to 

injury from mistreatment and neglect, they are also 3.1 times more likely than 

elders who were not victims of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation to die at 

an earlier age than expected. 

(5) There is a general dearth of data as to the nature and scope of elder 

abuse, neglect, and exploitation. In recognition of the need to improve data collection efforts with respect to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, Congress 

required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study by the 

end of 2008 on establishing a uniform national database on elder abuse under 

section 405 of title IV of Division C of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 

2006 (Public Law 109–432). 

(6) Despite the dearth of data in the field, experts agree that most cases 

of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation are never reported and that abuse, neglect, and exploitation shorten a victim’s life, often triggering a downward spiral 

of an otherwise productive, self-sufficient elder’s life. Programs addressing other 

difficult issues such as domestic violence and child abuse and neglect have demonstrated the need for a multifaceted law, combining public health, social service, and law enforcement approaches. 

(7) For over 20 years, Congress has been presented with facts and testimony calling for a coordinated Federal effort to combat elder abuse, neglect, and 

exploitation. 

(8) The Federal Government has been slow to respond to the needs of victims of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation or to undertake prevention efforts. 

(9) No Federal law has been enacted that adequately and comprehensively 

addresses the issues of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and there are very 

limited resources available to those in the field that directly deal with the 

issues. 

(10) Differences in State laws and practices in the areas of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation lead to significant disparities in prevention, protective 

and social services, treatment systems, and law enforcement, and lead to other 

inequities. 

4 

(11) The Federal Government has played an important role in promoting 

research, training, public safety, and data collection, and the identification, development, and dissemination of promising health care, social, and protective 

services, and law enforcement practices, relating to child abuse and neglect, domestic violence, and violence against women. The Federal Government should 

promote similar efforts and protections relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(12) The Federal Government should provide leadership and assist States 

and communities in their efforts to protect elders in the United States by— 

(A) promoting coordinated planning among all levels of government; 

(B) generating and sharing knowledge relevant to protecting elders; 

(C) providing leadership to combat the abuse, neglect, and exploitation 

of the Nation’s elders; and 

(D) providing resources to States and communities to promote elder justice. 

(13) The problem of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation requires a comprehensive approach that— 

(A) integrates the work of health, legal, and social service agencies and 

organizations; 

(B) emphasizes the need for prevention, reporting, investigation, assessment, treatment, and prosecution of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation 

at all levels of government; 

(C) ensures that sufficient numbers of properly trained personnel with 

specialized knowledge are in place to— 

(i) treat, assess, and provide services relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

(ii) carry out elder protection duties; 

(D) is sensitive to ethnic and cultural diversity; 

(E) recognizes the role of mental health, disability, dementia, substance 

abuse, medication mismanagement, and family dysfunction problems in increasing and exacerbating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

(F) balances elders’ right to self-determination with society’s responsibility to protect elders. 

(14) The human, social, and economic cost of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation is high and includes unnecessary expenditures of funds from many 

public programs. 

(15) The failure to coordinate activities relating to, and comprehensively 

prevent and treat, elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation threatens the future 

and well-being of millions of elders in the United States. 

(16) All elements of society in the United States have a shared responsibility in responding to a national problem of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this Act are as follows: 

(1) To enhance the social security of the Nation by ensuring adequate public-private infrastructure and resolving to prevent, detect, treat, understand, 

and intervene in, and where appropriate, aid in the prosecution of, elder abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation. 

(2) To bring a comprehensive approach to preventing and combating elder 

abuse, neglect, and exploitation, a long invisible problem that afflicts the most 

vulnerable among the aging population of the United States. 

(3) To raise the issue of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation to national 

attention, and to create the infrastructure at the Federal, State, and local levels, to ensure that individuals and organizations on the front lines, who are 

fighting elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation with scarce resources and fragmented systems, have the resources and information needed to carry out their 

fight. 

(4) To bring a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to elder justice. 

(5) To set in motion research and data collection to fill gaps in knowledge 

about elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(6) To supplement the activities of service providers and programs, to enhance training, and to leverage scarce resources efficiently, in order to ensure 

that elder justice receives the attention it deserves as the Nation’s population 

ages. 

(7) To recognize and address the role of mental health, disability, dementia, 

substance abuse, medication mismanagement, and family dysfunction problems 

in increasing and exacerbating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

5 

(8) To create short- and long-term strategic plans for the development and 

coordination of elder justice research, programs, studies, training, and other efforts nationwide. 

(9) To promote collaborative efforts and diminish overlap and gaps in efforts 

in developing the important field of elder justice. 

(10) To honor and respect the right of all individuals with diminished capacity to decisionmaking autonomy, self-determination, and dignity of choice. 

(11) To respect the wishes of individuals with diminished capacity and their 

family members in providing supportive services and care plans intended to protect elders from abuse, neglect (including self-neglect), and exploitation. 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS. 

Except as otherwise specifically provided, any term that is defined in section 

2011 of the Social Security Act (as added by section 102(a)) and is used in this title 

has the meaning given such term by such section. 

SEC. 102. ELDER JUSTICE. 

(a) ELDER JUSTICE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et 

seq.) is amended— 

(A) in the title heading, by inserting ‘‘AND ELDER JUSTICE’’ after 

‘‘SOCIAL SERVICES’’; 

(B) by inserting before section 2001 the following: 

‘‘PART A—BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL SERVICES’’; 

and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘PART B—ELDER JUSTICE

‘‘SEC. 2011. DEFINITIONS. 

‘‘In this part: 

‘‘(1) ABUSE.—The term ‘abuse’ means the knowing infliction of physical or 

psychological harm or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm. 

‘‘(2) ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES.—The term ‘adult protective services’ 

means such services provided to adults as the Secretary may specify and includes services such as— 

‘‘(A) disseminating reports of adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation; 

‘‘(B) investigating the reports described in subparagraph (A); 

‘‘(C) case planning, monitoring, evaluation, and other case work and 

services; and 

‘‘(D) providing, arranging for, or facilitating the provision of medical, 

social service, economic, legal, housing, law enforcement, or other protective, emergency, or support services. 

‘‘(3) CAREGIVER.—The term ‘caregiver’ means an individual who has the responsibility for the care of an elder, either voluntarily, by contract, by receipt 

of payment for care, or as a result of the operation of law, and means a family 

member or other individual who provides (on behalf of such individual or of a 

public or private agency, organization, or institution) compensated or uncompensated care to an elder who needs supportive services in any setting. 

‘‘(4) DIRECT CARE.—The term ‘direct care’ means care by an employee or 

contractor who provides assistance or long-term care services to a recipient. 

‘‘(5) ELDER.—The term ‘elder’ means an individual age 60 or older. 

‘‘(6) ELDER JUSTICE.—The term ‘elder justice’ means— 

‘‘(A) from a societal perspective, efforts to— 

‘‘(i) prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation; and 

‘‘(ii) protect elders with diminished capacity while maximizing their 

autonomy; and 

‘‘(B) from an individual perspective, the recognition of an elder’s rights, 

including the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

6 

‘‘(7) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—The term ‘eligible entity’ means a State or local government agency, Indian tribe or tribal organization, or any other public or private entity that is engaged in and has expertise in issues relating to elder justice or in a field necessary to promote elder justice efforts. 

‘‘(8) EXPLOITATION.—The term ‘exploitation’ means the fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper act or process of an individual, including 

a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets. 

‘‘(9) FIDUCIARY.—The term ‘fiduciary’— 

‘‘(A) means a person or entity with the legal responsibility— 

‘‘(i) to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of another 

person; and 

‘‘(ii) to act in good faith and with fairness; and 

‘‘(B) includes a trustee, a guardian, a conservator, an executor, an 

agent under a financial power of attorney or health care power of attorney, 

or a representative payee. 

‘‘(10) GRANT.—The term ‘grant’ includes a contract, cooperative agreement, 

or other mechanism for providing financial assistance. 

‘‘(11) GUARDIANSHIP.—The term ‘guardianship’ means— 

‘‘(A) the process by which a State court determines that an adult individual lacks capacity to make decisions about self-care and property, and 

appoints another individual or entity known as a guardian, as a conservator, or by a similar term, as a surrogate decisionmaker; 

‘‘(B) the manner in which the court-appointed surrogate decisionmaker 

carries out duties to the individual and the court; or 

‘‘(C) the manner in which the court exercises oversight of the surrogate 

decisionmaker. 

‘‘(12) INDIAN TRIBE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘Indian tribe’ has the meaning given such 

term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). 

‘‘(B) INCLUSION OF PUEBLO AND RANCHERIA.—The term ‘Indian tribe’ includes any Pueblo or Rancheria. 

‘‘(13) LAW ENFORCEMENT.—The term ‘law enforcement’ means the full range 

of potential responders to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation including— 

‘‘(A) police, sheriffs, detectives, public safety officers, and corrections 

personnel; 

‘‘(B) prosecutors; 

‘‘(C) medical examiners; 

‘‘(D) investigators; and 

‘‘(E) coroners. 

‘‘(14) LONG-TERM CARE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘long-term care’ means supportive and 

health services specified by the Secretary for individuals who need assistance because the individuals have a loss of capacity for self-care due to illness, disability, or vulnerability. 

‘‘(B) LOSS OF CAPACITY FOR SELF-CARE.—For purposes of subparagraph 

(A), the term ‘loss of capacity for self-care’ means an inability to engage in 

1 or more activities of daily living, including eating, dressing, bathing, and 

management of one’s financial affairs. 

‘‘(15) LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY.—The term ‘long-term care facility’ means 

a residential care provider that arranges for, or directly provides, long-term 

care. 

‘‘(16) NEGLECT.—The term ‘neglect’ means— 

‘‘(A) the failure of a caregiver or fiduciary to provide the goods or services that are necessary to maintain the health or safety of an elder; or 

‘‘(B) self-neglect. 

‘‘(17) NURSING FACILITY.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘nursing facility’ has the meaning given 

such term under section 1919(a). 

‘‘(B) INCLUSION OF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY.—The term ‘nursing facility’ includes a skilled nursing facility (as defined in section 1819(a)) 

‘‘(18) SELF-NEGLECT.—The term ‘self-neglect’ means an adult’s inability, due 

to physical or mental impairment or diminished capacity, to perform essential 

self-care tasks including— 

‘‘(A) obtaining essential food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; 

7 

‘‘(B) obtaining goods and services necessary to maintain physical 

health, mental health, or general safety; or 

‘‘(C) managing one’s own financial affairs. 

‘‘(19) SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘serious bodily injury’ means an injury— 

‘‘(i) involving extreme physical pain; 

‘‘(ii) involving substantial risk of death; 

‘‘(iii) involving protracted loss or impairment of the function of a 

bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or 

‘‘(iv) requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation. 

‘‘(B) CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE.—Serious bodily injury shall be considered to have occurred if the conduct causing the injury is conduct described 

in section 2241 (relating to aggravated sexual abuse) or 2242 (relating to 

sexual abuse) of title 18, United States Code, or any similar offense under 

State law. 

‘‘(20) SOCIAL.—The term ‘social’, when used with respect to a service, includes adult protective services. 

‘‘(21) STATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE DEVELOPER.—The term ‘State legal assistance developer’ means an individual described in section 731 of the Older Americans Act of 1965. 

‘‘(22) STATE LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN.—The term ‘State Long-Term 

Care Ombudsman’ means the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman described in 

section 712(a)(2) of the Older Americans Act of 1965. 

‘‘SEC. 2012. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

‘‘(a) PROTECTION OF PRIVACY.—In pursuing activities under this part, the Secretary shall ensure the protection of individual health privacy consistent with the 

regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability 

and Accountability Act of 1996 and applicable State and local privacy regulations. 

‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this part shall be construed to interfere with or abridge an elder’s right to practice his or her religion through reliance 

on prayer alone for healing when this choice— 

‘‘(1) is contemporaneously expressed, either orally or in writing, with respect to a specific illness or injury which the elder has at the time of the decision by an elder who is competent at the time of the decision; 

‘‘(2) is previously set forth in a living will, health care proxy, or other advance directive document that is validly executed and applied under State law; 

or ‘‘(3) may be unambiguously deduced from the elder’s life history. 

‘‘SUBPART 1—NATIONAL COORDINATION OF ELDER JUSTICE ACTIVITIES AND RESEARCH

‘‘CHAPTER I—ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL 

AND ADVISORY BOARD ON ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, 

AND EXPLOITATION 

‘‘SEC. 2021. ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the Office of the Secretary an 

Elder Justice Coordinating Council (in this section referred to as the ‘Council’). 

‘‘(b) MEMBERSHIP.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall be composed of the following members: 

‘‘(A) The Secretary (or the Secretary’s designee). 

‘‘(B) The Attorney General (or the Attorney General’s designee). 

‘‘(C) The head of each Federal department or agency or other governmental entity identified by the Chair referred to in subsection (d) as having 

responsibilities, or administering programs, relating to elder abuse, neglect, 

and exploitation. 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—Each member of the Council shall be an officer or employee of the Federal Government. 

‘‘(c) VACANCIES.—Any vacancy in the Council shall not affect its powers, but 

shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made. 

‘‘(d) CHAIR.—The member described in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be Chair of the 

Council. 

‘‘(e) MEETINGS.—The Council shall meet at least 2 times per year, as determined by the Chair. 

‘‘(f) DUTIES.— 

8 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall make recommendations to the Secretary for the coordination of activities of the Department of Health and Human 

Services, the Department of Justice, and other relevant Federal, State, local, 

and private agencies and entities, relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and other crimes against elders. 

‘‘(2) REPORT.—Not later than the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of the Elder Justice Act and every 2 years thereafter, the Council shall 

submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 

and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that— 

‘‘(A) describes the activities and accomplishments of, and challenges 

faced by— 

‘‘(i) the Council; and 

‘‘(ii) the entities represented on the Council; and 

‘‘(B) makes such recommendations for legislation, model laws, or other 

action as the Council determines to be appropriate. 

‘‘(g) POWERS OF THE COUNCIL.— 

‘‘(1) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Subject to the requirements of 

section 2012(a), the Council may secure directly from any Federal department 

or agency such information as the Council considers necessary to carry out this 

section. Upon request of the Chair of the Council, the head of such department 

or agency shall furnish such information to the Council. 

‘‘(2) POSTAL SERVICES.—The Council may use the United States mails in the 

same manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. 

‘‘(h) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Council shall not receive compensation for the performance of services for the Council. The members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized 

for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 

Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance 

of services for the Council. Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States 

Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and uncompensated services of the 

members of the Council. 

‘‘(i) DETAIL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—Any Federal Government employee 

may be detailed to the Council without reimbursement, and such detail shall be 

without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege. 

‘‘(j) STATUS AS PERMANENT COUNCIL.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council. 

‘‘SEC. 2022. ADVISORY BOARD ON ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a board to be known as the ‘Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation’ (in this section referred to 

as the ‘Advisory Board’) to create short- and long-term multidisciplinary strategic 

plans for the development of the field of elder justice and to make recommendations 

to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council established under section 2021. 

‘‘(b) COMPOSITION.—The Advisory Board shall be composed of 27 members appointed by the Secretary from among members of the general public who are individuals with experience and expertise in elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention, detection, treatment, intervention, or prosecution. 

‘‘(c) SOLICITATION OF NOMINATIONS.—The Secretary shall publish a notice in the 

Federal Register soliciting nominations for the appointment of members of the Advisory Board under subsection (b). 

‘‘(d) TERMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each member of the Advisory Board shall be appointed 

for a term of 3 years, except that, of the members first appointed— 

‘‘(A) 9 shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; 

‘‘(B) 9 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and 

‘‘(C) 9 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year. 

‘‘(2) VACANCIES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any vacancy on the Advisory Board shall not affect 

its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made. 

‘‘(B) FILLING UNEXPIRED TERM.—An individual chosen to fill a vacancy 

shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member replaced. 

‘‘(3) EXPIRATION OF TERMS.—The term of any member shall not expire before the date on which the member’s successor takes office. 

9 

‘‘(e) ELECTION OF OFFICERS.—The Advisory Board shall elect a Chair and Vice 

Chair from among its members. The Advisory Board shall elect its initial Chair and 

Vice Chair at its initial meeting. 

‘‘(f) DUTIES.— ‘‘(1) ENHANCE COMMUNICATION ON PROMOTING QUALITY OF, AND PREVENTING

ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN, LONG-TERM CARE.—The Advisory Board shall develop 

collaborative and innovative approaches to improve the quality of, including 

preventing abuse and neglect in, long-term care. 

‘‘(2) COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS TO DEVELOP CONSENSUS AROUND THE MANAGE- MENT OF CERTAIN QUALITY-RELATED FACTORS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Advisory Board shall establish multidisciplinary 

panels to address, and develop consensus on, subjects relating to improving 

the quality of long-term care. At least 1 such panel shall address, and develop consensus on, methods for managing resident-to-resident abuse in 

long-term care. 

‘‘(B) ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED.—The multidisciplinary panels established 

under subparagraph (A) shall examine relevant research and data, identify 

best practices with respect to the subject of the panel, determine the best 

way to carry out those best practices in a practical and feasible manner, 

and determine an effective manner of distributing information on such subject. 

‘‘(3) REPORT.—Not later than the date that is 18 months after the date of 

enactment of the Elder Justice Act, and annually thereafter, the Advisory Board 

shall prepare and submit to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on Ways and Means and 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report containing— 

‘‘(A) information on the status of Federal, State, and local public and 

private elder justice activities; 

‘‘(B) recommendations (including recommended priorities) regarding— 

‘‘(i) elder justice programs, research, training, services, practice, enforcement, and coordination; 

‘‘(ii) coordination between entities pursuing elder justice efforts and 

those involved in related areas that may inform or overlap with elder 

justice efforts, such as activities to combat violence against women and 

child abuse and neglect; and 

‘‘(iii) activities relating to adult fiduciary systems, including guardianship and other fiduciary arrangements; 

‘‘(C) recommendations for specific modifications needed in Federal and 

State laws (including regulations) or for programs, research, and training 

to enhance prevention, detection, and treatment (including diagnosis) of, 

intervention in (including investigation of), and prosecution of elder abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation; 

‘‘(D) recommendations on methods for the most effective coordinated 

national data collection with respect to elder justice, and elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

‘‘(E) recommendations for a multidisciplinary strategic plan to guide 

the effective and efficient development of the field of elder justice. 

‘‘(g) POWERS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD.— 

‘‘(1) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Subject to the requirements of 

section 2012(a), the Advisory Board may secure directly from any Federal department or agency such information as the Advisory Board considers necessary 

to carry out this section. Upon request of the Chair of the Advisory Board, the 

head of such department or agency shall furnish such information to the Advisory Board. 

‘‘(2) SHARING OF DATA AND REPORTS.—The Advisory Board may request 

from any entity pursuing elder justice activities under the Elder Justice Act or 

an amendment made by that Act, any data, reports, or recommendations generated in connection with such activities. 

‘‘(3) POSTAL SERVICES.—The Advisory Board may use the United States 

mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as other departments 

and agencies of the Federal Government. 

‘‘(h) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Advisory Board shall not receive 

compensation for the performance of services for the Advisory Board. The members 

shall be allowed travel expenses for up to 4 meetings per year, including per diem 

in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes 

or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Advisory Board. 

10 

Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and uncompensated services of the members of the Advisory 

Board. 

‘‘(i) DETAIL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—Any Federal Government employee 

may be detailed to the Advisory Board without reimbursement, and such detail shall 

be without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege. 

‘‘(j) STATUS AS PERMANENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—Section 14 of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the advisory board. 

‘‘SEC. 2023. RESEARCH PROTECTIONS. 

‘‘(a) GUIDELINES.—The Secretary shall promulgate guidelines to assist researchers working in the area of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, with issues relating 

to human subject protections. 

‘‘(b) DEFINITION OF LEGALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPLICATION OF

REGULATIONS.—For purposes of the application of subpart A of part 46 of title 45, 

Code of Federal Regulations, to research conducted under this chapter the term ‘legally authorized representative’ means, unless otherwise provided by law, the individual or judicial or other body authorized under the applicable law to consent to 

medical treatment on behalf of another person. 

‘‘SEC. 2024. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter— 

‘‘(1) for fiscal year 2008, $6,500,000; and 

‘‘(2) for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011, $7,000,000. 

‘‘CHAPTER II—ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND 

EXPLOITATION FORENSIC CENTERS 

‘‘SEC. 2031. ESTABLISHMENT AND SUPPORT OF ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION 

FORENSIC CENTERS. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, 

shall make grants to eligible entities to establish and operate stationary and mobile 

forensic centers, to develop forensic expertise regarding, and provide services relating to, elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

‘‘(b) STATIONARY FORENSIC CENTERS.—The Secretary shall make 4 of the grants 

described in subsection (a) to institutions of higher education with demonstrated expertise in forensics or commitment to preventing or treating elder abuse, neglect, 

or exploitation, to establish and operate stationary forensic centers. 

‘‘(c) MOBILE CENTERS.—The Secretary shall make 6 of the grants described in 

subsection (a) to appropriate entities to establish and operate mobile forensic centers. 

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.— 

‘‘(1) DEVELOPMENT OF FORENSIC MARKERS AND METHODOLOGIES.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall use funds made available through the grant to assist in determining whether abuse, neglect, or exploitation occurred and whether a crime was committed and to conduct research 

to describe and disseminate information on— 

‘‘(A) forensic markers that indicate a case in which elder abuse, neglect, 

or exploitation may have occurred; and 

‘‘(B) methodologies for determining, in such a case, when and how 

health care, emergency service, social and protective services, and legal 

service providers should intervene and when the providers should report 

the case to law enforcement authorities. 

‘‘(2) DEVELOPMENT OF FORENSIC EXPERTISE.—An eligible entity that receives 

a grant under this section shall use funds made available through the grant to 

develop forensic expertise regarding elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in 

order to provide medical and forensic evaluation, therapeutic intervention, victim support and advocacy, case review, and case tracking. 

‘‘(3) COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall use data made available by grant recipients under this 

section to develop the capacity of geriatric health care professionals and law enforcement to collect forensic evidence, including collecting forensic evidence relating to a potential determination of elder abuse, neglect, or exploitation. 

‘‘(e) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an entity 

shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 

11 

‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— ‘‘(1) for fiscal year 2008, $4,000,000; 

‘‘(2) for fiscal year 2009, $6,000,000; and 

‘‘(3) for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011, $8,000,000. 

‘‘SUBPART 2—PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE ELDER JUSTICE

‘‘SEC. 2041. ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM CARE. 

‘‘(a) GRANTS AND INCENTIVES FOR LONG-TERM CARE STAFFING.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out activities, including activities described in paragraphs (2) and (3), to provide incentives for individuals to 

train for, seek, and maintain employment providing direct care in a long-term 

care facility. 

‘‘(2) SPECIFIC PROGRAMS TO ENHANCE TRAINING, RECRUITMENT, AND RETEN- TION OF STAFF.— ‘‘(A) COORDINATION WITH SECRETARY OF LABOR TO RECRUIT AND TRAIN

LONG-TERM CARE STAFF.—The Secretary shall coordinate activities under 

this subsection with the Secretary of Labor in order to provide incentives 

for individuals to train for and seek employment providing direct care in 

a long-term care facility. 

‘‘(B) CAREER LADDERS AND WAGE OR BENEFIT INCREASES TO INCREASE

STAFFING IN LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make grants to long-term 

care facilities to carry out programs through which the facilities— 

‘‘(I) offer, to employees who provide direct care to residents of 

a long-term care facility, continuing training and varying levels of 

certification, based on observed clinical care practices and the 

amount of time the employees spend providing direct care; and 

‘‘(II) provide, or make arrangements to provide, bonuses or 

other increased compensation or benefits to employees who achieve 

certification under such a program. 

‘‘(ii) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this subparagraph, a long-term care facility shall submit an application to the 

Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require (which may include evidence of consultation with the State in which the long-term care facility is located 

with respect to carrying out activities funded under the grant). 

‘‘(iii) AUTHORITY TO LIMIT NUMBER OF APPLICANTS.—Nothing in this 

subparagraph shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary from limiting the number of applicants for a grant under this subparagraph. 

‘‘(3) SPECIFIC PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make grants to long-term care 

facilities to enable the facilities to provide training and technical assistance 

to eligible employees. 

‘‘(B) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—A long-term care facility that receives a 

grant under subparagraph (A) shall use funds made available through the 

grant to provide training and technical assistance to eligible employees regarding management practices using methods that are demonstrated to promote retention of individuals who provide direct care to residents of the 

long-term care facility, such as— 

‘‘(i) the establishment of standard human resource policies that reward high performance, including policies that provide for improved 

wages and benefits on the basis of job reviews; 

‘‘(ii) the establishment of motivational and thoughtful work organization practices; 

‘‘(iii) the creation of a workplace culture that respects and values 

caregivers and their needs; 

‘‘(iv) the promotion of a workplace culture that respects the rights 

of residents of a long-term care facility and results in improved care for 

the residents; and 

‘‘(v) the establishment of other programs that promote the provision of high quality care, such as a continuing education program that 

provides additional hours of training, including on-the-job training, for 

employees who are certified nurse aides. 

‘‘(C) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this paragraph, a long-term care facility shall submit an application to the Secretary 

at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
12 

retary may require (which may include evidence of consultation with the 

State in which the long-term care facility is located with respect to carrying 

out activities funded under the grant). 

‘‘(D) AUTHORITY TO LIMIT NUMBER OF APPLICANTS.—Nothing in this 

paragraph shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary from limiting the 

number of applicants for a grant under this paragraph. 

‘‘(E) ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the term ‘eligible employee’ means an individual who establishes or implements management practices applicable with respect to individuals who provide direct 

care to residents of a long-term care facility and includes administrators, 

directors of nursing, staff developers, and charge nurses. 

‘‘(4) ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES.—The Secretary shall develop accountability measures to ensure that the activities conducted using funds made available under this subsection benefit eligible employees and increase the stability 

of the long-term care workforce. 

‘‘(b) INFORMATICS SYSTEMS GRANT PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(1) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary is authorized to make grants to 

long-term care facilities for the purpose of assisting such entities in offsetting 

the costs related to purchasing, leasing, developing, and implementing standardized clinical health care informatics systems designed to improve patient 

safety and reduce adverse events and health care complications resulting from 

medication errors. 

‘‘(2) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—Funds provided under grants under this subsection may be used for any of the following: 

‘‘(A) Purchasing, leasing, and installing computer software and hardware, including handheld computer technologies. 

‘‘(B) Making improvements to existing computer software and hardware. 

‘‘(C) Making upgrades and other improvements to existing computer 

software and hardware to enable e-prescribing. 

‘‘(D) Providing education and training to eligible long-term care facility 

staff on the use of technology to implement the electronic transmission of 

prescription and patient information. 

‘‘(3) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, 

a long-term care facility shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 

time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 

require (which may include evidence of consultation with the State in which the 

long-term care facility is located with respect to carrying out activities funded 

under the grant). 

‘‘(4) AUTHORITY TO LIMIT NUMBER OF APPLICANTS.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary from limiting the number of applicants for a grant under this subsection. 

‘‘(5) ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES.—The Secretary shall develop accountability measures to ensure that the activities conducted using funds made available under this subsection help improve patient safety and reduce adverse 

events and health care complications resulting from medication errors. 

‘‘(c) INCLUSION OF ADJUDICATED CRIMES ON NURSING HOME COMPARE

WEBSITE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Elder Justice 

Act, the Secretary shall ensure that the Department of Health and Human Services 

includes, as part of the information provided for comparison of nursing facilities on 

the official Internet website of the Federal Government for Medicare beneficiaries 

(commonly referred to as the ‘Nursing Home Compare’ Medicare website), the number of adjudicated instances of criminal violations by a nursing facility or crimes 

committed by an employee of a nursing facility— 

‘‘(1) that were committed inside of the facility; and 

‘‘(2) with respect to such instances of violations or crimes committed outside 

of the facility, that were the violations or crimes of elder abuse, neglect, and 

exploitation, criminal sexual abuse of an elder, or other violations or crimes that 

resulted in the serious bodily injury of an elder. 

‘‘(d) DEVELOPMENT OF CONSUMER RIGHTS INFORMATION PAGE ON NURSING

HOME COMPARE WEBSITE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the 

Elder Justice Act, the Secretary shall ensure that the Department of Health and 

Human Services, as part of the information provided for comparison of nursing facilities on the Nursing Home Compare Medicare website develops and includes a 

consumer rights information page that contains links to descriptions of, and information with respect to, the following: 

‘‘(1) The documentation on nursing facilities that is available to the public. 

13 

‘‘(2) General information and tips on choosing a nursing facility that meets 

the needs of the individual. 

‘‘(3) General information on consumer rights with respect to nursing facilities. 

‘‘(4) The nursing facility survey process (on a national and State-specific 

basis). 

‘‘(5) On a State-specific basis, the services available through the State longterm care ombudsman for such State. 

‘‘(e) DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF STANDARDS FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING

CLINICAL DATA BY LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES.— ‘‘(1) STANDARDS.—The Secretary shall develop and adopt uniform open electronic standards for transactions involving clinical data by long-term care facilities. Such standards shall include messaging and nomenclature standards. 

‘‘(2) COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER STANDARDS.—The standards developed and 

adopted under paragraph (1) shall be compatible with standards established 

under part C of title XI, standards established under subsections (b)(2)(B)(i) and 

(e)(4) of section 1860D–4, and with general health information technology standards. 

‘‘(3) ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF DATA TO THE SECRETARY.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 10 years after the date of enactment 

of the Elder Justice Act, the Secretary shall have procedures in place to accept the optional electronic submission of clinical data by long-term care facilities pursuant to the standards developed and adopted under paragraph 

(1). 

‘‘(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require a long-term care facility to submit clinical data electronically to the Secretary. 

‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out 

subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section. Such regulations shall require a State, 

as a condition of the receipt of funds under this part, to conduct such data collection 

and reporting as the Secretary determines are necessary to satisfy the requirements 

of such subsections. 

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

‘‘(1) for fiscal year 2008, $20,000,000; 

‘‘(2) for fiscal year 2009, $17,500,000; and 

‘‘(3) for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011, $15,000,000. 

‘‘SEC. 2042. ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES FUNCTIONS AND GRANT PROGRAMS. 

‘‘(a) SECRETARIAL RESPONSIBILITIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ensure that the Department of 

Health and Human Services— 

‘‘(A) provides funding authorized by this subpart to State and local 

adult protective services offices that investigate reports of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elders; 

‘‘(B) collects and disseminates data annually relating to the abuse, exploitation, and neglect of elders in coordination with the Department of Justice; 

‘‘(C) develops and disseminates information on best practices regarding, 

and provides training on, carrying out adult protective services; 

‘‘(D) conducts research related to the provision of adult protective services; and 

‘‘(E) provides technical assistance to States and other entities that provide or fund the provision of adult protective services, including through 

grants made under subsections (b) and (c). 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and 

$4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011. 

‘‘(b) GRANTS TO ENHANCE THE PROVISION OF ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES.— 

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established an adult protective services 

grant program under which the Secretary shall annually award grants to States 

in the amounts calculated under paragraph (2) for the purposes of enhancing 

adult protective services provided by States and local units of government. 

‘‘(2) AMOUNT OF PAYMENT.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations and subparagraphs (B) and (C), the amount paid to a State for a fiscal year under 

the program under this subsection shall equal the amount appropriated for 

that year to carry out this subsection multiplied by the percentage of the 

14 

total number of elders who reside in the United States who reside in that 

State. 

‘‘(B) GUARANTEED MINIMUM PAYMENT AMOUNT.— ‘‘(i) 50 STATES.—Subject to clause (ii), if the amount determined 

under subparagraph (A) for a State for a fiscal year is less than 0.75 

percent of the amount appropriated for such year, the Secretary shall 

increase such determined amount so that the total amount paid under 

this subsection to the State for the year is equal to 0.75 percent of the 

amount so appropriated. 

‘‘(ii) TERRITORIES.—In the case of a State other than 1 of the 50 

States, clause (i) shall be applied as if each reference to ‘0.75’ were a 

reference to ‘0.1’. 

‘‘(C) PRO RATA REDUCTIONS.—The Secretary shall make such pro rata 

reductions to the amounts described in subparagraph (A) as are necessary 

to comply with the requirements of subparagraph (B). 

‘‘(3) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.— 

‘‘(A) ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES.—Funds made available pursuant to 

this subsection may only be used by States and local units of government 

to provide adult protective services and may not be used for any other purpose. 

‘‘(B) USE BY AGENCY.—Each State receiving funds pursuant to this subsection shall provide such funds to the agency or unit of State government 

having legal responsibility for providing adult protective services within the 

State. 

‘‘(C) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.—Each State or local unit of government shall use funds made available pursuant to this subsection to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local public funds expended to provide adult protective services in the State. 

‘‘(4) STATE REPORTS.—Each State receiving funds under this subsection 

shall submit to the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 

may require, a report on the number of elders served by the grants awarded 

under this subsection. 

‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2011. 

‘‘(c) STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.— 

‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall award grants to States for the 

purposes of conducting demonstration programs in accordance with paragraph 

(2). 

‘‘(2) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.—Funds made available pursuant to this 

subsection may be used by States and local units of government to conduct demonstration programs that test— 

‘‘(A) training modules developed for the purpose of detecting or preventing elder abuse; 

‘‘(B) methods to detect or prevent financial exploitation of elders; 

‘‘(C) methods to detect elder abuse; 

‘‘(D) whether training on elder abuse forensics enhances the detection 

of elder abuse by employees of the State or local unit of government; or 

‘‘(E) other matters relating to the detection or prevention of elder 

abuse. 

‘‘(3) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, 

a State shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. 

‘‘(4) STATE REPORTS.—Each State that receives funds under this subsection 

shall submit a report to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require on the results of the 

demonstration program conducted by the State using funds made available 

under this subsection. 

‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2011. 

‘‘SEC. 2043. LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM GRANTS AND TRAINING. 

‘‘(a) GRANTS TO SUPPORT THE LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make grants to eligible entities with 

relevant expertise and experience in abuse and neglect in long-term care facilities or long-term care ombudsman programs and responsibilities, for the purpose of— 

15 

‘‘(A) improving the capacity of State long-term care ombudsman programs to respond to and resolve complaints about abuse and neglect; 

‘‘(B) conducting pilot programs with State long-term care ombudsman 

offices or local ombudsman entities; and 

‘‘(C) providing support for such State long-term care ombudsman programs and such pilot programs (such as through the establishment of a national long-term care ombudsman resource center). 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection— 

‘‘(A) for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000; 

‘‘(B) for fiscal year 2009, $7,500,000; and 

‘‘(C) for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011, $10,000,000. 

‘‘(b) OMBUDSMAN TRAINING PROGRAMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish programs to provide and 

improve ombudsman training with respect to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation for national organizations and State long-term care ombudsman programs. 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection, for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011, 

$10,000,000. 

‘‘SEC. 2044. PROVISION OF INFORMATION REGARDING, AND EVALUATIONS OF, ELDER JUSTICE PROGRAMS. 

‘‘(a) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this 

part, an applicant shall agree— 

‘‘(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), to provide the eligible entity conducting an evaluation under subsection (b) of the activities funded through the 

grant with such information as the eligible entity may require in order to conduct such evaluation; or 

‘‘(2) in the case of an applicant for a grant under section 2041(b), to provide 

the Secretary with such information as the Secretary may require to conduct 

an evaluation or audit under subsection (c). 

‘‘(b) USE OF ELIGIBLE ENTITIES TO CONDUCT EVALUATIONS.— 

‘‘(1) EVALUATIONS REQUIRED.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(A) reserve a portion (not less than 2 percent) of the funds appropriated with respect to each program carried out under this part; and 

‘‘(B) use the funds reserved under subparagraph (A) to provide assistance to eligible entities to conduct evaluations of the activities funded 

under each program carried out under this part. 

‘‘(2) INFORMATICS SYSTEMS GRANT PROGRAM NOT INCLUDED.—The provisions 

of this subsection shall not apply to the informatics systems grant program 

under section 2041(b). 

‘‘(3) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—A recipient of assistance described in paragraph (1)(B) shall use the funds made available through the assistance to conduct a validated evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities funded under 

a program carried out under this part. 

‘‘(4) APPLICATIONS.—To be eligible to receive assistance under paragraph 

(1)(B), an entity shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in 

such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, 

including a proposal for the evaluation. 

‘‘(5) REPORTS.—Not later than a date specified by the Secretary, an eligible 

entity receiving assistance under paragraph (1)(B) shall submit to the Secretary, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Finance of 

the Senate a report containing the results of the evaluation conducted using 

such assistance together with such recommendations as the entity determines 

to be appropriate. 

‘‘(c) EVALUATIONS AND AUDITS OF INFORMATICS SYSTEMS GRANT PROGRAM BY

THE SECRETARY.— 

‘‘(1) EVALUATIONS.—The Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of the activities funded under the informatics systems grant program under section 2041(b). 

Such evaluation shall include an evaluation of whether the funding provided 

under the grant is expended only for the purposes for which it is made. 

‘‘(2) AUDITS.—The Secretary shall conduct appropriate audits of grants 

made under section 2041(b). 

16 

‘‘SEC. 2045. REPORT. 

‘‘Not later than October 1, 2011, the Secretary shall submit to the Elder Justice 

Coordinating Council, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report— 

‘‘(1) compiling, summarizing, and analyzing the information contained in 

the State reports submitted under subsections (b)(4) and (c)(4) of section 2042; 

and 

‘‘(2) containing such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.’’. 

(2) OPTION FOR STATE PLAN UNDER PROGRAM FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE

FOR NEEDY FAMILIES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 

clause: 

‘‘(v) The document shall indicate whether the State intends to assist individuals to train for, seek, and maintain employment— 

‘‘(I) providing direct care in a long-term care facility (as such 

terms are defined under section 2011); or 

‘‘(II) in other occupations related to elder care determined appropriate by the State for which the State identifies an unmet need 

for service personnel, 

and, if so, shall include an overview of such assistance.’’. 

(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall 

take effect on October 1, 2008. 

(b) PROTECTING RESIDENTS OF LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES.— (1) NATIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR SURVEYORS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

enter into a contract with an entity for the purpose of establishing and operating a National Training Institute for Federal and State surveyors. Such 

Institute shall provide and improve the training of surveyors with respect 

to investigating allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property in programs and long-term care facilities that receive payments under 

title XVIII or XIX of the Social Security Act. 

(B) ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE INSTITUTE.—The contract entered 

into under subparagraph (A) shall require the Institute established and operated under such contract to carry out the following activities: 

(i) Assess the extent to which State agencies use specialized surveyors for the investigation of reported allegations of abuse, neglect, 

and misappropriation of property in such programs and long-term care 

facilities. 

(ii) Evaluate how the competencies of surveyors may be improved 

to more effectively investigate reported allegations of such abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property, and provide feedback to Federal and State agencies on the evaluations conducted. 

(iii) Provide a national program of training, tools, and technical assistance to Federal and State surveyors on investigating reports of such 

abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property. 

(iv) Develop and disseminate information on best practices for the 

investigation of such abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property. 

(v) Assess the performance of State complaint intake systems, in 

order to ensure that the intake of complaints occurs 24 hours per day, 

7 days a week (including holidays). 

(vi) To the extent approved by the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, provide a national 24 hours per day, 7 days a week (including 

holidays), back-up system to State complaint intake systems in order 

to ensure optimum national responsiveness to complaints of such 

abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property. 

(vii) Analyze and report annually on the following: 

(I) The total number and sources of complaints of such abuse, 

neglect, and misappropriation of property. 

(II) The extent to which such complaints are referred to law 

enforcement agencies. 

(III) General results of Federal and State investigations of 

such complaints. 

(viii) Conduct a national study of the cost to State agencies of conducting complaint investigations of skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities under sections 1819 and 1919, respectively, of the Social 

17 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–3; 1396r), and making recommendations 

to the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to options 

to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of such investigations. 

(C) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 

out this paragraph, for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2011, 

$12,000,000. 

(2) GRANTS TO STATE SURVEY AGENCIES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

make grants to State agencies that perform surveys of skilled nursing facilities or nursing facilities under sections 1819 or 1919, respectively, of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–3; 1395r). 

(B) USE OF FUNDS.—A grant awarded under subparagraph (A) shall be 

used for the purpose of designing and implementing complaint investigations systems that— 

(i) promptly prioritize complaints in order to ensure a rapid response to the most serious and urgent complaints; 

(ii) respond to complaints with optimum effectiveness and timeliness; and 

(iii) optimize the collaboration between local authorities, consumers, and providers, including— 

(I) such State agency; 

(II) the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; 

(III) local law enforcement agencies; 

(IV) advocacy and consumer organizations; 

(V) State aging units; 

(VI) Area Agencies on Aging; and 

(VII) other appropriate entities. 

(C) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 

out this paragraph, for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011, $5,000,000. 

(3) REPORTING OF CRIMES AND ENSURING SAFETY OF RESIDENTS WHEN FEDERALLY FUNDED LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES CLOSE.—Part A of title XI of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

the following new sections: 

‘‘REPORTING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMES OCCURRING IN FEDERALLY FUNDED

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES

‘‘SEC. 1150A. (a) DETERMINATION AND NOTIFICATION.— 

‘‘(1) DETERMINATION.—The owner or operator of each long-term care facility 

that receives Federal funds under this Act shall annually determine whether 

the facility received at least $10,000 in such Federal funds during the preceding 

year. 

‘‘(2) NOTIFICATION.—If the owner or operator determines under paragraph 

(1) that the facility received at least $10,000 in such Federal funds during the 

preceding year, such owner or operator shall annually notify each covered individual (as defined in paragraph (3)) of that individual’s obligation to comply 

with the reporting requirements described in subsection (b). 

‘‘(3) COVERED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘covered individual’ means each individual who is an owner, operator, employee, manager, 

agent, or contractor of a long-term care facility that is the subject of a determination described in paragraph (1). 

‘‘(b) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each covered individual shall report to the Secretary and 

1 or more law enforcement entities for the political subdivision in which the facility is located any reasonable suspicion of a crime (as defined by the law of 

the applicable political subdivision) against any individual who is a resident of, 

or is receiving care from, the facility. 

‘‘(2) TIMING.—If the events that cause the suspicion— 

‘‘(A) result in serious bodily injury, the individual shall report the suspicion immediately, but not later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion; 

and 

‘‘(B) do not result in serious bodily injury, the individual shall report 

the suspicion not later than 24 hours after forming the suspicion. 

‘‘(c) PENALTIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If a covered individual violates subsection (b)— 

‘‘(A) the covered individual shall be subject to a civil money penalty of 

not more than $200,000; or 

18 

‘‘(B) the Secretary shall classify the covered individual as an excluded 

individual, for a period of not more than 3 years. 

‘‘(2) INCREASED HARM.—If a covered individual violates subsection (b) and 

the violation exacerbates the harm to the victim of the crime or results in harm 

to another individual— 

‘‘(A) the covered individual shall be subject to a civil money penalty of 

not more than $300,000; and 

‘‘(B) the Secretary shall classify the covered individual as an excluded 

individual, for a period of not more than 3 years. 

‘‘(3) EXCLUDED INDIVIDUAL.—During any period for which a covered individual is classified as an excluded individual under paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B), 

a long-term care facility that employs such individual shall be ineligible to receive Federal funds under this Act. 

‘‘(4) EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may take into account the financial 

burden on providers with underserved populations in determining any penalty to be imposed under this subsection. 

‘‘(B) UNDERSERVED POPULATION DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the term 

‘underserved population’ means the population of an area designated by the 

Secretary as an area with a shortage of elder justice programs or a population group designated by the Secretary as having a shortage of such programs. Such areas or groups designated by the Secretary may include— 

‘‘(i) areas or groups that are geographically isolated (such as isolated in a rural area); 

‘‘(ii) racial and ethnic minority populations; and 

‘‘(iii) populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alien status, or age). 

‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR RETALIATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A long-term care facility may not— 

‘‘(A) discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or deny a promotion 

or other employment-related benefit to an employee, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by the employee; or 

‘‘(B) file a complaint or a report against a nurse or other employee with 

the appropriate State professional disciplinary agency because of lawful 

acts done by the nurse or employee, 

for making a report, causing a report to be made, or for taking steps in furtherance of making a report pursuant to subsection (b)(1). 

‘‘(2) PENALTIES FOR RETALIATION.—If a long-term care facility violates subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) the facility shall be subject to a civil 

money penalty of not more than $200,000 or the Secretary may classify the entity as an excluded entity for a period of 2 years pursuant to section 1128(b), or 

both. 

‘‘(3) REQUIREMENT TO POST NOTICE.—Each long-term care facility shall post 

conspicuously in an appropriate location a sign (in a form specified by the Secretary) specifying the rights of employees under this section. Such sign shall include a statement that an employee may file a complaint with the Secretary 

against a long-term care facility that violates the provisions of this subsection 

and information with respect to the manner of filing such a complaint. 

‘‘(e) PROCEDURE.—The provisions of section 1128A (other than subsections (a) 

and (b) and the second sentence of subsection (f)) shall apply to a civil money penalty under this section in the same manner as such provisions apply to a penalty 

or proceeding under section 1128A(a). 

‘‘(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘elder justice’, ‘long-term care facility’, and ‘law enforcement’ have the meanings given those terms in section 2011. 

‘‘ENSURING SAFETY OF RESIDENTS WHEN FEDERALLY FUNDED LONG-TERM CARE

FACILITIES CLOSE

‘‘SEC. 1150B. (a) IN GENERAL.— 

‘‘(1) NOTIFICATION OF FACILITY CLOSURE.—Subject to paragraph (2), if the 

owner or operator determines under section 1150A(a)(1) that a long-term care 

facility received at least $10,000 in Federal funds under this Act during the preceding year, the owner or operator of the facility shall— 

‘‘(A) submit to the Secretary and the appropriate State regulatory agency written notification of an impending closure not later than the date that 

is 60 days prior to the date of such closure; 

19 

‘‘(B) include in the notice a plan for the transfer and adequate relocation of the residents of the facility prior to closure, including assurances 

that the residents will be transferred to the most appropriate facility in 

terms of quality, services, and location; and 

‘‘(C) not later than 10 days after the facility closure, submit to the Secretary and the appropriate State agency information identifying where residents of the closed facility were transferred and on what date. 

‘‘(2) EXCEPTION WHERE THE SECRETARY HAS ISSUED A TERMINATION NO- TICE.—In the case of a long-term care facility described in paragraph (1) for 

which the Secretary has issued a termination notice for the facility to close by 

not later than 15 days after the issuance of such notice, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the notification, transfer, and adequate relocation of 

residents within an appropriate timeframe. 

‘‘(b) SANCTIONS.—Any person owning or operating a long-term care facility that 

fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) shall be subject to— ‘‘(1) a civil monetary penalty of up to $1,000,000; 

‘‘(2) exclusion from participation in the programs under this Act (in accordance with the procedures of section 1128); and 

‘‘(3) any other applicable civil monetary penalties and assessments. 

‘‘(c) PROCEDURE.—The provisions of section 1128A (other than subsections (a) 

and (b) and the second sentence of subsection (f)) shall apply to a civil money penalty or assessment under this section in the same manner as such provisions apply 

to a penalty or proceeding under section 1128A(a). 

‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘long-term care facility’ has the 

meaning given that term in section 2011.’’. 

(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PILOT PROGRAM FOR NATIONAL AND STATE

BACKGROUND CHECKS ON DIRECT PATIENT ACCESS EMPLOYEES OF LONG-TERM

CARE FACILITIES OR PROVIDERS.—Not later than the date that is 6 months after 

the completion of the pilot program for national and State background checks 

on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities or providers established under section 307 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 

Modernization Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 1395aa note), the Secretary shall submit 

to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and 

Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report containing the results of the evaluation required under subsection (e) of such section of such Act, together with recommendations for such 

legislation and administrative action as the Secretary determines appropriate. 

(c) NATIONAL NURSE AIDE REGISTRY.— (1) DEFINITION OF NURSE AIDE.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘nurse aide’’ 

has the meaning given that term in sections 1819(b)(5)(F) and 1919(b)(5)(F) of 

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–3(b)(5)(F); 1396r(b)(5)(F)). 

(2) STUDY AND REPORT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate government agencies and private sector organizations, shall conduct a study on 

establishing a national nurse aide registry. 

(B) AREAS EVALUATED.—The study conducted under this subsection 

shall include an evaluation of— 

(i) who should be included in the registry; 

(ii) how such a registry would comply with Federal and State privacy laws and regulations; 

(iii) how data would be collected for the registry; 

(iv) what entities and individuals would have access to the data 

collected; 

(v) how the registry would provide appropriate information regarding violations of Federal and State law by individuals included in the 

registry; 

(vi) how the functions of a national nurse aide registry would be 

coordinated with the pilot program for national and State background 

checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities or 

providers established under section 307 of the Medicare Prescription 

Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108– 

173); and 

(vii) how the information included in State nurse aide registries developed and maintained under sections 1819(e)(2) and 1919(e)(2) of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–3(e)(2); 1396r(e)(2)(2)) would be 

provided as part of a national nurse aide registry. 

(C) CONSIDERATIONS.—In conducting the study and preparing the report required under this subsection, the Secretary shall take into considerVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
20 

ation the findings and conclusions of relevant reports and other relevant resources, including the following: 

(i) The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General Report, Nurse Aide Registries: State Compliance and Practices (February 2005). 

(ii) The General Accounting Office (now known as the Government 

Accountability Office) Report, Nursing Homes: More Can Be Done to 

Protect Residents from Abuse (March 2002). 

(iii) The Department of Health and Human Services Office of the 

Inspector General Report, Nurse Aide Registries: Long-Term Care Facility Compliance and Practices (July 2005). 

(iv) The Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration Report, Nursing Aides, Home 

Health Aides, and Related Health Care Occupations—National and 

Local Workforce Shortages and Associated Data Needs (2004)(in particular with respect to chapter 7 and appendix F). 

(v) The 2001 Report to CMS from the School of Rural Public 

Health, Texas A&M University, Preventing Abuse and Neglect in Nursing Homes: The Role of Nurse Aide Registries. 

(vi) Information included in State nurse aide registries developed 

and maintained under sections 1819(e)(2) and 1919(e)(2) of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–3(e)(2); 1396r(e)(2)(2)). 

(D) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

of the House of Representatives containing the findings and recommendations of the study conducted under this paragraph. 

(E) FUNDING LIMITATION.—Funding for the study conducted under this 

subsection shall not exceed $500,000. 

(3) CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.—After receiving the report submitted by the 

Secretary under paragraph (2)(D), the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 

the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives shall, as they deem appropriate, take action based on the recommendations contained in the report. 

(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out this subsection. 

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) TITLE XX.—Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.), 

as amended by section 102(a), is amended— 

(A) in the heading of section 2001, by striking ‘‘TITLE’’ and inserting 

‘‘PART’’; and 

(B) in part A, by striking ‘‘this title’’ each place it appears and inserting 

‘‘this part’’. 

(2) TITLE IV.—Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is 

amended— 

(A) in section 404(d)— 

(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘Title’’ and inserting ‘‘Part A of 

title’’; 

(ii) in paragraphs (2)(A) and (3)(B), by inserting ‘‘part A of’’ before 

‘‘title XX’’ each place it appears; 

(iii) in the heading of paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘PART A OF’’ before ‘‘TITLE XX’’; and 

(iv) in the heading of paragraph (3)(B), by inserting ‘‘PART A OF’’ before ‘‘TITLE XX’’; and 

(B) in sections 422(b), 471(a)(4), 472(h)(1), and 473(b)(2), by inserting 

‘‘part A of’’ before ‘‘title XX’’ each place it appears. 

(3) TITLE XI.—Title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) 

is amended— 

(A) in section 1128(h)(3)— 

(i) by inserting ‘‘part A of’’ before ‘‘title XX’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘such title’’ and inserting ‘‘such part’’; and 

(B) in section 1128A(i)(1), by inserting ‘‘part A of’’ before ‘‘title XX’’. 

21 

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

SEC. 201. MODEL STATE LAWS AND PRACTICES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services, shall carry out the following duties: 

(1) STUDY.—Conduct a study of State laws and practices relating to elder 

abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(2) REPORT TO ELDER JUSTICE RESOURCE CENTER.—Prepare and submit a report or periodic reports containing the findings of the study conducted under 

paragraph (1) to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and the Advisory Board 

of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (established under Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.), as amended by this Act). Such report 

or reports shall be made available to the public. 

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Special 

Committee on Aging of the Senate, and the Speaker and Minority leader of the 

House of Representatives, a report that contains— 

(A) a comprehensive description of State laws and practices relating to 

elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(B) a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of such State laws 

and practices; and 

(C) recommendations— 

(i) for model State laws and practices relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

(ii) with respect to the definitions referred to in subsection (b)(1). 

(b) STATE LAWS AND PRACTICES.—In conducting the study under subsection (a), 

the Attorney General shall examine State laws and practices on issues including— 

(1) the definition of— 

(A) ‘‘elder’’; 

(B) ‘‘abuse’’; 

(C) ‘‘neglect’’; 

(D) ‘‘exploitation’’; and 

(E) such related terms the Attorney General determines to be appropriate; 

(2) mandatory reporting laws, with respect to— 

(A) who is a mandated reporter; 

(B) to whom must they report and within what time frame; and 

(C) any consequences for not reporting; 

(3) evidentiary, procedural, sentencing, choice of remedies, and data retention issues relating to pursuing cases relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(4) laws requiring immediate reporting of all nursing home deaths to the 

county coroner or to some other individual or entity; 

(5) fiduciary laws, including guardianship and power of attorney laws; 

(6) laws that permit or encourage banks and bank employees to prevent 

and report suspected elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(7) laws that may impede research on elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(8) practices relating to the enforcement of laws relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

(9) practices relating to other aspects of elder justice. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

(2) $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014. 

SEC. 202. ELDER JUSTICE PLAN AND STRATEGY. 

(a) DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall— 

(1) develop objectives, priorities, policies, and a long-term plan for elder justice programs and activities relating to prevention, detection, training, treatment, evaluation, intervention, research, and improvement of the elder justice 

system in the United States; 

(2) implement the overall policies and a strategy to carry out the plan described in paragraph (1); 

(3) hire personnel to assist in carrying out the policies, programs, and administrative activities related to the duties under paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

(4) coordinate activities with the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and 

the Advisory Board of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (established 

22 

under Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.), as amended 

by this Act). 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 

2014. 

SEC. 203. VICTIM ADVOCACY GRANTS. 

(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General, after consultation with the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, may award grants to eligible entities to 

study the special needs of victims of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Funds awarded pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 

used for pilot programs that— 

(1) develop programs, provide training to health care, social, and protective 

services providers, law enforcement, fiduciaries (including guardians), judges 

and court personnel, and victim advocates; and 

(2) examine special approaches designed to meet the needs of victims of 

elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

(2) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014. 

SEC. 204. SUPPORTING LOCAL PROSECUTORS IN ELDER JUSTICE MATTERS. 

(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General, after consultation with the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall award grants to provide training, 

technical assistance, policy development, multidisciplinary coordination, and other 

types of support to local prosecutors handling elder justice-related cases, including— 

(1) funding specially designated elder justice positions or units; or 

(2) funding the creation of a Center for the Prosecution of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation by the American Prosecutor Research Institute of the 

National District Attorneys Association, or any other similarly situated entity, 

to advise and support local prosecutors nationwide in their pursuit of cases involving elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

(2) $4,00,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014. 

SEC. 205. SUPPORTING STATE PROSECUTORS IN ELDER JUSTICE MATTERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, award grants to provide training, technical 

assistance, multidisciplinary coordination, policy development, and other types of 

support to State prosecutors, including employees of State Attorneys General and 

Medicaid Fraud Control Units handling elder justice-related matters. 

(b) CREATING SPECIALIZED POSITIONS.—Grants under this section may be made 

for— 

(1) the establishment of specially designated elder justice positions or units; 

or 

(2) the creation of a position to coordinate elder justice-related cases, training, technical assistance, and policy development for State prosecutors, by the 

National Association of Attorneys General or any other similarly situated entity. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

(2) $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014. 

SEC. 206. INCREASED SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL CASES INVOLVING ELDER JUSTICE. 

(a) SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish procedures to ensure 

that the Department of Justice dedicates resources to investigating and prosecuting cases relating to elder justice. 

(2) ADDITIONAL STAFF.—The Attorney General shall hire additional Federal 

prosecutors and make funding available to Federal prosecutors to hire nurseinvestigators or other experts needed to identify, assist with, or pursue cases 

relating to elder justice. 

(3) RESOURCE GROUP.—The Attorney General may fund, through the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, a Resource Group to assist prosecutors 

23 

throughout the Nation in investigating and prosecuting failure of care and other 

cases relating to elder justice matters. 

(b) OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.—The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services shall hire nurse-investigators and other experts to investigate and pursue failure of care allegations. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

(2) $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014. 

SEC. 207. SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ELDER JUSTICE MATTERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, award grants to provide training, technical 

assistance, multidisciplinary coordination, policy development, and other types of 

support to police, sheriffs, detectives, public safety officers, corrections personnel, 

and other front line law enforcement responders who handle elder justice-related 

matters, to fund specially designated elder justice positions or units designed to support front line law enforcement in elder justice matters. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

(2) $8,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014. 

SEC. 208. EVALUATIONS. 

(a) GRANTS UNDER THIS TITLE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the grant programs under this title, the 

Attorney General shall— 

(A) require each recipient of a grant to use a portion of the funds made 

available through the grant to conduct a validated evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities carried out through the grant by such recipient; 

or 

(B) as the Attorney General considers appropriate, use a portion of the 

funds available under this title for a grant program under this title to provide assistance to an eligible entity to conduct a validated evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the activities carried out through such grant program by 

each of the grant recipients. 

(2) APPLICATIONS.— 

(A) SUBMISSION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this title, an 

entity shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in 

such manner, and containing such information as the Attorney General 

may require, which shall include— 

(i) a proposal for the evaluation required in accordance with paragraph (1)(A); and 

(ii) the amount of assistance under paragraph (1)(B) the entity is 

requesting, if any. 

(B) REVIEW AND ASSISTANCE.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—An employee of the Department of Justice, after 

consultation with an employee of the Department of Health and 

Human Services and a nongovernmental member of the Advisory Board 

of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (established under Title XX 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.), as amended by this 

Act) with expertise in evaluation methodology, shall review each application described in subparagraph (A) and determine whether the methodology described in the proposal under subparagraph (A)(i) is adequate to gather meaningful information. 

(ii) DENIAL.—If the reviewing employee determines the methodology described in such proposal is inadequate, the reviewing employee 

shall recommend that the Attorney General deny the application for 

the grant, or make recommendations for how the application should be 

amended. 

(iii) NOTICE TO APPLICANT.—If the Attorney General denies the application on the basis of such proposal, the Attorney General shall inform the applicant of the reasons the application was denied, and offer 

assistance to the applicant in modifying the proposal. 

(b) OTHER GRANTS.—The Attorney General shall make grants to appropriate entities to conduct validated evaluations of grant activities to reduce elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation that are funded by Federal funds not provided under this 

title. 

24 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appro- priated to carry out this section $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 

2014. 

TITLE III—TAX PROVISIONS 

SEC. 301. LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY WORKER EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT. 

(a) WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 51(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to members of targeted groups) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end 

of subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I) and 

inserting ‘‘or’’, and by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(J) a qualified long-term care facility worker.’’. 

(2) QUALIFIED LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY WORKER.—Section 51(d) of such 

Code is amended by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (13) as paragraphs 

(12) through (15), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (10) the following: 

‘‘(11) QUALIFIED LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY WORKER.—The term ‘qualified 

long-term care facility worker’ means any individual who— 

‘‘(A) is hired by a long-term care facility (as defined in paragraph (18) 

of section 2201 of the Social Security Act); and 

‘‘(B) is certified by the designated local agency as being qualified to provide long-term care (as defined in paragraph (17) of such section 2201).’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to 

individuals who begin work for an employer after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

Æ 

Mr. SCOTT. Each year in the United States, between 500,000 to 

5 million elders are abused, neglected or exploited. And experts 

agree that most cases are never reported. Data collected on the 

problem is minimal, and there has been no comprehensive national 

approach to solving many of the problems. 

These problems likely will increase in the next 30 years, as 76 

million baby boomers approach retirement. Yet despite the disturbing trend, funding to combat elder abuse is minimal and diminishing. The Elder Justice Coalition reports that of all the Federal funds spent on abuse prevention, less than 2 percent is spent 

on elder abuse. 

Funding of the State Adult Protective Services varies from state 

to state and from year to year and is inadequate to address the 

problem of elder abuse. The Social Services Block Grant from 

which states can choose to fund Adult Protective Services has suffered more than $1 billion in funding cuts over the last few years. 

Investigating elder abuse is not easy, and some of the solutions 

must be in the nature of legislation. In 1986, when I was a member 

of the Virginia State Senate, the state of Virginia passed a bill that 

addressed the problem of denial of access to elderly people who 

were suspected victims of abuse. 

The Virginia state law required a protective services employee to 

visit any person who was reported to be a victim of abuse. Adult 

Protective Service employees would attempt to visit the person, 

only to be denied entry to the home and access to the suspected victim often by the very abuser. 

The bill established a process in allowing the Adult Protective 

Service worker to petition a circuit court for an order allowing acVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
25 

cess, entry or both, based on the standard of good cause, which is 

significantly lower than the traditional probable cause standard. 

Today, we seek to do our part in addressing the serious problem 

of elder abuse. The Elder Justice Act provides a comprehensive, 

multi-disciplinary approach to preventing and combating elder 

abuse, neglect and exploitation, while enabling states and communities to run programs that best serve their needs. 

It establishes a national Elder Justice Coordinating Council, an 

advisory board on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. It starts 

the critically needed process of researching state practices and collecting national data on the problem. 

The act authorizes grant monies in all areas of elder abuse, beginning with the prevention of abuse. It provides critically needed 

money to state and local Adult Protective Services and helps longterm care facilities to recruit, train and retain competent employees. It provides grants to assist in investigation and prosecution of 

elder abuse. 

H.R. 5352, sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Sestak, shares the goals of H.R. 1783, but focuses on the enforcement mechanisms to prosecute abuse and attain justice for victims. 

It requires the attorney general to study and report to Congress on 

state laws and practices relating to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 5352, follows:] 

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5352 

To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized 

elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of 

elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related 

to elder abuse prevention and protection, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized 

elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of 

elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related 

to elder abuse prevention and protection, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008’’. 

26 

SEC. 2. MODEL STATE LAWS AND PRACTICES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations to carry out this 

section, the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, shall carry out the following duties: 

(1) STUDY.—Conduct a study of State laws and practices relating to elder 

abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(2) REPORT TO ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL AND THE ADVISORY

BOARD OF ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION.—Prepare and submit a 

report or periodic reports containing the findings of the study conducted under 

paragraph (1) to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and the Advisory Board 

of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (established under title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.), as amended by this Act). Such report 

or reports shall be made available to the public. 

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the chairman and ranking member of the Special 

Committee on Aging of the Senate, and the Speaker and minority leader of the 

House of Representatives, a report that contains— 

(A) a comprehensive description of State laws and practices relating to 

elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(B) a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of such State laws 

and practices; and 

(C) recommendations— 

(i) for model State laws and practices relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

(ii) with respect to the definitions referred to in subsection (b)(1). 

(b) STATE LAWS AND PRACTICES.—In conducting the study under subsection 

(a)(1), the Attorney General shall examine State laws and practices on issues including— 

(1) the definition of— 

(A) ‘‘elder’’; 

(B) ‘‘abuse’’; 

(C) ‘‘neglect’’; 

(D) ‘‘exploitation’’; and 

(E) any related terms the Attorney General determines to be appropriate; 

(2) mandatory reporting laws with respect to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including— 

(A) who is a mandated reporter; 

(B) to whom must a mandated reporter report, and within what time 

frame; and 

(C) any consequences for not reporting; 

(3) evidentiary, procedural, sentencing, choice of remedies, and data retention issues relating to pursuing cases relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(4) laws requiring immediate reporting of all nursing home deaths to the 

county coroner or to one or more other individuals or entities; 

(5) fiduciary laws, including guardianship and power of attorney laws; 

(6) laws that permit or encourage banks and bank employees to prevent 

and report suspected elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(7) laws that may impede research on elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; 

(8) practices relating to the enforcement of laws relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

(9) practices relating to other aspects of elder justice. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

(2) $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

SEC. 3. ELDER JUSTICE PLAN AND STRATEGY. 

(a) DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under this section, the Attorney General shall— 

(1) develop objectives, priorities, policies, and a long-term plan for elder justice programs and activities relating to prevention, detection, training, treatment, evaluation, intervention, research, and improvement of the elder justice 

system in the United States; 

(2) implement the overall policies and a strategy to carry out the plan described in paragraph (1); 

27 

(3) hire personnel to assist in carrying out the policies, programs, and administrative activities related to the duties under paragraphs (1) and (2); and 

(4) coordinate activities with the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and 

the Advisory Board of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (established 

under title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.), as amended 

by this Act). 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 

2015. 

SEC. 4. VICTIM ADVOCACY GRANTS. 

(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General, after consultation with the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, may award grants to eligible entities to 

study the special needs of victims of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Funds awarded pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 

used for pilot programs that— 

(1) develop programs, provide training to health care, social, and protective 

services providers, law enforcement, fiduciaries (including guardians), judges 

and court personnel, and victim advocates; and 

(2) examine special approaches designed to meet the needs of victims of 

elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

(2) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

SEC. 5. SUPPORTING LOCAL PROSECUTORS IN ELDER JUSTICE MATTERS. 

(a) GRANTS AUTHORIZED.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under 

this section, the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, shall award grants to provide training, technical assistance, 

policy development, multidisciplinary coordination, and other types of support to 

local prosecutors handling elder justice-related cases, including— 

(1) funding specially designated elder justice positions or units; or 

(2) funding the creation of a Center for the Prosecution of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation by the American Prosecutor Research Institute of the 

National District Attorneys Association, or any other similarly situated entity, 

to advise and support local prosecutors nationwide in their pursuit of cases involving elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

(2) $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

SEC. 6. SUPPORTING STATE PROSECUTORS IN ELDER JUSTICE MATTERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under this section, the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, shall award grants to provide training, technical assistance, multidisciplinary coordination, policy development, and other types of support to State 

prosecutors, including employees of State Attorneys General and Medicaid Fraud 

Control Units handling elder justice-related matters. 

(b) CREATING SPECIALIZED POSITIONS.—Grants under this section may be made 

for— 

(1) the establishment of specially designated elder justice positions or units; 

or 

(2) the creation of a position to coordinate elder justice-related cases, training, technical assistance, and policy development for State prosecutors, by the 

National Association of Attorneys General or any other similarly situated entity. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— 

(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

(2) $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

SEC. 7. INCREASED SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL CASES INVOLVING ELDER JUSTICE. 

(a) SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish procedures to ensure 

that the Department of Justice dedicates resources to investigating and prosecuting cases relating to elder justice. 

28 

(2) ADDITIONAL STAFF.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under 

this section, the Attorney General shall hire additional Federal prosecutors and 

make funding available to Federal prosecutors to hire nurse-investigators or 

other experts needed to identify, assist with, or pursue cases relating to elder 

justice. 

(3) RESOURCE GROUP.—The Attorney General may fund, through the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, a resource group to assist prosecutors 

throughout the Nation in investigating and prosecuting cases relating to failure 

of care and other elder justice matters. 

(b) OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under this section, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health 

and Human Services shall hire nurse-investigators and other experts to investigate 

and pursue failure of care allegations. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— (1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

(2) $4,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

SEC. 8. SUPPORTING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ELDER JUSTICE MATTERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under this section, the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, shall award grants to provide training, technical assistance, multidisciplinary coordination, policy development, and other types of support to police, 

sheriffs, detectives, public safety officers, corrections personnel, and other first responders who handle elder justice-related matters, to fund specially designated elder 

justice positions or units designed to support first responders in elder justice matters. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— (1) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and 

(2) $8,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

SEC. 9. EVALUATIONS. 

(a) GRANTS UNDER THIS ACT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the grant programs under this Act, the 

Attorney General shall— 

(A) require each recipient of a grant to use a portion of the funds made 

available through the grant to conduct a validated evaluation of the effectiveness of the activities carried out through the grant by such recipient; 

or (B) as the Attorney General considers appropriate, use a portion of the 

funds available under this Act for a grant program under this Act to provide assistance to an eligible entity to conduct a validated evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the activities carried out through such grant program by 

each of the grant recipients. 

(2) APPLICATIONS.— (A) SUBMISSION.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this Act, an 

entity shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in 

such manner, and containing such information as the Attorney General 

may require, which shall include— 

(i) a proposal for the evaluation required in accordance with paragraph (1)(A); and 

(ii) the amount of assistance under paragraph (1)(B) the entity is 

requesting, if any. 

(B) REVIEW AND ASSISTANCE.— (i) IN GENERAL.—An employee of the Department of Justice, after 

consultation with an employee of the Department of Health and 

Human Services and a nongovernmental member of the Advisory Board 

of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (established under title XX 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.), as amended by this 

Act) with expertise in evaluation methodology, shall review each application described in subparagraph (A) and determine whether the methodology described in the proposal under subparagraph (A)(I) is adequate to gather meaningful information. 

(ii) DENIAL.—If the reviewing employee determines the methodology described in such proposal is inadequate, the reviewing employee 

shall recommend that the Attorney General deny the application for 

the grant, or make recommendations for how the application should be 

amended. 

29 

(iii) NOTICE TO APPLICANT.—If the Attorney General denies the application on the basis of such proposal, the Attorney General shall inform the applicant of the reasons the application was denied, and offer 

assistance to the applicant in modifying the proposal. 

(b) OTHER GRANTS.—Subject to the availability of appropriations under this section, the Attorney General shall award grants to appropriate entities to conduct 

validated evaluations of grant activities that are funded by Federal funds not provided under this Act to reduce elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appro- priated to carry out this section $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 

2015. 

SEC. 10. ELDER JUSTICE. 

(a) ELDER JUSTICE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et 

seq.) is amended— 

(A) in the title heading, by inserting ‘‘AND ELDER JUSTICE’’ after 

‘‘SOCIAL SERVICES’’; 

(B) by inserting before section 2001 the following: 

‘‘PART A—BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL 

SERVICES’’; 

and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘PART B—ELDER JUSTICE 

‘‘SEC. 2011. DEFINITIONS. 

‘‘In this part: 

‘‘(1) ABUSE.—The term ‘abuse’ means the knowing infliction of physical or 

psychological harm or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm. 

‘‘(2) CAREGIVER.—The term ‘caregiver’ means an individual who has the responsibility for the care of an elder, either voluntarily, by contract, by receipt 

of payment for care, or as a result of the operation of law, and means a family 

member or other individual who provides (on behalf of such individual or of a 

public or private agency, organization, or institution) compensated or uncompensated care to an elder who needs supportive services in any setting. 

‘‘(3) ELDER.—The term ‘elder’ means an individual age 60 or older. 

‘‘(4) ELDER JUSTICE.—The term ‘elder justice’ means— 

‘‘(A) from a societal perspective, efforts to— 

‘‘(i) prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation; and 

‘‘(ii) protect elders with diminished capacity while maximizing their 

autonomy; and 

‘‘(B) from an individual perspective, the recognition of an elder’s rights, 

including the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

‘‘(5) EXPLOITATION.—The term ‘exploitation’ means the fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper act or process of an individual, including 

a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets. 

‘‘(6) FIDUCIARY.—The term ‘fiduciary’— 

‘‘(A) means a person or entity with the legal responsibility— 

‘‘(i) to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of another 

person; and 

‘‘(ii) to act in good faith and with fairness; and 

‘‘(B) includes a trustee, a guardian, a conservator, an executor, an 

agent under a financial power of attorney or health care power of attorney, 

or a representative payee. 

‘‘(7) GUARDIANSHIP.—The term ‘guardianship’ means— 

‘‘(A) the process by which a State court determines that an adult individual lacks capacity to make decisions about self-care and property, and 

appoints another individual or entity known as a guardian, as a conservator, or by a similar term, as a surrogate decisionmaker; 

30 

‘‘(B) the manner in which the court-appointed surrogate decisionmaker 

carries out duties to the individual and the court; or 

‘‘(C) the manner in which the court exercises oversight of the surrogate 

decisionmaker. 

‘‘(8) LONG-TERM CARE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘long-term care’ means supportive and 

health services specified by the Secretary for individuals who need assistance because the individuals have a loss of capacity for self-care due to illness, disability, or vulnerability. 

‘‘(B) LOSS OF CAPACITY FOR SELF-CARE.—For purposes of subparagraph 

(A), the term ‘loss of capacity for self-care’ means an inability to engage in 

1 or more activities of daily living, including eating, dressing, bathing, and 

management of one’s financial affairs. 

‘‘(9) NEGLECT.—The term ‘neglect’ means— 

‘‘(A) the failure of a caregiver or fiduciary to provide the goods or services that are necessary to maintain the health or safety of an elder; or 

‘‘(B) self-neglect. 

‘‘(10) SELF-NEGLECT.—The term ‘self-neglect’ means an adult’s inability, due 

to physical or mental impairment or diminished capacity, to perform essential 

self-care tasks including— 

‘‘(A) obtaining essential food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; 

‘‘(B) obtaining goods and services necessary to maintain physical 

health, mental health, or general safety; or 

‘‘(C) managing one’s own financial affairs. 

‘‘SEC. 2012. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

‘‘(a) PROTECTION OF PRIVACY.—In pursuing activities under this part, the Secretary shall ensure the protection of individual health privacy consistent with the 

regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability 

and Accountability Act of 1996 and applicable State and local privacy regulations. 

‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this part shall be construed to interfere with or abridge an elder’s right to practice his or her religion through reliance 

on prayer alone for healing when this choice— 

‘‘(1) is contemporaneously expressed, either orally or in writing, with respect to a specific illness or injury which the elder has at the time of the decision by an elder who is competent at the time of the decision; 

‘‘(2) is previously set forth in a living will, health care proxy, or other advance directive document that is validly executed and applied under State law; 

or ‘‘(3) may be unambiguously deduced from the elder’s life history. 

‘‘SEC. 2013. ELDER JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the Office of the Secretary an 

Elder Justice Coordinating Council (in this section referred to as the ‘Council’). 

‘‘(b) MEMBERSHIP.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall be composed of the following members: 

‘‘(A) The Secretary (or the Secretary’s designee). 

‘‘(B) The Attorney General (or the Attorney General’s designee). 

‘‘(C) The head of each Federal department or agency or other governmental entity identified by the Chair referred to in subsection (d) as having 

responsibilities, or administering programs, relating to elder abuse, neglect, 

and exploitation. 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—Each member of the Council shall be an officer or employee of the Federal Government. 

‘‘(c) VACANCIES.—Any vacancy in the Council shall not affect its powers, but 

shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made. 

‘‘(d) CHAIR.—The member described in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be Chair of the 

Council. 

‘‘(e) MEETINGS.—The Council shall meet at least 2 times per year, as determined by the Chair. 

‘‘(f) DUTIES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Council shall make recommendations to the Secretary for the coordination of activities of the Department of Health and Human 

Services, the Department of Justice, and other relevant Federal, State, local, 

and private agencies and entities, relating to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and other crimes against elders. 

‘‘(2) REPORT.—Not later than the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of the Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008 and every 2 years thereafter, 

the Council shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the 

31 

Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

of the House of Representatives a report that— 

‘‘(A) describes the activities and accomplishments of, and challenges 

faced by— 

‘‘(i) the Council; and 

‘‘(ii) the entities represented on the Council; and 

‘‘(B) makes such recommendations for legislation, model laws, or other 

action as the Council determines to be appropriate. 

‘‘(g) POWERS OF THE COUNCIL.— ‘‘(1) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Subject to the requirements of 

section 2012(a), the Council may secure directly from any Federal department 

or agency such information as the Council considers necessary to carry out this 

section. Upon request of the Chair of the Council, the head of such department 

or agency shall furnish such information to the Council. 

‘‘(2) POSTAL SERVICES.—The Council may use the United States mails in the 

same manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. 

‘‘(h) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Council shall not receive compensation for the performance of services for the Council. The members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized 

for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 

Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance 

of services for the Council. Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States 

Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and uncompensated services of the 

members of the Council. 

‘‘(i) DETAIL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—Any Federal Government employee 

may be detailed to the Council without reimbursement, and such detail shall be 

without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege. 

‘‘(j) STATUS AS PERMANENT COUNCIL.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council. 

‘‘SEC. 2014. ADVISORY BOARD ON ELDER ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a board to be known as the ‘Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation’ (in this section referred to 

as the ‘Advisory Board’) to create short- and long-term multidisciplinary strategic 

plans for the development of the field of elder justice and to make recommendations 

to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council established under section 2013. 

‘‘(b) COMPOSITION.—The Advisory Board shall be composed of 27 members appointed by the Secretary from among members of the general public who are individuals with experience and expertise in elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention, detection, treatment, intervention, or prosecution. 

‘‘(c) SOLICITATION OF NOMINATIONS.—The Secretary shall publish a notice in the 

Federal Register soliciting nominations for the appointment of members of the Advisory Board under subsection (b). 

‘‘(d) TERMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each member of the Advisory Board shall be appointed 

for a term of 3 years, except that, of the members first appointed— 

‘‘(A) 9 shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; 

‘‘(B) 9 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and 

‘‘(C) 9 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year. 

‘‘(2) VACANCIES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any vacancy on the Advisory Board shall not affect 

its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made. 

‘‘(B) FILLING UNEXPIRED TERM.—An individual chosen to fill a vacancy 

shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member replaced. 

‘‘(3) EXPIRATION OF TERMS.—The term of any member shall not expire before the date on which the member’s successor takes office. 

‘‘(e) ELECTION OF OFFICERS.—The Advisory Board shall elect a Chair and Vice 

Chair from among its members. The Advisory Board shall elect its initial Chair and 

Vice Chair at its initial meeting. 

‘‘(f) DUTIES.— 

‘‘(1) ENHANCE COMMUNICATION ON PROMOTING QUALITY OF, AND PREVENTING

ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN, LONG-TERM CARE.—The Advisory Board shall develop 

collaborative and innovative approaches to improve the quality of, including 

preventing abuse and neglect in, long-term care. 

‘‘(2) COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS TO DEVELOP CONSENSUS AROUND THE MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN QUALITY-RELATED FACTORS.— 

32 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Advisory Board shall establish multidisciplinary 

panels to address, and develop consensus on, subjects relating to improving 

the quality of long-term care. At least 1 such panel shall address, and develop consensus on, methods for managing resident-to-resident abuse in 

long-term care. 

‘‘(B) ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED.—The multidisciplinary panels established 

under subparagraph (A) shall examine relevant research and data, identify 

best practices with respect to the subject of the panel, determine the best 

way to carry out those best practices in a practical and feasible manner, 

and determine an effective manner of distributing information on such subject. 

‘‘(3) REPORT.—Not later than the date that is 18 months after the date of 

enactment of the Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008, and annually thereafter, the 

Advisory Board shall prepare and submit to the Elder Justice Coordinating 

Council, the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on Ways 

and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report containing— 

‘‘(A) information on the status of Federal, State, and local public and 

private elder justice activities; 

‘‘(B) recommendations (including recommended priorities) regarding— 

‘‘(i) elder justice programs, research, training, services, practice, enforcement, and coordination; 

‘‘(ii) coordination between entities pursuing elder justice efforts and 

those involved in related areas that may inform or overlap with elder 

justice efforts, such as activities to combat violence against women and 

child abuse and neglect; and 

‘‘(iii) activities relating to adult fiduciary systems, including guardianship and other fiduciary arrangements; 

‘‘(C) recommendations for specific modifications needed in Federal and 

State laws (including regulations) or for programs, research, and training 

to enhance prevention, detection, and treatment (including diagnosis) of, 

intervention in (including investigation of), and prosecution of elder abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation; 

‘‘(D) recommendations on methods for the most effective coordinated 

national data collection with respect to elder justice, and elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and 

‘‘(E) recommendations for a multidisciplinary strategic plan to guide 

the effective and efficient development of the field of elder justice. 

‘‘(g) POWERS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD.— 

‘‘(1) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Subject to the requirements of 

section 2012(a), the Advisory Board may secure directly from any Federal department or agency such information as the Advisory Board considers necessary 

to carry out this section. Upon request of the Chair of the Advisory Board, the 

head of such department or agency shall furnish such information to the Advisory Board. 

‘‘(2) SHARING OF DATA AND REPORTS.—The Advisory Board may request 

from any entity pursuing elder justice activities under the Elder Abuse Victims 

Act of 2008 or an amendment made by such Act, any data, reports, or recommendations generated in connection with such activities. 

‘‘(3) POSTAL SERVICES.—The Advisory Board may use the United States 

mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as other departments 

and agencies of the Federal Government. 

‘‘(h) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of the Advisory Board shall not receive 

compensation for the performance of services for the Advisory Board. The members 

shall be allowed travel expenses for up to 4 meetings per year, including per diem 

in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes 

or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Advisory Board. 

Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and uncompensated services of the members of the Advisory 

Board. 

‘‘(i) DETAIL OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—Any Federal Government employee 

may be detailed to the Advisory Board without reimbursement, and such detail shall 

be without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege. 

‘‘(j) STATUS AS PERMANENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—Section 14 of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the advisory board. 

33 

‘‘SEC. 2015. RESEARCH PROTECTIONS. 

‘‘(a) GUIDELINES.—The Secretary shall promulgate guidelines to assist researchers working in the area of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, with issues relating 

to human subject protections. 

‘‘(b) DEFINITION OF LEGALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPLICATION OF

REGULATIONS.—For purposes of the application of subpart A of part 46 of title 45, 

Code of Federal Regulations, to research conducted under this chapter the term ‘legally authorized representative’ means, unless otherwise provided by law, the individual or judicial or other body authorized under the applicable law to consent to 

medical treatment on behalf of another person. 

‘‘SEC. 2016. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter— 

‘‘(1) for fiscal year 2009, $6,500,000; and 

‘‘(2) for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2012, $7,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) ELDER.—The term ‘‘elder’’ means an individual age 60 or older. 

(2) ELDER JUSTICE.—The term ‘‘elder justice’’ means— 

(A) from a societal perspective, efforts to— 

(i) prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, 

neglect, and exploitation; and 

(ii) protect elders with diminished capacity while maximizing their 

autonomy; and 

(B) from an individual perspective, the recognition of an elder’s rights, 

including the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

Æ 

Mr. SCOTT. The act authorizes grants to support local and state 

law enforcement and prosecutors in elder justice matters and establishes procedures to ensure that the Department of Justice dedicates resources to investigating and prosecuting elder justice cases. 

H.R. 2352, the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007, is a 

vital bill aimed at ensuring the safety of students at our nation’s 

educational institutions. 

Incidents of violence in our schools continued. Over the last decade, we have seen horrific school shootings and violence in—well, 

I have a list of states. The states where they did not have violence 

is shorter than the list where they did have violence: 27 states 

have reported school shootings. 

Ensuring the safety of our students and teachers at all levels of 

education must be paramount. H.R. 2352, sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rothman, seeks to enhance school 

safety by increasing the amount of money available and making 

money more accessible to poor communities. 

The bill raises the authorization level of Federal grants from $30 

million to $50 million for fiscal year 2008-2009. It also amends the 

eligibility requirements so that schools in the most need have a 

better opportunity to receive funding. 

Presently, grant recipients must match Federal grant dollars dollar for dollar with non-Federal funds in order to qualify for Federal 

funding. This ironic requirement has undermined the objective of 

the program, because the poorer states, who have the most need, 

receive the least benefit because they can least afford to provide 

the matching grants. 

34 

H.R. 2352 corrects the problem by changing the mandatory 

matching non-Federal funds percentage from 50 percent to 20 percent. 

H.R. 2352 also amends the Higher Education Act and requires 

participating institutions to conduct annual campus assessments 

and develop and implement a campus emergency response plan. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 2352, follows:] 

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2352 

To enhance the safety of elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of 

higher education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2007 

Mr. ROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. 

FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. 

TOWNS, Mr. WEINER, Ms. WATERS, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. WU, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. 

HINCHEY, Mr. WATT, Mr. WYNN, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. LEE, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. HOLT, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. HARE, Mr. SIRES, Mr. 

KIND, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY

of Pennsylvania, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. SUTTON, and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To enhance the safety of elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of 

higher education. 

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 ‘‘School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007’’. 

TITLE I—ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 

EDUCATION SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS 

SEC. 101. GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SECURITY. 

Section 2701 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3797a) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘surveillance equipment,’’ after ‘‘detectors,’’; 

(B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) Establishment of hotlines or tiplines for the reporting of potentially 

dangerous students and situations.’’; 

(C) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and 

(D) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following: 

‘‘(5) Capital improvements to make school facilities more secure.’’; 

35 

(2) by striking subsection (d)(1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) The Federal share of the costs of a program provided by a grant under 

subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the total of such costs. The non-Federal 

share of such costs shall be 20 percent of such costs.’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007, the Director and the Secretary 

of Education, or the designee of the Secretary, shall establish an interagency task 

force to develop and promulgate a set of advisory school safety guidelines. The advisory school safety guidelines shall be published in the Federal Register by not later 

than June 1, 2008.’’. 

SEC. 102. APPLICATIONS. 

Section 2702(a)(2) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

(42 U.S.C. 3797b(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) be accompanied by a report, signed by the chief education officer and 

the attorney general or other chief legal officer of the State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe, demonstrating that each proposed use of the grant funds 

will be— 

‘‘(A) an effective means for improving the safety of one or more schools; 

‘‘(B) consistent with a comprehensive approach to preventing school violence; and 

‘‘(C) individualized to the needs of each school at which those improvements are to be made.’’. 

SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 2705 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3797e) is amended by striking ‘‘$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 

through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 

2009’’. 

TITLE II—HIGHER EDUCATION SECURITY 

ENHANCEMENT 

SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT FOR CAMPUS SAFETY ASSESSMENTS. 

Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) CAMPUS SAFETY ASSESSMENT.—Each eligible institution participating in 

any program under this title shall conduct an annual campus safety assessment 

that shall be prepared through consultation between the institution’s staff, including 

safety and security personnel, and local law enforcement officials.’’. 

SEC. 202. REQUIREMENT FOR CAMPUS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS. 

Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended in section 201 (20 

U.S.C. 1092), is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) CAMPUS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN.—Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall develop and implement a campus emergency response plan to address a comprehensive set of emergency situations, including the following: 

‘‘(1) Natural disasters. 

‘‘(2) Active shooter situations. 

‘‘(3) Terrorist attacks.’’. 

Æ 

Mr. SCOTT. H.R. 5464, the ‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act,’’ authorizes grants to the Child Is Missing Center. 

A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the United States. A successful recovery of that child often requires a quick police and community response, which the center has facilitated since 1997. 

[The text of the bill, H.R. 5464, follows:] 

36 

I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5464 

To direct the Attorney General to make an annual grant to the A Child Is Missing 

Alert and Recovery Center to assist law enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing children, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

Mr. KLEIN of Florida (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. NADLER, Mr. CHABOT, 

Mr. WEXLER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. SUTTON, Ms. WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. HASTINGS

of Florida, Mr. MAHONEY of Florida, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. MEEK of Florida, 

and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to make an annual grant to the A Child Is Missing 

Alert and Recovery Center to assist law enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing children, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE ANNUAL GRANTS TO A CHILD IS MISSING ALERT AND RECOVERY CENTER TO ASSIST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN 

RECOVERING MISSING CHILDREN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General, acting through the Administrator of 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, shall annually make a 

grant to the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center. 

(b) SPECIFIED USE OF FUNDS FOR RECOVERY ACTIVITIES, REGIONAL CENTERS, 

EDUCATION, AND INFORMATION SHARING.—A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery 

Center shall use the funds made available under this Act— 

(1) to operate and expand the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center 

to provide services to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to promote the quick recovery of a missing child in response to a request from such 

agencies for assistance by utilizing rapid alert telephone calls, text messaging, 

and satellite mapping technology; 

(2) to maintain and expand technologies and techniques to ensure the highest level of performance of such services; 

(3) to establish and maintain regional centers to provide both centralized 

and on-site training and to distribute information to Federal, State, and local 

law enforcement agency officials about how to best utilize the services provided 

by the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center; 

(4) to share appropriate information with the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children, the AMBER Alert Coordinator, and appropriate Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; and 

(5) to assist the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the 

AMBER Alert Coordinator, and appropriate Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies with education programs. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MISSING CHILD. 

For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘missing child’’ means an individual whose 

whereabouts are unknown to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. 

37 

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

For grants under section 2, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $5,000,000 for each fiscal year from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 

2014. 

Æ 

Mr. SCOTT. Recognizing a need, Sherry Friedlander, who is with 

us today, founded A Child Is Missing program. That program is a 

national nonprofit organization that offers free assistance to law 

enforcement 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. 

The program is not limited to children, but extends to all at-risk 

members of our society, including the elderly, mentally challenged, 

and the disabled. When law enforcement receives the call that a 

person has gone missing, the responding officer can immediately 

call ACIM. 

The organization prepares a recording that includes the description of the person and the last known location. Using a comprehensive telephone database and computer satellite technology, this recording is sent by phone to thousands of locations within the radius 

of the person’s last sighting. 

Sponsored by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, H.R. 5464 authorizes $5 million in annual grants for 2009 to 2014 to expand 

A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center to assist more law 

enforcement agencies in the rapid recovery of missing children and 

other at-risk individuals. 

I believe all of these measures before us today will make significant improvements to public safety, particularly to children and 

vulnerable adults. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

And thank you to the witnesses. I know your time is extremely 

valuable. It is great to have such well-respected colleagues here 

going to testify and educate us. 

You all know how it goes, though. I need to get some things into 

the record. 

A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the U.S., over 2,100 per 

day. We have been told that at least 800,000 children are reported 

missing each year and another 500,000 go missing without ever 

being reported. 

Annually, figures we have been given indicate approximately 

58,000 children in the U.S. are kidnapped by someone they do not 

know or by slight acquaintance. The data also says that as many 

as 200,000 children are victims of family abductions each year. 

The Amber Alert system is activated when there is evidence that 

a missing child has been abducted and the police have sufficient 

evidence or information about the abductor or vehicle description 

to warrant use of the system. But if there is no evidence of an abduction or no information about the abductor, law enforcement cannot issue an Amber Alert. 

This is the reality in thousands of missing children cases, and 

this is where A Child Is Missing steps in. Launched in 1997, A 

38 

Child Is Missing assists police in the first crucial hours of searches 

for missing children, elderly and disabled. 

To date, more than 2.5 million calls have been made on cases at 

law enforcement request. A Child Is Missing’s high-tech system can 

launch 1,000 calls in 60 seconds. This technology is particularly 

useful to smaller, rural law enforcement agencies that simply do 

not have the manpower to launch a large-scale search for a missing 

child. 

The system’s ability to notify thousands of area residents within 

minutes that a child has gone missing in their area is crucial when 

every minute counts. For instance, in my home State of Texas, A 

Child Is Missing alert produced a tip to the Everman Police Department that led to the recovery of an 11-year-old girl. She had 

been abducted by her father, who it was believed was headed 

across the border to Mexico with his daughter. 

Twenty-two hundred law enforcement agencies across the country use this alert system. H.R. 5464, the A Child Is Missing Alert 

and Recovery Center Act, authorizes $5 million for fiscal years 

2009 through 2014 for grants to increase the use of this alert system. 

This is a valuable system and an important tool for law enforcement that Congress should support. 

Yesterday, teachers and students at Virginia Tech gathered to 

mark the 1-year anniversary of a campus shooting that killed 27 

students and five faculty. We now know that Cho Seung-Hui was 

a mentally disturbed young man who was able to purchase two 

handguns, which he brought onto campus and began a shooting 

spree that spanned several hours and spread through both dorms 

and classrooms across the campus. 

Sadly, in February of this year, a gunman stormed a classroom 

in Northern Illinois University, opened fire, killing five students 

and wounding 16 others in a matter of seconds before killing himself. 

School and college campuses should be safe environments for students to learn. And to date, campus security requires much more 

than ever before, including campus police, emergency alert systems, and emergency response plans. 

H.R. 2352, the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007, provides 

grants for the placement and use of surveillance equipment in 

schools and hotlines for tips for reporting dangerous students or 

situations. 

The bill increases the Secure Our Schools program authorization 

from $30 million a year to $50 million a year and requires each college or university to conduct an annual campus safety assessment, 

in consultation with law enforcement officials, and develop and implement a campus emergency response plan. 

We all hope that improvements to campus security will prevent 

any further and future tragedies like Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois. 

Now, on the issue of elder abuse, every year an estimated 2.1 

million older Americans are the victims of physical, psychological 

and other forms of abuse and neglect. 

39 

And for every case of elder abuse and neglect reported to authorities, experts estimate that as many as five cases are not reported. 

I saw a significant problem with this during my days as a judge. 

Ninety percent of elder abuse and neglect incidents are by known 

perpetrators, usually family members, and 42 percent of murder 

victims over 60 were killed by their own offspring. Spouses were 

the perpetrators in 24 percent of family murders of persons over 

60. 

H.R. 1783 and H.R. 5352 address the growing problem of elder 

abuse. Both bills provide grants to State and local prosecutors and 

law enforcement for elder abuse cases. 

Both bills also direct the attorney general to study and report the 

Elder Justice Coordinating Council, the advisory board of elder 

abuse, neglect and exploitation, and Congress on State laws and 

practices relating to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, and development and implement a long-term plan for elder justice programs and related activities. 

While I appreciate the desire to establish a national plan for an 

issue that reaches into every State in America, I do have concerns 

that imposing these requirements on the Department of Justice 

may not be the most effective approach. 

We have heard the phrase ‘‘crime is local,’’ and it is. I expect the 

majority of elder abuse cases are investigated by local police, prosecuted by local and State prosecutors. That is certainly what I saw 

in my court. 

It occurs to me that these individuals are the real experts on the 

types of evidence or tools needed to try these cases. The bills require the department to develop objectives, priorities, policies, and 

a long-term plan for elder justice programs and activities relating 

to prevention, detection, training, treatment, evaluation, intervention, research and improvement of the elder justice system in the 

U.S. 

I will be interested to hear from our witnesses what expertise 

they believe the DOJ possesses that surpasses, for instance, the 

White House Conference on Aging or the National Committee for 

the Prevention of Elder Abuse, but particularly the State or local 

law enforcement entities that have been dealing with this issue for 

so long. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have the Chairman of the full Committee with us today, Mr. 

Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have 

my statement put in the record, because time is so short. 

And look at the significance of the witnesses on the panel before 

us. I mean, Rahm Emanuel normally deals in international issues, 

certainly national, and has been a close adviser of mine. 

And we have one little thing to work out with Judge Gohmert 

and you and him. The judge will be bringing this to your attention 

later. 

And then to have an Admiral before us and a distinguished lawyer, former Member of the Committee, Steve Rothman—you know, 

Ron Klein, you are the luckiest guy to be on a panel like this. What 

40 

did you do to get on a panel like this? I mean, wow, just got here. 

Short straw. So we welcome them all. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY


JCJ-1.eps
41 


JCJ-2.eps
42 


JCJ-3.eps
43 


JCJ-4.eps
44 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Gentleman from North Carolina? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting the hearing. 

And no opening statement. Good to have our colleagues here, especially the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey who has 

come back home to where he belongs. Good to have you all with 

us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for 

having this hearing today, the first time in, what, 16 years there 

has been a hearing on elder abuse. 

For my colleagues that sit before us, I am in awe. Thank you 

very much for being here. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And the gentlelady from Wisconsin? 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will submit my longer opening statement for the record, but I 

did want to commend you and Ranking Member Gohmert for this 

really important hearing. The range of issues that you have described in you respective opening statements are truly important. 

I am interested in all of them, but particularly pleased, as Mr. 

Johnson just said, that for the first time in, I think, 16 years there 

has been—this is a hearing that is going to focus on elder abuse 

and exploitation of senior citizens. 

And, certainly, as we are in a period of time when the baby boom 

generation is beginning to retire, we know that the number of 

Americans over 60 is going to drastically increase over the next few 

decades and that these protections are particularly important. 

I just wanted to note what may be a little bit of a tangent to the 

major focus of the elder abuse and Elder Justice Act legislation. 

But as a person who was raised by my grandparents and had the 

opportunity late in my grandmother’s life to be her primary caregiver, that experience sort of opened my eyes to an area that I hope 

that we can also have dialogue around, and that is exploitation of 

seniors by mail fraud or telephone fraud and that sort of thing. 

I remember a time right around when my grandmother turned 

90 that she asked me to start taking over her mail and her checkbook and her accounting. And I realized how many sort of fly-bynight or fraudulent charities—sounded like the real thing, but not 

really the real thing—were writing her monthly. 

And wanting to make sure that seniors have the tools they need 

to see who is credible and who is not and fend for themselves became something that was very important to me. So I hope we can 

add that to the larger dialogue about protecting our senior citizens. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Baldwin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert for holding this hearing on four important bills under our Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. I also want to exVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
45 

tend my thanks to the witnesses who have come to testify before us today. Thank 

you all for being here. 

After learning more about the work ‘‘A Child Is Missing’’ is doing in my state of 

Wisconsin, I must say that I am impressed. The organization has trained over 100 

local law enforcement officers and since 2005, they have made almost 127,000 calls 

on behalf of missing children, elderly, and disabled Wisconsonites. 

At least a handful of those calls went out in my district when the Waterloo Police 

Department were alerted to an infant found alone on the street one evening last 

June. Coordinating with A Child Is Missing, almost 2,000 calls went out and Waterloo Police immediately fielded response calls from alert citizens who provided information to investigators. In less than two hours, as a result of information provided 

by citizens responding to these alert calls, police located the mother and reunited 

her with her baby. With successes like this, I look forward to learning more about 

the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act. 

I am also eager to hear more about H.R. 2352, the School Safety Enhancements 

Act of 2007. As a proud cosponsor of this legislation, I wholeheartedly support efforts to enhance safety in our schools—particularly in light of the tragic string of 

hate-motivated violence across the country that has played out in our children’s 

schools. 

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased to see our Subcommittee take up two 

bills addressing elder abuse: the Elder Abuse Victims Act and the Elder Justice Act. 

I want add a sincere note of thanks for your leadership in holding the first House 

hearing on elder abuse in 16 years. 

Particularly with the population of Americans over 60 set to drastically increase 

in the next few decades, the vitally important issue of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation will only become more so. Despite the dearth of data on the prevalence 

of these crimes, we know that elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation cross all racial, 

class, gender, and geographic boundaries. As my colleague Mr. Emanuel describes 

in his written testimony, the push to keep elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation 

quiet and ‘‘in the family’’ is way too reminiscent of our struggles twenty years ago 

to shed light on domestic violence. 

My own experiences as the primary caregiver for my grandmother who raised me 

opened my eyes to some troubling exploitative tactics targeted to seniors. When my 

grandmother was about 90-years-old, she asked if I would help her with her mail, 

balancing her checkbook, etc. I was disturbed by the number of frequent solicitations she received from what appeared to me to be bogus or fly-by-night charities— 

designed more to line the pockets of the solicitors than to serve their purported 

charitable missions. 

I was also disturbed by the amount of money my grandmother had been giving 

to these entities. She believed that those able to do so, ought to be as generous as 

possible to those in need, but she had no way of determining the legitimacy of the 

entities that were contacting her. I still keep a collection of my grandmother’s mail 

as a reminder that it is not just the isolated and lonely who may fall prey to these 

scams. 

I recognize that protecting the physical and mental health and security of seniors 

is the central focus of the Elder Justice Act, as it should be. I am hopeful that our 

consideration of this bill might open a discussion of elder exploitation concerns to 

include criminals who target seniors using phones and mail as their weapons. 

I very much look forward to the testimony of my colleagues, as well as our expert 

panel of witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

Our first witness today will be the gentleman from Illinois, the 

honorable Rahm Emanuel, sponsor of H.R. 1783. He is Chairman 

of the Democratic Caucus and serving his third term in Congress. 

He is committed to addressing the challenges facing families 

across the Nation. He has a bachelor’s degree from Sarah Lawrence 

College and a master’s degree from Northwestern University. 

Our next witness will be the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 

honorable Joe Sestak, sponsor of H.R. 5352. He is serving his first 

term in Congress after 31 years serving our Nation in the United 

States Navy, rising to the rank of three-star admiral. 

46 

He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has a master’s 

and PhD in political economy and government from Harvard University. 

Our next witness is the gentleman from New Jersey, the honorable Steve Rothman, sponsor of H.R. 2352. He is serving his sixth 

term in Congress and throughout his tenure has fought to improve 

the quality of education, both by modernizing schools and classrooms, and hiring skilled teachers. 

He has a bachelor’s degree from Syracuse University and juris 

doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. 

And our final witness for the first panel will be the gentleman 

from Florida, the honorable Ron Klein, sponsor of H.R. 5464. He 

is serving his first term in Congress and has worked to find commonsense solutions that will improve the lives of American families. 

He has a bachelor’s degree from Ohio State University and his 

juris doctorate from Case Western Reserve University Law School. 

Gentlemen, you all know the drill, so we will—your full testimony will be placed in the record. A little timing device is on the 

desk. 

And we will first hear from the Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rahm Emanuel. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RAHM EMANUEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. EMANUEL. First of all, I want to thank all the Members of 

the Committee for holding this hearing, specifically Chairman 

Scott, the Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman Conyers, and 

the Ranking Member, Gohmert. 

A number of you have all touched on different aspects of what 

I was going to say, to the point—starting off with the very fact that 

this is the first hearing by any House Committee on elder abuse 

in 17 years. The Senate has had a series of hearings, but no House 

Committee has ever held a hearing in 17 years of elder abuse. 

And it touches on the fact that, as we are about to have, what, 

77 million Americans, baby boomers, set to retire, it is only fitting 

that this hearing begin now, as we always talk about Social Security or Medicare, that this is an issue that touches a growing population, piece of the overall population, and a community that has 

particular interest. 

I do want to add just a couple of points to some little—to things 

that each of you have brought up. This issue came to mind as I do 

my office hours at grocery stores, just meeting constituents. 

In about 2003, a woman met me at the grocery store, just happened to be shopping, Rosemary—I am going to mispronounce it— 

Pulikche, who talked about her father, who has Alzheimer’s, a 

World War II veteran, who was in a nursing home who she started 

to notice was having scars and black-and-blue marks, et cetera. 

And as she tried to deal with the nursing home, they all said, 

‘‘It is just little things he is bumping into,’’ et cetera, and they 

pushed her off. 

And then she went to the law enforcement community. And the 

law enforcement community said, ‘‘This is a family matter,’’ which 

I note to you was, prior to the Federal Government being involved 

47 

in domestic abuse, was exactly how they referred to domestic abuse 

either for children or for a partner. 

And so the same response that still exists today for elderly was 

a response until we dealt on a Federal level with either child abuse 

or domestic violence, that this was a family issue and not really 

one for the law enforcement community. 

And so it is fitting that we deal with this at this time and deal 

with it from a Federal level. 

Second, as has been noted, there is $8 billion on the Federal level 

spent on abuse, be that child or domestic. Of that, less than 2 percent goes to elderly; $8 billion, but less than 2 percent goes toward 

elderly. We noted that 77 million Americans are baby boomers 

about to retire. 

Third statistic, this was a recent report the other day in the Chicago Tribune, because of Illinois’ own laws, and Chairman Scott 

noted that his own days in the State legislature, that different 

laws, different regs, different reporting requirements. 

Because 1997 and 2005, the increase in violence among elders 

had increased by 48 percent in the State of Illinois. Now, part of 

that is because the population is getting bigger; part of that is because we put in place a series of laws for better reporting by our 

attorney general. 

We happen to have good laws in Illinois and good enforcement. 

What is missing in all this effort is national standards, national 

helping on enforcement, and national resources. 

You can see clearly by what happened both with domestic violence, when the government set some standards and resources were 

put there, and child abuse and those types of crimes, that what 

happened there had a clear impact and a positive impact, in the 

sense of reducing that violence and also bringing it from the sidelines to the center, so you can’t dismiss those crimes as merely a 

family issue. 

Lastly—or two points I would like to close with—I want to make 

sure all my colleagues have appropriate time—is bringing up what 

Congresswoman Baldwin mentioned and that is that, when it 

comes to fraud, abuse, be that telephone solicitation, mail, other 

types of—kind of victims of crimes, as a population sector, seniors 

are the—I don’t want to say a statistic, because I may be wrong, 

but the most amount of crimes against any population sector for 

fraud, vis-a-vis phone or mail, is among seniors. 

And so that has to be a part of anything we do, besides the physical piece, and meaning abuse at nursing homes, et cetera, that 

seniors are the single greatest population segment for being the 

victims of fraud, be it bank, electronic, telephone, et cetera. And 

that has to be a part of this. 

I am submitting, as all you mentioned that you are submitting 

testimony, besides my full testimony, my partner in this and working on this is Congressman Peter King. And I am submitting for 

the record his testimony here. He asked me to do that. I would. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER T. KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing today. Elder abuse is, unfortunately, an issue that has dwelled among the shadows of many American famiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
48 

lies for generations. From incidences in nursing facilities to neglect and abuse at 

the hands of those they know, the elderly have been subject to horrible crimes that, 

until now, have received little or no public attention. I commend the Chairman Scott 

and Ranking Member Gohmert for helping my colleagues and I bring the issue of 

elder abuse to light. 

Almost daily, there are reports of instances in which the elderly have been 

abused. Unspeakable acts of physical abuse and downright neglect have led to the 

deaths of seniors across the country—many of whom had to die in slow agonizing 

ways. Earlier this week I read a disturbing account of a man who died shortly after 

being removed from a nursing facility where he was suffering from malnourishment, 

dehydration, sores, bed bugs and black and swollen toes. According to the local reporters, when emergency room personnel removed the socks that had not been 

changed for quite some time, portions of his skin were pulled off as well. 

To spite this harrowing story of abuse, and the many others that exist in each 

state, there is not one full-time federal employee working on elder abuse issues. 

That is why I have been working with Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Senators John 

Breaux, Orrin Hatch and Blanche Lincoln to pass the Elder Justice Act (H.R. 1783). 

I have had the privilege of working with these Members of Congress and the Elder 

Justice Coalition in order to develop the first comprehensive federal effort to address 

and prevent elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. 

This bipartisan legislation dedicates federal resources to the prevention of elder 

abuse. In addition, it will protect seniors by providing services such as victim assistance, improved long-term care and support for at-risk elders. We have included research, training and forensics and consumer information provisions which will help 

practitioners detect, treat and prevent elder abuse in the most effective ways. 

I sincerely hope the Committee will take the issues surrounding elder abuse to 

heart and join with us to pass strong legislation to combat these tragedies. I thank 

the Committee for holding this hearing and stand ready to work with you. 

Mr. EMANUEL. This is my first legislation I introduced when I 

first got to Congress. Since that time, Senator Hatch, Senator 

Breaux, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Peter King and I have worked on 

this. 

I cannot thank each and every one of you enough that, after 17 

years of not having literally a time this issue having any daylight, 

that your Committee has decided to have a hearing on this legislation and even on this subject. 

And I hope it bodes well for our ability to bring this legislation 

or some aspects finally to the floor for a full vote. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. That statement will be entered without 

objection. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Okay, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Emanuel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAHM EMANUEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Before I begin, I want to sincerely thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, and the members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. 

As you may know, the issue of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation is unfortunately, nothing new. What you may not know though, is that the first hearing on 

elder abuse was in 1979 in the House Select Committee on Aging. The Senate has 

held over 20 hearings on the issue of elder abuse dating back to 1991. However, 

the House has only held one hearing in 1991 since those early hearings on the now 

defunct Select Committee on Aging. Today is the first time in 17 years that a House 

Committee will look at the issue of elder abuse. I sincerely applaud the Committee 

for taking this action and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this 

very important issue here today. 

Reports reveal that 500,000 to 5 million senior American’s will be victims of some 

form of abuse every year, causing illness, suffering, and premature death. In my 

home state of Illinois, reports to the Illinois Elder Abuse and Neglect Program increased by 48% between 1997 and 2005. Additionally, 186 nursing home residents 

actually died of starvation, dehydration or infected wounds in 1999 alone. 

I would like to briefly share with you one story of a former constituent of mine 

that I met in 2003. Her name is Rosemary Pulice and her father was abused and 

49 

neglected in a nursing home. Before Alzheimer’s stripped him of his strength and 

clarity, her father was a strong and independent man: a World War II veteran who 

fought for his country, a loving husband and a caring father who meant the world 

to his family. His illnesses robbed him of both his physical and mental abilities— 

he could neither fend for himself physically nor sort through mentally what was 

happening. During his time at a nursing home, Rosemary started to notice bruises, 

cuts and contusions and when she asked staff about them, they claimed ‘‘Nothing 

happened on our watch.’’ No one was concerned about the injuries—no one attended 

to his pain. When Rosemary tried to address the abuse and neglect with aides, administrators, and finally with the police, she was treated as though she were crazy. 

The situation was treated as a ‘‘family problem’’—much like domestic violence was 

20 years ago. 

Since my election to Congress, I have been working with my colleagues Rep. Peter 

King and Senators John Breaux, Orrin Hatch and Blanche Lincoln to pass the Elder 

Justice Act to protect vulnerable seniors, just like Rosemary’s father from an increasing number of cases of physical and psychological abuse, neglect and financial 

exploitation. The bill enjoys wide bipartisan support and currently has 105 cosponsors in the House and 24 cosponsors in the Senate. 

The Elder Justice Act has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national 

membership organization comprised of 525 groups and individuals dedicated to 

eliminating elder abuse, neglect and exploitation in America. Members include the 

National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, National Association of 

Adult Protective Service Administrators, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, 

AARP, National Association of State Ombudsman Programs and the National Association of State Units on Aging. 

Few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse. 

Over the past 25 years, Congress passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse 

and crimes against women, yet there is not one full-time Federal employee working 

on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government. A comparison of federal money 

spent to fight abuse and neglect shows that $6.7 billion is spent on child abuse, 

$520 million on domestic abuse, and only $135.5 million on elder abuse—less than 

2 percent of federal dollars spent on abuse and neglect goes toward elder abuse. 

This lack of resources has staggering consequences. By addressing law enforcement, 

social service and public health concerns, the Elder Justice Act uses the proven, cost 

effective approaches that Congress has adopted to combat child abuse and violence 

against women. 

The Elder Justice Act is the first comprehensive federal effort to address and prevent elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. This legislation, would, for the first time, 

provide much needed support to state and local entities, which are on the front lines 

in combating this largely unreported, but growing problem. This bipartisan legislation will protect seniors by providing victim assistance, improved long-term care and 

support for at-risk elders, as well as providing resources to states for abuse prevention and improved prosecution. It will also make our communities safer for older 

people by developing new strategies and requiring prompt reporting of crimes in 

nursing homes. 

The Elder Justice Act also contains important research, training, forensics, and 

consumer information provisions which will help practitioners to detect, treat and 

prevent it in the most effective and cost-effective ways. 

The National Sheriff’s Association has also endorsed the Elder Justice Act because 

they believe it is an effective approach which will give local law enforcement officials 

the tools they need to prevent the abuse, neglect and exploitation of seniors in their 

communities. The Elder Justice Act authorizes funding for efforts like the Triad program, which has been used by law enforcement agencies throughout the United 

States to develop effective local programs serving almost 18 million seniors nationwide. My hometown of Chicago currently has 25 active Triad programs in operation. 

There are a few additional key provisions in the bill that I would like to briefly 

mention: 

• Increases Prosecution: The bill increases prosecutions by providing technical, investigative, coordination, and victim assistance resources to law enforcement to support elder justice cases. 

• Provides Grants to Support Local Prosecutors: Provides grants for 

training, technical assistance, policy development, multidisciplinary coordination and other types of support to local prosecutor handling elder justice-related. 

• Creates New Forensic Centers: The legislation creates new forensic expertise (similar to that in child abuse) to promote detection and increase expertise of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. 

50 

• Requires Immediate Reporting of Crimes to Law-Enforcement: The 

bill requires the immediate reporting of crimes in long-term care settings to 

law enforcement. 

• Provides Grant Funding for Adult Protective Services: The bill also 

provides dedicated funding for Adult Protective Services (APS) to assist victims. 

• Establishes Elder Justice Coordinating Council: The bill elevates elder 

justice issues to a national by creating a public-private Coordinating Council 

to coordinate activities of all relevant federal agencies, States, communities 

and private and not-for-profit entities. 

To date, no federal law has been enacted that adequately and comprehensively 

addresses the issues of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The Elder Justice Act 

is the first step toward laying the groundwork to develop a knowledge basis about 

elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, where there is no knowledge. This bill is an 

attempt to stimulate research and the development of an understanding of abuse 

so that strategies to combat it can be developed. With 77 million baby boomers 

aging, the country is simply not prepared to address the growing tide of elder abuse. 

After almost three decades of inaction on this critical issue since the first House 

hearings, the time for the House to act is now. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Sestak? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOE SESTAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. SESTAK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Gohmert. 

I visit senior facilities almost every weekend in my district. And 

in a lot of them, you find, as you do, that you find the seniors 

bursting with pride with the support they receive. 

And in a few of them, though, your heart aches from the cockroaches to the neglect. 

You mentioned my 31 years in the military. And I remember 

most well the lack of care and support for our troops as they return 

from Iraq at Walter Reed last year. This is worse. 

If passed into law, I honestly believe the Elder Abuse Victims Act 

I introduced will actually change the way that our Nation’s justice 

system begins to protect our seniors from abuse, neglect and exploitation. 

Hubert Humphrey said it well. It is not only how well we take 

care of those in the dawn of life, the children, and those in the 

shadows of life, the sick, the disabled, the handicapped, but also 

those in the twilight of life, the seniors. 

I think it is important because seniors not only represent the history of our Nation, but they are vital to our communities, particularly so as the baby boomers, as my distinguished colleague mentioned, begin to retire and have so much more to offer our society 

as they live longer. 

Sadly, however, the incidence of elderly abuse appears to becoming almost an epidemic. 

One study said last year between 1 million and 2 million Americans age 65 or older has become victims of abuse. And this number 

is expected to rise significantly. 

The fact of the matter is our current approach is not working, 

nor will it be able to handle the influx of seniors. My colleague already mentioned the amount of money we wisely spend on child 

51 

abuse and also the Violence Against Women Act of $500 million for 

that alone, both measures I support well. 

But when the total amount is so small for seniors, then it is time 

for this issue to be addressed. 

I like this Elder Abuse Victims Act because it provides a needed 

strategic approach to providing a foundation that inquires and 

identifies the best State practices and laws that are designed to 

protect our seniors from neglect, abuse or exploitation, overseen by 

the U.S. attorney general. 

It does this comprehensive review and study that is so much 

needed and looks at the various variations—different variations 

and definition standards, again, what my distinguished colleague 

mentions, that prevent the FBI from categorizing elder abuse in 

the national uniform crime reporting system. 

These variations are the result of the lack of one Federal body 

dedicated to this type of abuse to coordinate and oversee it. 

Having established within this bill two centralized bodies that 

can be in place, then we can have a uniform policy that States can 

align themselves with in order to have standard definitions and remove the confusion that I think leads to incidences of abuse going 

unreported. In fact, estimates are now that 84 percent of elder 

abuse cases go unreported. 

In my State of Pennsylvania last year, this decade over last decade, there has been a 20 percent increase in substantiated reports 

of elder abuse. 

Putting a face on it, take Louis Long, near my district, who died in March 2006 after a couple drained $84,000 from his bank account, purportedly, as he slipped into dementia. He became one of 

the 40 percent of elder abuse victims who suffer financial exploitation, never mind other times of exploitation, including sexual 

abuse. 

I believe we have also, by failing to act, have failed an elderly 

Alzheimer’s patient in my district who was struck six times with 

a belt buckle by an aide in an assisted living facility. 

This leaves more than just bruises. Those who are abused are 

three times more likely to die within 10 years than those who are 

not. 

Most important is the emphasis in this bill on prosecution as the 

deterrent that we want and we need so badly to prevent this from 

happening. It will do so by establishing funding for elder abuse 

prosecutorial departments at the local, State and Federal level, 

training law enforcement officers in appropriate action in these 

cases, and fund nurse investigators to become experts in identifying elder abuse, under a comprehensive study that has provided 

definitions and best practices to look toward and align these States 

and localities towards. 

This is the reason I have introduced this focused legislation, the 

Elder Abuse Victims Act, and want to continue to fight during my 

time in Congress to help victims of abuse, the elderly of which we 

will all become. 

Again, as Hubert Humphrey said, part of the moral test of government is how well it treats the elderly, those in the twilight of 

life. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

52 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sestak follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE SESTAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Before I begin, I would like to thank Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 

Gohmert for inviting me to speak on a piece of legislation about which I feel so 

strongly. If passed into law, the Elder Abuse Victims Act will strengthen the way 

our justice system prosecutes perpetrators of elder abuse and protect its victims. 

Seniors represent this country’s history and national memory. They are vital to 

our families and communities; however, the elderly are also vulnerable to physical, 

mental, financial, and sexual abuse. Sadly, the incidence of elder abuse in this country is a growing epidemic. Every year, according to one study, between one and two 

million Americans age 65 or older become victims of abuse. This number is expected 

to rise rapidly as the population of Americans age 65 and older grows from 35 million today to 60 million by 2030. 

However, the current approach to elder abuse will not be able to handle these 

changes. Last year, the federal government spent approximately $153 million on 

programs addressing elder abuse. The Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) spent approximately $143 million and the Department of Justice spent $10 

million. These funding levels pale in comparison to the $6.7 billion spent on child 

abuse and the $520 million mandated by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 

both measures which I strongly support. 

The greatest failure of our nation’s approach to elder abuse, however, is the prosecution of perpetrators of abuse. The Elder Abuse Victims Act addresses this failure 

by focusing on enforcement. 

This legislation requires a comprehensive review and study of states’ elder justice 

systems, because state-to-state variations in the definitions and standards vary so 

widely that the FBI is unable to categorize elder abuse in the national Uniform 

Crime Reporting System. 

These variations are the result of a lack of one federal body dedicated to this type 

of abuse. Therefore, the Elder Abuse Victims Act, establishes the Center for the 

Prosecution of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation at the American Prosecutor 

Research Institute and secondly, the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, whose 

membership would include the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 

the Attorney General, among others. 

With two centralized bodies in place, we can then direct a uniform policy that 

aligns the wide spectrum of state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over 

elder abuse cases, and reduce the confusion that leads to cases of abuse going unreported. This is significant because estimates suggest that as many as 84% of elder 

abuse cases go unreported. 

With 2 million senior citizens, the third largest elderly population in the country, 

this legislation is particularly important to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, my 

home state. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, between 2006 and 

2007 there were 2,484 substantiated reports of elder abuse in Pennsylvania. That 

is a 39.2% increase from the 2005–2006 level of 1,784 and a 19.7% increase from 

the previous decade. Considering that the fastest growing segment of Pennsylvania’s 

population is those who are 85 years of age or older, this trend will worsen. 

As I meet the people behind these statistics at senior groups, I am troubled that 

we are failing victims like Louis V. Long, an elderly resident of Pottsville, Pennsylvania, who died in March 2006 after a couple purportedly drained $84,000 from his 

bank accounts as he slipped into dementia. He became one of the 40% of elder abuse 

victims who suffer financial exploitation and will continue to as the elderly are expected to control $10 trillion in assets within the next 10 years. 

I also believe we have failed an elderly Alzheimer patient that was struck at least 

six times with a belt buckle by an aide at an assisted living facility in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, in my district. These acts leave more than just bruises; older 

adults who are abused are 3 times more likely to die within 10 years than those 

who are not. 

In Pennsylvania we have a qualified Elder Abuse Unit at the State Attorney General’s office that investigates and prosecutes individuals who deceive, cheat or abuse 

the elderly; the 26 prosecutors, agents and support staff of this unit, however, can 

not solve this growing epidemic alone. Federal legislation is needed immediately. 

According to a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, HHS and the 

National Institutes of Health, the occurrence and severity of elder abuse is likely 

to increase in coming years. If we do not act now, a growing number millions of seniors will suffer from unabated physical, financial, and emotional abuse and neglect. 

53 

The need for prosecution in this arena is so great that we can not risk losing the 

language of enforcement in the Elder Justice Act for political reasons. That is why 

I have introduced this more focused legislation, the Elder Abuse Victims Act, and 

will continue to fight for victims of abuse. As Hubert Humphrey once said, ‘‘the 

moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn 

of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who 

are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.’’ 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Rothman? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

JERSEY 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

First, let me say what a delight it is to be here before my former 

Committee and for you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Gohmert, and my other distinguished colleagues who are here. 

Thank you for your kind words, Howard. 

I am here this morning to talk about a success story that emanated from this Committee, but has now generated an even greater 

or, rather, made aware, made many of us aware of the greater 

needs that we need to address. 

I am here to ask your support for H.R. 2352, the ‘‘School Safety 

Enhancements Act of 2007.’’ 

Back in 2000, when Chairman Hyde was the Chairman of this 

Committee, I got a letter from two middle-school girls, two separate 

letters, two different girls, two different middle schools in my district, working-class, middle-class schools. 

And it was shortly after Columbine and other incidents. And 

they wrote me and they said, ‘‘Congressman Rothman, I don’t feel 

safe in my school. There have gangs that have come in, kids bringing knives, some bringing guns. I am always afraid. I am always 

looking over my shoulder. I thought school was supposed to be a 

place I felt same in. It is not. You are our congressman. Can’t you 

help me?′′ 

We had just finished the impeachment hearings and that whole 

saga. And nonetheless, the Judiciary Committee unanimously, Bob 

Barr included, from the far right to the far left, unanimously 

passed this bill, the original bill, which said we are not going to 

have a Federal mandate, but we will allow a 50-50 matching grant 

program so that if a school system has identified a need in their 

school for a metal detector, security cameras, locks on doors, training programs for school personnel on how to deal with intruders or 

to prevent intruders, there is a 50-50 matching grant, not a government mandate. 

If they want to put up half the money, the Federal Government 

will match it. We got it through the Committee unanimously and 

got it passed in the Republican House and Republican Senate and 

signed by the President. 

And it started out a $5 million program. And it was a huge success. In a sense, sadly it was a huge success, because of the need. 

And it was well over-subscribed. Then we got it up to $10 million. That was over-subscribed. After all, there are 95,000 schools, 

K-12, in the 50 States and U.S. territories. 

54 

And the last appropriation we got was up to $15 million, again, 

over-subscribed. We have only been able to cover 2,400 of the 

95,000 schools, less than 1 in 40. 

And law enforcement has begged us to try to get more money, 

and we have every year. We have made some improvements in 

this, so we are asking for an increase. It was authorized for $30 

million. We have only been able to get $15 million. 

We would like to increase the authorization to $50 million, and 

maybe we will get closer to $50 million than we got to $30 million. 

We have made some improvements in the bill. As the Chairman 

noted, while there was a provision in there that said, if it is a poor 

school that can’t afford any match and can meet certain criteria, 

the Federal Government will pay for 100 percent of the costs, but 

there was so little money, in essence, so many poor schools got 

pushed to the side in order to get more schools outfitted than otherwise would have been the case. 

So we now have made it an 80-20 program, 80 percent Federal 

grant, with a 20 percent match by the locality. Again, it is not a 

Federal mandate. It is purely voluntary. So whatever the mores or 

the threshold of pain or threat or fear that a school district wants 

to live with, it is up to them. 

But if they come to the Federal Government, especially in these 

tough times, and say, ‘‘We are willing to put up 20 percent. Please 

bring us the money and your expertise to have security cameras, 

walkthrough metal detectors, wand metal detectors, security cameras, new locks on doors that cannot be broken into, et cetera,’’ we 

are going to provide it, especially after a Virginia Tech, all of incidents. 

And, again, the Chairman was on the money. How many 

States—the majority of States have had these incidences in schools 

K-12, as well as colleges and universities. 

Another technical improvement that we added was funding for 

hotlines. It turns out that when kids know there is a hotline that 

they can call, that we have reduced the number—the incidences of 

violence and been able to stop before they happen some terrible, 

terrible tragedies. Simple solution, but it requires some funding, 

and that is in the bill, as well. 

Finally, we have added a public safety and I believe a homeland 

security component, which requires that each college and university at that level provide an annual campus safety assessment and 

show a plan that implements an emergency response plan that will 

address natural disasters, active shooter situations, as well as terrorist attacks. 

I don’t need to tell you that it has been well demonstrated, unfortunately, that we need to have schools prepared with a plan. Again, 

they make up their own plan. We just say, ‘‘You have to have a 

plan.’’ 

Finally, just to remind my distinguished friends and colleagues 

what those two young ladies said to me—and, by the way, you 

should have seen the looks on their faces after we outfitted their 

schools. It just doesn’t get—as a father of five, it doesn’t get better 

when kids come up to you and say, ‘‘Thank you. I feel safe now. 

I don’t have to worry that somebody is going to kill me.’’ 

55 

Schools should be a place where kids feel safe. This is a voluntary program, not a Federal mandate. I hope you distinguished 

ladies and gentlemen will support this program. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

I would like to thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, and the Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify before you in support of H.R. 

2352, the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007. 

Far too often, Americans turn on the television or open up the newspaper and 

learn about yet another school shooting or fight. It has become a tragic reality that 

guns and other weapons are being brought into schools all across America. Children 

are forced to wonder whether they are safe in school—a place once thought to be 

a guaranteed safe haven. 

Whether it is fighting terrorism or working to keep our schools free of violence, 

I have always believed that the government’s first responsibility is to protect the 

people. Our government must help to ensure that our children are safe and protected from violence of any kind in school. School violence is a real danger, from 

New Jersey to California and everywhere in between, and in my view the federal 

government has an obligation to help local municipalities and property taxpayers 

cover the cost of implementing new school safety initiatives. 

That is why in 2000, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I, along 

with then Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), started the Secure Our Schools 

program. Secure Our Schools is a matching federal grant program administered by 

the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, of the Department of Justice. Under this program, specific security measures are not mandated by the federal government. Rather, the funds assist local school districts with the costs of 

those measures they choose to enact. Secure Our Schools gives grantees the opportunity to establish and enhance a variety of school safety equipment and/or programs to continue to improve school safety efforts within their communities. 

Secure Our Schools grants may be used to install metal detectors, locks, improved 

lighting, and other deterrent measures that will help keep students safe. With 

walkthrough metal detectors available for $1,750 and handheld wand metal detectors available for $145, just to name a few of the security measures that can be 

taken, significant progress can be made in preventing weapons from being brought 

into our schools, while saving local property taxpayers from bearing the full cost of 

these security initiatives. Secure Our Schools addresses a variety of existing and 

emerging problems relating to school security through responses that range from 

traditional to innovative and rely on both new technology and the experience of 

school administrators and law enforcement professionals. 

In response to the tragic events that took place at Virginia Tech one year ago yesterday, I introduced H.R. 2352, the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007. The 

School Safety Enhancements Act would make several changes to the Secure Our 

Schools Program. Most notably it would: 

• Increase the federal share of elementary and secondary school security upgrades to 80% and lower the local responsibility to 20%. This will ensure that 

even those localities that are cash strapped can afford to protect their children without raising property taxes. 

• Allow for the funding to be used for the creation of hotlines for the reporting 

of dangerous situations, which have proven effective throughout many school 

districts across the nation. 

• Increase the authorization level of this critical program to $50 million annually which, if appropriated, would allow a large number of additional schools 

to obtain grants. 

• Require all institutions of higher education to develop, on an annual basis, 

a campus safety assessment and implement of a campus emergency response 

plan to address a number of emergency situations such as natural disasters, 

active shooter situations, and terrorist attacks. 

Since 2002, Secure Our Schools grants have been awarded to a total of 572 law 

enforcement agencies that have partnered with more than an estimated 2,400 

schools in 50 states and territories. In the past year alone, 152 law enforcement 

agencies received grants to improve their school safety and security measures. 

56 

With over 14,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and 95,615 public K-12 

schools in the nation, increased funding would clearly allow us to reach a larger 

number of children and communities. 

A secure school environment provides young people with an educational environment free from unnecessary distractions, and full of opportunities to learn. When 

children know they are safe at school, they can focus on what is being taught in 

class, and thus excel with their schoolwork. I developed the Secure Our Schools Act 

in direct response to concerns over school safety expressed to me by children, parents, and teachers from my Congressional District. They wrote to me asking for my 

help to keep students safe in their schools. As the father of two public school children myself, these letters touched me deeply and I felt compelled to take action. I 

hope you will also join me in this fight to ensure that each and every one of our 

schoolchildren is kept safe from harm. 

Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to working with 

you to pass the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Klein? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RON KLEIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for allowing me to participate. And as Chairman Conyers said, I am along here with a 

very distinguished panel and privileged to be part of this to discuss 

elder abuse, senior safety and security, school safety. 

And the issue which we are going to talk about in this resolution 

is A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act. 

Ranking Member Gohmert, you very well stated all the good reasons why we need to do this. 

And, Chairman Scott, thank you for taking the time to discuss 

this with me and provide your leadership in bringing this forward. 

H.R. 5464 is called the ‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery 

Center Act.’’ And it would expand the widely praised A Child Is 

Missing not-for-profit organization into a national program with regional centers under the Department of Justice. 

It would accomplish this expansion through annual grants from 

the attorney general in the amount of $5 million from 2009 through 

2014. 

The funds would allow for the purchase of future technologies 

and techniques, centralized and on-site training, and for the distribution of information to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency officials on the best ways to utilize the around-theclock services provided by the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center. 

Currently, A Child Is Missing is the only program of its kind 

that assists in all missing cases, including abduction, children who 

are lost, wander or run away, or adults with special needs, such 

as the elderly who suffer with Alzheimer’s, which is a major problem in my district in South Florida and other places around the 

country, with dementia and other reasons why people would wander from a facility or a home. 

When a person is reported missing to the police, A Child Is Missing utilizes the latest technology to place 1,000 emergency telephone calls every 60 seconds to residents and businesses in the 

local area where the person was last seen. 

57 

It works in concert with the Amber Alert and all child safety programs and has the support of law enforcement agencies all across 

the United States. 

A Child Is Missing also fills a critical gap in time in the most 

dangerous cases. Although the Amber Alert has been an extremely 

successful program, there is still a crucial void from when a child 

is first reported missing and when an Amber Alert, which is activated only in cases of criminal abduction, can be issued, which is 

approximately 3 to 5 hours. 

This critical period of time can be the difference between whether 

a child lives or dies. A Washington state attorney general’s office 

study showed that among cases involving children abducted and 

murdered 74 percent were slain in the first 3 hours. So this time 

element is essential. 

Adding to the problem is the resource and manpower limitations 

facing many local law enforcement agencies. Roughly half of these 

offices in the United States have 25 or fewer officers. And an average 12-hour search for a missing child can cost as much as 

$400,000. 

A Child Is Missing helps to fill this critical gap in time, as well 

as complement the Amber Alert during its ongoing search. We 

know this for a fact because we have heard it from countless law 

enforcement agencies and officers all across our country, and you 

will hear it again during the next panel. 

So this issue isn’t whether A Child Is Missing works or not; the 

real issue is that not enough local communities have access to the 

program. 

As you will learn from the founder and President of A Child Is 

Missing, Sherry Friedlander, who is a remarkable woman who 

came up with this idea and has fully implemented it in Fort Lauderdale, the program has been a remarkable success in spreading 

the program and its success to all over the country. 

But if we are going to bring this program to every community in 

America, then we will need to leverage the resources of the Federal 

Government, and that is what my legislation attempts to do. 

H.R. 5464 has broad bipartisan support in Congress. And we 

count co-sponsors from all over the country, including Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana and New York. 

On the Senate side, companion legislation was introduced by 

Senator Menendez and is co-sponsored by Senator Hatch, the distinguished former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

We have such support because A Child Is Missing provides a 

service that transcends politics. Our children are not partisan; they 

are not Democrats or Republicans. They all our children. 

And all of us require that responsibility and their protection requires our cooperation and working together, just like this Subcommittee is going to do today. 

I want to thank the Chairman, again, and Ranking Member for 

inviting me to testify today, and I hope that I will have the support 

of this Subcommittee as we move forward with H.R. 5464, the ‘‘A 

Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act.’’ 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:] 

58 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON KLEIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert, for holding this important hearing today and for allowing me to testify in support my legislation, H.R. 

5464, the ‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act.’’ 

H.R. 5464 would expand the widely-praised A Child Is Missing non-profit organization into a national program with regional centers under the Department of Justice. It would accomplish this expansion through annual grants from the Attorney 

General in the amount of $5 million from 2009 through 2014. 

The funds would also allow for the purchase of future technologies and techniques, centralized and on-site training, and for the distribution of information to 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency officials on the best ways to utilize 

the round-the-clock services provided by the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery 

Center Act. 

Currently, A Child Is Missing is the only program of its kind that assists in all 

missing cases involving abduction, children who are lost, wander or run away, or 

adults with special needs such as the elderly who suffer with Alzheimer’s, which is 

a major problem in my district in South Florida. 

When a person is reported missing to the police, A Child Is Missing utilizes the 

latest technology to place 1,000 emergency telephone calls every 60 seconds to residents and businesses in the area where the person was last seen. It works in concert with the AMBER Alert and all child safety programs, and has the support of 

law enforcement agencies all across the country. 

A Child Is Missing also fills a critical gap in time in the most dangerous cases. 

Although the AMBER Alert has been an extremely successful program, there is still 

a crucial void from when a child is first reported missing and when an AMBER 

Alert, which is activated only in cases of criminal abduction, can be issued, which 

is approximately three to five hours. 

This critical period of time can be the difference between whether a child lives 

or dies. A Washington State Attorney General’s office study showed that among 

cases involving children abducted and murdered, 74 percent were slain in the first 

3 hours. 

Adding to the problem is the resource and manpower limitations facing many 

local law enforcement agencies. Roughly half of these offices in the United States 

have 25 or fewer officers, and an average twelve-hour search for a missing child can 

cost as much as $400,000. 

A Child Is Missing helps to fill this critical gap in time as well as complement 

the AMBER Alert during its ongoing search. We know this for a fact because we’ve 

heard it from countless law enforcement officers all across America, and you will 

hear again during the next panel. 

So the issue isn’t whether A Child Is Missing works or not. The real issue is that 

not enough local communities have access to the program. As you will learn from 

the founder and President of A Child Is Missing, Sherry Friedlander has done a remarkable job spreading the program to all 50 states. But if we’re going to bring the 

program to every community in America, then we’ll need to leverage the resources 

of the federal government, and that’s what my legislation attempts to do. 

H.R. 5464 has broad bipartisan support in Congress. I count cosponsors from all 

across the country, including Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana and New York. On the 

Senate side, companion legislation was introduced by Senator Menendez and is cosponsored by Senator Hatch, the distinguished former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

We have such support because A Child Is Missing provides a service that transcends politics. Our children are not Democrats or Republicans. They are all our 

children and all our responsibility, and their protection requires us to work together, 

much like this subcommittee is doing today, to do what’s best for their continued 

safety. 

I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for inviting me to testify 

today, and I hope that I will have the support of this subcommittee as we move forward with H.R. 5464. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. I thank all of our witnesses. 

Do any of the Members have compelling questions that have to 

be asked? 

The gentleman from—Ranking Member Johnson, Mr. Johnson, 

the gentleman from Georgia? 

59 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just point out the fact that, with the exploding foreclosure crisis that exists now, and the fact that many school systems are dependent on property taxes to fund the schools, and the 

fact that we have had so many unfunded mandates passed down 

from State and Federal Government to the local governments, local 

governments need help, in terms of providing for school safety. 

And so I am glad that we are considering increasing the amount 

of money that is available for school safety and to make that money 

more accessible to communities that don’t have the funds to provide for security. 

And as far as elder abuse cases go, many cases take place in 

nursing homes. Of course, we have great nursing homes, but we 

also find some that are challenged. And these nursing homes oftentimes are not held accountable for what goes on inside. 

And so oftentimes, when the criminal justice system is unprepared to act, the relatives and next of kin of elderly who have been 

subjected to abusive practices often have only to turn to the civil 

courts to get justice. 

And when they go to the civil court, they are often confronted 

with the fact that their nursing home contract that they signed 

when they committed their elderly relative to the nursing home 

contains the pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration clause, 

which are held to be enforceable by the courts, and they prevent 

the parties from getting justice in court. 

And so this is why we need to protect our elderly through the 

criminal processes and make sure that we provide the resources 

that are needed to take care of this problem, which is only going 

to get worse as more and more people become elderly and live 

longer. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Ohio? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

I want to thank Mr. Klein especially for his leadership in this 

particular piece of legislation, H.R. 5464, the ‘‘Child Is Missing 

Alert and Recovery Center Act.’’ 

I also want to recognize and thank one of the witnesses that will 

be testifying here shortly, Sherry Friedlander, who is originally 

from Cincinnati, even though she is down in Fort Lauderdale now. 

I want to thank her for making this program happen. 

And the program, of course, would authorize $5 million in grants. 

And it fills a void between the initial reports to law enforcement 

of a missing child or adult and before the Amber Alert comes out. 

And I know that there has been some issue relative to some interpreting as perhaps a hoax call. And I would—I know that is one 

of the areas that we are particularly interested in to make sure 

that that is not an issue. 

And a number of the law enforcement agencies in both my district, including the Hamilton County sheriff’s department, the Norwood Police Department, and Forest Park, and in the district next 

to mine, in Deer Park, have vouched for the benefits of this program. 

60 

So I again want to thank Mr. Klein for his leadership in this. I 

am the lead Republican on it. 

Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to stick around, because 

I am the Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, and 

we have a hearing going on over there, and I have to go back or 

Ms. Velazquez will be very upset with me. So I have to get back 

and deal with her. 

But thank you very much for holding this hearing, and I yield 

back my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from Wisconsin? 

Ms. BALDWIN. No questions of this panel. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. We thank all of our witnesses, 

Mr. Chairman, for testifying—just a minute. 

Ranking Member, Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. And I do appreciate 

the work for children and schools. 

I would like to ask, I guess, Congressman Emanuel, on the issue 

of the Elder Justice Act, Chairman Conyers alluded to it, and I do 

appreciate my friend, Mr. Johnson, indicating the problem is only 

going to get worse. 

You are so right. It seems, as technology improves, medicine improves, we are able to keep the bodies alive longer than we are able 

to keep the mind as active. And as my friend, Ms. Baldwin, indicated, those who have dealt closely with elderly family members, 

most of us have been surprised how much they get inundated by 

mail, by phone calls, and sometimes in person, at times when they 

are often less able to discern what is a fraud. 

In the old days, I think their generations called them confidence 

men, and that is exactly what they are. They come in, and they befriend, and maybe they are mad at a family member—I have seen 

this in other family situations—and, boy, just take advantage of 

the situation, get close to them, and then take everything they 

have. 

It is my understanding, Congressman Emanuel, of the Senate 

program or the Senate bill that they do not have the DOJ provisions and that, if we were going to move this quickly and get it into 

law quickly, that it may be easier without the DOJ provisions. 

And as I mentioned in my opening statement, I think the real 

expertise in prosecuting these things has been with State and local. 

And I really do appreciate your pushing this bill to begin with. I 

didn’t realize it had been 17 years. My goodness. 

But this is a critical issue, but I wondered about that possibility 

of moving forward. Congressman Sestak has a provision, as I understand, might allow that part to be standalone so we could move 

forward, the House pass it, and we got one like the Senate, and it 

becomes law. 

What is your thought on that? 

Mr. EMANUEL. Well, two or three things that I can bring up to 

point here. 

One is—and I will not speak for the senators, but they do support how we have drafted the legislation, and it happens to be jurisdictional, vis-a-vis over there as opposed to what we do here. 

61 

Second is the National Sheriff Association supports the legislation as is. And they have a good take on why it requires that piece 

of it. 

Third is that—more than willing, without taking a lot of time 

with everybody, maybe my staff and your staff can sit down and 

we can see if we can work around or see if we can resolve some 

of your concerns, if not. 

I happen to think this has the right balance, in the sense it 

doesn’t put Federal laws in place in sense of ex crimes, but it assists at the State and local level so they can actually pursue the 

cases at that level. As we said, it sets national standards. 

One of the things that I think, as Chairman Scott showed when 

he was a State Senator, some States are doing certain things. Certain States don’t know whether they are falling behind or leading 

the pack. We need national standards, national resources, and a 

help on the national enforcement level. 

I would note—and this brings up with something that Congressman Johnson noted—in the prescription drug bill, there was a 

study to be done on having background checks for people working 

at nursing homes. One of the things that we called on is that report to be issued by CMS in the next 6 months, because it showed 

that they prevented 500 people going to get jobs in nursing homes 

who actually had a background that should have stopped them 

even from applying. 

And hopefully we can have that report issued so we can then 

make sure that all States do background checks for people working 

at nursing homes. That is not what is done there. 

And, again, I want to remind you, as I said earlier—and hopefully my staff will sit down with your staff so we can try to work 

through this issue—it doesn’t set national laws, it doesn’t make it 

a national crime, or a Federal, rather, but it gives the resources, 

the type of enforcement, and the type of standards that we need 

so, in fact, all our States and local law enforcements are doing the 

job they need to do and have the backing that they did. 

And as we saw on child abuse and we saw on domestic violence, 

until you do that, it will always be put to the side as a family issue 

and not the type of concern that needs to be brought. 

But hopefully we can work together and resolve your concern. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, and one other issue would be the criminal 

laws. That was brought up a moment ago. 

And it does seem—I mean, there is no question, even with someone that tries to be as constitutionally strict as I do, we have jurisdiction over matters in interstate commerce, and that includes the 

mail, that includes telephones, and those are being used to defraud 

our elderly. 

I was at a dialysis center and somebody came up and said they 

had an elderly person on dialysis and they would have been hit up 

for some home improvement. Stuff came in the mail. They got involved. And now they are paying 80 percent interest. I said, ‘‘No, 

we have laws against that,’’ and come to find out we didn’t and we 

don’t. 

So some usury laws, but also, if you are using the mail—and particularly make the elderly a protected class, we may be able to further the criminal laws. 

62 

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, we will work with all due speed 

to try to resolve the concerns that the Ranking Member—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, that may need to be a separate bill. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Yes, it may be. But I know one thing: What I 

don’t want to do, as just a cautionary yellow light, is passed an 

elder abuse bill that doesn’t have any oomph behind it. 

And my concern is, if you don’t have the Department of Justice 

in some way helping coordinate, having the office and the resources 

available, given that we talked about $8 billion and only less than 

2 percent dedicated to this issue, I think we would be doing a disservice, not only to the elderly, but the law enforcement that is on 

the front line—and we would be actually basically, in my view, 

winking at a serious problem and not doing what we really need 

to do. 

And I don’t—I think we can work through this. I really do. But 

I don’t think you want to participate, nor do I, in one that really 

is something fake, it makes us feel good and does nothing to prevent the crimes or enforce them. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I don’t think there will be any winking. 

Mr. EMANUEL. There won’t. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think there will be fists in play here. So thank 

you. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Well, okay, then I think then—let us help you get 

comfortable with it. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT. Oh, I am sorry, excuse me. 

Mr. EMANUEL. That is what happens when you bring former 

Members back. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. I apologize and appreciate your indulgence. I 

wanted to make two points I didn’t make very briefly. 

Number one, in 2000, while there were many problems of violence at all levels of our school system, it has only increased and 

in particular because of the prevalence of gangs. Gangs are now everywhere. It is not just in inner city; it is not any one community. 

Gangs are everywhere. 

And if you talk to local law enforcement, they need every amount 

of resource they can get. And when you talk to the kids, they are 

more afraid now than ever, and that is why we need to have these 

programs, so they can at least feel free from fear and feel safe in 

the school setting, so that they can not only be safe, but so that 

they can learn, because you cannot learn in an atmosphere of fear. 

And, finally, if I didn’t make this point earlier, this is a local program where local law enforcement provides the expertise and 

works hand-in-glove with the school systems. 

So this is not some Federal law enforcement agency. We provide 

the resources; we provide the expertise. But in the end, it is local 

law enforcement working hand-in-glove with the school system, implementing these new Federal ideas with Federal money, with a 

predominance of Federal money. 

But that is one of the reasons why it is so effective: Federal 

money, local law enforcement, local school systems. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

63 

If there are no further questions, I want to thank the panel for 

your testimony. And we appreciate your being with us today. 

Our next panel, if they would come forward. 

Our first witness will be Mr. Robert Blancato, the national coordinator, Elder Justice Coalition, Washington, DC. He served for 6 

years as President of the National Committee for the Prevention of 

Elder Abuse. He is a former House staff member, serving 17 years 

on the House Select Committee on Aging. 

He is executive director of the 1995 White House Conference on 

Aging. He has a B.A. from Georgetown University and a MBA from 

the American University. 

Our next witness will be Sherry Friedlander-Olsen, the founder 

and CEO of A Child Is Missing program. A Child Is Missing is a 

national nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting law enforcement in the early and safe recovery of missing children, the elderly, 

college students, and the disabled. 

She is actively involved in many areas of her community and has 

been distinguished in many awards, including Citizen of the Year 

in 2005 for Broward County Sheriff’s Office in Florida. She also received the J. Edgar Hoover Humanitarian Award in 1999 for the 

National Association of Police Chiefs. 

Our next witness, the gentleman from Georgia has asked to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am proud to introduce our next witness, a fellow Georgian, Mr. 

Vernon Keenan, director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. 

Beginning his career in my congressional district, the 4th Congressional District of Georgia, Mr. Keenan entered law enforcement in 

1972 as a uniformed police officer in DeKalb County, and he has 

made his way up the ranks, doing it the old-fashioned way. 

In 1973, he became a Georgia Bureau of Investigation special 

agent. And throughout his career, he has been promoted to every 

sworn rank in the agency. 

In 2003, he was appointed as the director of the Georgia Bureau 

of Investigations by Governor Sonny Perdue. And as director, Mr. 

Keenan is responsible for managing a law enforcement agency of 

close to 900 employees with a budget of about $90 million. 

A graduate of Valdosta State University with a bachelor of 

science degree in criminal justice, he also holds a master’s degree 

in public administration from the Columbus State University. 

And Mr. Keenan is also a graduate of the FBI National Academy 

and Command College of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Thank you, Mr. Keenan, for joining us today, and we look forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Blancato? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT BLANCATO, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, ELDER JUSTICE COALITION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BLANCATO. Chairman Scott, Judge Gohmert, Members of the 

Subcommittee, on behalf of the nonpartisan, 556-member Elder 

64 

Justice Coalition, I testify today in strong support of H.R. 1783, the 

‘‘Elder Justice Act.’’ 

This hearing is held during National Crime Victims’ Rights 

Week. A victim of elder abuse, neglect or exploitation is a crime 

victim, but the impact is especially severe because of the age and 

the vulnerable nature of the victim. 

Our coalition salutes the strong leadership of Congressman 

Rahm Emanuel, the author of H.R. 1783, as well as Congressman 

Peter King. We note that 12 of the 135 co-sponsors of the bill are 

Members of the Judiciary Committee, including Subcommittee 

Members Mr. Johnson and Ms. Baldwin. 

Passage of H.R. 1783 is long overdue. The bill is necessitated by 

the combination of a growing national problem and an anemic Federal response to the problem. 

Elder abuse takes on many forms, including physical, emotional, 

sexual and financial. The common thread involving elder abuse is 

that it involves one or more persons establishing and then violating 

a trust relationship with a vulnerable older person. 

National data on elder abuse provides some disturbing presentday realities and future trends. According to the National Center 

on Elder Abuse, each year between 1 million and 2 million Americans 65 and over have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on whom they depended for care or protection. 

For every case of elder abuse, at least five more go unreported. 

Another 20,000 cases of abuse in nursing homes were reported by 

State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program. 

Among perpetrators of elder abuse, as has been noted, 80 percent 

were either a family member of or in an ongoing relationship with 

the victim. According to the Department of Justice, crime victims 

65 and over lost a total of $1.3 billion due to personal and property 

crimes in 2005, including Internet fraud. 

Finally, the average elder abuse victim is an older woman in her 

upper 70’s living alone. Today, 48 percent of all women 75 and over 

now live alone. 

As striking as national data may be, elder abuse happens locally. 

We review news articles from the States where the Members of this 

Subcommittee reside and found a total of 67 articles in just the 

month of March regarding elder abuse. And they have been submitted for the record. 

The Elder Justice Act has been proposed in each of the last few 

congresses. It always has enjoyed significant bipartisan support. It 

has passed the Senate Finance Committee on two occasions. And 

a small provision of the act dealing with data collection was actually included in public law in the 109th Congress. 

The Elder Justice Act also served to promote changes in the 

Older Americans Act, when Congress broadened in 2006 the role of 

the administration on aging related to elder justice and elder 

abuse, including the coordination of elder justice activities. 

H.R. 1783 includes, among its key provisions, the first-ever dedicated Federal funding for Adult Protective Services, the critical 

program in every State that assists victims and works with law enforcement. 

It provides improved APS training and investigations through 

Federal coordination and demonstration grants from the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
65 

ment of Health and Human Services and provide grants to improve 

ombudsman capacity, conduct pilots, provide support, and improve 

training. 

It also contains provisions related to law enforcement and the 

Department of Justice, as has been noted, including forming an 

Elder Justice Coordinating Council and an advisory board to that 

to foster coordination throughout the Federal Government on elder 

abuse. And law enforcement would be represented in both these 

commission. 

Grants would be provided for mobile and stationary forensic centers to help develop better expertise on elder abuse and exploitation. Adult Protective Services grants would interface with law 

enforcement when abuse is found. 

A national training institute for surveyors of long-term care facilities would be established in the bill. 

And very importantly, since it has come up some times this 

morning, immediate reporting of crimes in nursing homes to law 

enforcement is called for in this bill. 

There are also important grant programs, including those that 

review model State laws and practices, provide victims advocacy 

grants for law enforcement training, support for local, State and 

Federal prosecutors, and specialized training for law enforcement 

in the case of elder abuse. 

H.R. 1783 makes elder abuse prevention a higher priority in the 

Department of Justice. The grants that are proposed are sound investments. 

There must be a level of shared responsibility in elder abuse prevention. Older people need to be more vigilant to protect themselves and their assets. We must remember that all seniors do not 

have equal capacity to manage their financial resources. Where assistance is needed, we need to ensure maximum reasonable decision-making for vulnerable seniors whose resources are at stake. 

The shared responsibility for protecting the Nation’s elders 

against abuse must extend to the Federal Government. Our current 

policy of directing paltry sums in a piecemeal fashion is not the answer. 

A comprehensive and effective approach, as embodied in the 

Elder Justice Act, is the way we need to go. As the number of older 

people increase in our Nation, so does the potential for more elder 

abuse. 

We have an opportunity to get ahead of the curve. We ask you 

to report out H.R. 1783 so we can get one step closer to it becoming 

public law this year. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blancato follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT BLANCATO

Chairman Scott and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the nonpartisan 

556 member Elder Justice Coalition, I appreciate the invitation to testify today regarding H.R. 1783, the Elder Justice Act. The coalition commends this subcommittee for holding this hearing. We hope it proves to be a catalyst for passing 

this worthwhile legislation in the House. We especially thank you for holding this 

hearing during National Crime Victims’ Rights Week. A victim of elder abuse, neglect, or exploitation is a victim of a crime, but the impact of these crimes is especially severe because of the age and vulnerable nature of the victim. Frankly, Mr. 

66 

Chairman, we need more than a designated week to address a daily national disgrace. 

The Elder Justice Coalition also commends Representatives Rahm Emanuel (DIL) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the co-authors of the Elder Justice Act. They have 

been longstanding champions of this legislation. We also salute the 105 co-sponsors 

of the bill, including the following Members from the Judiciary Committee: Representative Baldwin, Representative Berman, Representative Boucher, Representative Cohen, Representative Delahunt, Representative Johnson, Representative 

Lofgren, Representative Sanchez, Representative Sutton, Representative 

Wasserman Schultz, Representative Weiner, and Representative Wexler. 

H.R. 1783 addresses elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation and its passage is long 

overdue. The legislation is necessitated by the combination of a growing national 

problem and an anemic federal response to the problem. 

Elder abuse is a multifaceted issue. The abuse takes on many forms, including 

physical, emotional, sexual, and financial. The common thread involving elder abuse 

is that it involves one or more persons establishing and then violating a trust relationship with a vulnerable older person. 

National data related to elder abuse provides some disturbing present-day realities and future trends: 

• According to the National Center on Elder Abuse 2005 fact sheet: Best available estimates are each year between 1 and 2 million Americans age 65 and 

over have been injured, exploited or otherwise mistreated by someone on 

whom they depended for care or protection. 

• For every one case of elder abuse, neglect, exploitation or self-neglect reported 

to authorities, at least five more go unreported. As a result, the Senate Special Committee on Aging has estimated the number of elder abuse cases nationally at more than 5 million. 

• A 2004 survey of Adult Protective Service agencies revealed a 19.7 percent 

increase in the combined total of reports of elder and vulnerable adult abuse 

and a 15.6 percent increase in substantiated cases since 2000. 

• Overall, APS agencies received more than 556,000 reports of suspected elder 

abuse in 2004. 

• Another 20,000 cases of abuse in nursing homes were reported by State LongTerm Care Ombudsman Programs. It should be noted that this is only one 

of several possible reporting sources, suggesting the number of nursing home 

abuse cases may be considerably higher. 

• Of a group of more than 190,000 substantiated cases of elder abuse reported 

to APS, the two highest forms were caregiver neglect and financial exploitation. 

• Among perpetrators of elder abuse, 80% were either a family member of or 

in an ongoing relationship with the victim. 

• According to the Department of Justice Office of Victims of Crime, crime victims 65 and over lost a total of $1.3 billion due to personal and property 

crimes in 2005, including internet fraud complaints. The median loss for 

those 60 and over was $866, higher than any other age group. 

• The average victim of elder abuse, according to various studies, is an older 

woman in her upper 70’s living alone. According to the most recent Profile 

of Older Americans issued by the Administration on Aging, 48 percent of all 

women 75 and over now live alone. Sadly, data is lacking regarding abuse 

across race, religion, ethnicity and the diversity of other elderly sub-population groups. 

• Earlier studies pointed to the fact that as much as 70 percent of the wealth 

in our nation is controlled by persons 50 and over, a trend which will continue 

at the same time as elder financial abuse is one of the fastest rising forms 

of elder abuse. 

Perhaps the most graphic impact of elder abuse can be found in the text of a 

study by Dr. Mark Lachs entitled ‘‘The Mortality of Elder Mistreatment.’’ The study 

looked at 176 older persons over a 13 year period and found that those who were 

reported to APS for elder mistreatment had a 9% survival rate over that time period 

vs. a 40% survival rate for the persons not so reported, adjusted for disease, cognitive status and several other factors. 

As striking as the national data may be, elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation are 

intensely local issues as well. One of the better sources of information that we use 

to track elder abuse cases is the newsfeed provided as a service by the National 

Center on Elder Abuse. In preparation for this hearing, we reviewed articles from 

67 

the States where the Members of this Subcommittee reside and found a total of 67 

articles in just the month of March regarding abuse. A complete list of these articles 

is included as an attachment. The problem is a local, state, and national one. The 

solution must involve all three entities. In fact, that is the strength of the Elder 

Justice Act, which helps coordinate and fund programs but also enables states and 

local communities to run programs that best serve their needs. 

The Elder Justice Act has been proposed in each of the last few Congresses. It 

is legislation which has always, and still does, enjoy significant bi-partisan support. 

It is legislation that has passed the Senate Finance Committee on two occasions, 

and in the 109th Congress a very small provision of the EJA dealing with data collection was passed and signed into law. The Elder Justice Act also served as a catalyst for changes that were made to the Older Americans Act of 2006, in which Congress broadened the role of the Administration on Aging related to elder justice and 

elder abuse, including the coordination of elder justice activities. 

However the fact remains that of all the federal funds spent on abuse prevention, 

less than 2 percent is spent on elder abuse, despite the national increase in the 

number of cases. Many states opt to use some of their Social Services Block Grant 

funds to support APS, but the amount used for APS varies dramatically from state 

to state and fluctuates as states adjust their SSBG expenditures to deal with cuts 

in social services and other priorities. Moreover, the SSBG has incurred more than 

$1billion in funding cuts over the past number of years and the president’s budget 

proposes even deeper cuts to SSBG. A dedicated federal funding stream for Adult 

Protective Services is urgently needed in order to protect the lives and financial 

well-being of the rapidly increasing number of older citizens vulnerable to abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

H.R. 1783 includes among its key provisions: 

1. Provide the first ever dedicated federal funding for adult protective services—the critical program in every state that assists victims and works with 

law enforcement. 

2. Provide improved APS training and investigations through federal coordination and demonstration grants from HHS. 

3. Provide grants to improve ombudsman capacity, conduct pilots, provide support, and improve training. 

4. Require immediate reporting to law enforcement of crimes in a long-term 

care facility and provide better consumer information on Nursing Home 

Compare. 

5. Create a National Training Institute for Surveyors of long-term care facilities. 

6. Establish an Elder Justice Coordinating Council to foster coordination 

throughout the federal government on elder abuse topics and an Advisory 

Board to the Coordinating Council made up of experts on elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 

It also contains important provisions under the jurisdiction of this Committee. 

This includes requiring the Attorney General to invest through grants in improved 

training, policy development, and other types of support to state and local prosecutors handling elder abuse cases, as well as retaining additional Federal prosecutors 

and nurse investigators needed to assist with elder abuse cases. The bill would also 

permit the Attorney General to fund a resource group to assist prosecutors nationwide with respect to elder justice matters. 

In addition to the need for greater reporting of elder abuse is the need for greater 

prosecutions of these cases once reported. Victims of elder abuse are crime victims. 

They can suffer physical harm or tremendous loss of needed financial resources. Our 

criminal justice system needs to be aggressive in bringing those who commit elder 

abuse to justice and H.R. 1783 can help make that a reality. Current laws and policies of the Department of Justice are not sufficiently elder abuse sensitive and H.R. 

1783 would make elder abuse prevention a more distinct priority in DOJ. 

In addition, H.R. 1783 would require the Attorney General to award grants to provide training, technical assistance, and other types of support to police and other 

front-line law enforcement personnel handling elder abuse cases. Again, the point 

is to recognize the critical role that law enforcement must play in elder abuse prevention. Unless training is provided throughout the system from adult protective 

services to law enforcement to prosecutors, we will never improve upon our efforts 

to combat and prosecute those who commit elder abuse as well as prevent future 

victimization. 

Further, H.R. 1783 would place responsibilities with the Department of Justice 

to work to help achieve a coordinated federal response to elder justice, evaluate efVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
68 

fective state laws, provide recommendations, and conduct evaluations of all new programs authorized under this legislation. 

Finally, the bill makes grants to establish and operate stationary and mobile forensic centers to develop forensic expertise on elder abuse and to assist in making 

winnable cases against perpetrators. 

Elder abuse prevention is an issue where the resources of the Department of Justice are needed. At the local level, it has been determined over and over again that 

a multi-disciplinary team approach works best in elder abuse prevention. This 

means involving the APS, social services, law enforcement, health, and other sectors 

in the effort. Grants that foster better trained multi-disciplinary responses are 

sound investments. 

There must be a level of shared responsibility in elder abuse prevention. Older 

people need to be more vigilant to protect themselves and their assets. For the 

record, some of the common tips include: 

• Use Direct Deposit for your checks. 

• Don’t sign blank checks allowing another person to fill in the amount. 

• Don’t leave money or valuables in plain sight. 

• Don’t sign anything you don’t understand. 

• Protect your money. The bank may be able to protect your money by arranging your accounts to control access to your funds. 

• Be aware of scams. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. 

• Don’t give anyone your ATM PIN number, and cancel your ATM card immediately if it is stolen. 

• Check your bank statements carefully for unauthorized withdrawals. 

• Be cautious of joint accounts. 

• Build good relationships with the professionals who handle your money. 

Finally, we must remember that all seniors do not have equal capacity to manage 

their financial resources. Where assistance is needed, ensure maximum reasonable 

decision-making for vulnerable seniors whose resources are at stake. 

In conclusion, the shared responsibility for protecting the nation’s elders must finally be extended to the federal response to elder abuse. Our current policy of directing paltry sums in a piecemeal fashion is not the answer. A comprehensive and 

effective approach as embodied in the Elder Justice Act is the way we need to go. 

The Elder Justice Coalition strongly urges the enactment of the Elder Justice Act 

this year. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

ATTACHMENT 

The Elder Justice Coalition: 556 members 4/17/08 

*Denotes Elder Justice Coalition Coordinating Committee 

Organizational Members: 229 

*National Committee for the Prevention of Elder Abuse 

*National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys 

*National Association of State Units on Aging 

*National Adult Protective Services Association 

*National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs 

*AARP 

Adams County Social Services Department, CO 

Adult Abuse Coalition of South Central Tennessee, TN 

Adult Guardianship Services, OH 

Adult Protective Services, Sacramento, CA 

Adult Protective Services, San Francisco, CA 

Advocates for National Guardianship Ethics and Reform 

Aging Solutions 

Alabama Dept. of Senior Services 

Alabama Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Alaska State Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Alliance for Better Long Term Care 

Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care 

Alliance of Retired Americans 

69 

American Art Therapy Association 

Alzheimer’s Association 

*American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging 

American Association for Single People 

American Geriatrics Society 

*American Health Care Association 

American Psychological Association 

Americans for Better Care of the Dying 

American Society on Aging 

Area Agency on Aging, Region One, Phoenix, AZ 

Arlington AAA, Arlington, VA 

Arizona Elder Abuse Coalition 

Arlington Steering Committee for Services to Older Persons 

Arkansas Advocates For Nursing Home Residents 

Assisted Living Federation of America 

Association for Protection of the Elderly 

Association for Protection of the Elderly—PA Chapter 

Association for Protection of the Elderly—West Coast Chapter 

Bay Area Agency on Aging, Inc. 

Benjamin Rose Institute, Cleveland, OH 

Billings Chapter of NCPEA, Montana 

Brookdale Center on Aging of Hunter College 

Burden Center for the Aging 

California Medical Training Center, UC Davis 

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 

Catholic Charities Health and Human Services, Cleveland, Ohio 

Center for Advocacy for the Rights and Interests of the Elderly 

Center on Aging & Disabilities—University of Miami, FL 

Center for a Just Society 

Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. 

Center for Social Gerontology 

Central PA Critical Jobs Training 

Chatham County S.A.L.T. (Seniors And Law enforcement Together), GA 

Citizens for Better Care 

Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups & the Elder Law Center 

Coastline Elderly Services, Inc. 

Cochise County, Arizona, Elder Abuse Task Force 

College of Professional Mediation, Puerto Rico 

Collier County S.A.L.T. (Seniors And Law enforcement Together) Council, FL 

Consumer Consortium for Assisted Living 

Council on Aging—Orange County 

Council of Senior Centers and Services of New York 

County Welfare Directors Association of California 

Crater District Area Agency on Aging, VA 

District of Columbia Long-Term Care Ombudsman Office 

Disability, Abuse and Personal Rights Project 

Elder Abuse Institute of Maine 

Eldercare America 

ElderCare Rights Alliance 

Elder Financial Protection Network 

Elder Law of Michigan 

Elder Law Offices of Mitchell A. Karasov, CA 

Elder Law Practice of Timothy Takacs, TN 

Family Research Council 

Foundation for Senior Living 

Gallatin County Attorney’s Office, TN 

Gary Jones Association, NE 

General Federation of Women’s Clubs 

Georgia Division of Aging Services 

Georgia Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

70 

Gerontological Society of America 

Governor’s Commission on Senior Services, OR 

Gray Panthers 

Greater Cleveland Elder Abuse/Domestic Violence Roundtable 

Hawaii State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Heart and Hand, Inc. 

Home Instead Senior Care, Inc. 

Hospice Patients Alliance 

Idaho State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Institute on Aging 

Institute for Caregiver Education, PA 

Institute of Gerontology at the University of Louisiana at Monroe 

International Association of Forensic Nurses 

International Cemetery and Funeral Association 

International Longevity Center 

Joint Public Affairs Committee for Older Adults, NY 

Kansas Advocates for Better Care 

Kansas Area Agencies on Aging Association 

Kalamazoo County Advocates for Senior Issues 

Kentucky Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Lawyers for Elder Abuse Prevention, NY 

Lee County Sheriff’s Office, Fort Myers, FL 

Lifecycles, MT 

LIFESPAN, NY 

Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office 

Louisiana Association of Councils on Aging 

Louisiana Geriatrics Society 

Louisiana Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Lucas County (Ohio) Prosecutor’s Office 

Maine Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Margate Police Department, FL 

Maricopa Elder Abuse Prevention Alliance, AZ 

Massachusetts Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Meals on Wheels Association 

MedAmerica Insurance Company 

Mendocino County DHHS, CA 

Member of the Family 

Metropolitan Crime Commission of Jackson, MS 

Michigan Campaign for Quality Care 

Michigan Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman 

Missouri Advocates For The Elderly 

Napa County Health and Human Services Agency, CA 

National Adult Day Services Association 

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging 

National Association of Counties 

National Association of Directors of Nursing Home Administration in Long Term 

Care 

National Association of Legal Services Developers 

National Association of Local Long Term Care Ombudsmen 

National Association of Nutrition and Aging Service Programs 

National Association of Orthopedic Nurses 

National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers 

National Association of Senior Legal Help lines 

National Association of Social Workers 

National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life 

National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. 

National Citizens’ Coalition for Nursing Home Reform 

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare 

*National Council on Aging 

National Council on Child Abuse & Family Violence 

71 

National Education Association—Retired 

National Family Caregivers Association 

National Funeral Directors Association 

National Guardianship Association 

National Hispanic Council on Aging 

National Indian Council on Aging 

National Senior Citizens Law Center 

National Silver Haired Congress 

Nebraska State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Nevada State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Nevada County (California) Department of Adult & Family Services 

New Britain Area Seniors, CT 

New Hampshire Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

New Mexico Guardianship Association 

New Mexico State Agency on Aging 

New Mexico State Long Term Care Ombudsman Program 

New York Citizens’ Committee on Aging 

New York City Department for the Aging 

New York Foundation for Senior Citizens Guardian Services 

New York State Coalition on Elder Abuse 

New York State Society on Aging 

Northeastern Illinois Area Agency on Aging 

Northern Area Agency of Aging, WI 

Northern Virginia Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs 

Nursing Home Monitors 

Office of Ombudsman for Older Minnesotans 

Ohio Association of Probate Judges 

Ohio Association of Regional Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Ohio Coalition for Adult Protective Services 

Ohio Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Older and Disabled Adult Services/Solano County Health and Social Services 

Older Women’s League 

Ombudsman for Older Minnesotans 

Oneida County Elder Abuse Coalition, NY 

Orange County Vulnerable Adult Specialist Team, CA 

Palm Beach County Courthouse, FL 

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape 

Philadelphia Corporation for Aging (AAA), PA 

Pima Council on Aging, AZ 

Pinal County Attorney’s Office, AZ 

Pinal County Public Fiduciary, AZ 

Pinal-Gila Elder Abuse Specialist Team, AZ 

Police Executive Research Forum 

Rhode Island Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Riverside County Office on Aging, CA 

Rockdale County Adult Protective Services, GA 

San Francisco Consortium for Elder Abuse Prevention 

San Francisco Department of Aging and Adult Services 

San Francisco Department of Human Services 

Santa Clara County Department of Aging and Adult Services 

Senior & Adult Services of Cuyahoga County, OH 

Senior Citizens, Inc., TN 

Senior Protective Ministry 

SeniorLAW Center, PA 

Seniors ’N Sync, LLC, VA 

SLTCO of Iowa 

SOLACE 

Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging, CA 

Stanislaus County Adult Services Advisory Committee, CA 

Stanislaus County Community Services Agency, CA 

72 

Stanislaus Elder Abuse Prevention Alliance, CA 

Stop Family Violence, NY 

Suburban Area Agency on Aging, IL 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Texas Dept. of Family & Protective Services 

Texas Elder Abuse and Mistreatment Institute 

Texas Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman 

The Alliance for Retired Americans, DC 

The Burden Center for the Aging, NY 

The Center for Social Gerontology, Inc. 

The Long Term Ombudsman Council of Broward County, FL 

TRIAD 

United Jewish Appeal Federation of New York 

United Jewish Communities 

Upstate Medical University Binghamton Clinical Campus CARES Project, NY 

Ventura Adult Abuse Prevention Council, CA 

Vermont Ombudsman Project 

Virginia Coalition on Aging 

Virginia Elder Rights Coalition 

Virginia Hospital Center 

Virginia Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Washington County, Oregon Elder Abuse MDT 

Washington State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program 

Wellspring Personal Care 

Western Montana Chapter for the Prevention of Elder Abuse 

Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging, OH 

Wider Opportunities for Women 

Wisconsin Association of Area Agencies on Aging 

Wisconsin Board on Aging and Long Term Care 

Wisconsin Social Services Association 

WordBridges 

Wyoming Dept of Health/Aging Division 

Individual Members: 325 

Pamela Aalderink 

Sarah Albert 

Nancy Alterio 

Debbie Armstrong 

Georgia Anetzberger 

Ben Antinori 

Moya Atkinson 

John Attwood 

Susan Aziz 

Nora J. Baladerian, Ph.D. 

Shantha Balaswamy (OH) 

Dave Baldridge 

Doris Ball 

Rick Barry 

Cheryl Bartholomew (VA) 

Virginia Bell 

Bill Belzner 

Brenda Bensman 

Louis Blancato, MD 

Bennett Blum, MD 

Patricia Bomba, MD 

Sybil Boutilier (CA) 

Betty Bowers 

Karen Buck 

Jamie Buckmaster (CA) 

Kelly Bradford 

73 

Bonnie Brandl 

Michelle Brannon 

Sarah Briggs 

Sharon Brigner 

Bernadine Brooks 

Richard Browdie 

Dr. Patricia Brownell 

Karen C. Buck 

Mark I. Burnstein, MD 

Tracey E. Burnstein, MS, HSA 

Bobbi Butler 

Gordon Butler 

Paul Caccamise (NY) 

Stephanie Carr 

Richard Carriere 

Ashley Carson 

Susan Castano 

Curtis B. Clark, MD 

Kathy Cilley-Wagner 

Patricia Ciripompa 

Ruth Coberly (CO) 

Laura Stewart Cockman 

Walter Coffey 

Joshua Cohen 

Valarie Colmore 

Ken Connor 

Michael Cottone 

Loree Cook-Daniels 

Mary Counihan 

Ed Coyle 

Dr. Lawrence Cranberg 

Susan Crone 

Kathy Cubit 

Neely Dahl 

Sophia Dalle 

Carol Dayton, ACSW, LISW 

Alice Deak 

Domingo Delgado 

Joyce DeMonnin 

Annette DePauli (CA) 

Farrell Didio 

Alison Dieter (TX) 

Maggie Donahue 

Judith Dorsett 

Jennifer Duft 

Joy Duke 

Susan Emmer 

Susan Era 

Diane Fassel 

Bob Fells 

Susan Ferlauto 

Mara Ferris (NH) 

Elizabeth Figueroa, CSW, MPA 

Marcella Fierro, MD 

Rich Fiesta 

Jim Firman 

Ivy Firouztale 

Marta Fontaine (MO) 

Janet Forlini 

Robert Franz 

74 

Iris Freeman 

David Gammill 

Oscar Garcia 

Manuel Garcia 

Barbara Gay 

Lori Gerber 

Stanley M. Giannet, Ph.D. 

Pasquale Gilberto 

Robert Goldberg 

Gary Gotham 

AC Graber (WA) 

Rebecca Gray (NC) 

Sasha Greene 

Marsha Greenfield 

Paul Greenwood 

Stanley Habib 

A. Ricker Hamilton 

Cathy Hart 

Roberta Hawkins 

Alice Hayes 

Marshall Hayes 

Meg Heap 

June Hebb 

Jonathan Heller 

Jayd Hendricks 

Gema Hernandez 

Fay Hewitt M.S.W. 

Donna Hicks 

Alison Hirschel 

Bonnie Hogue 

Katrina Hotrum 

Peg Horan 

Ann Howard 

Laura Howard 

Sam Hubbard 

Joan Hurdle, RN (VT) 

Kary Hyre 

Kathryn Ieada, CPA 

Paula Inglese 

Peggy Ingram 

Dale Jackson 

Tim Jackson 

Michelle Jacobs 

Mary Charlene Johns 

Patricia Johnson 

Gilda Johnstone 

Rene Jones 

Tom Joseph 

Alecia Juber 

Cindy Kadavy 

Mitchell Karasov 

Dale Kassan 

Norm Katz 

Linda Keegan 

Kathleen Kelso 

John Paul Kenney (MD) 

Richard Keys 

Steffanie Keys 

Joanne Keyston 

Anne Kincaid 

75 

Valerie King 

Violet King 

Kathy Klatzke 

Amy Knight (TN) 

Diana Koin 

Lynn Koontz 

Elaine Korthals 

Linda Kretz 

Catherine Kruger 

Becky Kurtz 

Janice Langford (FL) 

Tom Laughlin 

Dr. Tomas Larrieux 

Jon Lavin 

Debi Lee 

David Leopard 

Vickijo Letchworth 

Nina Levigne 

Bryan Liang 

Carol J. Lieske 

Brian Lindberg 

Karin Linenberger 

Elizabeth Loewy 

Janet Lombard 

Karen Love 

Rebecca Ludens 

Nadine Lujan 

Jack Mack 

Jackie Majoros 

Beatrice A. Maloney, CSW 

Sandy Markwood 

Irene Masiello 

Art Mason 

Margaret S. McCarthy 

George E. McClane 

Marcy McCrumb 

John McDermott 

Mary McKenna 

Winnie McLin 

Kate McWhinney 

Melissa Medick 

Jennifer Merck 

Carol Merlini 

Nina Merer 

Kathy Miller 

Robert D. Miller 

Patty Mitchell 

Paula Mixson 

Lu Molberg 

Ricker Mooers 

Ailee Moon, Ph.D. 

Paula Moreau 

Gary Morgan 

Rebecca Morgan 

Cal Morken 

Scott Morken 

Debra Morrow, MSW (CA) 

Laura Mosqueda, MD 

Michael Munson 

Mary Brugger Murphy 

76 

Chris Nelson 

Rudy Norris 

Jim Nyberg 

Jeanne O’Brien 

Nora O’Brien 

Joanne Otto 

Mark Pafford (FL) 

Lisabeth Passalis-Bain 

Brian K. Payne, Ph.D. 

Stacey Payne 

Roxanne Perales 

Noel Peters 

Crystal Peterson 

Jeanne Pici 

Les Plooster 

Martha Plotkin 

Dianna Porter 

George Potaracke 

Mebane Powell 

Laura Prohov 

Ron Proudfoot 

Kathleen Quinn 

Mary Joy Quinn 

Dan Quirk 

Jane Raymond 

Jo Reed 

Kimberly Reed 

Lisa Reid 

Sandy Reynolds 

Betty Rhodes 

Esther L. Aguila Rivera 

Erin Rock 

Emily Ross 

Alfred Rotondaro 

Kathy Rotondaro 

Mary Martha Rugg 

Brenda Russell 

Charlie Sabatino 

Francine T. Saccio, ACSW 

EJ Santos 

Kristin Schaer RN, MSN 

Frank Schersing 

Ellen Schmeding (CA) 

Sarah Schram 

Gail Schultz 

Rita Schumacher 

Carol Scott 

Patti Seager 

April Seitz 

Edward Sheehy 

Daniel J. Sheridan, PhD, RN 

Jean Sherman, Ed.D.RN 

Mark Sherman 

Mike Shetka, LCSW (CA) 

Chris Shoemaker 

Cynthia Shott 

Rob Shotwell 

Denise Shukoff 

Richard Sicchio 

Stephen J. Silverberg, JD 

77 

Sarah Slocum 

Linda Smith (TN) 

Donny Smith 

Lori Smith 

Monica Smith (WI) 

Kaja Snell 

Matt Socknat 

Susan Somers 

Joseph Soos 

Helen Spencer 

Gail Spessert 

Ruth Spinale 

Pat Stanis 

Dennis Steele 

Lori Stiegel 

Terry Stone 

Patricia Storch, J.D. 

Sandy Storherr 

Sara Strope 

Donald Sullivan 

Sandra Sullivan 

Erika Taylor 

Grady Tarbutton 

Dorothy Thomas 

Natalie Thomas 

Randolph W. Thomas 

Robert Tiller 

Brenda Toline, R.N., B.S.N. 

Marie Tomlin 

Luci Ungar 

Catherine Valcourt 

Elaine Wadsworth 

Andre Waguespack 

Joy Ann von Wahlde, Attorney 

Bessie Walker (KS) 

Debra Wanser 

Sarah Warnke 

Dawn Washington 

Linda L. Watts 

Eric Weakly 

Patti West 

Teresa Baisley Webb (CA) 

Jane Weinheimer 

Jim Weiser 

Janet Wells 

Rebecka Westerfors 

Robin Cohen Westmiller 

Marilyn Whalen 

Larry White 

Megan Wiley (VA) 

Shayne Wilks 

Pamela Williams 

Karen Wilson 

Genevieve Wood 

Carol Woodcock 

Jacquie Woodruff 

Aileen Worrell 

Mitzi Wortman 

Jim Wright 

Ann Yom 

78 

Diane Zielinski 

Elder Abuse Cases/News Articles 

March 2008 

New York (Rep. Weiner, Rep. Nadler) 

‘‘ ‘Pals’ Scam 78-year-old Harlem woman out of $15M Fortune’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/ywayns 

‘‘Travel and Tour Operator Accused of Preying on Senior Citizens’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/yqmtu3 

‘‘Require Reporting of Elder Abuse’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/yqouq5 

‘‘Inside an Animal Hoarder’s House’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2tzc6c 

‘‘Six Civil Servants will be honors’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2yf23w 

‘‘New Scam Targets Elderly in Brooklyn’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2xtubf 

‘‘Congress and Albany must protect elders’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/224ym8 

‘‘3 in Yates County jailed for photographing mentally handicapped Person’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/3xpmj2 

‘‘Family sues Blossom South Nursing Home’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/36f22b 

‘‘NY Report signals need to address Elder Abuse’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/27bn4o 

‘‘I-Team 10 Investigates: Livonia Man Accused of Bilking Elderly Women’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/363gay 

‘‘Eden Park Nursing Home Cited Again for Deficiencies’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/3d62wf 

Texas (Rep. Jackson Lee, Rep. Gohmert) 

‘‘Family Law councils Advocate for Relatives in Nursing Homes’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/389nlf 

‘‘Woman pleads not guilty to injury to elderly individual indictments’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/39mfuw 

‘‘Family Reacts to Elderly Abuse Conviction’’ 

—http://www.ksat.com/news/15570254/detail.html 

‘‘Ex-Nursing Home Exec Guilty of Fraud’’ 

—http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5602630.html 

‘‘Caretakers admits slapping elderly woman’’ 

—http://www.ksat.com/news/15531198/detail.html 

‘‘APS honors three west Texans’’ 

—http://www.cbs7.com/news/details.asp?ID=5074 

North Carolina (Rep. Coble) 

‘‘State to Report all deaths at mental health facilities’’ 

—http://ww.wral.com/news/state/story/2635209/ 

‘‘Justice often slow for Elder Crimes’’ 

—http://newsobserver.com/news/story/991319.html 

‘‘Dunmore Grandmother alleges Elder Abuse by Grandsons’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2mnwqe 

‘‘It’s like Open Season on Seniors’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2ywhkv 

Virginia (Rep. Scott) 

79 

‘‘Sex Assault Charges Certified Against Adult Day Care Worker’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2y72mt 

‘‘Patient Advocate Makes Sure Seniors are Heard’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/33q735 

‘‘Injunction Expanded in Elder Abuse Lawsuit’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/25jvmx 

‘‘Gretna Man Sues Daughter’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2f4rh6 

California (Rep. Waters, Rep. Lungren) 

‘‘Ex-Patton Employee Charged’’ 

—http://www.sbsun.com/sanbernardino/cil8737553 

‘‘Panel Approves Wolk Bill to Increase Reporting Elder Abuse’’ 

—http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/56606 

‘‘Pair Swindles Thousands from Elderly Woman’’ 

—http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/810057.html 

‘‘Mental Health Patients turn to clinics’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/3e2ogk 

‘‘Officials deciding fate of filthy OC house’’ 

—http://knbc.com/news/15683087/detail.html 

‘‘Mill Valley Caregiver Accused of throwing dying man’s dog’’ 

—http://www.marinij.com/cil8657028 

‘‘Suit Filed, 7 arrested in Mortgage Fraud Ring’’ 

—http://www.montereyherald.com/business/cil8623095 

‘‘Seniors targeted in Scams’’ 

—http://www.modbee.com/business/story/240380.html 

‘‘Martinez Nursing Home Comes under Federal Scrutiny’’ 

—http://winyurl.com/3a5sva 

‘‘Antioch Man Arrested for beating his 78-year-old mom’’ 

—http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/cil8540724 

‘‘Fraud Case Postponed’’ 

—http://thereporter.com/news/cil8544333 

‘‘Woman Sues After Arsenic Death’’ 

—http://ww.fresnobee.com/263/story/458132.html 

‘‘Ashburn’s Caregiver Background Checks Bill passes legislature, now goes to the 

governor’’ 

—http://www.californiachronical.com/articles/54909 

‘‘Caregiver gets 3 months for videotaped assault’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/23p67c 

‘‘Officials to discuss filthy Villa Park Home’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/274pgy 

‘‘Deputies find mentally disabled adults in cockroach-infested house’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2vjhe4 

‘‘Whittier Man convicted in Fatal Beating of Father’’ 

—http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/cil8482005 

‘‘Nurse facing 10 years in federal prison for Medicare Fraud’’ 

—http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/cil8462331 

‘‘State Fines Nursing Homes $100,000’’ 

—http://www.modbee.com/local/story/229305.html 

‘‘Man accused of Scam Targeted at Elderly Arrested’’ 

—http://nbc11.com/news/15457283.detail.html 

‘‘Son Investigated for Elder Abuse in Filthy House Case’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/3xxef7 

Alabama (Rep. Davis) 

‘‘Cuts to DHR Could Eliminate Vital Adult Care Services’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com2tyaod 

80 

‘‘SEC Chariman discusses scams targeting seniors’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/39cm36 

‘‘Police: Scammer Targeting Elderly’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2jy9g8 

Massachusetts (Rep. Delahunt) 

‘‘Arraignment set for Brockton elderly abuse suspect’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/yvpqdv 

‘‘Police, Fire, Senior Care Advocates part of ‘Traid’ ’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2rf8le 

‘‘Seniors Warned about new tax rebate scam’’ 

—http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/state/x1379332448 

‘‘Methuen Man Charged with Sexual Assault of Retarded Relative’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/378gmf 

Georgia (Rep. Johnson) 

‘‘DHR urges you to report Elder Abuse’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/3sqvrd 

‘‘Sales Tactics can put Seniors at Disadvantage’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/yvf8db 

‘‘Nursing Home Employee Charged with Sodomy’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2g3esg 

‘‘Police: Elderly Cobb Man Killed Wife, Shot Himself’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2n59bt 

‘‘Elderly woman accused of stocking up on painkillers’’ 

—http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15478087/detail.html 

Wisconsin (Rep. Baldwin, Rep. Sensenbrenner, Jr.) 

‘‘Waupun man charged with abusing elderly mother’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/28p794 

‘‘Nursing Home sued over 2005 death’’ 

—http://jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=723313 

Ohio (Rep. Sutton, Rep. Chabot) 

‘‘Woman gets 1 year in prison’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2dco2a 

‘‘Mansfield Police Arrest Suspect in Car Repair Scam Targeting Elderly’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/ys5yn5 

‘‘Protecting seniors from abuse’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/36kz6q 

‘‘Relatives in dark over man’s death’’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/yud861 

‘‘Nursing Homes ‘deplorable’ 

—http://tinyurl.com/2qzssh 

‘‘Couple arrested in alleged elderly scam’’ 

—http://www.whiotv.com/news/15568368/detail.html 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Friedlander-Olsen? 

TESTIMONY OF SHERRY FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN, FOUNDER AND 

CEO, A CHILD IS MISSING ALERT PROGRAM, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Mr. 

Gohmert, Members of the Subcommittee, and the great staff memVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
81 

bers that allowed me to testify here today in support of H.R. 5464, 

the ‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act.’’ 

And my real thanks to Congressman Klein for introducing the 

bill and to my great friend, Director Keenan, from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. 

One in every 42 children in the United States goes missing every 

year. Every 40 seconds, a child goes missing somewhere in the 

United States. That means almost 10 children will go missing in 

the brief time I am addressing you today. 

These numbers are what motivated me to start A Child Is Missing in 1997. I did not have a missing child, just an idea to use technology to help law enforcement find missing children. 

I started very small, by helping a couple of agencies in South 

Florida. With the help of friends and supporters, I was able to expand the program to other parts of Florida, then to Rhode Island, 

Alaska, Ohio, and Georgia. Now we are available to law enforcement in 50 States. 

A Child Is Missing is a nonprofit organization that assists law 

enforcement in the first hours a child goes missing. The program 

is also used to help find the elderly, often with Alzheimer’s or dementia. Almost 30 percent of our cases involve the elderly. 

This is a free service, activated only by law enforcement. This 

program fills the gaps between law enforcement and the Amber 

Alert. 

Here is how A Child Is Missing works. A child goes missing. A 

frantic parent calls 911. Law enforcement responds. They go to the 

scene. Then they call our recovery specialist, who gathers the information, such as the description of the child and where they were 

last seen. 

Then we use our sophisticated satellite mapping system to define 

the search area. Once the area is defined, a telephone message is 

recorded on behalf of the agency. Our phone system then dials out 

to every listed phone number in the search area. Residents are told 

to report any information they may have about the missing individual to the police. 

It only takes us 8 to 12 minutes to accomplish this. And, basically, we have 181 T1 lines, and our calls are made at 1,000 every 

60 seconds. We have a database of more than 80 million listed 

phone numbers. 

Residents appreciate the call because it is an official message 

from their local law enforcement agencies. Our calls have a 98 percent listen rate. When you hear, ‘‘This is the Washington, DC, police,’’ you will listen. 

When the need arises, we work across jurisdictional boundaries 

with local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies, including 

the FBI and the U.S. Marshal Service. 

The program saves money for law enforcement. To date, A Child 

has worked approximately 9,000 cases and has launched almost 16 

million alert calls. In 2007 alone, we worked about 1,500 cases. In 

the first 4 months of 2007, we worked 412 cases. In the first 4 

months of 2008, we handled more than 900 cases. 

Law enforcement has credited us with 340 safe assisted recoveries; that is 340 lives we have saved, 340 families we have 

touched. 

82 

We could take credit for more recoveries, but unless I have a 

written statement back from that agency, we do not take credit for 

it at all. 

We do this every day. We are available 24/7, 365, and are experienced in searching for missing children and the elderly, often, 

again, with Alzheimer’s. 

Fifty percent of the Nation’s law enforcement agencies have 25 

or fewer sworn personnel. Without A Child Is Missing, these agencies would not have a place to turn for this kind of help. This vital 

service, again, is free to law enforcement. 

Though available to 16,000 law enforcement agencies across the 

Nation, a mere 2,200 currently use the program. Therein lies the 

critical need for H.R. 5464. 

The bill will increase the number of agencies using the program, 

thereby saving more lives. This legislation will ensure us to stay 

on the cutting edge of technology and address the increasing volume of cases. 

Very large metropolitan areas, such as New York and Los Angeles, pose unique challenges to us. Doing nothing in this area is not 

an option, but H.R. 5464 will help us to help the special needs of 

these agencies. 

One-third of our safe assisted recoveries have come just in the 

last year due to our having increased agency participation. H.R. 

5464, I know we can save more lives. 

Thank you, Mr. Scott, Mr. Gohmert, and the opportunity to testify before the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Friedlander-Olsen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERRY FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: 

Thank you Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Gohmert, Members of the Subcommittee, and staff for allowing me to testify today in support of H.R. 5464, the 

‘‘A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act.’’ Thank you Congressman Klein 

for introducing the bill. 

One in every 42 children in the United States goes missing every year. That is 

one child every 40 seconds. Almost 10 children will go missing in the brief time I 

am addressing you today. 

These daunting statistics are what motivated me to start the A Child Is Missing 

program in 1997. I did not have a missing child, just an idea to use technology to 

help law enforcement find missing children. I started very small by helping a couple 

of law enforcement agencies in South Florida. With the help of friends and supporters, I was able to expand the program to other parts of Florida, and then to 

Rhode Island, Alaska, Ohio and Georgia. Now we are available to law enforcement 

agencies in all 50 states! 

A Child Is Missing is a not-for-profit organization that assists law enforcement 

agencies in the first hours a child is reported missing. The program is also used to 

help find elderly adults. Almost 30 percent of our cases involve the elderly. This is 

a free service, activated only by law enforcement that fills the gaps of the Amber 

Alert program. 

Here is how A Child Is Missing works. A child goes missing. A frantic parent or 

guardian calls 911. Law enforcement responds and verifies if in fact the child is 

missing. If the child is missing, the law enforcement officer calls us. Our Recovery 

Specialist quickly gathers essential information from police such as the description 

of the child and where the child was last seen. Our Recovery Specialist then uses 

our satellite-mapping system, a system similar to Google Earth but more detailed, 

to define the search area. Once the search area is defined, the Recovery Specialist 

records a telephone message on behalf of the law enforcement agency and then 

pushes a button. Our phone system then auto dials every listed phone number in 

the search area. Citizens are told to report any information they may have about 

the missing child or elderly adult to the police. 

83 

The speed in which this takes place is remarkable. It takes A Child Is Missing 

only 8–12 minutes to determine the search area, identify the phone numbers, record 

the message, and make the calls. Due to our 181 T1 lines, our calls can be made 

at the rate of 1,000 calls every 60 seconds. 

A Child Is Missing’s satellite-mapping system is very sophisticated and we have 

a database of more than 80 million phone numbers. Citizens appreciate the calls because it is an official call from the law enforcement agency. Our calls have a 98 percent listen rate. 

We also know no jurisdictional boundaries. In fact, we have successfully worked 

cases that have involved multiple states and a host of local, state, and federal law 

enforcement agencies. We also work with the U.S. Marshal Service and the FBI. 

To date, A Child Is Missing has worked approximately 9,000 cases and has 

launched more than 16 million alert calls. In 2007 alone, we worked almost 1,500 

cases. From January 2007 through April 2007, A Child Is Missing worked on 412 

cases. A year later, we have handled more than 900 cases! 

Law enforcement has credited us with 340 safe assisted recoveries. That is 340 

lives we have saved. 340 families we have touched. We could take credit for more 

safe recoveries; however, I decided long ago to only list recoveries where law enforcement—in writing—gives us credit for the recovery. 

We do this everyday. Our Recovery Specialists are available 24/7, 365 and are extremely experienced in the field of missing children and elderly adults. We bring 

this experience to the assistance of law enforcement. Fifty-two percent of the nation’s law enforcement agencies have 25 or fewer sworn personnel. Without A Child 

Is Missing, these agencies would not have a place to turn for help. 

This vital service is free to all law enforcement. Though available to all 16,000- 

law enforcement agencies throughout the nation, only 2,200 currently use the program. Therein lies a critical need for H.R. 5464. 

H.R. 5464 will increase the number of agencies using the program thereby saving 

more lives. This legislation will also enable us to ensure we stay on the cutting edge 

of technology and will help address the increasing volume of cases. Very large metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles pose unique challenges 

for law enforcement and us. Doing nothing in these areas is not an option, but H.R. 

5464 will allow us to work with these agencies to address their special needs. 

Our statistics clearly show that the increased success of A Child Is Missing is due 

to an increase in usage by law enforcement. One third of our safe assisted recoveries 

have come in just last year due to our having maximized agency participation. With 

H.R. 5464, I know we can do even more. 

Thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gohmert for the opportunity to 

testify before your Subcommittee. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Can I breathe now? Please let me 

breathe. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOTT. You have done well. 

Mr. Keenan? 

TESTIMONY OF VERNON M. KEENAN, DIRECTOR, 

GEORGIA BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, DECATUR, GA 

Mr. KEENAN. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to provide testimony here today. 

And thank you, Congressman Johnson, for the introduction. My 

mother is never around when somebody has something positive to 

say. [Laughter.] 

I am here today as director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and as a representative of all Georgia law enforcement to urge 

your support for A Child is Missing. 

The absolute priority of the GBI is the investigation of violent 

crimes against children. As a statewide agency, we work each day 

with the nearly 600 law enforcement agencies in Georgia in their 

efforts to protect children. 

84 

I believe that Georgia’s success with A Child Is Missing represents the experience of many law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. 

Georgia implemented A Child Is Missing in 2003. And our law 

enforcement officers have received training on the use of this simple but valuable program. 

Since its adoption in Georgia, A Child Is Missing has assisted in 

the recovery of many Georgia children. We consider this program 

to be an excellent example of a public and private nonprofit partnership with a proven record of success. 

Georgia law enforcement routinely uses both A Child Is Missing 

and the Amber Alert systems. We were the fourth State to implement A Child Is Missing and also the fourth State to establish an 

Amber Alert system. 

A Child Is Missing and Amber Alert are two separate and distinct child recovery systems, but they mutually support and enhance each other. Both systems engage citizens to aid law enforcement in the search for and the recovery of children who are in danger. 

Georgia has extensive experience in using both systems. A Child 

Is Missing sends telephone alerts to the community when a child, 

elderly or disabled person is missing. 

The recorded telephone message contains a detailed physical description of the missing person and is directed to a specific neighborhood or a community. The Amber Alert uses the Emergency 

Alert System to interrupt radio and television programming with 

an electronic and voice message when a child has been abducted. 

Because Amber Alert is a voluntary partnership between law enforcement and the broadcast industry, there are specific requirements for its use and there are established protocols that must be 

followed before activation. 

Amber Alert is activated when a child is criminally abducted and 

is believed to be in imminent danger. Further, there must be 

enough descriptive information about the abduction to believe that 

a media broadcast will assist in the child’s recovery. 

Amber Alert has limited applications, while A Child Is Missing 

has great flexibility. Both systems are extremely valuable resources 

in the protection of children, but they have several differences. 

Amber Alert can be used only when there is a criminal abduction 

of a child, while A Child Is Missing is used to search for lost or 

missing children, as well as abductions. A Child Is Missing can also 

be used to search for the elderly or the disabled. 

Amber Alert operates within a very structured process, which requires local law enforcement agencies to seek approval before activation. This is done at the State level. A Child Is Missing can be 

activated by the first police officer or deputy sheriff who responds 

to the scene of a missing person. 

Amber Alert is most effective when there is a suspect vehicle description to give to the public. A Child Is Missing gives a targeted 

segment of the community a detailed physical description of the 

missing person, their clothing, location where they were missing, 

and other relevant information. 

Additionally, A Child Is Missing may request that neighbors 

search their grounds for the missing person. 

85 

When the GBI activates Amber Alert for Georgia law enforcement, we recommend that investigators also seek assistance from 

A Child Is Missing. Since 2002, Georgia has activated Amber Alert 

for 69 abductions. We also denied 60 cases because the incidents 

did not meet the required criteria for Amber Alert. 

In each of the denied cases, law enforcement officers were referred to A Child Is Missing for assistance. A Child Is Missing 

serves to fill the gap in endangered children cases where Amber 

Alert is not available. 

A Child Is Missing plays a critical role in law enforcement’s efforts to protect our children. And I strongly urge your support for 

H.R. 5464. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keenan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON M. KEENAN

I am here today as Director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and as the 

representative of all Georgia law enforcement to urge your support for A Child is 

Missing. The absolute priority of the GBI is the investigation of violent crimes 

against children. As a statewide agency, we work each day with the nearly six hundred police and sheriffs departments in Georgia in their efforts to protect children. 

I believe that Georgia’s success with A Child is Missing represents the experience 

of law enforcement agencies in the United States. 

Georgia implemented A Child is Missing in 2003 and our law enforcement officers 

have received training on the use of this simple but, valuable program. Since its 

adoption in Georgia, A Child is Missing has assisted in the recovery of many children. We consider this program to be an excellent example of a public and private 

non-profit partnership with a proven record of success. 

Georgia law enforcement routinely uses both the A Child is Missing and the 

Amber Alert systems. We were the fourth state to implement A Child is Missing and 

also the fourth state to establish an Amber Alert system. 

A Child is Missing and Amber Alert are two separate and distinct child recovery 

systems, but they mutually support and enhance each other. Both systems engage 

citizens to aid law enforcement in the search for and recovery of children who are 

in danger. Georgia has extensive experience in using both systems. 

A Child is Missing sends telephone alerts to the community when a child, elderly 

or disabled person is missing. The recorded telephone message contains a detailed 

physical description of the missing person and is directed to a specific neighborhood 

or community. 

The Amber Alert uses the Emergency Alert System to interrupt radio and television programming with electronic and voice messages when a child has been abducted. Additionally, the Department of Transportation message boards display a 

description of the suspect vehicle. 

Because Amber Alert is a voluntary partnership between law enforcement and the 

broadcast industry, there are specific requirements for its use and there are established protocols to be followed before activation. 

Amber Alert is activated when a child is criminally abducted and is believed to 

be in imminent danger. Further, there must be enough descriptive information 

about the abduction to believe that a media broadcast will assist in the child’s recovery. Amber Alert has limited applications while A Child is Missing has great flexibility. 

Both systems are extremely valuable resources in the protection of children, but 

they have several differences: 

Amber Alert can be used only when there is a criminal abduction of a child, while 

A Child is Missing is used to search for lost or missing children as well as abductions. A Child is Missing can also be used to search for the elderly or the disabled. 

Amber Alert operates within a very structured process which requires local law enforcement agencies to seek approval and activation at the state level. A Child is 

Missing can be activated by the first police officer or deputy sheriff who responds 

to the scene of a missing person. 

Amber Alert is most effective when there is a suspect vehicle description to give 

to the public. A Child is Missing gives a targeted segment of the community a detailed physical description of the missing person, their clothing, location where they 

became missing and other relevant information. Additionally A Child is Missing 

may request that neighbors search their grounds for the missing person. 

86 

When the GBI activates Amber Alert we recommend that investigators also seek 

assistance from A Child is Missing. Since 2002, Georgia has activated Amber Alert 

for 69 abductions. We also denied 60 cases because the incidents did not meet the 

required criteria. In each of the denied cases, law enforcement officers were referred 

to A Child is Missing for assistance. A Child is Missing serves to fill the ‘‘gap’’ in 

endangered children cases when Amber Alert is not available. 

We train Georgia law enforcement officers to use A Child is Missing when they 

respond to a missing person incident. The system can provide public safety personnel with substantial savings in time and money in these type cases. A Child is 

Missing plays a critical role in law enforcement’s efforts to protect our children. 

As Director of the GBI and as the representative of all Georgia law enforcement, 

I urge your support for A Child is Missing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And I thank all of our witnesses for their 

testimony. We will now begin with our Members’ questions. 

I will recognize myself for the first set of questions, limited to 5 

minutes. 

Ms. Friedlander-Olsen, you said 340 out of 9,000. What happens 

to the others? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. I am sorry? 

Mr. SCOTT. What happens to the other children that you did not 

assist in recovering? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Well, fortunately, some of them are 

found before we get the phone calls out. We always love that. Some 

are runaways and they aren’t found for years. You know, all different kinds of things can happen. 

We get our information back from law enforcement by sending 

out a request, and then they fax it back to us. We get about 67 percent of those case inquiries back. So those are the ones that we 

really know about in writing. 

Mr. SCOTT. Your notification is to a small area. You have a lot 

of these cases. One of the problems that would occur if you have 

frequent notifications and you get the crying wolf syndrome. 

How many alerts would an individual expect to get over the 

course of a year or 2? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. You know, I am asked that question a 

lot. And as we grow and expand, the number gets further away. 

So if you got one in a year in your neighborhood, that would be 

astronomical, because they go missing from all different areas. And 

it just happens that way. Does that answer your question? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. But you didn’t want to have somebody get a 

weekly call, like it is—— 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. No, I don’t allow it, number one. We 

did have a place that—it was called the Starting Place. And they 

would run away every day. And I would just have to say—and they 

were teenagers. It was a house where they could go to for drugs 

and alcohol. And I wouldn’t allow it, because the neighbors would 

put me down. 

And we had to save this for little kids and lots of things that 

were important to people. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Blancato, Virginia passed a law to give access to elderly people suspected of abuse with a standard less than probable cause. 

For good cause shown, you can get a warrant to get access to the 

person. Is that a problem anywhere else? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Mr. Chairman, I would probably have to come 

back and give you an answer for the record on that. I am not aware 

87 

of it in too many other States, but we can come back and get you 

the response on that. 

Mr. SCOTT. You were staff on the Select Committee for Aging for 

17 years. 

Mr. BLANCATO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do we have any unfinished business from that select 

Committee? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Congressman, there is a lot of unfinished business, but I commend you for taking one of them on today, which 

is the passage of elder abuse legislation. 

I actually staffed a Subcommittee hearing in 1978, 30 years ago, 

on elder abuse. And Claude Pepper—many of you remember 

Claude Pepper—was the Chairman of that Committee. Back then, 

it was identified as an issue that was going to grow. He was prophetic in his views on where we were going. 

And so there has been some response. I mean, there has been a 

small response in the Older Americans Act and there is—money is 

dedicated for Adult Protective Services and some programs. 

But it is about the comprehensive response we are talking about. 

It is about the coordination. And during the comments today, I 

think the point we want to stress is that nobody is trying to federalize this issue. 

It is a question of being able to use the resources of the Federal 

Government to give empowerment to programs that are working 

well at the local level, to give grants that can help train prosecutors better, so we can actually prosecute these cases. 

So I would start with saying, if we could get movement on elder 

justice legislation, that would be one legacy left over from the 

House Committee on Aging. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, am I hearing you say that we do not need new 

Federal laws, we just need new resources? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Well, you need to have the Federal authority, for 

example, to have a dedicated funding stream for Adult Protective 

Services. It has to be established through a Federal program. Federal grants can be established. 

But, no, I think what we are saying in this legislation, as you 

go through the legislation, it is about giving empowerment to programs that are going on already at the State and local level, making them better, but bringing the Federal resources in to help coordinate all the activities. 

I mean, right now, coordination is so important in this time of 

fiscal restraint, to be able to know exactly what you have at your 

disposal in the Federal Government already, how can you coordinate and make the response better, and then use resources more 

effectively at the State and local level, so you are doing the full, 

comprehensive response to this problem. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Keenan, for school safety, do we need new laws or just Federal resources to help? 

Mr. KEENAN. Federal resources. There are sufficient laws relating to the child abduction systems. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

88 

Mr. KEENAN. And elderly abuse—the testimony here today is extremely abuse. Elderly abuse is going to be a rapidly escalating 

crime in the near future. 

Congress has an excellent track record in the way they have provided resources to local and State agencies in addressing child 

abuse. And those same best practices can certainly be put into the 

elderly abuse area. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ms. Friedlander-Olsen, you are to be commended for your 

work. And thank you for all you have done on behalf of those children you have assisted and those that you gave comfort in knowing 

that somebody was actually doing something. So that is wonderful. 

It is my understanding that basically Amber Alert, the way it 

proceeds now, and A Child Is Missing systems complement each 

other then, is that fair to say? 

And, Mr. Keenan, you are nodding. That is your experience, as 

well? 

Mr. KEENAN. That is correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And so are there any problems you see with the 

way in which they do complement each other? 

Mr. KEENAN. No, I think they are an absolute perfect match. And 

when we train law enforcement officers in handling child abduction 

situations, we train them on Amber Alert and on Child Is Missing. 

And they go hand-in-hand. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You had mentioned that you don’t know that 

more laws are needed as much as assistance, as I understood. I 

think there may be some place for additional laws with regard to 

elder abuse and the ways in which our elderly are being pursued 

and taken advantage of these days. 

And it does sound like it is going to get worse. I know you were 

sitting through the beginning of the hearing. 

But I am wondering—I just don’t want to create new entities. I 

was not a fan, for example, of creating a new Department of Homeland Security. I was a judge back in those days, and what do you 

want another bureaucracy for? You are just adding to the problems. And so I am still not a big fan when I see the complications 

that have arisen there. 

I know we have the National Committee for the Prevention of 

Elder Abuse. That is one of six partners that make up the National 

Center on Elder Abuse. I don’t want to keep federally reinventing 

the wheel, and so I am wanting some input from you on—and, Mr. 

Blancato, on this issue. 

Will we duplicate things? Should we be more directive in where 

we are going with the elder abuse issue and the studies to be done? 

Yes, sir, if you would first. 

Mr. BLANCATO. I will attempt to answer some of that, and I 

imagine some we will have to come back to you in more detail. 

But in the case of the National Center on Elder Abuse, that is 

a federally funded entity that is intended to do improved amounts 

of research in the field of aging, data collection so we can have a 

better grip on the extent of the problem that is going on. That is 

89 

an appropriate Federal activity that has been going since 1988, 

frankly, doing a lot of good work that the field appreciates. 

I mean, at the end of the day, you want to be able to go down 

to the field, people at the State and local level, and say, ‘‘Are you 

benefiting from the work that the center is doing?’’ And in many 

instances, the answer has been yes. 

In fact, one of the more important things it is doing is helping 

to set up local network development programs, where there are no 

activities going on in a locality, where you don’t have multidisciplinary teams working at the local level to help stop elder abuse. 

This center helps provide them with the technical resources to do 

that. And at the end of the day, that is very important. 

And I am sensitive to the question about, you know, the duplication. I think the purpose of this legislation is to get an accurate 

handle on how to do better coordination between the Federal, State 

and local levels throughout on elder abuse so that the response 

that is done is done comprehensively, whether it is helping the victim or that is prosecuting against the perpetrators, whether it is 

just providing support for worthwhile programs. 

So my guess is that we are, through this legislation, making an 

effort to build coordination, as compared to enhancing any duplication activities. 

And I would also point out that, in the early stages of development of this legislation, staff from the Department of Justice were 

put on detail to the Senate Special Committee on Aging and helped 

draft the legislation, including the provisions that are before us 

today. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I was curious, having dealt with felonies of 

all types, well, there is a prosecutor, a judge, and a chief justice, 

and being so familiar with so many of the Federal law enforcement 

people in DOJ, I kind of figured if we push them to do a study, the 

first thing they are going to do is go back to the local and State 

law enforcement folks and say, ‘‘Tell us what the problems are,’’ 

when you have people that are already dealing with those. 

So I am curious, Mr. Keenan, are there any crimes with regard 

to elder abuse that in Georgia are not getting prosecuted that 

would require Federal laws to pursue? 

Mr. KEENAN. Not Federal laws. My view is, having been in law 

enforcement 36 years, is that the secret to—the way to handle this 

problem would be to—the role of the Federal Government should 

be in providing resources and direction to be in partnerships between local, State prosecutors, providing training. 

This is what happens in the child abuse arena, with great success. There are Federal funds that are available to set up the 

multi-disciplinary investigative teams to handle child abuse. The 

same process could be used for elderly abuse. 

That gives an opportunity for local and State law enforcement to 

come together, with best practices training, specialized training to 

handling the area, and they build the teams that go forward and 

do the work. 

The test in American law enforcement is that, in the middle of 

the night, when the system has a problem, and they call 911, who 

shows up to respond? It is local law enforcement, and that is going 

to be the key to addressing any major crime problem like elderly 

90 

abuse, is training local and State law enforcement to be able to use 

their State laws to handle the issues. 

A process like that would bring to light shortcomings in State 

laws that could be—new laws could be enacted at the State level 

to enhance the investigation prosecution of elderly abuse. That is 

what has happened in the child abuse arena. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I have more questions, but my time 

is expired. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Friedlander, how is A Child Is Missing funded currently? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Currently, we have gotten Federal 

funds, State funds, local funds, private contributions, and some corporations. 

We run a very tight ship, because I started very tight. Well, I 

started very poor, if you want the truth. But we are a tight organization. But our funding is where I said it came from. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. And H.R. 5464 would provide funding for 

the establishment and maintenance of regional centers. Does A 

Child Is Missing currently have regional centers? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. We have one center at present. And 

what is happening is that we have a trainer up in Fort Thomas, 

Kentucky. That is right across the border from Cincinnati, Ohio. 

And he is going to act as one of our regions. 

And so we would put these very small pods. I don’t want a lot 

of big places to run. It is just that the cost of airplanes, in some 

States like Montana and Idaho, and North Dakota, it takes a lot 

to get there. 

And so by having somebody locally within a five-state, six-state 

region would be very helpful, because the turnover in law enforcement—a chief’s life is about 31⁄2 years. And then they move on and 

move on. 

And law enforcement officers, they move from department to department, and that is why you have to constantly be there to remind them, ‘‘Call A Child Is Missing,’’ because we have had—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. To kind of develop local contacts and kind of faceto-face dialogue, so that local law enforcement will know—will be 

able to interface easily, I guess, with a live person representing A 

Child Is Missing, that would probably a good thing to enhance this 

effort. 

Are you available or do you have the technology to respond to 

calls for assistance from any one of the 50 States in the United 

States? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Yes, sir. We are at present—in the 50 

States, we are available. When I go into a State, I generally pick 

some place, like the capital area, because we go in on our own dollar, on our general funds, and then we have to—we invite about a 

2-hour ring around that particular area to the officers, train them, 

and then we will make calls, emergency calls for that State any 

place. 

But we just are held back right now, because we don’t have the 

funding to go throughout Montana, to go throughout the various 

areas. 

91 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Keenan, are you aware of any other organizations, whether 

public or private, that provides the same services as A Child Is 

Missing? 

Mr. KEENAN. I am not aware of any other service like this that 

is out there. This is a great example, a success story of a nonprofit 

organization that worked hand-in-hand with law enforcement with 

a great success record. I am not aware of another body that does 

anything like this. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And does your department have to pay for the 

services of A Child Is Missing? 

Mr. KEENAN. We do not. And that is one of the reasons why the 

GBI has become such a strong proponent for this. 

Many of the local law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to pay even a small charge for a service. And Ms. Friedlander’s group has never asked for funding from agencies who 

couldn’t provide it, and they have always stepped forward and done 

this without charge. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How many children or how many persons have actually been recovered in Georgia utilizing A Child Is Missing technology? 

Mr. KEENAN. There are about—I think there were 17 documented cases of recovery in Georgia. And I was telling Ms. Friedlander earlier I am convinced there are more of those—other successes that they just did not get the documentation back for that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And I assume that A Child Is Missing expertise 

and efforts save money for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and 

local law enforcement? 

Mr. KEENAN. They certainly do. And what is important about 

this is that, always for all of us to remember, the value that the 

public has, that the public is interested in this. They will coordinate with law enforcement. They will provide law enforcement. 

They just need to know what they are looking for and what the 

issue is. 

Many of the cases involving when you call A Child Is Missing, 

their staff give that officer at the scene some immediate directions 

about what to do. For instance, if it is a small child, there is a body 

of water nearby. Officers are directed to get to that body of water 

and set up a security perimeter and begin a search there, because 

children are attracted to water. 

And this is valuable on-the-scene dialogue between the center’s 

caseworkers and the officer on the scene. And this doesn’t require 

a law enforcement officer to go through their hierarchy to get permission to activate A Child Is Missing. The officer at the scene can 

call from a cell phone, get to the center, and immediately get results. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from Wisconsin? 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blancato, in your written testimony, you State that crime 

victims aged 65 and over lost a total of $1.3 billion due to personal 

and property crimes in 2005, including Internet fraud complaints. 

92 

You also write that, of the almost 200,000 substantiated cases of 

elder abuse reported to the Adult Protective Services agencies, one 

of the highest and one of the fastest rising forms of abuse was financial exploitation. 

According to the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1993 and 2002, more than 9 in 10 crimes against the 

elderly were property crimes. 

So given these troubling statistics, can you speak a little bit 

about how you think financial exploitation of seniors in America 

fits within the definition of senior abuse, neglect and exploitation 

that we are addressing through the two bills before us today, the 

Elder Justice Act and the Elder Abuse Victims Act? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Yes, Congresswoman, and thank you also for 

your co-sponsorship of the Elder Justice Act. 

The definition of elder abuse is multifaceted, but a central feature of it has always been financial abuse and exploitation, in 

terms of what is addressed by the efforts to try to combat elder 

abuse. 

The growing concern about financial exploitation—and you 

touched on one aspect of it, with the whole question of mail fraud 

and the whole external scams that go on, the financial abuse occurs 

directed by family members against other family members or form 

the outside. 

This legislation would do a number of things to address this concern, ranging from something as basic as the raising of public 

awareness to the potential older person victims, to look out for certain things, to have the capacity to have certain tips and public 

awareness campaigns so they can be more protective of their own 

assets. 

I think the other thing is that it trains everybody who would deal 

with a senior to look out for certain things that obviously would 

show a potential victimization of someone. 

For example, if a homebound older person suddenly has their 

ATM card being used, there is a sign of trouble. If an older person 

who has lived in their own home for years suddenly is having utilities shut off, okay, there is a concern that somebody is coming in 

and doing things. 

But in order to make people aware of this problem, they have to 

be trained to understand what this issue is, what elder abuse is. 

I mean, we talked earlier in some comments about older people 

showing up in emergency rooms and they think they just fell, yet 

if there was better forensic information in the centers, you could 

actually determine that it wasn’t a fall, that it was actually a case 

of abuse that went on. 

So central to the Elder Justice Act is providing Federal resources 

to better train people to be able to detect elder abuse and report 

it, because the underreporting of elder abuse is the central problem 

we have here. 

And I think this legislation’s whole function is to get training 

dollars out so people can become more responsive to the problem, 

report it. People can be prosecuted, and victimization can be limited. And financial exploitation is clearly in the center of that 

whole conversation. 

93 

Ms. BALDWIN. Generally, I am wondering whether you think 

that, on this particular issue, the response that is in the two bills 

we are looking at is adequate or whether we ought to be looking 

at other ways, additional legislation, additional programming to 

protect seniors from telemarketing and mail fraud and other forms 

of—and I am thinking in this case more the exploitation from outside the family setting. 

Mr. BLANCATO. Right. Well, first of all, I am enough of a realist, 

having worked up here for a long time, that it has taken 5 years 

to get this bill to this point. 

Ms. BALDWIN. I hear you. 

Mr. BLANCATO. And so, in the world of legislation, you always 

want the perfect legislation. But in reality, you want to get a passable bill started so you can build on it. There are too many issues 

that we can all identify sitting here where, if we just started with 

some place, got something underway, you can always build on it 

later and make a better deal. 

I think what this legislation serves to do and the attention being 

focused on it, it leads outside groups to help in this fight, while we 

wait for the passage of legislation. 

One of our leading Elder Justice Coalition members is AARP, 

which you know is very actively engaged in helping to fight financial abuse against older people from external sources. 

So as long as this conversation goes forward, provided we can get 

the bill passed in this session, I think we will see more response 

happening, simply because more attention is being focused on it. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Blancato. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman, and the Ranking Member, and the witnesses, and the previous panel. And I apologize for 

being detained in another meeting. 

But I do want to congratulate you for hitting on really the Achilles’ heel of our society, the early part of life and the sunsetting or 

the older aspect of our lives. And we are living longer and certainly 

become vulnerable on both ends of the spectrum. 

I would like to ask Ms. Friedlander about the utilization of your 

program. And my first question is: How does this—and you may 

have commented, but I appreciate your repeating it—how does your 

program complement or how is it distinct from the Missing and Exploited Children’s program? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. A Child Is Missing concentrates basically in one area. And we complement greatly the Amber Alert. We 

are the gap between two particular—those two programs. 

And the national center is a great program. And they do a lot 

of different things. I mean, they have been around for 20-some 

years. I have only been doing this for 11 years, overnight success. 

But they can work very well together. I am not trying to duplicate—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What specifically do you do that puts you in 

between Amber and Missing and Exploited Children? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. What do we do? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. First of all, law enforcement is called 

by an individual whose child or elderly Alzheimer’s has gone missVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
94 

ing. Then the policemen go to the area, make sure the person is 

missing. Then they will call, as long as it is in their SOP, standard 

operating procedure, A Child Is Missing directly, 24/7, 365—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So they are able to call you sooner than Missing and Exploited Children? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Sooner than the Amber Alert. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Sooner than the Amber Alert. 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Missing and Exploited Children do not 

do what we do. We are the only program of its kind in the United 

States. We are free. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You get activated immediately, is that what 

you are saying? After the police person calls you, you begin to 

reach out? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. That is correct. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In reaching out, what actions do you take? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. What do I take? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What actions do you take once you—— 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Oh, what actions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Well, they call our office. Our recovery 

specialists are on-call 24/7. They will take all of the information, 

and we will direct—we will plan an area with our satellite mapping. And then we will get the phone numbers down of our 

databank that represent that area. 

Then the technician will make a recorded call that says, ‘‘This is 

the Houston Police Department. We are currently looking for a 

missing child in your area. The child’s name and description is 

Mary Jones, 3 year old, 30 pounds′′—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Excellent. 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN.—′′last seen at, please call the Houston 

Police Department.’’ 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so if this—— 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. And that goes out to those people. And 

if they don’t answer the first time, it rings a second time and a 

third time, and then it stops. And that way, then they are asked 

to call the Houston Police Department back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you start a chain reaction as quickly as 

possible? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. A chain reaction as quick as possible. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And then this legislation will certainly help 

you expand what you do? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Yes, ma’am, it will. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you for what you are doing. 

Let me quickly ask—I have encountered both on the children’s 

end, obviously coming from Houston, Texas, but also missing elderly, as you mentioned, who suffer from Alzheimer’s or other forms 

of senility. 

One of the suggestions is a tracking bracelet that would be under 

the jurisdiction of some kind of entity. Is that a welcome opportunity that communities should invest in if families want to participate in that, working with agencies like yourself? 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Well, in my opinion, anything that 

helps to save a life is worthwhile. I am familiar with the program 

95 

you are talking about. It does cost money. Some elderly cannot afford it, so assistance must be made. 

You know, anything that can help save, because, again, the elderly will go out in the bitter cold in a nightgown and slippers, and 

they are gone, and, honest to God, they freeze to death. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are right. 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. And we have helped to save a lot of 

those people when we are called immediately. We can only do with 

as much time as we have. And they also go to water. Elderly go 

right to water, just like children. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you for your answer. I would 

like to say to the Chairman, let me thank all the witnesses. 

I know Mr. Rothman was probably previously here on an earlier 

panel, and I just wanted to briefly comment on the H.R. 2352. 

There is no witness here. I will look forward to working with the 

Committee on two aspects that I think can be clarified in this very 

good legislation, as issues dealing with securing schools that relates to terrorist acts and also as it relates to hazardous materials. 

And I would just like to place that on the record and work with 

the Chairman in terms of amendments to assist that. And I want 

to suggest that I am in full support of the legislation that you represent and certainly that of the gentleman dealing with elder 

abuse. 

And, Ms. Friedlander, we will work with you—— 

Ms. FRIEDLANDER-OLSEN. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. For the very constructive approach to saving our children. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We will have another very quick round of questions. 

And I just had one question, Mr. Blancato. The Elder Justice Act 

includes an Elder Justice Coordinating Council and an advisory 

board on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. How can this help 

us, assuming we get the bill passed and into law, look for additional areas that need our attention? 

And do these two—does the council and the board, do they overlap and contradict each other? Or can they work in a coordinated 

fashion? 

Mr. BLANCATO. They clearly can work in a coordinated fashion. 

My understanding about the coordinating council is it is made up 

primarily of people who would be existing in the Federal Government now that would be working to define a coordinated response 

at the Federal level to elder abuse prevention. 

And advisory people could include people from outside, who 

would be consulted to provide input into, again, how to improve coordination at all levels as it relates to elder abuse. So I think they 

are complementary to one another. 

And I think, at the end of the day, if you end up with a coordinated response, you may end up actually saving money, as compared to having fragmented programs that may be existing out 

there that couldn’t otherwise be channeled together. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, just very briefly, Ms. Friedlander-Olsen, you 

mentioned that one of the problems is the transition of law enforceVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Jan 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\041708\41797.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41797
96 

ment personnel from one department to another. Mr. Keenan also 

is familiar with that problem. 

And one of the problems that has come up here before is with 

regard to the FBI. And having been involved at a local level in different capacities, it seemed to be the importance of that credibility 

with law enforcement is very high and that especially as Federal 

agents come in to your area, it takes a while for them to build up 

credibility, and sometimes just build up experience so where they 

have as much experience as the local and the State people they 

deal with. 

I have been concerned about an FBI program that this director 

had implemented called the Five Year Up or Out program that, at 

least in Texas, has caused us to lose some really valuable assets 

who were told, ‘‘You either move up to Washington or you demote 

or you retire,’’ and so they retired. 

I am just curious, in your capacity there in Georgia, Mr. Keenan, 

have you seen that effect the FBI’s experience level? 

Mr. KEENAN. I have discussed with FBI officials before my belief 

that they would be much more effective if they left their supervisors in duty stations longer to build those relationships. 

Law enforcement is based around personal relationships and 

partnerships. And you have to have a stabilized workforce to build 

those relationships. The FBI is a wonderful law enforcement agency. Our agents—to be a GBI agent, it is the same requirements to 

be an FBI agent. 

We have found out over the years that our most productive 

agents, most effective agents are those that live and work in a community that have an opportunity to build public trust and work 

with their counterparts. And that is relationships. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I wish our current FBI director had heard that 

from you before he changed the policy and implemented that. 

But thank you very much, Mr. Keenan. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Georgia? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Blancato, what do you see as the biggest obstacle facing 

States in effectively addressing the problem of elder abuse, neglect 

and exploitation? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Well, the biggest problem I suspect is the inadequate level of dedicated funding for Adult Protective Services, 

which is the state-run programs. They operate in all 50 States. 

They are the front lines in the efforts to combat elder abuse. 

At the moment, because they are funded through a block grant, 

there is sporadic funding between the different States. Even elder 

abuse is a growing problem in all the States. 

So certainly dedicated funding for Adult Protective Services is 

something that is necessary at the State level. 

And I think also, again, the notion of coordinating the response 

from all levels of government, particularly with the effort to provide adequate resources to train State and local prosecutors and 

law enforcement personnel to be more aggressive and effective in 

the ultimate pursuit of the people committing abuse and prosecuting them I think is another area where they need additional 

help. 

97 

And both issues are addressed in the Elder Justice Act, which is 

why a lot of State organizations and people at the local level support the bill and why they have joined our coalition to help get the 

bill passed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So are you suggesting that, under Social Services 

Block Grants, the recipient States are not necessarily investing 

that money or funding elder abuse, neglect and exploitation initiatives? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Correct. And I think what I will do for the record 

is we will provide some data, to the extent we have it, about how 

much money from the States—from the Social Services Block Grant 

is dedicated to Adult Protective Services. 

My understanding is that that number has declined over the 

years, as has the funding overall for the Social Services Block 

Grant program. 

What the Elder Justice Act says is, ‘‘Let’s remove Adult Protective Services from having that restriction of it being tied to a larger 

block grant and give it dedicated funding so everybody knows in all 

States there will be money going in to fighting elder abuse,’’ which 

is really what we want to get done. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. BLANCATO. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. We have been joined by the gentlelady from California, who has questions. 

The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I don’t 

think I need the 5 minutes. 

First of all, I would like to thank you for doing what should have 

been done a long time in dealing with some of the issues by way 

of the four bills that are before us. And I think it is very important 

that we pay attention to what is happening with our elders and, 

of course, our children and our students. 

We in my office have been attempting to deal with some of these 

issues. Let me just raise a couple of questions. 

Are there unique problems associated with the investigation and 

prosecution of elder abuse that do not exist with child abuse cases? 

Anybody? 

Mr. BLANCATO. Congresswoman Waters, not being a prosecutor, 

I know there are issues about the victim coming forth and identifying the person committing the suspected abuse, because oftentimes it is family members involved, and I suspect that that is 

somewhat of a complicated thing. 

I think what—in California, actually in San Diego, there is a 

very well known unit in the San Diego Police Department, there 

is a prosecuting person by the name of Paul Greenwood who specializes in elder abuse prosecutions. 

And he is a national example and a model that we could turn to 

for information on how he has been able to improve the level of 

prosecutions of elder abuse cases in his area, by being focused on 

it and getting resources to do that. 

The other part of it, of course, is that there are so many forms 

of elder abuse going on right now, financial, physical neglect, selfneglect, sexual abuse, that it is just the lack of some knowledge 

98 

about how to pursue a prosecution sometimes is an impediment to 

successful prosecutions. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony 

today. And Members may have additional—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT. Excuse me? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I have a—— 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentlelady from Texas, I am sorry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I sort of ran through the issue of school security and also the 

question of elder abuse, and I just wanted to raise a question 

again. 

With the rising good news of people living longer, with respect 

to elder abuse, do we have the right pressure points? Do we need 

to ensure that the FBI, for example, has a component because of 

the interstate aspect sometimes of what happens to elder abuse? 

Caretakers may go from place to place, masquerading as caretakers, and really be undermining that elderly person. 

I yield to you. 

Mr. BLANCATO. There is certainly grounds to pursue that, even 

as an element of this legislation is pending. There are certain 

issues that are addressed in the Elder Justice Act about getting the 

Department of Justice more focused on elder abuse and being more 

sensitive to the issues and providing the kind of training and 

grants to help improve training of people and prosecutors at the 

State and local level. 

You know, going deeper into more specific assignments for FBI 

would have to be something that this Subcommittee would have to 

look at, at the time of markup. 

I think basically the point that has been made most of the day 

is that the Federal response is the most anemic of all responses so 

far to elder abuse. And this is what we are hoping through the 

Elder Justice Act to correct. And anything that can be done in that 

regard we would be supportive of. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is a very helpful answer. We will, obviously, 

explore that and research that. 

And my final point, again, is just to expand for the record my 

issue as it relates to making sure that the school security bill—and 

I will engage Mr. Rothman—does take into consideration really the 

issue—I see it mentioned safety and security—but really focuses, 

since this Subcommittee has responsibilities dealing with terrorism, really focus on the vulnerability of the school, as it relates 

to being subjected to terrorist acts. 

The schools are probably, even with the new metal detectors in 

some of our urban schools, are probably the most vulnerable. They 

are in rural areas, in urban areas, in suburban areas, and I think 

it is crucial that we not frighten our educational system, but we 

prepare them. 

Alongside of that, I think it is important to put the school district 

on notice about the easiness of toxic, hazardous materials, air conditioning systems that are old and may be vulnerable to someone 

who would want to do something untoward. 

99 

So I make the record, because we have had something like that 

occur in my own hometown of Houston, with a school that seems 

to be continuously faced with toxicity, and not attended to by the 

district. So I wanted to make that record. 

And I look forward, as we move toward markup—and, again, I 

thank the witnesses for their very detailed testimony on their various issues. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Thank you. And I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. Members may have additional written questions, 

which we will forward to you and ask that you answer as promptly 

as you can, in order that your answers may be made part of the 

record. 

At this point, I would like to enter into the record a statement 

of Joseph O’Connor, submitted on behalf of the American Bar Association. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Connor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. O’CONNOR, CHAIR, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

COMMISSION ON LAW AND AGING, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA) 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the American Bar Association 

on H. R. 1783, the ‘‘Elder Justice Act.’’ 

The American Bar Association commends the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing on 

the Elder Justice Act. The Committee has before it a tremendous opportunity to address in a strong bipartisan way the growing national problem of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation—a domestic and institutional tragedy that causes serious 

harm to between 500,000 and 5 million individuals each year. The American Bar 

Association strongly supports enactment of this legislation. No current federal law 

adequately and comprehensively addresses issues of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and there are very limited resources available to those in the field directly 

dealing with these issues. 

The Elder Justice Act would create an infrastructure and provide resources needed to develop and implement a nationally coordinated strategy in collaboration with 

the states to make elder justice a reality. As elder justice is central to any viable 

notion of the rule of law and social justice, American Bar Association policy ‘‘supports efforts to improve the response of the federal, state, territorial and local governments and of the criminal and civil justice systems to elder abuse, neglect and 

exploitation’’ through, among other things, the creation of ‘‘a nationwide structure 

for raising public awareness; supporting research, training and technical assistance; 

funding critical services; and coordinating local, territorial, state, and national resources.’’ Enactment of the Elder Justice Act can make that goal a reality. 

It is also important to stress how these steps at the federal level really do have 

an impact on preventing elder abuse and helping victims of elder abuse. We can tell 

you that, over the last fifteen years, American Bar Association staff have heard and 

read the stories of hundreds, if not thousands, of victims and caring family members 

who have sought assistance. Too many of those people were angry and frustrated 

at their inability to get help from adult protective services or law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, civil lawyers, the courts, and other local and state government 

agencies, or they felt that the ‘‘help’’ they received was counter-productive. Their 

stories demonstrate that the law-related provisions of the act, which the American 

Bar Association supports, would only improve the quality of justice currently provided to older persons who have been abused, neglected or exploited. 

The victim advocacy grants in the act that would support training about elder 

abuse of ‘‘health care, social, and protective services providers, law enforcement, fiduciaries (including guardians), judges and court personnel, and victim advocates’’ 

would decrease the likelihood of common situations like these: the older person 

whose assets were stolen by a guardian or agent under a power of attorney who is 

told that ‘‘it’s a civil legal problem, not a crime’’; or the niece who suspects that her 

aunt is being financially exploited by a caregiver and subsequently learns that her 

100 

suspicions were determined to be baseless after her aunt was interviewed while the 

alleged perpetrator sat next to her. 

Legal assistance for older persons would enable them to protect their retirement 

savings from the ‘‘new best friend’’ or to have legal representation if they face eviction because a grandchild is making methamphetamine in the home. Grants to support hiring and training of prosecutors and provide resources to their offices would 

reduce the number of victims who are told that elder abuse just isn’t a priority. 

Studies of model state laws and practices would enable state legislators to more easily and effectively strengthen their laws protecting older persons from abuse. 

The American Bar Association encourages your subcommittee to quickly approve 

H.R. 1783. We especially support the law-related provisions that are in the House 

bill and not in the Senate version of the legislation, S. 1070. If passed by the House, 

we will urge a conference committee to include the law-related provisions in any 

final bill. The serious problems faced daily by victims cannot be fixed unless the justice system is given the resources it needs to effectively address those problems. 

Again, we thank you for weighing the need to move forward with the Elder Justice Act. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to submit the American Bar Association’s views to you on this important subject. 

Mr. SCOTT. And without objection, the hearing record will remain 

open for 1 week for the submission of additional materials. 

Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(101) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you Chairman Scott and ranking member Gohmert for your leadership in 

holding today’s very important hearing which is aimed at making America a safer 

place. There are four bills that we will be discussing today. The bills address health 

and safety issues for children, students, and elders. It is fitting that we discuss 

these bills today during National Crime Victims week. These bills will protect the 

most vulnerable members of our society: the elderly and children. The four bills are: 

H.R. 1783, the Elder Justice Act; H.R. 5352, the Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008; 

H.R. 2352, the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007; and H.R. 5464, A Child 

is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act. I welcome our distinguished group of panelists and I look forward to their insightful testimony. 

A. ELDER JUSTICE ACT

Each year in the United States, between one-half million to five million elders are 

abused, neglected or exploited. Experts agree that most cases are never reported. 

Data collected on the problem is minimal, and there has been no comprehensive national approach to solving the many problems. In fact, the House has held only one 

hearing on elder abuse, over 16 years ago, in 1991. These problems likely will increase in the next 30 years, as 76 million baby boomers approach retirement. 

H.R. 1783 sets forth a comprehensive plan for preventing and combating elder 

abuse, neglect and exploitation, including the development of the Elder Justice Coordinating Council within the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). It authorizes funding for numerous programs to promote elder justice, including State and local adult protective services, and requires the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) to develop policies and plans and support federal prosecution of elder 

abuse. Witnesses expected to testify are the Honorable Rahm Emanuel, sponsor of 

H.R. 1783; and Bob Blancato, National Coordinator of the Elder Justice Coalition. 

The Elder Justice Act provides a comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach to 

preventing and combating elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, yet respects the 

need of and assists state and local communities to develop their own programs. It 

establishes the national Elder Justice Coordinating Council and Advisory Board on 

Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. The Act starts the critically needed process 

of researching state practices and collecting national data on the problem. The Act 

authorizes grant monies for all areas of elder abuse, beginning with the prevention 

of abuse. It authorizes critically needed money to state and local adult protective 

services and helps long-term care facilities recruit, train and retain competent employees. It requires long-term care facilities to report suspected elder abuse, and 

provides grant money to law enforcement and prosecutors for the investigation and 

prosecution of elder abuse cases. 

The Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008, H.R. 5352, focuses on the enforcement provisions of the Elder Justice Act. It provides funding for law enforcement and prosecutors to combat elder abuse. The Honorable Joe Sestak, sponsor of H.R. 5352, is 

expected to testify. 

H.R. 5352 establishes a national Elder Justice Coordinating Council and Advisory 

Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. Its purpose is to protect seniors 

in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and providing training for law enforcement and prosecutors. 

102 

I note that H.R. 1783 should involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation because 

many of the elder abuse issues occur across state lines. Moreover, involving the FBI 

would provide greater enforcement, manpower, and resources. I would also like to 

offer an amendment to this bill or possibly H.R. 5465, also discussed today, to give 

elderly the option of wearing a bracelet that could be monitored to ensure their safety. 

B. SCHOOL SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 2352) 

Violence at our schools have increased at an alarming rate in states such as California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin over the last few years. H.R. 

2352 seeks to curb that stem of violence. 

H.R. 2352 increases authorized annual funding from $30 million to $50 million 

for FY 2008–2009 for the Secure Our Schools grant program, and decreases the nonfederal grant participation percentage from 50% to 20%. It requires institutions of 

higher education to conduct annual campus safety assessments and develop and implement campus emergency response plans. The Honorable Steven R. Rothman (NJ9), sponsor of H.R. 2352 is expected to testify. 

This bill seeks to address the violence in our schools. It will ensure the safety of 

students and teachers and will make sure that education is the paramount concern 

of educators. 

The Act also increases the federal portion of the funding from 50% to 80%, which 

decreases the non-federal portion from 50% to 20%. According to the Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office of the Department of Justice, which administers the Secure Our Schools grants, many of the poorer communities that need 

help the most have been unable to participate in the program because they cannot 

afford the previously required 50% non-federal grant match. The proposed change 

in non-federal funding is more in line with the COPS traditional 75/25% split, and 

should allow more participation in the program. 

The Act increases the possible uses of funding to include surveillance equipment, 

hotlines to report potentially dangerous situations and capital improvements to 

make school facilities more secure. Finally, the Act requires the establishment of an 

interagency task force to develop and promulgate advisory school safety guidelines. 

The Act amends the existing requirements for grant applications, and requires 

each grant application to be accompanied by a report, signed by the chief education 

officer and the attorney general or other chief legal officer, demonstrating that the 

proposed use of the grant funds is an effective means for improving school safety, 

is consistent with a comprehensive approach to preventing school violence, and 

meets the individualized needs of the particular school. 

Finally, the Act amends the Higher Education Act and requires each eligible participating institution to conduct an annual campus safety assessment, and develop 

and implement a campus emergency response plan to address emergency situations, 

including natural disasters, active shooter situations, and terrorist attacks. The bill 

is sponsored by Mr. Rothman, and has 52 cosponsors. 

I note that I would like to offer an amendment that would specifically provide 

monies to the state and local schools to implement safety measures to protect students from terrorist attacks and hazardous conditions/chemicals. Moreover, the state 

and local schools should also be required to demonstrate that they have a response 

plan to deal with terrorist attacks and hazardous conditions. 

C. A CHILD IS MISSING ALERT AND RECOVERY CENTER (H.R. 5464) 

A child goes missing every 40 seconds. The successful recovery of missing children 

often requires a quick response. In 1997, Sherry Friedlander, the founder of A Child 

is Missing (ACIM), saw the need for a rapid-response program to persons who go 

missing, especially in situations that do not involve abductions. In response to this 

need, she established ACIM, a national non-profit organization that offers free assistance to law enforcement 365 days of the year, 24 hours per day. The program 

is not limited to children, but extends to elderly persons (suffering from senility or 

Alzheimer’s), mentally challenged or disabled individuals and college students. 

When law enforcement receives a call regarding a missing person, the first-responder can immediately call ACIM for help. The officer provides critical information to ACIM, such as the person’s age and description and the last time/place seen. 

ACIM uses that information to record a message that, within minutes, is sent via 

phone to 1000s of locations within a radius of the last sighting of the person. 

Through their computer mapping system, ACIM also can identify ‘‘hot spots,’’ such 

as water or wooded areas. 

103 

ACIM complements the Amber Alert program by providing different services. 

While Amber Alert focuses on children who are abducted, ACIM covers all ‘‘persons’’ 

who go missing, including situations where criminal intent may not be at issue. 

Amber Alert uses television and highway signs to broadcast information about the 

abducted child and the related vehicle, while ACIM uses a rapid response telephone 

alert system and covers cases where there is no vehicle involved. The ACIM notification system often can respond more quickly than the Amber Alert program. 

ACIM would use the requested money to operate and expand the existing ACIM 

office in Florida, to develop Regional Centers for on-site training and communication 

with local law enforcement, to maintain and expand their computer and phone technologies, and to assist the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the 

AMBER Alert Coordinator, and appropriate law enforcement agencies with training. 

H.R. 5464 authorizes $5 million annual grants for 2009 through 2014 to A Child 

is Missing Alert and Recovery Center (ACIM) to assist law enforcement in the rapid 

recovery of missing children and other individuals. Witnesses expected to testify are 

the Honorable Ron Klein (FL-22), sponsor of H.R.5464; Sherry Friedlander, the 

founder of ACIM; and Vernon Keenan, Director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. 

The bill is sponsored by Mr. Klein and has bi-partisan support. It has 21 cosponsors, including committee members Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, Mr. 

Chabot, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Sutton, and Ms. 

Wasserman Schultz. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses ad look forward to their testimony. 

I hope that we can ensure the health and safety of the young and the elderly—two 

vulnerable populations—whose rights I have long championed. Thank you, and I 

yield the remainder of my time. 

f 

104 


A-1.eps
105 


A-2.eps
106 


A-3.eps
107 


A-4.eps
108 


A-5.eps
109 


A-6.eps
110 


A-7.eps
111 

f 


A-8.eps
112 


B-1.eps
113 


B-2.eps
114 

f 


B-3.eps
115 


C-1.eps
116 


C-2.eps
117 


C-3.eps
118 


C-4.eps
119 


C-5.eps
120 


C-6.eps
121 


C-7.eps
122 

f 


C-8.eps
123 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

LOCAL LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMEN (NALLTCO) 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee; 

We, the governing board, appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the 

membership of the National Association of Local Long Term Care Ombudsmen regarding H.R. 1783, the ‘‘Elder Justice Act.’’ NALLTCO lauds the Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee for holding 

the April 17, 2008 hearing on the Elder Justice Act. As Representative Rahm Emanuel stated, ‘‘it has been over 17 years since the House had hearings regarding the 

problem of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation as witnessed throughout the nation.’’ No current federal law comprehensively addresses these issues in a standardized manner, and limited resources are available to professionals in the field to collect the data needed to research the scope of the matter. 

In our duties as regional and local long term care ombudsmen, our members are 

faced daily with the atrocities that are inflicted on our most frail and vulnerable 

adults that live in long term care settings. We sustain a united support for efforts 

that create a national law which powerfully raises public awareness, supports research, training and technical assistance, funds critical services, (including the ombudsman program), and coordinates the resources of national resources with the 

state, regional, and local entities. The Elder Justice Act serves as a vehicle to coordinate all of these efforts. 

Civil remedies have been rendered inadequate through the imposition of binding 

arbitration agreements placed in admission contracts. The victim of elder abuse in 

a long term care setting is already deprived of a voice of credibility when alleging 

they have been harmed. The resident is dependent on caregivers for all aspects of 

their daily living, as basic as the food they consume, the medicines they need to 

withstand illness, and the most intimate tasks of hygiene. The current laws vary 

from state to state, with little standardization regarding the victim’s rights to pursue criminal actions. The victim advocacy grants outlined in the act would provide 

resources for training about elder abuse to ‘‘healthcare, social, and protective services providers, law enforcement, fiduciaries (including guardians), judges and court 

personnel, and victim advocates.’’ Provisions to study model state laws and practices 

would establish standards of practice and enable state and local legislators to easily 

identify and strengthen their own laws protecting our nation’s elders. As ombudsmen, we know that so few of the alleged cases of abuse in long term care settings 

are vetted in the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators that are caregivers or 

family members who may inflict physical harm or commit financial acts of exploitation. Fear of retaliation is a real phenomenon because so many victims of elder 

abuse express their need for continued reliance on the very person who has inflicted 

the harm. 

We strongly urge the Committee to approve the provisions within H.R. 1783. Our 

nation’s long term care residents are entitled to swift action of protection. They 

should not be required to wait for justice. If passed, we encourage a conference committee with the Senate to adopt provisions that are reflective of law-related provisions in the legislation that may not be included in the Senate version S. 1070 of 

the same title. We are active members of the Elder Justice Coalition and fully support the testimony entered by Bob Blancato. 

We thank you for the progressive step in acknowledging that elder abuse is prevalent in long term care settings and needs immediate attention. NALLTCO urges you 

to take action and vote in favor of the Elder Justice Act. 

Respectfully submitted by the NALLTCO Board of Directors: Jacqueline Case (NJ/ 

NY) Chair; JM Sorrell (MA) Vice-Chair; Tonya Amos (IA) Treasurer; Eileen Bennett 

(MD) Secretary; Patrice Berry (TX); Karen Guice (AL); Alana Kietzman (MT); Cindy 

Kincaid (NC); Sue McCauley (AZ); Alice Nicholson (VT); Joe Oertel (WA); Tammy 

Wacker (IL); John Weir (MI) 

Æ