Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, just a very brief explanation on both of these amendments. Senator Mikulski's amendment simply allows the Secretary of Transportation to select the Federal appointees for the Washington metro system. That is done by the head of GSA right now, and obviously GSA is an agency with no transportation policy expertise, so this simply makes sense. It is noncontroversial and has already been passed out of the Senate committee of jurisdiction. Senator Mikulski has been very concerned, as have many of us, about the safety and operational issues with Metro, and I believe this amendment is an excellent one, and I am proud to lend my support. Senator McCain's amendment ensures that the Federal Aviation Administration reviews its procedures when there are complaints from a community about the noise of airplanes that are landing in a particular area and that they do a report. I think both of these amendments make a great deal of sense, and I am pleased that we were able to clear them and get them adopted.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we are now prepared to have a voice vote on Senator Wicker's amendment; therefore, I know of no further debate on the Wicker amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are making progress, and I encourage other Members to come to the floor and share their proposals with us so we can continue to dispense with amendments. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Senator's amendment. All of us recognize that our first obligation as Americans is to ensure the security and well-being to the extent we can of our citizens. That is our first priority. There are many flaws in the system for admitting people to this country. Those flaws go beyond the problem of people sneaking into our country illegally or overstaying their visas. They extend to the process we use under the Visa Waiver Program. Indeed, one of our colleagues Senator Coats has introduced a thoughtful bill to have us take a better look at that program and whether it is a way for citizens who have been radicalized to come from Western European countries into our country and to do us harm. There are many ways we can improve the process. I am working with Senator Cantwell on a bill having to do with biometrics to make sure we have more information. I look at the Senator's amendment, and he lists 34 countries that would be affected by his prohibition--34 countries. They include countries such as Turkey. Turkey is a NATO ally. Turkey is absolutely vital in the war against ISIS. It includes our strong ally Jordan. If Jordan and Turkey and Lebanon, countries that have already taken in 4 million refugees who are fleeing from Syria, are destabilized, what does that mean for the stability of that entire region? Mr. President, last month I went on an official trip with several of my colleagues to get a better understanding of the migrant crisis that is engulfing Europe. We traveled to the two countries that are the entry points for many of the refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and who also are coming from Afghanistan and Iraq and some countries in Africa as well, such as Libya. So we went to Italy, and we went to Greece. At that time, in the middle of last month, 710,000 individuals had come in through Greece and to Italy to go on to other countries in Western Europe and in Scandinavia. We talked to the officials there, and I was not happy with the responses I received from Greek, Italian, and U.N. officials about their screening of refugees. Even though it is evident that the vast majority of refugees were people who were fearing for their lives and seeking safety, I was worried that ISIS fighters would embed themselves in this flood of refugees. What the Greeks and the Italians, with help from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, were doing was fingerprinting people, taking their photographs and then essentially sending them on their way. And I asked: Are we comparing these fingerprints, these photos, this other information with our--the American--watch list for terrorists? Are we matching them up against our no-fly list, our TIDE database, which is the larger terrorist watch list? The answer was no, and that needs to change. I also traveled to a shelter in Athens that was run by Doctors of the World, an organization with which I was previously unfamiliar, and there I met a very young mother with her adorable little girl. They were from Eritrea, and they had been part of the flood of refugees. They pose no harm to our country or to any of the countries in which they might ultimately settle, yet they might need a little bit of assistance, a little bit of help, because the mother was so young and her daughter only about age 2. I also met two young girls from Afghanistan who both said to me: Please don't take our pictures and put them on Facebook, because we fear for our relatives back in Afghanistan. Look what has happened in Afghanistan, as the Taliban has regained strength and now is once again oppressing women and girls, denying them an education, forcing them into early marriages. Another country on this list is Nigeria--certainly a country we have to be very careful about because this is the country where ISIS has a stronghold and where Boko Haram is located. But it is also the country where hundreds of girls were kidnapped for trying to get an education. In other words, we can't just list 34 countries, some of which are essential to work with us in the war against terrorism, against ISIS, such as Jordan and Turkey. We can't just list all these countries and say they are off limits. We can't just automatically say no to an Iraqi interpreter who has worked with our special forces and now is in danger of losing his life and having his family slaughtered because he helped to save Americans' lives in Iraq. Are we saying we will not let a single person from 34 countries into our country no matter how many American lives they have saved, no matter whether they pose a threat to us? Now, I want to make very clear that I do not think our process for screening people to come into this country is good enough. It is not. If it were good enough, we would not have people who could cause us harm in this country. But, you know, perhaps we should be focusing on those Americans--yes, even Americans--who have become radicalized and have traveled to Syria and Iraq and been trained to plot attacks here in this country: lone-wolf attacks, such as Major Hasan at Fort Hood, an American citizen who was radicalized online by an extremist Islamic cleric. We can't apply a one-size-fits-all to 34 countries that include a NATO ally and other allies that have been helpful in the war against terrorism or countries that include individuals who have helped the cause, who have saved American lives or who pose no threats to us, such as those two young Afghan girls I met at the shelter or the very young mother with her very young little girl. We do need to tighten our process. We need to do more. You know, I would think that Members of this body who voted just months ago to weaken our ability, even under court orders, to provide surveillance of those who we suspect would do us harm would think again about what they have done in this time when the threats coming at us have never been greater. But this is a meat ax approach. It is too broad, and it does not really address the problem that we face today. We do need to address that problem. Perhaps we need a pause to redo our processes. But this is not the answer. Finally, as I read this language, the way it is written, it may apply to refugees who already have been legally admitted to this country. Do we want to do that? We need to think about this. We need to get this right, and Senator Paul's amendment is far too broad and is not the right answer to what is a real problem.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me commend my colleague from Alaska for raising this important issue. First, it is important to understand that his amendment only applies to structurally deficient bridges. These are bridges that are deteriorating and that need extensive renovation or replacement. And it is important that we address the problem of structurally deficient bridges before they become unsafe to use. That is the risk, and that is what my colleague from Alaska is attempting to address with his amendment. He is proposing that if we are replacing a structurally deficient bridge in exactly the same place, that we do not need to start all over again with an environmental impact statement that may delay the replacement of this structurally deficient bridge for literally years, not to mention the enormous cost that is undertaken when with an environmental impact statement and all the attendant studies are done. He is correct that the amount of time to do this kind of analysis, as well as the length of these studies, has grown enormously in recent years, and that, too, is a problem when we are dealing with a structurally deficient bridge. I believe this is a commonsense amendment. I would not want to waive environmental impact studies if the bridge were going to be built in a new location. Then we would need to do that kind of careful environmental analysis and review to make sure the environmental impact is well understood. But that is not what Senator Sullivan is proposing. He is proposing that for this one category of bridges, we would not have to do the environmental impact statement if it is being rebuilt in exactly the same place. I think this makes sense. I think this is the kind of common sense that my colleague from Alaska has brought to Washington, and I commend him for his amendment. I do know there are some concerns, I believe, on the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate the Senator from Alaska working with us. But I, for one, believe his amendment does make sense. It is narrowly tailored, and I believe it should be adopted by this body. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2015, at 11 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the International Climate Negotiations.''

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a classified briefing entitled ``The Aftermath of Paris: America's Role.''

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 19; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leaders remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, that at 11 a.m., the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2577.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 318, submitted earlier today.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, strong clean air protections remain very important for our health and environment. I have voted previously to protect the EPA's ability to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I will oppose the two resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act which would permanently block EPA from limiting carbon pollution from existing and new fossil fuel fired powerplants. Finalized on August 3, 2015, the Clean Power Plan sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel fired powerplants, the Nation's single largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA estimates, the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by 32 percent, from 2005 levels, by 2030. The final plan includes additional flexibility and provides States with more time to submit plans and to achieve compliance with the requirements. The standards to limit carbon dioxide for new, modified, or reconstructed powerplants were also finalized on August 3. On November 4, 18 States, including Maine, and several cities asked a Federal court to allow them to defend the Clean Power Plan against legal challenge. I am encouraged that the emissions targets under the Clean Power Plan for Maine are more realistic than were originally proposed in recognition of the fact that Maine already ranks first in the Nation in the percentage reduction in greenhouse gases due to the State's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. Through RGGI, Maine has already made substantial progress in reducing carbon emissions, increasing energy efficiency, spurring the adoption of clean energy technologies, and improving air quality and public health. By contrast, the EPA's original proposal would have unfairly disadvantaged and asked more of States that took action early than it would have from States that had not yet acted to reduce their emissions. The final rule represents a considerable improvement in this regard. I continue to have some concerns, however, with the Clean Power Plan's treatment of renewable biomass energy. Biomass energy is a sustainable, responsible, renewable, and economically significant energy source. Many States, including Maine, are relying on renewable biomass to meet their renewable energy goals. Because the final rule places the onus on States to demonstrate the eligibility of biomass for the Clean Power Plan, this approach will lead to more regulatory uncertainty. The EPA must appropriately recognize the carbon benefits of forest bioenergy in a way that helps States, mills, and the forest products industry and recognizes the carbon neutrality of wood. I will continue to seek regulatory certainty and clarity on this issue. Climate change is a significant threat both here in the United States and around the world. It is a challenge that requires international cooperation, including from large emitters like China and India, to reduce greenhouse gas pollution worldwide. The upcoming climate summit in Paris provides a new opportunity for international efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions in countries around the globe. I have had the opportunity to meet in the field with some of the world's foremost climate scientists. I have traveled to Norway and to Alaska where I saw the dramatic loss of sea ice cover and the retreating Arctic glaciers. In Barrow, AK, on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, I saw telephone poles leaning over because the permafrost was melting, and I talked with native people who told me that they were seeing insects that had never before been this far north. I returned from this trip believing that U.S. leadership to slow climate change would be vitally important--in order to prevent the worst extreme weather events, shifts in agricultural production and disease patterns, and more air pollution. For Maine, climate change poses a significant threat to our vast natural resources, from working forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, to tourism and recreation, as well as for public health. With heat waves, more extreme weather events, and sea level rise, the greenhouse gasses that drive climate change are a clear threat to our way of life. As a coastal State, Maine is particularly vulnerable to storm surges and flooding, and unpredictable changes in the Gulf of Maine threaten our iconic fisheries. Climate changes also raise significant public health concerns for Maine's citizens, from asthma to Lyme disease. Maine has one of the highest and fastest growing incident rates of Lyme disease, and its spread has been linked to higher temperatures that are ripe for deer ticks and their hosts. Sitting at the end of the air pollution tailpipe, Maine also has some of the highest rates of asthma in the country. The Clean Air Act remains vital for protecting our health and the environment, and I will continue to support responsible and realistic efforts to reduce harmful pollution that affects us all.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise on the eve of Veterans Day to urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2016 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. This marks the first time in 2 years that we have had the opportunity to debate, amend, and vote on this important legislation on the Senate floor. It is vital to those who serve and to those who have served our Nation. I first learned to honor our veterans from my father. My father is a World War II veteran who was wounded twice in the Battle of the Bulge and earned his Purple Heart and his Bronze Star. It was he who would take me to the parades on Veterans Day and on Memorial Day and boost me high on his shoulders. From the best vantage point in the parade, I would watch our veterans march by. He taught me of their sacrifice and that we have a never-ending obligation to thank those who wore the uniform of our country. Passing this bill fulfills important obligations that we owe to our Nation's 22 million veterans, 127,000 of whom live in the great State of Maine. It sends an important message to our veterans: We will honor the sacrifices that you made and are making on our behalf. It would be a mistake to send the opposite message by further postponing or delaying consideration and final passage of this important bill before we celebrate our veterans, honor, and remember them tomorrow. As a member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee, I know this bill before us now is the result of bipartisan compromise. I commend the leadership of Chairman Kirk and Ranking Member Tester, who have worked hand in hand to craft the managers' amendment that they will be bringing before us today. In May of this year, the Appropriations Committee reported this funding bill by a strong vote of 21 to 9. Since then the Bipartisan Budget Act has been enacted, which provides needed additional resources to fund vital national priorities and that will be reflected in the managers' amendment. The managers' substitute would provide a total of $79.7 billion in funding, which I would note represents more than $1 billion more than the President's budget request. This bill increases funding for our veterans in areas where they need it most, including mental health care and benefit claims processing, two issues which the Senator from Maryland has been so active in resolving. This bill also includes funds aimed at reducing veterans homelessness. This is a special priority of mine as the chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee. I worked with Senator Murray on this issue, and we have made real progress--exciting progress--in reducing the number of homeless veterans across this country through the VASH Program, but there is still more work to be done. In addition, this bill includes $270 million in funding for the Office of Rural Health, through which the Access Received Closer to Home or the ARCH Program is funded. In five pilot States in which it operates, ARCH ensures that rural veterans, who often have a very difficult time accessing the regular VA health care system--particularly the VA hospitals--can receive care closer to where they live and where their families live. I will never forget the story shared with me by a Maine veteran who broke his hip during a terrible snow storm and needed urgent care. The ARCH program, located at Cary Memorial Hospital in Caribou, ME, ensured he could receive the care he needed in his community and close to his family, rather than enduring a 4-hour drive over bumpy winter roads during a ferocious snow storm to the Togas VA Medical Center in Augusta, ME. ARCH has made a tremendous difference for our veterans and continues to help those who live in rural communities and who are facing similar challenges and emergencies. The managers' substitute also increases Veterans Affairs medical services by nearly $2 billion, including $10 million for programs supporting caregivers. We all know of the wonderful work that Elizabeth Dole has done in this area, and I have been very pleased to join with my colleague Senator Patty Murray in introducing the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act. The bill before us is going to help provide benefits for those who shoulder the responsibilities associated with long-term care for critically injured veterans. This bill would expand comprehensive caregiver benefits for those who take on those responsibilities. I would note, Madam President, that the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, and I have a broader bill dealing with caregivers that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is considering and I hope will be approving shortly. In addition to the vital funds for veterans programs, this bill also funds military construction projects, which unfortunately had been adversely affected--cut, delayed, deferred--as a result of the budget caps and the impact of sequestration. Therefore, I am particularly pleased this bill includes $7.2 million in funding needed to repair, renovate, and upgrade the 101st Air Refueling Wing's fire and crash rescue station in Bangor, ME. This is funding for which I have strongly advocated, and I thank the managers for including it the bill. The 101st ``MAINEiacs'' provide critical 24/7 air and ground refueling services that support local military operations, and this funding will strengthen their capabilities. I would note, Madam President, that I recently met with General Breedlove, our NATO commander, and he told me he refueled at Bangor, ME, on his way back from Europe recently. Madam President, I could go on and on about the important programs and priorities in this bill. They are essential to providing what we owe to our servicemembers and our veterans: safe and reliable infrastructure so that our troops can complete the missions they are assigned, access to medical care, earned compensation and benefits, and assistance to help our veterans successfully transition to their civilian lives. Tomorrow, on Veterans Day, our Nation will pause to honor all those who served. Today, we have the opportunity to say to the American people, to our veterans, and to those who are considering military service to our Nation that no matter what partisan issues may divide us, we stand united in fulfilling our commitment to those who serve and those who have served. We can send that message by passing this measure and sending to the President a funding bill that takes care of our servicemembers, our veterans and their families, and that honors their service to our great country. Madam President, I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. McConnell, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to express my strong support for proceeding to the fiscal year 2016 Defense appropriations bill. This bill provides vital funding for the men and women of our armed services at a time of serious and growing threats to our own national security and at a time of troubling instability and violent conflicts in many countries around the world. Proceeding would allow the Senate an opportunity to debate defense funding in an open and transparent manner and to meet our constitutional obligations. I am truly perplexed to hear some of my dear friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that there is a Republican plan to enact only the Defense appropriations bill and then proceed to a continuing resolution for all of the other vital appropriations bills. It would be an understatement to say that continuing resolutions are certainly not the preferred option of the Appropriations Committee, and I say that as a proud member of that committee. Continuing resolutions create uncertainty, they lock in last year's priorities, and they continue to fund programs that should be eliminated. They are not effective ways to govern. I want to be clear. Supporting an individual appropriations bill in no way suggests that the Senate is somehow giving up on passing the other 11 subcommittee appropriations bills, whether they are brought to the floor individually or as an omnibus package. Members of the Appropriations Committee now have working numbers as a result of the budget agreement. We are working together diligently in a bipartisan, bicameral manner to craft a bipartisan omnibus that can be supported by both Chambers. Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a budget agreement just a few short days ago, and our ongoing negotiations prove our sincerity and determination to move ahead with individual bills and in crafting an omnibus. We have already made great progress this year. As our chairman, Thad Cochran, has noted previously, this is the first time in 6 years that the Appropriations Committee has approved all 12 of its bills. Many of those bills, due to the leadership on the Democratic side of my dear friend Barbara Mikulski, and others, have been bipartisan when they were reported by our committee. I would note that we completed our work despite terribly strict budget constraints months ago. Now, we are in a new stage. We have a bipartisan, 2-year budget agreement that has provided some much needed relief to some of the budget caps, while keeping us on a fiscally responsible path. This is the third time the Senate has attempted to take up this vital appropriations bill. The last time, my Democratic friends objected because there was no bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement. In the absence of such an agreement, they said they could not proceed with a bill. Now, I didn't agree with that rationale, but I understood it. I do not understand the situation we find ourselves in today. We have a budget agreement--a bipartisan, bicameral budget agreement. I do not understand why we cannot move forward with the Defense appropriations bill and, I hope, other bills individually and then ultimately an omnibus bill for those that we simply run out of time to consider this year. Next year, due to this budget agreement, I hope we can bring each and every one of the individual appropriations bills before the Senate for debate and amendment the way we used to do, and that is our goal. December 11 is quickly approaching, and that is the date when the current continuing resolution expires. We must act before then to ensure that the Federal Government remains open. We must act to ensure that vital Federal programs are funded and not operating under yet another continuing resolution, which is such poor policy. That is what we are trying to prevent. Let's get the Defense appropriations bill approved. Then, I hope we can bring up at least one or two or perhaps three other appropriations bills. In the meantime, we are already working on the omnibus bill. As chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I have already met with my ranking member, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and with our counterparts on the House side to begin the negotiations on our bill. We are operating under a very tight timeframe that will require Members to work around the clock and a good-faith effort from all sides. That is what I am asking for today: for Members on the other side of the aisle to take the majority leader, the Republican leader, at his word, to pass this bill--this vitally needed bill--and then to go on to a second individual appropriations bill, all the while we are working in a bipartisan way to craft an omnibus bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the importance of advancing the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills. Let me reiterate that it is simply wrong for any of my Democratic colleagues to assume that proceeding to the Defense appropriations bill somehow suggests that there is no interest by our leader in passing an omnibus that will include the other vital bills funding essential education, biomedical research, transportation, housing, agriculture, energy, environmental, and other important programs. I urge my colleagues to support proceeding to this vital bill. To fail to do so once again, for the third time, despite the existence of the budget framework that we have agreed to, and to fail to do so just days before we honor our Nation's veterans would be a grave disservice to those who serve in our military today. Thank you, Mr. President. Seeing no one seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator from California. This is not going to work for me, so I am going to return to my office. I understand this was unanticipated, and that is the way it goes sometimes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I am delighted to be joined today by my ranking member and good friend, Senator Claire McCaskill, in introducing the Senior$afe Act of 2015, a bill that would put in place a common sense plan to help protect American seniors from financial fraud. According to the GAO, financial fraud targeting older Americans is a growing epidemic that costs seniors an estimated $2.9 billion annually. Protecting seniors from financial exploitation and fraud is one of the top priorities of the Aging Committee. Over the course of the past two and a half years, our Committee has held 15 hearings, six since January, examining how fraudsters find and exploit their victims and what can be done to stop them. The frauds we have highlighted have ranged from the infamous ``Jamaican Lottery Scam,'' that reached its height in 2013, to the notorious IRS phone scam that burst onto the scene this spring, and, more recently, to the shady practices of the pension advance industry. Sadly, not all scammers are strangers to their victims, in too many cases, the senior is exploited by someone he or she knows well. Although the various scams we have examined differ in scope and structure, one factor is common to all--the fraudsters need to gain the trust and active cooperation of their victims. Without this, their schemes would fail. That is why it is so important that seniors recognize as quickly as possible the red flags that signal potential fraud. Unfortunately, many seniors do not see these red flags. Sometimes they are too trusting or are suffering from diminished capacity, but, just as often, they miss the flags because the swindlers who prey on them are extremely crafty and know how to sound convincing. Whatever the reason, a warning sign that can slip by a victim might trigger a second look by financial service representatives trained to spot common scams, who know enough about a senior's habits to question a transaction that doesn't look right. In our work on the Aging Committee, we have heard of many instances where quick action by bank and credit union employees, broker-dealers, and investment advisors has stopped a fraud in progress, saving their customers untold thousands of dollars. Let me give you an example. Earlier this year, a senior citizen in Vassalboro, ME, was looking to wire funds from his account at Maine Savings Federal Credit Union to an out-of-state location, supposedly to bail out a relative who was in jail. Something about this transaction didn't sound right to the teller supervisor at the credit union. She questioned the customer, who told her he had gotten a call from an ``official'' at the jail, who had instructed him not to speak to anyone about the transaction. Fortunately for this senior citizen, this supervisor was able to spot this as a scam, and her quick thinking saved him from falling victim to it. In another case, just two weeks ago, an alert bank employee in Nebraska noticed suspicious withdrawals from the checking account of a senior citizen who was a customer of the bank. Not knowing what to do, and without sharing confidential information, this bank teller called the Senate Aging Committee's fraud hotline for guidance. Our staff advised her to contact the local Area Agency on Aging. With the Senior$afe program in place, bank tellers all over the country will know how to respond when situations like this arise in the future. Regrettably, Federal laws with the important intention of protecting consumer privacy can make it difficult for financial institutions to report suspected fraud to the proper authorities. Our bill would clarify these laws to encourage banks, credit unions, investment advisors, and broker-dealers to report suspected financial fraud targeting senior citizens to regulators, law enforcement, or adult protective services agencies. A key feature of the bill is the liability protection it provides: financial institutions and their employees are protected from suit so long as employees are trained in how to spot and report suspected financial exploitation; their reports are made in good faith and on a reasonable basis, and they report to the proper authorities. Our bill is based on Maine's innovative Senior$afe program, a collaborative effort by Maine's regulators, financial institutions, and legal organizations to educate bank and credit union employees on how to identify and help stop financial exploitation of older Mainers. This program, pioneered by Maine Securities Administrator Judith Shaw, also serves as the template for model legislation developed for adoption at the state level by the North American Securities Administrators Association, or ``NASAA''. The Senior$afe Act and NASAA's model State legislation are complementary efforts, and I am pleased that NASAA has endorsed our bill. Combating financial abuse of seniors requires regulators, law enforcement, and social service agencies at all levels of government to work collaboratively with the private sector. Financial institutions occupy a critical nexus between fraudsters and their victims, and can play an important role. Their employees, if properly trained, can be a first line of defense protecting our seniors from these fraudsters. The Senior$afe Act encourages financial institutions to train their employees, and shields them from lawsuits when they make good faith, reasonable reports of potential fraud to the proper authorities. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I am delighted to be joined today by my ranking member and good friend, Senator Claire McCaskill, in introducing the Senior$afe Act of 2015, a bill that would put in place a common sense plan to help protect American seniors from financial fraud. According to the GAO, financial fraud targeting older Americans is a growing epidemic that costs seniors an estimated $2.9 billion annually. Protecting seniors from financial exploitation and fraud is one of the top priorities of the Aging Committee. Over the course of the past two and a half years, our Committee has held 15 hearings, six since January, examining how fraudsters find and exploit their victims and what can be done to stop them. The frauds we have highlighted have ranged from the infamous ``Jamaican Lottery Scam,'' that reached its height in 2013, to the notorious IRS phone scam that burst onto the scene this spring, and, more recently, to the shady practices of the pension advance industry. Sadly, not all scammers are strangers to their victims, in too many cases, the senior is exploited by someone he or she knows well. Although the various scams we have examined differ in scope and structure, one factor is common to all--the fraudsters need to gain the trust and active cooperation of their victims. Without this, their schemes would fail. That is why it is so important that seniors recognize as quickly as possible the red flags that signal potential fraud. Unfortunately, many seniors do not see these red flags. Sometimes they are too trusting or are suffering from diminished capacity, but, just as often, they miss the flags because the swindlers who prey on them are extremely crafty and know how to sound convincing. Whatever the reason, a warning sign that can slip by a victim might trigger a second look by financial service representatives trained to spot common scams, who know enough about a senior's habits to question a transaction that doesn't look right. In our work on the Aging Committee, we have heard of many instances where quick action by bank and credit union employees, broker-dealers, and investment advisors has stopped a fraud in progress, saving their customers untold thousands of dollars. Let me give you an example. Earlier this year, a senior citizen in Vassalboro, ME, was looking to wire funds from his account at Maine Savings Federal Credit Union to an out-of-state location, supposedly to bail out a relative who was in jail. Something about this transaction didn't sound right to the teller supervisor at the credit union. She questioned the customer, who told her he had gotten a call from an ``official'' at the jail, who had instructed him not to speak to anyone about the transaction. Fortunately for this senior citizen, this supervisor was able to spot this as a scam, and her quick thinking saved him from falling victim to it. In another case, just two weeks ago, an alert bank employee in Nebraska noticed suspicious withdrawals from the checking account of a senior citizen who was a customer of the bank. Not knowing what to do, and without sharing confidential information, this bank teller called the Senate Aging Committee's fraud hotline for guidance. Our staff advised her to contact the local Area Agency on Aging. With the Senior$afe program in place, bank tellers all over the country will know how to respond when situations like this arise in the future. Regrettably, Federal laws with the important intention of protecting consumer privacy can make it difficult for financial institutions to report suspected fraud to the proper authorities. Our bill would clarify these laws to encourage banks, credit unions, investment advisors, and broker-dealers to report suspected financial fraud targeting senior citizens to regulators, law enforcement, or adult protective services agencies. A key feature of the bill is the liability protection it provides: financial institutions and their employees are protected from suit so long as employees are trained in how to spot and report suspected financial exploitation; their reports are made in good faith and on a reasonable basis, and they report to the proper authorities. Our bill is based on Maine's innovative Senior$afe program, a collaborative effort by Maine's regulators, financial institutions, and legal organizations to educate bank and credit union employees on how to identify and help stop financial exploitation of older Mainers. This program, pioneered by Maine Securities Administrator Judith Shaw, also serves as the template for model legislation developed for adoption at the state level by the North American Securities Administrators Association, or ``NASAA''. The Senior$afe Act and NASAA's model State legislation are complementary efforts, and I am pleased that NASAA has endorsed our bill. Combating financial abuse of seniors requires regulators, law enforcement, and social service agencies at all levels of government to work collaboratively with the private sector. Financial institutions occupy a critical nexus between fraudsters and their victims, and can play an important role. Their employees, if properly trained, can be a first line of defense protecting our seniors from these fraudsters. The Senior$afe Act encourages financial institutions to train their employees, and shields them from lawsuits when they make good faith, reasonable reports of potential fraud to the proper authorities. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.