What People Think
4% For, 96% Against
48 votes cast
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
 |
For |
 |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
 |
Comment on this Bill |
 |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
 |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
|
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2357, The Fighting Fraud in Transportation Act of 2011 (29 comments ↓)
H.R. 2357 would amend section 139 of title 49, United States Code, to increase the effectiveness of Federal oversight of motor carriers.
()
[59 views]
Costs: $ per
and increases their $ share of the national debt by $.
(source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation)
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
James Lamb, AIPBA President
June 27, 2011, 8:59pm (report abuse)Last June, similar proposed legislation was introduced into the Senate (S. 3483) called
the “The Motor Carrier Protection Act of 2010.” This bill would have, among other
things, raised the financial security of property brokers who are licensed by the FMCSA tenfold from $10,000 to $100,000. This
bill died in committee after we contacted the members of the Committee on Commerce,
Science & Transportation and pointed out the adverse impacts on small business.
The AIPBA similarly opposes HR-2357 in that it too seeks to implement a $100,000
property broker bond. If the bond were to be drastically increased as proposed, then
small and mid-sized property brokers would not be able to afford the premium and/or
the cash collateral requirements that would be imposed by surety companies. As a
result, thousands of small business owners, including our members, would be forced
out-of-business. Tens of thousands of employees and agents would lose their jobs.
Vote no on this bill.
Steve T
June 27, 2011, 9:11pm (report abuse)Bond should be based on prior years revenue.
Raul Martinez
June 27, 2011, 9:24pm (report abuse)Congress should required shippers to
Carry a bond. We need protection as well.
Who protects the small brokers from
Malicious shippers?
yana bo
June 27, 2011, 9:24pm (report abuse)i am against 100k bond! leave small brokers alone! we need to feed our families!
Nereida Camacho
June 27, 2011, 11:37pm (report abuse)How can you even think about doing an increase in this economy. The suicide rate is high because of bad decisions
in this financial crisis and we still not getting a break. We are talking about hundreds of families been affected by this. Please, be considerate.
Mike Boring
June 28, 2011, 8:21am (report abuse)Increasing the amount of a broker bond is not the answer here. The motor carrier should be responsible enough to check out the broker they are looking to deal with before hauling a load.There are plenty of tools available to help a carrier choose a responsible broker when looking for freight.If carriers don't haul their freight they will be weeded out.
Mike Boring
June 28, 2011, 8:26am (report abuse)Alan Jackson wrote a song called "the Little Man", everybody should listen to it. This country is killing the little man. This industry won't be satisfied until the have 4 or 5 major trucking companies and a handful of large brokers.Nobody cares about small business or the working man anymore.We need to fight this!
Kathy Harris
June 28, 2011, 8:27am (report abuse)If this legislation passes, it will put me out of business. I am a Gold Book freight broker and have been in business since 1995 with no complaints against me.
S Altenbach
June 28, 2011, 9:15am (report abuse)This raise of bond would strangle many of us small brokers and put us out of business immediately and cause the loss of MANY local jobs. Why don't carriers handle their due diligence just like I do one load at a time. If a company doesn't check out then you simply don't use them. I and my employee take the time to do this on each and every carrier we use. I already pay several services to add to the quality of this due diligence and now you are going to raise my bond requirement 10 fold. I had hoped to retire doing this but with these changes I will be forced to look for another job in a terrible economy and who is going to hire a 50 year old now?!
James Lamb AIPBA President
June 28, 2011, 10:02am (report abuse)http://aipba.vpweb.com/upload/AIPBA_Letter_to_House.pdf
Vincent Santiago
June 28, 2011, 10:55am (report abuse)Small brokers are not the problem. The problem is criminals who pose as brokers. Isn't the best solution DOT/federal government prosecution for those who commit these crimes? Why do some small business owners (brokers) have to bear the business risk for other small business owners (truckers), who fail to thoroughly investigate the entities they do business with? Increasing the bond will not keep criminals from posing as brokers and defrauding gullible truckers. If a load appears to be too good (pays too much) to be true, it probably is. This legislation will simply put small, reliable, honest brokers out of business. Small truckers will ultimately suffer because they will be paid less by the big brokerages that take substantial profit from every load they broker. Why isn't this a problem for big trucking companies? This is the classic case of small truckers biting the hand that feeds them. It is also a great example of bureaucrats solving a problem that is not well understood.
Monica Flurer
June 28, 2011, 2:36pm (report abuse)why doesn't the government work on putting some laws into place that protect the small business brokers from carriers who rip us off. we have been taken countless times by a seemingly good carrier who then hold our loads for hostage or dumped them after receiving a fuel advance and ran off wih our money leaving us to try to find our freight and get it delivered and putting out more money. as a small business we can't take many more of these hits. try giving us a leg to stand on legally against these corrupt trucking companies.
Jamie Frey
June 28, 2011, 6:37pm (report abuse)When it come to the small Business Owner Operator who has to rely on the Brokers to provide them with fair and profit loads also need full protection from unsupliante brokers that violate the law for Profit.
Richard Weil
June 29, 2011, 3:22pm (report abuse)If my bond should be $100,000, then
CH Robinson's bond should be $100,000,000.00. rw
The AIPBA
June 30, 2011, 4:07pm (report abuse)Sign the Petition Against the $100,000 bond:
http://www.petitiononline.com/100KBOND/petition.html
TheRealJoshTaylor
(logged-in user) July 6, 2011, 11:22pm (report abuse)This bill could be the sign of Jesus calling for His Church home if this bill passes.
Stupidity
July 8, 2011, 8:04pm (report abuse)Washington is the world center of stupidity. I swear we will get thru this no matter what. The unforseen results are what bother me as much as this outright movement against legitimate brokers. Why is it we are penalized for carriers refusing to do their due diligence? This is Washington stupidity at it's highest point.
John McLinn
July 12, 2011, 2:58pm (report abuse)This act will do nothing to catch the real crooks.
There enough laws already in place dealing with fraud? Carriers need to bear the burden of carrying out credit check just like the rest of us.
Many of us have never had a claim against our bonds. Yet we are being punished for doing it right.
Uncle Intrusive will now have to create other entities to issue insurance when insurance companies bail on Broker bonding insurance.
Should Uncle demand full capitalization many of just won't make it. Who has an extra $90,000 cash waiting around just to wait somewhere else.
I agree this is Washington stupidity at it highest.
The AIPBA
July 14, 2011, 10:47pm (report abuse)Listen to our Midnight Trucking Radio interview about how Big Buisness is trying to squeeze out the little guys in trucking:
http://www.midnighttrucking.com/getpodcast.aspx?sid=25018&lid=6797&id=1044853&source=1&url=http://podcasting.fia.net/6797/4796147.mp3
Joe McCarthy
July 15, 2011, 10:09am (report abuse)Look at all these comments against that $100,000 bond from 2010:
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_3483.html?page=1#usercomments
Freight Broker Phil
July 18, 2011, 2:14pm (report abuse)I support yearly licensing. It will add value to a credible broker operation. Requiring Forwarders to license and bond makes sense (they operate as brokers). A 1,000% increase in surety bond requirement is arbitrary and capricious. The AIPBA is offering a common sense solution. In the age of information, trucks can practice due diligence instantly, and decide for themselves if they want to do business with a broker. Who is protecting the broker from the unscrupulous shipper? Big brokers will benefit from this legislation, shippers, and Carriers will suffer when Government regulation creates an oligopoly. Whatever happened to deregulation?
Dale Jason
July 25, 2011, 2:27pm (report abuse)Forget about it! If the TRUCC Act died, this will too. It will get passed around and "deliberated" on and then there will be the recess, and that will be that. No need to fret over it. I promise.
Thad Kaylor
August 15, 2011, 4:04pm (report abuse)while I hear you "little guys" crying, This little guy ate $45,000 bacause a broker "skipped". I did in fact check him out. He was good, his payable just got so big, he thought it was better for HIM to keep the money than just pay it. Any of you ever had to collect against a 10,000 bond from a broker who goes broke or decides to defraud you? what joke. I would be for a progressive requirement of some kind based on reputaion/ years in business.
Anon
August 31, 2011, 3:49pm (report abuse)Just received a note that HR 2357 may become a rider to the Surface Transportation Bill. Call your Congressman today.
The AIPBA
November 22, 2011, 8:22am (report abuse)AIPBA/TBSA Letter to House Small Business Committee:
http://aipba.vpweb.com/upload/AIPBA_Letter_to_House_smallbiz_final_draft.pdf
Jack Martin
November 22, 2011, 11:15am (report abuse)I agree with the following statement OOIDA and the ITA shoukd care about the small brokers and help them also not try and put the out of business the answer is in making the shippers come to the real world
Congress should required shippers to Carry a bond. We need protection as well.Who protects the small brokers from Malicious shippers?
The AIPBA
February 27, 2012, 2:42pm (report abuse)AIPBA to TIA: Three Strikes & You're Out! http://aipba.vpweb.com/upload/AIPBA%20House%20Post%20HR7.pdf
The AIPBA
February 27, 2012, 2:50pm (report abuse)AIPBA to TIA: Three Strikes & You're Out! http://aipba.vpweb.com/upload/AIPBA%20House%20Post%20HR7.pdf
S S
March 16, 2012, 2:34am (report abuse)This goes to all the little brokers out there complaining . This should have been done long time ago and not only 100,000 dollars, more like 250k-500k and at least 40% to be placed down in CASH. YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY YOU DO NOT MAKE MONEY. Ever since the deregulation of the transportation business everybody and their mother try to reap off the small trucking companies and that's why the price of freight went down the drain, because everyone thinks is a broker and they fight in between them to get the customer lowering the price, but still trying to make as much commission as possible on the back of the trucker which has a 100K -270K investment in equipment. What do you little complainers have??? a computer, fax and phone ??? WOW huge investment!!! but don't worry if this law passes Walmart and McDonald's have plenty of jobs for you. LOL Or maybe you will join us driving a truck and then you will understand us.With that being said I wish you all "smooth driving to unemployment lines"