What People Think
15% For, 85% Against
52 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. 7, The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012 (10 comments ↓ | 7 wiki edits)
H.R. 7 would authorize funds for Federal-aid highway, public transportation, and highway and motor carrier safety programs.
()
[62 views]
Costs: $ per
and increases their $ share of the national debt by $.
(source: Congressional Budget Office)
Learn More
Visitor Comments
JAMES P LAMB, AIPBA PRESIDENT
February 12, 2012, 9:13pm (report abuse)The House Surface Transportation Bill HR 7 called AMERICAN ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE JOBS ACT includes a $100,000 broker bond provision, which is designed to put small brokers out of business so that the big brokers can control the market, charge shippers (and ultimately consumers) more and pay owner-operators less. See pp 527-8: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr7ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr7ih.pdf This act won't create jobs as purported, it will actually ELIMINATE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS.
The Association of Independent Property Brokers & Agents ("AIPBA") is calling upon all small and mid-sized brokers to , all your Congressman and tell them to vote no.
185 people have already signed the petition against the $100k broker bond because it will hurt small brokers and small owner-operators.
http://www.petitiononline.com/100KBOND/petition.html
Sincerely,
JAMES P. LAMB, president
AIPBA
Chris hutchinson
February 13, 2012, 2:20pm (report abuse)Dear Mr. Lamb,
I salute your effort to protect your association's members, who no doubt will be affected, however, I can't say I agree with your "let's protect the little guy" plea designed to play on emotions. While I definitely believe brokers can play an important role, I've come across just as many unscrupulous small brokers as big ones. I don't know if the $100,000 bond is the correct number but the intention to raise it from the current $10,000 (if I remember correctly), which has seemed to allow for far too many scam artists, doesn't seem crazy to me. Yes, maybe some of the broker jobs would be elimated but a lot of them are fraudsters and when they are wouldn't you agree their job should should be eliminated? Sorry, I've come across a lot of independent sole brokers who should not be protected. Like I said, I am not sure if that $100,000 number is the right one but I actually think the profession overall could benefit from weeding some out.
Sincerely,
Chris Hutchinson
JAMES P LAMB, AIPBA PRESIDENT
February 13, 2012, 2:49pm (report abuse)Mr. Hutchinson,
This attempt to raise the bill to $100,000, which the bonding companies will only issue upon receipt of CASH COLLATERAL is DESIGNED to kill off 85% of the 20,000 brokers currently licensed. We believe you do not punish 17,000 people because a handful are crooks. You prosecute those that commit real fraud. TIA should not use the crime of fraud as propaganda to take control of the market for its big broker friends. We believe adjusting the $10K for inflation to $25k is appropriate. FMCSA just did this for household goods brokers effective Jan 1 2012. VA & FL have $25k broker bomds. AIPBA and I are looking out for the little guys in trucking period. The AIPBA believes FMCSA should enforce existing regulations. Furthermore, AIPBA's dispute resolution program is a way the industry can regulate itself rather than ask for new laws and regulations.
James Lamb
February 13, 2012, 2:51pm (report abuse)Jim Sanders' point from TBSA is a valid one here: "For a compelling historical example as to the relative insignificance of even a $100,000 surety instrument for the only category of broker likely to survive the proposed legislation in question, one only has to consider the case of Enron, which (among many other unsuccessful activities) functioned as a licensed transportation broker with a $10,000 BMC-85 trust fund filing secured through Chase Bank in Boston. In the event, a $100,000 surety instrument wouldn't have made any significant dent in the tens of millions of dollars owed to Enron's motor carrier creditors. So much for the mere size of a brokerage operation as an indication of future financial stability."
James P Lamb
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
James P Lamb
March 2, 2012, 8:47am (report abuse)AIPBA believes anything more than that-- like the proposed $100K bond proposed by TIA-- is not aimed at protecting carriers and fighting fraud as they purport but a devious attempt to eliminate competition along these lines: http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20110109thebigbetofbradjacobs/.
James P Lamb
March 2, 2012, 8:51am (report abuse)That is, the current $10K bond amount was last set in the late 70's. We agree that an adjustment for inflation to $25k is warranted just like FMCSA just did for the HHG broker bond. FMCSA left the door open to do the same for property brokers.
Michael Weber
March 14, 2012, 3:42am (report abuse)This amendment must not pass in its current form! This change, purely, eliminates the majority of small - medium sized brokers in the industry, along with their employees and agents. This majority consists primarily of value producing companies, practicing sound business principles - the lifeblood of this industry. Bad debts of a broker are bad credit decisions of a carrier, which is analgous to the standard model for doing business in this country. Does fraudulent activity now equal bad debt from a failing company? If you're large enough or are capitalized enough to maintain $100k bond to participate in the marketplace as a broker, then going out of business owing 100s of millions in debt to carriers is now acceptable? However, if you're a legitimate small broker who goes out of business owing a much smaller, comparably insignificant amount, then that is somehow the activity to be regulated? Regulate fraud accordingly. Do not eliminate thousands of brokers to achieve market dominance!
Keith A Kirk
March 14, 2012, 4:38pm (report abuse)Increasing the amount of the property broker bond from $10,000 to $100,000 will put hundreds of small brokers out of business, reduce competition, and create an oligopoly of a few large property brokers. Increasing the bond requirement to $20,000 or $25,000 will better balance the interests of carriers, shippers, and brokers, as well as allow the properly capitalized property brokers to remain in business and foster healthy competition.
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
From the Blog
WashingtonWatch.com Digest – February 13, 2012
This is the WashingtonWatch.com email newsletter for the week of February 13, 2012. Subscribe (free!) here. email newsletter | tell a friend | wiki | about | home | log in On the Blog: A Self-Dealing Congress A pair of stories in the Washington Post la...Transportation Spending Hits Bumps
For a long time, transportation spending has been a matter of bi-partisan agreement—both parties saw it as a way to bring home the bacon. But the smooth road that transportation bills normally enjoy is starting to see some potholes. Yesterday, th...