[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 34 (Tuesday, March 4, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF SECURING CONSUMERS' ASSURANCE IN MOVING ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. THOMAS E. PETRI

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 4, 2003

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Securing 
Consumers' Assurance in Moving Act of 2003 (the SCAM Act) in order to 
put more cops on the beat in policing the interstate household goods 
industry and to provide more information for consumers facing an 
interstate move.
  While the vast and overwhelming majority of moving companies operate 
in a fair, open and honest way, I am sure all Members are aware of the 
increasing problem with so-called "rogue" movers who prey upon 
consumers. Since the ICC was abolished in 1996, there have been fewer 
resources available for consumer protection enforcement at the 
Department of Transportation which now oversees the moving industry. 
Over the course of the last several years, this issue has been the 
subject of hearings and continuing oversight by the Subcommittee on 
Highways, Transit and Pipelines, and I believe it is now time to act.
  We have all heard the horror stories of moves gone wrong. One of the 
most egregious practices is the "hostage goods" situation, where a 
mover low-balls an estimate, loads the consumer's goods onto his truck, 
drives off, and then refuses to deliver the goods until paid an amount 
in cash that can be up to 4 or 5 times the amount of the original 
estimate--in strict violation of Federal regulation. I have heard from 
some who have gone months without knowing where their goods are 
located. And yet there is little the consumer can do.
  A major issue which has emerged is the authority of states to take 
action, since various courts have ruled that they have no jurisdiction 
over interstate moves--citing primarily the Carmack amendment. This 
policy was enacted in 1906 and simply sets forth a uniform liability 
scheme for loss and damage to avoid uncertainties over differing state 
laws.
  A lot has changed since 1906 and Congress has never really had a 
debate on what role states or individuals should have regarding 
consumer protection and the moving industry. I understand that the 
moving industry has concerns regarding the application of consumer 
protection laws, claiming that it will be difficult to operate with 50 
different state laws. However, states have been enforcing consumer 
protection laws--which are aimed at those businesses engaged in fraud 
and deceptive practices--for many years now and somehow other 
businesses which are not exempt have survived and thrived.
  Certainly within the trucking industry, the movement of an 
individual's household goods is unique from commercial shipments. A 
consumer may utilize a moving company once or twice in a lifetime and 
entrusts virtually all his worldly goods to a mover--which gives a lot 
of leverage to the moving company. Although the President has requested 
funds for another 7 personnel to oversee household goods, I believe it 
will never be possible for the federal government to provide adequate 
oversight over those who take advantage of consumers--it is more 
appropriate that the states also be able to get involved against those 
who operate now with near immunity from effective oversight.
  The bill I am introducing has three major goals--allowing for 
Federal-State partnerships to enhance enforcement; establishing new 
fines for certain behavior; and increasing opportunities for consumer 
education for those contemplating a move,
  Specifically, the bill would: Clarify that an individual or states 
can use consumer protection laws against interstate movers; require DOT 
to establish a working group of state attorneys general, consumer 
protection administrators and law enforcement to coordinate information 
and enforcement efforts; require DOT to establish a database of 
consumer complaints with a procedure for public access to the database; 
require DOT to review current federal regulations regarding insurance 
coverage and determine whether revisions are necessary to provide 
adequate protection to consumers; establish a civil penalty of $10,000 
and potential 6-month suspension of operating authority, and create 
criminal penalties, for movers who hold goods hostage in violation of 
the 110 % rule; create a $25,000 civil penalty for brokers or movers 
operating without authority; and establish a $10,000 civil penalty for 
a broker who provides an estimate before entering into an agreement 
with a carrier; require that movers and brokers include additional 
information regarding DOT registration numbers, consumer rights and 
responsibilities, and broker-carrier relationships on Web sites; and 
increase disclosure requirements for brokers who arrange for the 
shipment of household goods.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate but necessary step that I am taking 
today in introducing this legislation. For too long the scales have 
been tipped in favor of those few within the moving industry who abuse 
consumers--it is time to even the scales.

                          ____________________