[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 14 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        H.R. 624, THE ARMORED CAR RECIPROCITY AMENDMENTS OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ED WHITFIELD

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 6, 1997

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce the armored 
car reciprocity amendments, legislation that I sponsored in the 104th 
Congress amending the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act of 1993 to 
better reflect Congress' original intent when it enacted that law.
  Armored cars and their crews annually transport billions of dollars 
in currency, bonds, food stamps, and other negotiable documents. Even 
though most armored car shipments are local, many of the larger and 
more valuable shipments can include stops in anywhere from 5 to 10 
States. Since the value of a typical armored car shipment in interstate 
commerce can range from $100,000 to $40 million, these vehicles are 
ripe targets for thieves and the lives of armored car crews are often 
placed in grave danger.
  Recent crime statistics bear out this reality. According to the FBI's 
violent crime section, during fiscal year 1995 there were 68 robbery 
attempts against armored vehicles. This statistic, combined with the 
fact that several crew members have lost their lives in recent years 
defending their cargo and themselves, demonstrates the continuing need 
for these crew members to be armed.
  Despite the fact that there is a demonstrated need for armored car 
crew members to be armed, in the past there was no uniform method of 
ensuring that armored car crews were licensed to carry their weapons in 
each State in which they operated. Often crew members would have to go 
through different licensing procedures for each State in which they 
operated, or worse, travel through the States without the proper 
licenses in the hopes that they wouldn't get caught.
  In order to address this burden on interstate commerce, in 1993 the 
Congress enacted the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act. The purpose 
of the bill was simple: It permitted armored car crew members, when 
licensed to carry a weapon by a State that required criminal background 
checks and regular weapons training, to operate as an armored car crew 
member in any State, much like a driver's license works today. It did 
not allow anyone to carry a gun who was otherwise prohibited from doing 
so under existing Federal statutes. It was a narrowly drafted statute 
with a narrow purpose: to allow armored car crews to operate easily in 
interstate commerce.
  In the time since the act was implemented, a number of parties, 
primarily the States charged with enforcing the statute, have come 
forward and identified technical concerns with how the statute 
operates. Last year, the Commerce Committee, on which I sit, heard 
testimony from representatives of the armored car industry and the 
States about the necessity of these changes. As a result, the House 
passed my bill, H.R. 3431, with overwhelming bipartisan support. 
Unfortunately, due to the crush of last minute business, the Senate was 
unable to act on my legislation in the 104th Congress.
  The armored car reciprocity amendments of 1997 make some simple and 
straightforward changes to the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act:
  First, it grants reciprocity for both weapons licenses and any other 
permits or licenses required in a particular State so long as the crew 
member has met all of the requirements in the State in which he or she 
is primarily employed.
  Second, it makes clear that it is the State which should conduct 
criminal background checks and permits the States to do so in whatever 
manner they deem appropriate; and,
  Third, it eliminates the requirement in the original act that renewed 
permits be reissued annually, and instead conforms the statute to the 
vast majority of States which have 2-year renewal periods. The bill 
also provides a grandfather clause for the two States which have longer 
renewal periods, Alaska and Pennsylvania.
  These changes represent a major step forward in achieving the 
objectives of the original act and differ only in technical respects 
from the bill that the House passed last session. Under the act as 
originally signed into law, only Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, North 
Carolina, and Virginia met the requirements for reciprocity. With the 
changes under this bill, 28 other States will qualify, truly easing the 
flow of these valuable goods in interstate commerce.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.

                          ____________________