[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                        HON. STEVE C. LaTOURETTE

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, February 13, 1995
       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 728) to 
     control crime by providing law enforcement block grants.

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, just a few days prior to the last 
election, in Wickliffe, OH, a man armed with a shotgun went into a 
middle school and began firing indiscriminately. Tragically, a long-
time school employee lay dead at the conclusion of this rampage, others 
were wounded, and the psychological terror visited upon the staff and 
students has yet to be quantified.
  The police response time was excellent, the police work was 
excellent, and now the issue of the gunman's guilt or innocence will be 
left up to the judicial system.
  In the last week, Wickliffe qualified for and received a 3 year grant 
under the Cops Fast Program to place an additional police officer on 
the street. Everyone connected with law enforcement recognizes that 
more police officers on
 the street is a good thing. However, 10 new police officers would have 
done nothing to prevent the tragedy last November in Wickliffe.

  The good news is that the block grant program now under debate in 
this House will keep in place the additional police officer received by 
Wickliffe and any other locality that has received funding under the 
provisions passed in last year's crime bill. The better news is that 
the Republican block grant program will give to Wickliffe and other 
cities the flexibility to engage in school security measures that may 
have a preventive impact upon future tragedies.
  Local communities will have the option of applying for and receiving 
funds to acquire metal detectors, security guards and/or security 
cameras and systems for their schools if those local communities feel 
that that is one of the more pressing needs to fight crime in their 
communities. No longer will they be subject to a one size fits all 
solution and be required to buy off-the-rack crime prevention. Instead, 
they will be able to employ a tailor-made, local solution to their most 
pressing needs. As with many of the provisions in this year's crime 
bill debate, this solution just makes sense in the daily battle against 
crime.


                          ____________________