Cities and homeland security spending: as war unfolds, what now? (Commentary).(Column)

"The federal government has trained and equipped our troops for Iraq. But we haven't done the same thing for our first responders at home--our police and fire and emergency personnel. I'm concerned about bioterrorism, about chemical warfare. Or lone terrorists. It's a scary set of circumstances."

The somber warning at the National League of Cities' yearly Congressional City Conference in Washington, came from Karen Anderson, the group's immediate past president and mayor of Minnetonka, Minnesota.

Cities, as a practical matter, provide local defense--against fire, crime, storms. "Naturally, we're the people who show up," said New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr., the current NLC president. But, he added, "If we have to buy bioterror suits, provide special training, deal with risks coming from without U.S. borders like materials entering my port from foreign flag vessels, that's a different issue."

The bottom line, says DeStefano: "I will deal with the drug dealers. But it's difficult for me to deal with Osama bin Laden. That's not a fair expectation of local government."

The federal government, charges DeStefano, "is walking away from its partnership with us" by failing to compensate the billions of dollars that the cities are spending--or should be spending--on homeland security.

The cities are bitter that their homeland security needs received just $1.2 billion in Congress' 2003 budget. They're urging an immediate $4 billion supplemental appropriation. And they see a kind of fiscal shell game in the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget, which purports to spend $3.5 billion for homeland defense but actually reduces overall federal law enforcement and disaster relief recovery funds very sharply.

The country's municipal officials are, to put it mildly, feeling on the "outs" and very unhappy about it.