Who's Responsible for Keeping You Safe?

April 2, 2002 -- More than six months after terror hit the United States, and amid a continued state of heightened alert, officials in Washington are still hammering out a homeland defense strategy. But the real work of protecting U.S. cities isn't taking place in the nation's capital.

Several congressional committees are debating how to spend billions in homeland defense dollars. The president has requested $38 billion for homeland security in the next budget. Tom Ridge, the homeland security director coordinating efforts between 40 federal agencies, 50 states and thousands of cities and towns, is expected to release a national terror preparedness strategy in July.

Meanwhile, though, state and local governments are already going ahead with security plans, waiting for federal funds to flow, and haggling over who should have the ultimate say over how communities protect themselves from terror. Government and security experts say the nature of the terror threat has created a new relevance for officials on the state and local level in the area of national security.

"What makes people secure is what local officials, emergency officials, hospitals do," David McIntyre, deputy director of Anser Institute for Homeland Security, said. "Ridge can stand in his office and shout all day long, but no sheriff in the United States has to do what he says."

The ongoing debate highlights just how tricky it is for the nation to prepare for potential new terror attacks. Communities have different levels of readiness, unequal financial resources, varying emergency services systems that may not easily work together in a major disaster, and unique assets that require protection.

Protecting major cities like Los Angeles or New York requires a different approach than safeguarding a weapons stockpile in the rural Midwest.

In a recent speech, Ridge himself said there was only so much the federal government could do to create safety plans for cities. "There is no prescription we can write out and give to the communities," he said.

Lurching at the ‘Threat du Jour’

It is still unclear just how much control the federal government will attempt to take over state and local preparedness plans. For their part, local officials say they know best what their communities need, especially since they are the first to respond to a crisis when it strikes home.

On Sept. 11, "not one victim was rescued by a federal representative," said Peter Beering, Indianapolis' terrorism preparedness coordinator. "That does not mean there is not a critical role for the federal government to play."

A national strategy should help set priorities for what potential threats should be addressed first, said Lawrence Halloran, staff director and counsel for the House committee on national security. As it stands, without a national plan, there is no sense of order to the process, he said.

"After the focus of 9-11 or an imminent threat, we don't know where to go next," he said. "It's kind of the threat du jour that we address. Anthrax, then hazardous materials — we lurch from crisis to crisis, that's what's happening now."

For state and local officials, the scenarios are daunting, especially for those in rural areas and small cities that may never have considered the possibility of terror on their turf. Local law enforcement is on the front lines of detecting and responding to potential terror attacks. Firefighters need training in responding to bioterrorism incidents. Bridges, dams, water systems and other utilities require protection. Hospitals must prepare for doomsday scenarios with an influx of critical patients.

Governors, Mayors Lobby for Control

In this climate, governors and mayors are jockeying to have ultimate control over terror preparedness plans and the budgets that will go with them. Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating recently told a House subcommittee that while the federal government should share intelligence and funds for fighting terrorism, states should be able to develop their own response plans.

"There is a great concern there will be an attempt to do a cookie-cutter approach and treat all states the same," said Bob Ricks, Oklahoma's secretary of safety and security.

The National Governors' Association recently adopted a resolution supporting the coordination of all homeland security resources and programs through the governors.

But the nation's mayors support a proposal by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., to distribute federal aid directly to communities. Every city and town has different security needs, they argue, and local officials know best how to spend federal dollars.

"We're the last rung of the ladder. [Homeland defense] puts a much greater strain on local government," said North Little Rock, Ark., Mayor Patrick Henry Hays. "We feel like the pipeline [of federal funds] directly to us gives us a chance to be responsive. A lot of times those up the ladder don't see the consequences of their actions but everyone of them is painfully visible down here on the bottom of the ladder."

No Defense Without Dollars

If every locality created its own security plan, though, there would be no consistency within states, which would impede efforts to respond to a massive disaster, Ricks said. Ricks was the head of the FBI's Oklahoma City office when the Murrah Federal Building was bombed in 1995 and saw firsthand what results when agencies responding to the same catastrophe can't coordinate.

In the aftermath of the bombing, Ricks couldn't communicate with the police and fire chiefs because they each had different radio equipment, and cell phone service had been knocked out because of the blast. "We had to send runners to tell the others we wanted to meet on a certain street corner and plot strategy," Ricks said.

Now, Oklahoma wants to create statewide radio systems and frequencies for agencies to communicate in times of crisis, and needs $50 million to do it. If federal funds are diluted to many different local agencies, the state argues, such a system won't be possible.

No matter how the federal money is sent downward to communities, though, and no matter what conditions are attached, one thing is clear: Budget-crunched state and local governments need money from Washington for homeland defense.

The National Governors' Association estimates fiscal year 2002 state budget shortfalls of between $40 billion and $50 billion. States are slashing budgets across the board, and in some cases, programs are on hold until money comes in.

In Georgia, funds are needed for a training center where public safety workers can take courses in hazardous materials operations, national fire protection standards and handling contaminated materials as evidence. "We need this now," said Rebecca Denlinger, fire chief in Cobb County, Ga. "When the state's funding is problematic, it adds to the challenge."

Cities are finding their coffers drained, too, as new homeland defense responsibilities eat up already depleted funds. The Conference of Mayors found that from Sept. 11, 2001, to the end of 2002, cities will spend $2.6 billion on homeland security measures, including equipment, training and overtime.

At the same time, as the federal government shifts budget priorities, some federal programs are being slashed, endangering funding sources cities have taken for granted. For example, President Bush has proposed an 80 percent cut in the COPS community policing program. The nation's mayors oppose the move, saying the cut will ultimately undermine local law enforcement's ability to fight crime and terrorism.

"That's just robbing Peter to pay Paul," Hays said.

Who Will Crack the Whip?

Even states that may not seem at first to be high on any terrorists' target list are developing comprehensive anti-terror plans and waiting for federal funds. In Iowa, state officials had a terrorism preparedness plan in place even before Sept. 11. Now, it's a higher priority. Although the state's largest population center is 400,000, officials there want to be ready for agri-terrorism, cyber-terrorism, and attacks against critical infrastructure.

"I routinely get asked, 'Is there a high probability of a terror attack in Iowa?'" said Ellen Gordon, head of the Iowa Department of Public Defense. "I don't know the answer to that. The terrorists are innovative and patient."

Once the national strategy is issued this summer, some question how effective it will be. Ridge's office does not have Cabinet status in the Bush administration, leading some to wonder just how much control the former Pennsylvania governor has over homeland defense.

"Who cracks the whip to keep [local and state governments] in line?" Halloran said. The question will arise again "as to whether the office of homeland security has the real world power to make that happen. That question won't go away," he said.

In the end, the real responsibility will lie with state and local officials to implement the plans that will boost security on the homeland. In turn, voters may want to look more keenly at who they select for key government posts on the state and local levels.

"We're used to national security being something the federal government does for us and it does it overseas, and that's just not the case for homeland security," said McIntyre. "Whether or not it works depends entirely on whether you and I as citizens hold our elected officials responsible."