Local leaders are split over a new study that estimates homeland security funding will fall short by $98.4 million over the next five years and states the country is ill- equipped to handle a future terrorist attack. “Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically under-funding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-impact conventional weapons,” states a report from the New York-based Council On Foreign Relations.

Among the key findings, the report found that “most states' public health labs still lack basic equipment and expertise to respond adequately to a chemical or biological attack,” and “on average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third.”

The report has made waves in Washington because it is the first comprehensive review of the nation's alleged homeland vulnerabilities by a non-governmental agency or group. “When we committed United States military forces in Iraq, we were absolutely certain that those troops were equipped with the best state-of-the-art equipment they could possibly have to deal with chemical or biological or other threats,” says former Sen. Warren Rudman, R-N.H., chairman of the council's task force that produced the report.

Local leaders are divided over the tone of the report and which branch of the federal government is to blame for failing to properly address local government's homeland security needs. Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley says the study's findings echo what city leaders have been saying for nearly two years, and he blames President Bush for short changing local governments on homeland funding.

“I thought they made a very compelling case that local government should maintain a certain level of public safety and the federal government should help us cover the additional security,” says O'Malley, the chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based United States Conference of Mayors' Homeland Security Task Force.

But Dallas County, Texas, Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield says it is Congress who should be blamed for holding up homeland security funding and argues the need for a large increase over the next five years is unrealistic. “I was sorely disappointed with the tenor and tone of this report, because I don't think this report gives adequate credit where credit is due,” says Mayfield, former president of the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of Counties. “The administration has made a valiant effort to get funds to first responders.”

The Council On Foreign Relations estimates that, in the next five years, local and state homeland security expenditures will range from $26 billion to $76 billion while the federal government will spend $27 billion. The council says that the federal government should spend an additional $98.4 billion over the next five years, based on data provided by local government groups.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security described the report's findings as “grossly inflated,” but Jamie Metzl, director of the council's task force says the council was “very conservative” in reaching the $98.4 billion figure.

Of the additional funds for homeland security, the council recommends that $36.8 billion and $29.6 billion be spent on the nation's fire departments and hospitals, respectively. The council also says that Congress should focus more on earmarking critical funding to areas of need as opposed to “dividing up the spoils,” and that emergency responder grants be issued on a multi-year basis.

The author is Washington correspondent for American City & County.