To the Editor:

In “New York, You’re Still No. 1” (Op-Ed, June 7), Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff tried to defend the shortchanging of New York. He suggests that New York has received more than its fair share of homeland security financing and should be happy that security funds are instead being sent to other cities.

Until the terrorists decide to take New York off the top of their target list, we respectfully disagree.

Congress intended Urban Areas Security Initiative financing to help the highest-threat urban areas of our country pay for needed security measures, including the personnel and training costs that are critical to stopping terrorists before they strike.

The department’s own guidance for the grants specifically allows U.A.S.I. financing to be used for these purposes, and any contention that it is solely for capacity-building investments is wrong.

New York City has a comprehensive security plan, which includes guarding physical infrastructure and gathering intelligence and maintaining a constant, watchful presence to thwart terrorists intent on harming the tens of millions of Americans who live, work and travel in New York.

The city’s expertise about what’s necessary to protect the city should not be second-guessed by a panel made up of people from places where the risk is significantly lower.

While Secretary Chertoff claimed that our monuments were counted as office buildings to help secure more money, counting the Empire State Building, for example, as an office building discounts the three million tourists who visit it every year.

We will continue to fight for additional financing for homeland security. Because our resources are scarce, they must be dedicated to securing our highest threats.

The department’s allocations defy logic and fail its mission to protect Americans.

Charles E. Schumer
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Washington, June 7, 2006
The writers are the Democratic senators from New York.

•To the Editor:

Michael Chertoff’s attempted justification for the allocation of homeland security grants is so lame as to defy description.

New York City is one of the prime targets of the terrorists who struck us in the past and who will no doubt try to strike us in the future.

Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles are also likely targets.

These are the places where the overwhelming percentage of funds should be allocated.

If additional financing is required for our collective security across the entire country, our government needs to allocate all necessary funds to achieve that goal.

I am certainly willing to pay a surcharge on my taxes that would be dedicated to permit the full financing of our country’s homeland security requirements.

I thought that providing for the common defense was the primary purpose of our government. It appears that maintaining (and expanding) tax cuts during wartime is a more important purpose in the view of this administration.

Steven J. Seif
Chappaqua, N.Y., June 7, 2006

•To the Editor:

Michael Chertoff is making a wrong assumption: that it is “infrastructure” and “new equipment and projects” that go into improving security. These are just good for photo-ops upon completion.

Real security comes from training people and having more trained people on the beat; an electronic security card can guarantee secure entrance only as long as it is in the right hands, but a guard who recognizes by face cannot be fooled.

Secure access could use both.

Mr. Chertoff, if New York is No. 1, New York deserves more.

Jayanthi V. Ramaswamy
Closter, N.J., June 7, 2006

•To the Editor:

Michael Chertoff writes, “I would like to clear up two other misunderstandings.”

It seems that since becoming the homeland security secretary, Mr. Chertoff has been spending much of his time clearing up misunderstandings that he helped create, whether it be the Katrina disaster or other urgent issues of the day.

Unfortunately, the explanations the Homeland Security Department is giving to clear up so-called misunderstandings are worse than the misunderstandings themselves.

I hope that in case of a real terrorist threat, there is no misunderstanding as to what the role of the Homeland Security Department is.

Prakash Navare
Succasunna, N.J., June 7, 2006

•To the Editor:

In “Protect New York, but Don’t Blame Omaha” (Op-Ed, June 6), Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator and 9/11 commission member, implies that Nebraskans are as baffled by the decrease in homeland security money for New York City as they are embarrassed by Omaha’s bigger slice of the antiterrorism pie.

But there should be no puzzlement.

This administration and this Republican Party have consistently crafted policy, antiterror and otherwise, for political expediency rather than for reason, logic or actual need.

Nebraskans should be held accountable for this for two reasons:

First, because some Nebraskans requested that Omaha’s homeland security allotment be increased, presumably despite their knowledge of both the low threat of terrorism in Omaha and the paucity of federal funds generally.

And second, because Nebraska is a red state. It went for President Bush in 2000, and it helped elect him again in 2004. All of its representatives are Republican, as are half of its senators, and Republicans control both houses of Congress.

Nebraskans have the government they voted for, and they and all other Republicans who voted for their party’s candidates are, whether they like it or not, responsible for the deplorable way that homeland security money is being doled out.

New Yorkers have every right to be angry.

Bob Pierce
New York, June 6, 2006

•To the Editor:

Re “Pork 1, Antiterrorism 0” (editorial, June 2):

While I, too, am dismayed at the cuts in antiterrorism financing for New York and Washington, please don’t dismiss the importance of money for rural areas like Nebraska.

The Omaha area is an important communication and transportation hub for the country. It is a vital center for agriculture, playing a key role in our country’s food supply.

Offutt Air Force Base, just south of Omaha, is the home of the United States Strategic Command, an important center in our country’s defense.

These factors point to the necessity of antiterrorism financing for Nebraska.

Another concern is the psychological effect of an attack on the heartland. Such an event would make the country seem much more vulnerable to terrorism. This makes vigilance in Nebraska as important as in the highly populated urban centers.

Mike Murphy
Lincoln, Neb., June 3, 2006