This was a sad week for the war on terror. The Senate voted, disgracefully, to shift homeland security money from high-risk areas to low-risk ones - a step that is likely to mean less money to defend New York and California against terrorism and more for states like Wyoming. Before the vote, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made a powerful appeal to the senators to distribute the money based on risk. But the Senate, led by Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and other small-state representatives, put political pork ahead of national security. It now falls to the House to fight for a financing formula that will keep the nation safe.

The 9/11 commission, after an extensive study of the best ways to defend America, urged that antiterrorism funds be divided "strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities." Mr. Chertoff, in a strongly written letter, urged the senators to enact a formula that would distribute money "based on risk and need," not one that is "static" and "inflexible."

But Congress likes inflexible formulas because they allow members to grab homeland security dollars for their own districts and constituents, whether they need them or not. Rather than dole out homeland security money according to a system based entirely on risk, Congress builds in guaranteed state minimums - money that goes to a state regardless of the risks and threats it faces. This way, money that the Homeland Security Department may want to use to protect New York's subways or Texas' chemical plants ends up in Nebraska.

Senators had a chance to fix next year's formula, but they voted to make it worse. The original homeland security budget would have allocated 70 percent of the money according to relative risks. Senators from the highest-risk states, led by Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, introduced an amendment to raise that number to 87 percent. Ms. Collins, supported by Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, introduced an amendment to lower to 60 percent the amount given out according to risk.