Lawmakers are shortchanging the areas that need the most help.

Are members of Congress ever going to admit that homeland security isn't spelled p-o-r-k? Tuesday's Senate vote doesn't offer much hope.

The Senate rejected the wholly sensible amendment presented by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would have redistributed anti-terrorism funds based on actual risk.

The federal government's dangerously obtuse formula, of course, hands out security funds like pork, giving states with almost no terrorism risk far more per capita than states with high risks, namely California and New York.

The pro-pork crowd decisively won Tuesday's debate, by voting 65-32 against Feinstein's amendment. It will no doubt play well with their hometown voters, but on the national stage, the 65 Congress members ought to be ashamed of themselves.

It is not only foolish, but profoundly risky, to give more money per person to places like Wyoming [with no coastline, no international border, little military presence and no likely terrorism targets] than to high-risk states whose targets are numerous and obvious.

Among the painful lessons of 9/11, and since, including the July 7 attack in London, is that terrorists strike at targets designed to inflict maximum fear, such as transportation hubs and financial centers in heavily populated urban areas. They just don't explode bombs in rural, sparsely populated regions.

And how is the United States responding to this knowledge? By shortchanging the very transportation hubs, financial centers and other places where terrorists are more likely to strike.

While small rural states are chomping down on their precious homeland security pork, seaports such as the heavily trafficked ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are getting scraps from the federal government.

Small grants here and there are helping, somewhat, but the amounts are nothing near the billions our seaports need to adequately protect themselves.

It's become clear, in the years since 9/11, that no free and open society can fully protect itself against terrorism. They can be smart about how they spend our money, though.

And there's nothing smart about allocating homeland security money like political pork.