Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)
The author is the governor of Massachusetts.

To prevent another terrorist attack in America, we've got to get smarter about how we use our resources. In my state, we have more than 4,000 bridges. We can't secure every one of them–just as we can't secure every mile of highway or every transit car. Business faces the same challenge. No matter how much money we throw at the problem, there will never be enough to secure every possible target in the United States. The key to preventing an attack is accurate intelligence about potential threats.

Effective intelligence requires that we break down the barriers that stop information from flowing between government and business. Our security plans should be well integrated to make the best use of all resources. We should advance technology that will protect assets and people without impeding the flow of commerce. Intelligence on possible threats must flow quickly to the right spot–whether it's the cop on the street or the company carrying a hazardous shipment. And all information regarding suspicious or criminal activity must be merged appropriately into the federal intelligence stream.

The challenge is to protect personal privacy, civil liberties, and the proprietary interests of business as we do this. But this can be done. In Massachusetts, we are using our "information fusion center"to put business side by side with government as plans are developed and intelligence is received. It is a fundamental first step.

9/11 taught us that protecting America is everyone's job. Just as people have learned to say something when they see suspicious behavior, business and government must learn to operate together. The challenge is enormous, but failure is not an option.

Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA)

The author is the governor of Iowa.

The real debate on homeland security funding is not whether our work should be risk based, but rather how risk is defined and whether the risks we work hardest to guard against are those faced by a particular ZIP code or by the nation as a whole.

Most would agree that New York City, Washington, DC and other landmark locations are attractive targets for international terrorism that deserve careful protection. However, many in Congress have come to equate risk with population density. After 9/11, Congress spent $100 million for extra protection for the 7 highest-profile cities.

In a matter of months, that program grew to 30 cities, then to 80, at a cost of $1.2 billion. The amount spent to protect our medium-size cities has now eclipsed the amount available for all states and communities to address basic preparedness and needs. A true risk-based approach must look at threat, vulnerability, impact, and the needs of all vulnerable targets, such as our food supply and communications infrastructure.

A true systems approach must not focus just on places and things, but must target those key economic engines–agriculture, communications, energy, transportation, and banking–that, were they to fail, would have a far-reaching economic impact for years, even decades. In Iowa, we are addressing this gap in preparedness by leading an 11-state effort to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from a widespread emergency in our agriculture and food sectors. These states have made substantial progress in a short period. But there is much more to do.

Homeland security is far too important to leave to politics as usual. Our very economic security is at stake.