Yes, it is safer, and I'll tell you why. This plot probably would not have been stopped prior to September 11, 2001.

The enormity of this, the breadth of this threat, you would have had thousands of Americans killed, it would have been comparable to 9/11.

This is -- this is war. This is not the same as a highway bill or a tax bill. This is life and death. And 'The New York Times' should understand that.

I would leave it now by saying I'm disappointed, but I'd say it's getting more and more difficult to defend him staying in the position.

Yeah, Mike Chertoff is totally wrong on that. First of all, what he forgets to say is this is a 40 percent cut from last year.

That is not true at all. One of the reasons that there was a reduction in the overall amount of money is because 46 percent of the money that's an allocated over the last four years is still in the pipeline.

No, I really don't. Actually, I've been chairman since September, and I thought I had a very good working relationship with Bennie Thompson. We've worked together on port security, on ammonium nitrate, on Dubai ports.

I'm very disappointed. There's just been to me really a lack of good faith in dealing, and I'm very disappointed in Secretary Chertoff.

Well, my understanding is that it is true and that it was there, it was certainly considered to be a valid threat, and it was called back.

New York Congressman Peter King calls the cuts disgraceful.

Thank God he was dealing with a police officer at the other end. If that had been an agent of al Qaeda or somebody from organized crime, or someone from a foreign government, they would have been able to blackmail him. And, again, he -- he has top-secret clearance.