Rick Santorum on Homeland Security Republican Jr Senator (PA); 2012 presidential frontrunner

Sub-sections under Homeland Security:
• Defense Spending
• Other issues under Homeland Security

Political correctness hinders us from fighting terrorism

HUCKABEE: No. I'm not taking it away, I just want to make sure that everything we use is going to be effective. Let's use every tool, but let's also check out the Facebook posts, let's look at Twitter accounts. My gosh, we were told we couldn't do it because it might invade somebody's privacy.

SANTORUM: I agree with Gov. Huckabee, that we should in fact be looking at people's social media posts. That's just common sense. But we've defunded and tied the hands behind the backs of our intelligence agencies because of political correctness. We're not allowed to ask any questions or really pursue, whether there's any mosque that they're attending that could be spreading Jihadism. But we're not allowed to ask those questions, we're not allowed to pursue to those things because we have a president who denies the reality of the enemy we confront.

Iranian nuclear deal was worst treaty in US history

Gov. George PATAKI: Iran is our enemy. They are the number one sponsor of state terror. The Iranian Deal is a disaster. And by the way, I don't think the next president has to abrogate it. It was never ratified by the Iranians. They have tested long-range ballistic missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions. They have broken the agreement. It is void. They can never have a nuclear weapon and should not get relief.

Reverse policy on women in military combat roles

SANTORUM: I would use the studies that were done that were ignored by this military that there were certain positions that frankly were not suitable. And they pushed a political agenda above what is in the best interest of the safety, security, and effectiveness of our fighting units.

Q: So, you're saying, yes, you would change the policy back?

SANTORUM: I would change the policy to reflect what is the best interest of the people that we're asking.

Gov. George PATAKI: I completely disagree with Rick. I don't care if you're a man or a woman. I care if you're good and capable of doing the job.

SANTORUM: You agree with me. Because that's exactly what I said.

PATAKI: It's not. You said you would reverse the policy.

SANTORUM: If they can in fact do the job that any other person can do, I will allow them to do so. But if they cannot, I would reverse the policy.

Make terror watchlist transparent so we know how to get off

Commander-in-chief is not an entry-level position

If you're a scientist & work on Iran nukes, you're not safe

SANTORUM: 12 years ago I authored the Iran Freedom Support Act, which put sanctions on the Iran nuclear program. We came within 4 votes of passing it. The 4 people who opposed: Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And we came four votes short.

The Patriot Act did not cause any invasions of privacy

SANTORUM: Look, I think the Patriot Act has worked very well. I'm not aware of any abuses of the Patriot Act that cause any undue fear about invasion of privacy. But at this point, it's likely that what the House passed is really the version that has viability. And I would vote for it if I was in the U.S. Senate. As president, I would sign it. So I'm encouraging everyone to let that bill become law. And we can move forward from there and judge to whether that provides us sufficient security going forward.

Getting out facts about Benghazi makes hearings successful

SANTORUM: I think it's important for the Benghazi committee to look at the information, try to do so as nonpartisan as possible. I know that sounds like, well, this is a whole partisan exercise. It doesn't have to be. I have a lot of faith in Trey Gowdy [House member, R-SC-4]. I think he's a serious prosecutor. If he does his job, and just get to the facts and if more credible evidence comes out as a result of this, I think it will be a successful event.

Privacy is in 4th amendment, but Patriot Act is ok

SANTORUM: No, let's be clear. We're talking about the 10th Amendment and the right of states to act.

PAUL: I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can't go into anybody's house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment.

SANTORUM: Congressman Paul is talking about privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, in which I agree with him, I don't necessarily agree that the Patriot Act violates that. But I do agree that obviously we have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Confront virulent threat of radical Islam

SANTORUM: Until the security of our country is ensured. That's what the job of the commander-in-chief is. And you make that decision--not the generals--you make that decision based on an analysis of understanding how virulent the threat of radical Islam is. And you confront that threat not just militarily, and importantly not just militarily. You confront it first by being honest with the American public about what this threat is. This president has sanitized every defense document, everything. The word radical Islam doesn't appear anywhere. Why? Because we are fighting political correctness--we're trying to fight this politically correct war and not being honest with the American public as to who the enemy is, how virulent they are and why they hate us and what we must do to stop them.

Giving money to Iran rebels is not enough

Gingrich: Every possible aspect short of war of breaking the regime .

Q: Is it worth going to war to prevent that?

Romney: If there's nothing else we can do beside take military action, then of course you take military action.

Santorum: This is the most important national security issue that we're going to be dealing with this year: I agree with Romney on the issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Back in 2004, I proposed giving money to the rebel forces there to help the pro-democracy movement and to put tough sanctions in place. I was opposed by Pres. Bush. And yet, we passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act. And then Pres. Bush didn't provide money for the pro-democracy movement. And Pres. Obama cut that money. Now we have a situation that's different. I disagree with Newt: more sanctions and providing more support for the pro-democracy movement isn't going to be enough.

Removing Don't-Ask injects social experiment into military

SANTORUM: Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege, and removing "don't-ask-don't-tell" I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform. I believe this undermines that ability.

Q: So what would you do with gay soldiers?

SANTORUM: Look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. And that's tragic. Going forward, we would reinstitute that policy And as far as people who are in, I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them.

Department of Homeland Security fixed an internal mess

SANTORUM: We created the Department of Homeland Security because there was a complete mess in the internal [workings] in protecting our country. We had all sorts of agencies that had conflicting authority. We had no information sharing that was going on. This was right after 9/11. We saw the problems created as a result of 9/11. And we put together a plan to try to make sure that there was better coordination.

Terrorism is an asymmetric threat; we need worldwide bases

SANTORUM: We have actually closed down a lot of bases overseas. Look, what we're dealing with is a failure of leadership on this administration's part to actually put together a strategy where we can confront our enemies. And our enemies are asymmetric threats: terrorism. That means that they are not just positioned in the Middle East, but around the world. That means we have to have the ability to confront those threats from around the world, which means we need basing around the world. We do need that basing. We do need to be able to be nimble and to be able to attack where we're attacked because it's not just a threat.

Waterboarding gets useful info, like on Osama bin Laden

SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?

Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.

SANTORUM: Sure.

JOHNSON: I would not.

PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.

SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.

PAUL: Not true.

SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.

CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.

War against Islamic fascism will be won or lost in America

SANTORUM: My opponent has no plan. All you suggested with your plan is more Special Forces. Do you support more intelligence gathering?

CASEY: Absolutely.

SANTORUM: The Democratic Party has gone out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs.

CASEY: You’re debating me, not the Party. We should keep the programs and keep the wiretaps.

SANTORUM: I think you just fundamentally misunderstand the problem. You’re saying that somehow or another the terminology doesn’t matter. You believe that we’re going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t. I think we’ll win or lose this war right here in America.

There are good earmarks, like Osprey military program

SANTORUM: The idea that somehow earmarks during the time that I was in Congress were this thing that drove up spending--as a percentage of GDP, the debt went down. What happened is there was abuse. When abuse happened, I said we should stop the earmarking process. But I did say there were good earmarks and bad earmarks. We wouldn't have the V-22 Osprey, which was the most essential air platform for our Marines in particular in the war against the radical Islamists. We wouldn't have it if it wasn't for an earmark. That program would have been killed. Dick Cheney and the Defense Department wanted to kill that program, and many of us, including myself, stood up and made sure that was there. Congress has a role to play when it comes to appropriating money, and sometimes the president and the administration don't get it right. I do believe there was abuse, and I said we should stop it, and as president I would oppose earmarks.

Don't cut one penny out of defense spending

PAUL: I think it would be enhanced. I don't want to cut any defense. There's a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn't do any good for our defense.

SANTORUM: I would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending. The only thing the federal government can do that no other level of government can do is protect us. It is the first duty of the president. And we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our borders, that we can make sure that when we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed. That has been the problem in this administration. We've had political objectives instead of objectives for success. And that's why we haven't succeeded.

PAUL: Well, I think we're on economic suicide if we're not even willing to look at some of these overseas expenditures, 900 bases, 150 different countries.

Cut waste in DOD, but don't cut defense budget

Gingrich: The exploding debt crisis is because of exploding politician spending in Washington, not because of national security.

Santorum: The first priority of the federal government is to keep America safe. I would not cut defense--freeze it; cut waste; and then plow savings back into Defense.

Johnson: The debt is the greatest threat to national security we face today. Besides, we do not need 60,000 to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to protect ourselves. Nor do we need nation-building.

Gingrich: We spend less on defense today as percentage of GDP than at any time since Pearl Harbor.

Santorum: The first priority of the federal government is to keep America safe. I would not cut defense--freeze it; cut waste; and then plow savings back into Defense.

Gingrich: Controlling the border and defending America are job #1 under the Constitution.

We need to spend money to study the EMP threat

America's enemies know our Achilles' heel and are no doubt planning to exploit it. The government is wise to protect our senior leadership. Now how about the rest of us?

Invest in our armed services' fundamental mission

Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do.

Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of habeas corpus is maintained.

GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer.

SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right.

Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.

This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.

If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.

We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it.

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act.

Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism.

• Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism.
• Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism.
• Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses.
• Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business.

Voted NO on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders.

Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.

Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels.

Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP.

Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%.

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training.

Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects.

Voted YES on banning chemical weapons.

Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty.

Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations.

Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.

Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

• That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
• That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
• That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.

The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.