Rick Santorum on Homeland Security

Republican Jr Senator (PA); 2012 presidential frontrunner


Political correctness hinders us from fighting terrorism

Q [to Huckabee]: You said, "not one terrorist plot has been foiled by the NSA's collection of American's phone records." Should we taking away that tool?

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.

Source: 2015 CNN/Salem Republican second-tier debate , Dec 15, 2015

Iranian nuclear deal was worst treaty in US history

SANTORUM: The fact that we have a nuclear treaty with the Shiites in Iran, that we have now partnered with the Russians and appearing to allow Assad to stay, this looks to ISIS like we are now lining up with the Shiite world against the Sunni world. Well, the Shiite world is 15% of the Muslim world. The Sunni world is 85%. We're picking the wrong horse here. Not only is the Iranian deal the greatest betrayal of this country in the history of our country by signing that deal, but secondly, we have now lined up to empower ISIS by partnering with the Shiites.

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.

Source: 2015 CNN/Salem Republican second-tier debate , Dec 15, 2015

Reverse policy on women in military combat roles

Q: The Pentagon recently opened all US military combat positions to women. Would you change the Pentagon's new policy?

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.

Source: 2015 CNN/Salem Republican second-tier debate , Dec 15, 2015

Make terror watchlist transparent so we know how to get off

I don't think we should be able to deny someone's constitutional rights based on a list kept by the government that nobody knows how they get on it, or how they get off of it. If you're going to make that list public, if you're going to put criteria out there as to how you're going to get on it, if you're going to deny someone's constitutional right, than I think there has to be more transparency.
Source: 2015 CNN/Salem Republican second-tier debate , Dec 15, 2015

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

Barack Obama doesn't stand behind our men and women in uniform here at home because he hasn't stood behind them overseas. We need a commander in chief who has a vision and plan of how we're going to execute the national security of our country. Commander in chief is not an entry level position. Experience matters, and that's why I would ask for your support as a Commander in Chief, because I have the experience against the enemy.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ Second Tier debate , Nov 10, 2015

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

Q: You said, "We should send a very clear message that If you are a scientist and you're going to work on a nuclear program to develop a bomb for Iran, you are not safe." SDO you still agree, after the catastrophic deal?

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.

Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary undercard debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015

The Patriot Act did not cause any invasions of privacy

Q: You very much want to see no changes to the Patriot Act at all. If you see the changes that are made with this U.S.A. Freedom Act that's likely to be the new law of the land where the tech companies hold this data, do you think that that is going to somehow make us less safe?

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.

Source: Meet the Press 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , May 31, 2015

Getting out facts about Benghazi makes hearings successful

Q: What about to the Benghazi hearings?

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.

Source: CNN SOTU 2014 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , May 11, 2014

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

Q: [to Paul] Sen. Santorum believes that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution.

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.

Source: WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate , Jan 7, 2012

Confront virulent threat of radical Islam

HUNTSMAN: So how long do you want to wait, Rick? How long do you want to wait to get out of Afghanistan?

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.

Source: WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate , Jan 7, 2012

Giving money to Iran rebels is not enough

Q: How do you prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

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.

Source: 2011 debate in South Carolina on Foreign Policy , Nov 12, 2011

Removing Don't-Ask injects social experiment into military

Q: Do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the 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.

Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL , Sep 22, 2011

Department of Homeland Security fixed an internal mess

Q: [To Santorum]: In his book, "Fed Up," Governor Perry says that it was "unprincipled" for Republicans to vote in favor of creating the Department of Homeland Security. You were one of those Republicans who voted yes. Respond?

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.

Source: 2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley CA at the Reagan Library , Sep 7, 2011

Terrorism is an asymmetric threat; we need worldwide bases

Q: We're in debt up to our eyeballs. We have nation building going on around the world. We're the world's police force. World War II is over. The Korean War is over. But we still have military bases all over Europe, all over Asia. Are you willing to shut down the bases that aren't vital to our national security, and take that money to pay off our national debt?

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.

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011

Waterboarding gets useful info, like on Osama bin Laden

Q: Would you support a resumption of waterboarding under any circumstances?

SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?

Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.


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.

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011

War against Islamic fascism will be won or lost in America

CASEY: Rick, you just talked about Iran, calling it “Islamic fascism” [instead of terrorism]. What we need, Rick, is not a change in the terminology, we need to change the tactics. We should be finding and killing Osama bin Laden, then we can hold a seminar on whether he’s a dead terrorist or a dead fascist.

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.

Source: Meet the Press: PA 2006 Senate Debate, Tim Russert moderator , Sep 3, 2006

Rick Santorum on Defense Spending

There are good earmarks, like Osprey military program

Q: Senator, you have said there are good earmarks and bad earmarks?

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.

Source: CNN's 2012 GOP Debate on eve of Arizona Primary , Feb 22, 2012

Don't cut one penny out of defense spending

Q: [to Paul]: You proposed a 15% cut to the Defense Department. Can you guarantee national security will not be hurt by that?

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.

Source: GOP 2011 primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 18, 2011

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

Q: How do you weigh the cost of fighting the war on terror against the exploding debt crisis?

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.

Source: 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com , Jul 21, 2011

We need to spend money to study the EMP threat

Here is something the big spenders from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other will be glad to hear: We need to spend money to study the electromagnetic pulse threat; to help states, localities, and families prepare; and to protect our critical electric infrastructure and transportation networks now.

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?

Source: Santorum in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Doomsday Scenario" , Aug 27, 2009

Invest in our armed services' fundamental mission

Invest in human potential. If there is anything we are doing here with the defense bill--and by protecting our country--we are, in fact, doing just that. What human potential has been lost on the battlefield. Look at the young men & women who have died. Look at that potential. That is gone. Educated, hardworking, bright people, trained, who gave up their lives because, in many cases, we were not ready. We did not invest in our armed services to do the fundamental mission that this Government was created for, to protect and defend this country. Do not talk to me about wasting human potential. This prevents the waste of human potential more than any single thing we can do. If you want human potential invested in, then you give a peaceful environment where people do not have to worry about going to war but worry about going to work.
Source: Santorum speech in "A Senator Speaks Out", p.201-202 , Aug 4, 1995

Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. Specter's amendment would strike the provision regarding habeas review. The underlying bill authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. Excerpts from the Senate floor debate:

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.

Reference: Specter Amendment; Bill S.AMDT.5087 to S.3930 ; vote number 2006-255 on Sep 28, 2006

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

Amendment to provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs. The underlying bill S. 3930 authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. The amendment requires quarterly reports describing all CIA detention facilities; the name of each detainee; their suspected activities; & each interrogation technique authorized for use and guidelines on the use of each such technique.

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.

Reference: Rockefeller Amendment; Bill S.AMDT.5095 to S.3930 ; vote number 2006-256 on Sep 28, 2006

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:
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.
Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

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

Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
Reference: Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act; Bill HR 3199 ; vote number 2005-358 on Dec 16, 2005

Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism.

Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. Voting YES would:
Reference: Stop Business with Terrorists Act of 2005; Bill S AMDT 1351 to S 1042 ; vote number 2005-203 on Jul 26, 2005

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

Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
Reference: State Homeland Security Grant Program Amendment; Bill S AMDT 220 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-64 on Mar 17, 2005

Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would ban nuclear weapons testing six months after ratification by the 44 nations that have nuclear power plants or nucelar research reactors.
Status: Resolution of Ratification Rejected Y)48; N)51; P)1
Reference: Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Bill Treaty Document #105-28 ; vote number 1999-325 on Oct 13, 1999

Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.

Vote on an amendment to allow one round of military base closures beginning in 2001 as determined by an independent panel.
Reference: Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999

Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels.

The Kerrey (D-NE) amdt would strike bill language requiring that U.S. strategic nuclear forces remain at START I levels through the end of fiscal 2000 unless Russia ratified START II.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)56; N)44
Reference: Motion to table Kerrey Amdt #395; Bill S. 1059 ; vote number 1999-149 on May 26, 1999

Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP.

Vote that the policy of the US is to deploy a National Missile Defense system capable of defending against limited ballistic missile attack as soon as it is technologically possible, and to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.
Reference: Bill S 257 ; vote number 1999-51 on Mar 17, 1999

Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%.

Vote to pass a bill to authorize a military pay raise of 4.8% in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5% above the inflation rate. The bill would also provide additional incentives to certain enlisted personnel who remain on active duty.
Reference: Bill S.4 ; vote number 1999-26 on Feb 24, 1999

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training.

Byrd Amdt (D-WV) that would prohibit same-sex military barracks and basic training.
Status: Amdt Rejected Y)39; N)53; NV)8
Reference: Byrd Amdt #3011; Bill S. 2057 ; vote number 1998-180 on Jun 25, 1998

Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects.

Overturning line-item vetoes of 36 military projects vetoed by President Clinton.
Status: Bill Passed Y)69; N)30; NV)1
Reference: Line Item Veto Cancellation bill; Bill S. 1292 ; vote number 1997-287 on Oct 30, 1997

Voted YES on banning chemical weapons.

Approval of the chemical weapons ban.
Status: Resolution of Ratification Agreed to Y)74; N)26
Reference: Resolution of ratification of the Chemical (Comprehensive) Weapons (Convention) Ban; Bill S. Res. 75 ; vote number 1997-51 on Apr 24, 1997

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

Vote to consider establishing a policy requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by the end of 2003. The bill would also urge discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of the system.
Reference: Bill S 1635 ; vote number 1996-157 on Jun 4, 1996

Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations.

Approval of the 1996 Defense Appropriations bill.
Status: Bill Passed Y)62; N)35; NV)3
Reference: Defense Approps Bill FY 96; Bill S. 1087 ; vote number 1995-397 on Sep 5, 1995

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

Santorum scores 0% by SANE on peace issues

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...

As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. For what the US will spend on Missile Defense in one year we could: put over a million children through Head Start OR provide healthcare for over 3.5 million children OR create over 100,000 units of affordable housing OR hire over 160,000 elementary school teachers. At Peace Action our priorities are clear.

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.

Source: SANE website 03n-SANE on Dec 31, 2003

Other candidates on Homeland Security: Rick Santorum on other issues:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
2016 Democratic Candidates:
Gov.Lincoln Chafee(RI)
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)
Sen.Bernie Sanders(VT)
Sen.Jim Webb(VA)
2016 Third Party Candidates:
Roseanne Barr(PF-HI)
Mayor Mike Bloomberg(I-NYC)
Dr.Jill Stein(G-MA)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Robert Steele(L-NY)
2016 GOP Candidates:
Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
Carly Fiorina(CA)
Gov.Jim Gilmore(VA)
Sen.Lindsey Graham(SC)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
Gov.John Kasich(OH)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Gov.George Pataki(NY)
Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
Donald Trump(NY)
Gov.Scott Walker(WI)
Civil Rights