or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

In Pensacola Today, Nelson on Hot Seat on Reckless Endangerment of National Defense

Press Release

By:
Date:
Location: Pensacola, FL

Bill Nelson voted to cut national defense spending by $500 billion, a move that top military commanders have warned will weaken military readiness. After failing for nearly four years to pass a budget as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, Bill Nelson supported the Budget Control Act in August 2011 to allow President Obama to raise the debt ceiling by up to $900 billion in order to pay for wasteful programs like ObamaCare and stimulus spending.

Republican Senate nominee, Congressman Connie Mack said:

"Bill Nelson voted to gut our military readiness, in order to raise the debt ceiling to pay for ObamaCare and wasteful stimulus spending. He has put the brave men and women who dedicate their lives to keep us free and secure in even more danger, not less. Instead of fighting to stop this reckless slash of our military, Bill Nelson will naively suggest that he never intended this to happen, and pen letters to Republicans trying to cover up his actions. But make no mistake, Bill Nelson made this happen, and the rhetoric is far from the record. In an effort to appease his beloved President Obama, Bill Nelson cut the deal at the expense of the military personnel in Florida and across the nation. It's shameful and Bill Nelson must be held accountable by the voters of Florida for his dereliction of duty"

BACKGROUND:
NELSON VOTED TO SET THE SEQUESTRATION PROCESS IN MOTION
In August 2011, Nelson Vote For The Debt Limit Increase, Which Set Sequestration In Motion If The Super Committee Did Not Reach A Deal. (S. 365, CQ Vote #123: Motion agreed to, thus clearing the bill for the president 74-26: R 28-19; D 45-6; I 1-1, 8/2/11, Nelson Voted Yea)
* NOTE: Rep. Mack Voted Against The Debt Limit Increase. (S. 365, CQ Vote #690: Passed 269-161: R 174-66; D 95-95, 8/1/11, Mack Voted Nay)
NELSON: "The Backup, If This Super committee Fails To Agree, Is A Series Of Spending Cuts That Automatically Happens." (Sen. Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, 8/2/11, p. S5204)

NELSON ADMITS THE CUTS WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO GO INTO EFFECT
In February 2012, Nelson Said That Sequestration Was Designed To "Create A Guillotine That Would Hang Over The Heads Of The Super Committee." NELSON: "I wanted to ask you about this sequester. Now, let's remember what the sequester was. It was an attempt to try to create a guillotine that would hang over the heads of the super committee so that the super committee would have a significant incentive in order to come to agreement. And of course the super committee, on a vote of 6-6. And now we are having to do with the sequester, which is law, unless we change the law."(Sen. Bill Nelson, Hearing Of The Senate Committee On The Budget, 2/28/12)

* Nelson Also Agreed Sequestration Was "A Gun To The Head." PANETTA: "It was designed as a gun to the head." NELSON: "Yes, it was." (Sen. Bill Nelson, Hearing Of The Senate Committee On The Budget, 2/28/12)
In June 2012, Nelson Said That Sequestration "Was Never Supposed To Go Into Effect." NELSON: "Well, I agree with you. You know, the way I understand it, the sequester was never supposed to go into effect." (Sen. Bill Nelson, Hearing Of The Senate Committee On Finance, 6/19/12)
In June 2012 Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had this to say about these looming cuts to national defense:

"It would lead to further end-strength reductions, the potential cancellation of major weapons systems and the disruption of global operations. We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation. We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visible globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus, and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."


Source:
Back to top