[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 101 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3979-S3980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my vote in 
opposition to the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed 
for including the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act in 
this defense authorization bill.
  I worked with Senator Cornyn to develop this important piece of 
legislation to update the role of the Committee on Foreign Investment 
in the United States, CFIUS.
  Our bill would expand CFIUS's authority to review foreign investments 
in the United States and potentially block those that pose a risk to 
our national security. I hope our bill is retained by the conferees and 
included in the final defense authorization bill so that it can become 
law.
  The defense bill we are considering today also authorizes funding for 
a number of programs critical to California's defense industry. That 
includes funding for three ships: two oilers and an additional 
expeditionary support base ship. All three are vital to the 
shipbuilding industry in southern California.
  The bill also continues production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
and F-18 Super Hornet aircraft, which, when coupled with the B-21 
Raider, will help maintain California's edge in aerospace.
  However, I am deeply disappointed that the defense authorization bill 
also includes two nuclear weapons-related provisions that I strongly 
oppose.
  The first is the inclusion of $65 million to develop a new low-yield 
submarine-launched ballistic missile. I vehemently oppose the 
development of any new nuclear weapons, and I oppose the funding 
included in this bill for that purpose.
  I remember when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki. It is seared into my memory.
  My greatest hope is that humanity will never see the use of nuclear 
weapons again. My deepest fear, however, is that so-called low-yield 
nuclear weapons make such a repetition more--not less--likely.
  The Trump administration has argued that it needs new nuclear weapons 
to respond in kind to a potential Russian first-use of a low-yield 
weapon. That line of argument makes clear that the Trump administration 
is contemplating actually using nuclear weapons to fight ``limited'' 
nuclear wars. We are kidding ourselves if we think there is such a 
thing as a ``limited'' nuclear war.
  We should listen to the wise words of Secretary of Defense Jim 
Mattis, who said in February: ``I don't think there is any such thing 
as a `tactical nuclear weapon.' Any nuclear weapon used any time is a 
strategic game-changer.'' That is particularly true with the low-yield 
weapon included in this bill. We already have 1,550 strategic nuclear 
weapons. We have hundreds more low-yield weapons.
  We are building new nuclear ballistic missile submarines, new long-
range bombers, new intercontinental ballistic missiles, new nuclear 
cruise missiles, and new fighter aircraft capable of delivering 
advanced gravity bombs. We are also making investments to extend the 
life of our existing warheads.
  We have a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. We do not 
need to build new nuclear weapons, particularly for President Trump.
  While I oppose this new low-yield weapon, I appreciate that it has 
been the subject of considerable congressional debate and requires an 
explicit congressional authorization to develop. However, that explicit 
congressional authorization to develop new nuclear weapons will no 
longer be required if this defense bill becomes law.
  That is because, during the Senate Armed Services Committee's markup 
of the bill, Senator Cotton offered an amendment to eliminate all 
existing restrictions on the development of new, low-yield weapons.
  His amendment, which passed on a party line vote, would allow the 
Secretary of Energy to develop new weapons simply by requesting funding 
to do so. Removing these restrictions is an abdication of our 
constitutional and moral responsibility to oversee spending on the 
world's most dangerous weapons. I cannot support this change to 
Congress's authority, and therefore I am compelled to vote against the 
defense authorization bill because of it.
  As this bill moves forward, I urge the conference committee to reject 
the Cotton amendment and retain longstanding restrictions on the 
development of new low-yield nuclear weapons.

[[Page S3980]]

  Congress should not cede its authority over weapons that have the 
capacity to destroy us all to President Trump.
  Thank you.

                          ____________________