[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. ____________________