Dianne Feinstein

I am disappointed by the proposals from both agencies and the Army Corps' budget for the Civil Works program that is cut by $1 billion or 17 percent.

Will you commit to keep this committee informed if California's waiver comes under review in the future?

I was glad to see you testify that California's waiver is 'not currently being reviewed,' but has a firm decision been made not to re-open the waiver in the future?

Russia has decided to weaken us through covert influence rather than brute force.

I think we can solve this problem.

We've gone through this once before in another Administration. I forget whether it was Democratic or Republican, but we went through the same thing.

I have taken the position that Yucca does have faults.

I'm going to raise my favorite subject, which is the most difficult, and you touched on it, and that's the spent nuclear waste that's piling up all over this Nation.

The Administration's goal to create jobs and wealth, I will suggest to you, are centered in the Department of Energy and the things that we have the capability of dealing with.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that you are a ten.

No. We can look into whatever we want to look into.

I was encouraged that the FDA recently announced the full implementation of Guidance for Industry #213.

The message the president is sending through his tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn't apply to him and that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired.

I'm growing increasingly concerned that the president will attempt to fire not only Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible obstruction of justice, but also Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller.

In the December 2016 Defense Science Board report, they called for integrating nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities for something called cross domain deterrence.

I have supported the efforts to work with hospitals and medical facilities and industrial users to replace existing devices.

Our nuclear propulsion program has 60 years of exceptional performance, safe, reliable, effective operations.

How do you reconcile making it more usable with deterrence?

I remember the pictures in the San Francisco Chronicle and other papers when we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We do not have a no first use policy. And this is geared toward Russia.

The purpose of these weapons is to provide deterrence so that any other nation or sub state actor who has a nuclear weapon will be persuaded not to use that against the United States or against our allies.

My view has been, and I have been in this business as I indicated earlier, in the military and now here for over 40 years, is that a nuclear war cannot be fought and must never be fought.

The so-called improvements to this weapon seem to be designed to make it more usable to help us fight and win a limited nuclear war.

I think to an extent we sacrifice our real security needs for more warheads that we do not need.

I agree we need safe and modern facilities for workers and we need robust scientific capabilities so we do not have to test our nuclear weapons.