Mike Levin: “There was a review in 1994--1994. In 1994, the START II level was deemed to be adequate by the chiefs. There was a…”

“There was a review in 1994--1994. In 1994, the START II level was deemed to be adequate by the chiefs. There was a nuclear posture review in 1994. Then, in 1996, we come along and say you can't go to START II levels. You have to stay with START I levels, we said, by law--by law. So we had this thoughtful Nuclear Posture Review that took place in 1994, but we won't let a Commander in Chief implement that Nuclear Posture Review, which was thoughtfully carried out and which supported the START II levels in 1994 because we came along a year and a half later and said you have to stick with the START I levels. Now the chiefs are very much opposed to that requirement in law that restricts us to START I levels, the higher levels, and doesn't allow a Commander in Chief to go to the START II levels. They have written us, and they have testified. Here is General Shelton: I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language that mandates specific force structure levels. General Shelton: The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to consider options that will reduce the strategic forces to the levels recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. That was 1994. He went on: The START I legislative restraint will need to be removed before we can pursue these options. Major costs will be incurred if we remain at START I levels.”