Dusty Johnson: “Very good. The opponents of S. 2003, in my amendment, again would claim that it simply costs too much; roughly $3…”

“Very good. The opponents of S. 2003, in my amendment, again would claim that it simply costs too much; roughly $3 billion in fiscal year 2001, and, over 10 years, CBO estimates an average cost of $9 billion a year to fulfill our promise of health care for military retirees. This does not come cheaply. I am very up front on that fact. However, we are talking about a $200 billion budget surplus--$9 billion here; $200 billion surplus--$800 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years. That is a conservative estimate. So if we look at the larger scheme of things, in terms of where this ought to be within our budget, and also with the possibility of some reprioritization of the existing budget, I believe the argument that we simply can no longer afford to live up to our promises to military personnel who sacrificed so much, including families of those who have died defending our right to be here debating this issue today, simply no longer holds. We invest billions of dollars each year to build new weaponry, and rightfully so. But all the weapons in the world will be rendered useless or less useful without the men and women in uniform and without the high-quality, qualified personnel we need to operate them. I believe a promise made should be a promise kept. We owe it to our country's military retirees to provide them with the health care they were promised.”