We cannot risk losing another veteran, we have to bring this forward.

If it works for veterans, we should be doing it.

I think we understand OMB very clearly. Mr. Mulvaney at OMB has his own vision of Government.

So if the Defense Department wants 6, these are in addition to the 58? And so these would be available at some day in the future?

It is essential that we have good data and good information, because we are--it is our responsibility to make choices about where to spend the taxpayers' money.

But your budget proposal doesn't provide the money to do that. Is that correct?

We are looking at some additional ships being built, or else we are going to go short on the operational plans to protect our coasts.

I am going to just quickly, if I might, Mr. Chairman--I am way over time, I am sorry, here.

I missed part of the testimony--I think you may have answered it--for the Great Lakes issue.

Both the chairman and I are on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which deals with a lot of this IT stuff.

Give us the money and you can get it done, right?

I think we are going to need to put a clause in the NDAA to address that.

I believe the contract is similar to the Fast Response Cutter contract in which there is a warranty.

I think that we do have the obligation to demand from you the unvarnished, unscrubbed, and uncensored information necessary for us to adequately address the Coast Guard's acquisition needs, as well as its operational needs.

We have got a major problem here.

It has come to my attention that the Coast Guard is facing a major gap in funding to cover the healthcare expenses for retired Coast Guard personnel.

Right now these two are in competition, the result of which is something--it isn't going to work.

I think you fully understand the situation, but you are being reined in by the OMB, and not allowed at this point to fully express to us the full needs of the Coast Guard.