The U.S. Coast Guard is an amalgam, formed over two centuries from multiple agencies of varying character but each fundamentally related to the sea. The service has been tempered and shaped by challenging missions in war and peace. Its constituent parts coalesced seamlessly because of the military character and altruistic culture of the service.
The Coast Guard is unique, an American invention. No other country has charged one organization with so many of the central government’s maritime responsibilities. Other countries have coast guards, but none has such a range of missions with full legal authority to perform them as has the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard’s multiple missions span all aspects of safety and law enforcement in the maritime realm. But because it is military and has specialized maritime expertise and assets, the Coast Guard is supplementary to and readily integrated with the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense (DoD) for national defense purposes.
The Coast Guard is the only one of the U.S. armed forces with law enforcement authority. Its commissioned and petty officers are officers of the Customs. Though "homeland security" has been coined quite recently, it is clear that the Coast Guard has been in this business for a long time.
So what’s new? The President’s proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security. And while the media and Congress fulminate about whether the FBI or CIA should be included, the Coast Guard and other agencies named in the proposal have good reason to be focused intently on what it means to them. As proposed, the department would comprise a number of existing agencies (in some cases, parts of agencies), to be transferred from other departments. The idea is to transplant the Coast Guard intact from the Department of Transportation (DoT), with no change in its statutory roles and missions. Presumably, it would place increased emphasis on operations that contribute to homeland security, but would not abandon any of its existing missions.
For the Coast Guard, this is a historic transition and, in many respects, a rare opportunity. But with the organization of the new department come formidable risks.
Under the President’s proposal, the Coast Guard would be submerged as one of six agencies in a subdepartmental entity labeled Border and Transportation Security, headed by an under secretary. This is in sharp contrast to its present status as one of the two largest agencies in DoT, with the Commandant reporting directly to the Secretary of Transportation. It seems reasonable that the agency that is largest in personnel and budget in the new department, that today has the widest range by far of responsibilities related to homeland security, and that has a continuing specialized role in national defense should be a bit more prominent in the new department’s landscape.
Not incidentally, prospects for a streamlined, operationally effective Department of Homeland Security are dimmed by the plan to have at least 4 under secretaries and 16 assistant secretaries. Where and how will all these political appointees fit? At the least one can hope that some reduced number of assistant secretary positions will be purely staff (as at DoT), with none having line authority over operational agencies.
Equally ominous are expressions from authoritative voices in Congress. Three examples come to mind. First, Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was asked on a Sunday morning talk show about transferring the Coast Guard to the new department in light of a perception that certain of its roles are unrelated to homeland security. The Speaker responded by citing King Solomon’s decision to split the baby. Second, according to a press report, congressional staff members, in discussions on the legislative timetable with White House officials, spoke of time needed for "structural reforms" of the Coast Guard. Third, Capitol Hill pronouncements typically cite job security concerns about the 170,000 "employees" in the new department, never perceiving that 35,000 of that total are Coast Guard military personnel, far removed from hot labor issues like civil service rights and collective bargaining.
These are sobering signals to those who believe that the Coast Guard’s role as a military service with highly integrated missions must be recognized by officials about to make key decisions regarding a momentous government reorganization.
The Coast Guard is ready right now for its role in homeland security. It demonstrated readiness before, on, and after 11 September. It has made appropriate force and regulatory adjustments since and, as is the case with an operational service, further adjustments will be made to meet needs that emerge. If it is to be transferred to the new department, its potential there should be recognized organizationally. It should be transferred "as is." No need exists for restructuring the U.S. Coast Guard.
Rear Admiral Wallace left active duty in the Coast Guard in December 1978 to become counsel to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, where he served for two years and two months. Since then he has specialized in the practice of maritime and international law in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard Is "Ready Now"—As Is
By Rear Admiral Sid Wallace, USCG (Ret.)