The Coast Guard is today undergoing rapid and profound change. While change is not new to us, the present rate of change is unprecedented.
We are heavily involved in a new and expanding level of functions that reflects growing worldwide concern for the marine environment and its resources. Port safety functions have taken on new importance, and the nature of these functions is also rapidly evolving. Fisheries law enforcement and drug interdiction are more recently acquired (and burgeoning) aspects of our traditional law enforcement role. Deepwater ports licensing procedures, construction standards, and operational supervision have been assigned to us. These are a few examples of the many changes in the last ten years.
Recently, the Coast Guard celebrated its 185th birthday the anniversary of the day the U. S. Congress authorized the construction of ten cutters for the enforcement of customs laws. In tackling today's challenges, we do not let our institutional age act as an impediment. Rather, we find strength in our ability to link new missions and functions with those from our history.
The pattern of the Coast Guard's historical development into the cohesive and versatile organization it is today must not be marred through haphazard change which would make it something it cannot or should not be. We are challenged to keep pace on the one hand, but on the other, each proposed function or mutation must be scrutinized carefully and deliberately. Does or should our role, for example, as protector of life, property, and resources in our marine environment, properly extend to the siting of liquefied natural gas plants? What should the Coast Guard's role be with respect to the outer continental shelf? These are matters under careful scrutiny.
Underlying such questions is an internal debate over the operational versus regulatory roles of the Coast Guard. There is a certain assumption that a dichotomy exists which must be explained, justified, or rationalized. The premise is that there are two poles. Unless we are careful, we may be pulled too much toward the regulatory pole and away from the operational.
Generally, questioning the nature of our existence is a healthy exercise, for in defining who we are, we also help define what it is we do, and how we should best proceed. However, as we philosophize, we need to keep in mind that no view can be so dogmatic that we come to accept it as representing the whole truth about our existence. The popularity of the regulatory versus operational theory tends to overshadow other views of the Coast Guard that can also contribute to a better understanding of our nature. The regulatory/operational dichotomy needs to be challenged to determine whether it is more myth than fact. I see the Coast Guard’s nature as that of a law enforcement agency; in this context we are all operational with a central fundamental purpose.
The regulatory/operational view implies that there are at least two rather distinct parts of the body Coast Guard, so much so that they are, or would be, easily divisible. The view holds that we must constantly justify keeping these parts together. On the other hand, the view of the Coast Guard as an operational law enforcement agency is one where the total Coast Guard across the spectrum of its activities is a logical, practical, and totally unified entity with but a single purpose: to preserve and protect our citizenry with respect to the marine environment. This view admits of no natural divisions, no apposition, no crack in the structure which would make it easy to lop off this or that function. This view holds that any division of functions would weaken the entire structure. Management techniques such as program planning superimpose artificial structures that cannot be permitted to obscure the fact that our operations are so integrated, so interwoven, so interrelated as to be inseparable.
Historically, the Coast Guard came into being and grew as a result of the amalgamation of various governmental agencies of related character. Whether or not this arrangement is or ever was ideal may be debatable. Moreover, who can say that it is the best organizational structure for the years to come? Government bureaucracy is not static; the healthy organizations are constantly reviewing, reshaping, and restructuring for the general welfare of all.
While these are valid and intriguing questions, there is no doubt that the Coast Guard today is a unified, completely integrated entity. Our historical development implies neither disparity of functions nor multiplicity of purpose. The history of the Coast Guard over its 185 years of existence is representative of the growth and maturation of our nation. A raw, young, loosely knit federation of rural maritime colonies grew into a vast and complex urban nation. The Coast Guard evolved as a part of this national development as successive generations strove to provide for the shifting and emerging needs of Americans.
A characteristic of our federal system is the ability to bring together in the government establishment many functions that serve the same essential purpose. The Coast Guard through amalgamation, a prime example of this. The collective wisdom of two centuries of government has produced the modern Coast Guard, which is today's optimum structure for the preservation and protection of life, property, and resources in the marine environment.
The foregoing denies neither the pain of past growth nor the possibility of future change. What it does deny is that the evolutionary process through which the modern Coast Guard has emerged implies any disparity of purpose. To mistake flexibility and diversity of services for a lack of organizational integrity and commonality of purpose would discount progress and knock at the door to regression.
Our close and continuing relationship with the Navy is a factor which affects many key decisions in the evolution of our missions and hardware. An armed force at all times, we serve in peacetime in the Department of Transportation, while in wartime or national emergency we serve as a separate service in the Department of the Navy. When called upon to do so and most recently during the Vietnam conflict, we deploy forces to serve with the Navy even while the Coast Guard continues fully to perform its peacetime functions. Thus, in our peacetime planning, training, and organization, we must always be conscious of our naval missions. This is aptly illustrated by our plans for a new class of cutter.
We maintain current a cutter plan which reflects our needs for ships over a ten-year period. Today the cutter plan sets out the need to acquire 27 new medium endurance cutters. The wartime missions of our major cutters are antisubmarine warfare and coastal surveillance, coupled with self-defense, antisurface, and antiair warfare capabilities. The proposed cutter will be 270 feet long and displace 1,730 tons. She will operate LAMPS HI helicopters, a tactical towed array sonar, and will be armed with a 76-mm. gun.
These military features and others are compatible with peacetime requirements for the ships. For example, in place of LAMPS, the cutters will embark Coast Guard search and rescue helicopters. The automated command and control system, designed to meet wartime requirements, will be of great value in execution of peacetime law enforcement tasks and will allow operation with a smaller crew than would otherwise be required. Active fin stabilization and a recovery assist system will allow operation of helicopters in sea states which presently preclude launch and recovery.
The central theme underlying all these features is versatility and optimization—satisfaction of both wartime and peacetime operational demands with one ship. This is, perhaps, another manifestation of the "multi-mission unit" concept which so dominates Coast Guard operational practices. In this instance, the application of the concept epitomizes the dual role our service plays, the ability of one ship to carry out both wartime and peacetime roles and to carry them out well.
Two issues have a dominant influence on the Coast Guard today and will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future: the nation's economy and the marine environment.
Offsetting the effect of inflation on our mission performance is a critical problem. We must seek optimum efficiency in our resources, a constructive goal under the best of circumstances but one which leaves no tailback margin for contingencies when it becomes critical merely to stay abreast of current requirements. Getting the most out of existing resources has not, by itself, been enough. Despite our best efforts to pare away any excess, to defer expenditures, to live with manpower shortages, and otherwise to cut costs, we have been forced to seek supplemental appropriations. Just to maintain the status quo, we must make significant investments to renew our aging capital plant. We need replacement aircraft. We need new cutters. And we need to renew many shore facilities.
Beyond maintenance of the status quo are the increasing requirements involved in existing services and new requirements for additional services. The real world of 1976 places many demands on the Coast Guard. The economic advantages of water transportation, the impact of energy shortages, and increasing movement of dangerous bulk cargoes by water are among factors dictating increased needs for Coast Guard services.
Protection of the marine environment from pollution and protection of natural resources vital to our national interests are functions already upon us. The prospects for the next few years are that these responsibilities will demand increasing investments of Coast Guard resources.
Whatever our success in the competition for resources, I am confident that we will continue to serve the nation, and mankind in general, with our traditional standards of excellence. My confidence is not based on inventories of ships and aircraft or a laundry list of innovations, but on our people.
I have said in the past that concern for the human factor would be a hallmark of my tenure as Commandant. Our people—regulars, reservists, and members of the Auxiliary—make the Coast Guard the successful organization it is today. Coast Guardsmen are the Coast Guard. Ships, planes, boats, and shore stations are merely our tools. The dedication of Coast Guard people impresses and refreshes me today, as it has through many years in widely varied assignments. This special dedication probably is due to the comparatively small size of the service, its humanitarian missions, its proud history, its reputation for making a little go a long way, or a combination of all these factors and more. We are determined to be responsive to changing demands, match our efforts to the requirements imposed upon us, and, throughout the process, to maintain our maritime orientation and our military character.
Our small organization functions effectively because it has always operated on a multi-mission concept. While we have many professional specialties, we are essentially generalists, trained in many skills and ready to serve in many roles. We see "Semper Paratus” as more than a motto; it constitutes a way of life.
Admiral Siler earned his bachelor’s degree in engineering from the Coast Guard Academy in 1943 and began a long association with the U. S. Navy that includes serving two tours in combat on board assault troop transports, naval flight training in 1948, advanced naval flight training in 1952, and graduation from the National War College in 1967. The personification of a Coast Guard "generalist” officer, his 35-year career includes service in personnel management, navigation, communications, command of an air station, chief of a search and rescue branch, and numerous tours as a Coast Guard aviation officer prior to assuming the flag rank duties that culminated in his appointment as Commandant of the Coast Guard in June 1974.