Through the 180 years since the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, obtained from Congress the authority to establish a “system of cutters” to help suppress smuggling, the Coast Guard has grown from a modest fleet of ten cutters into a Service of about 50,000 people with an annual budget of about $600,000,000, all principally dedicated to the humanitarian task of safeguarding the mariner. The concept of the Service has evolved solely from marine law enforcement and search and rescue to also include prevention of marine accidents. In assessing this complex blend of functions, of course, one must consider not only the fitness of people and equipment but also the environment in which marine ventures are attempted.
Because of the variety of tasks to be done in the vast ocean areas adjacent to our thousands of miles of coastline, the Coast Guard has been developed into an integral system of men, ships, aircraft and related facilities, with command and control, capable of responding to a wide range of assignments on, under, and over the oceans and in coastal zones.
As one of the Armed Forces, it stands ready for war or national emergency. This makes the Service a useful bridge between the Department of Defense and the civil side of government. Certainly, the response time of active Coast Guard forces to any emergency, including military, can be swifter than Reserve units and can approach those of Navy fleet units. Given the current and continuing state of international affairs, maintenance and enhancement of such a ready and deployed armed force, already placed for other purposes, makes national sense. The capital investment in people and facilities alone makes this sensible and cost-beneficial.
Despite numerous efforts to transfer control over the Coast Guard, the Service remained under the Treasury Department until 1967, when it was moved into the new Department of Transportation. Although Albert Gallatin had first suggested a Transportation Department in 1804, and others, including the Hoover Commissions, did also, it was not until the Johnson Administration that the function of transportation was given a major formal role in government. It makes sense to afford the movement of goods and people, economically and safely, a full voice in government. The Department, however, was finally formed on the basis of transportation safety.
A rationale for the Coast Guard, a marine safety agency, to be in the Department of Transportation is quite clear. It may also be said that because of the diversified use of Coast Guard facilities and people, the same capital investment can serve (as it now does) other purposes in addition to transportation safety. Still, had a debate over marine affairs vs. transportation been an issue before DOT was formed, in 1966, the choice of placement of the Coast Guard would have been difficult. Other events that same year have led to the emergence of a choice which may have to be made quite soon.
In June 1966, the Congress enacted Public Law 89-454. This act was the culmination of many years of growing interest in the oceans, the Great Lakes, and near shore. Its policies and objectives are:
Sec. 2. (a) . . . to develop, encourage, and maintain a co-ordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national program in marine science for the benefit of mankind to assist in protection of health and property, enhancement of commerce, transportation, and national security, rehabilitation of our commercial fisheries, and increased utilization of these and other resources.
(b) The marine science activities of the United States should be conducted so as to contribute to the following objectives:
(1) The accelerated development of the resources. . . .
(2) The expansion of human knowledge. . . .
(3) The encouragement of private investment enterprise. . . .
(4) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in marine science and resource development.
(5) The advancement of education and training in marine science.
(6) The development and improvement of. . . capabilities . . . in the marine environment.
(7) The effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the Nation. . . .
(8) The co-operation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations and international organizations in marine science activities when such co-operation is in the national interest.
The statute created the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development (NCMRED), and the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (COMSER), and ascribed to each body certain tasks. These were:
Council
Sec. 4. (a) In conformity with the provisions of section 2 of this Act, it shall be the duty of the President with the advice and assistance of the Council to—
(1) survey all significant marine science activities . . . ;
(2) develop a comprehensive program of marine science activities . . . ;
(3) designate and fix responsibility for the conduct of the foregoing marine science activities by departments and agencies of the United States;
(4) ensure co-operation and resolve differences arising among departments and agencies . . . ;
(5) undertake a comprehensive study . . . of the legal problems . . . ;
(6) establish long-range studies of the potential benefits to the United States economy, security, health, and welfare to be gained from marine resources, engineering, and science, and the costs involved in obtaining such benefits; and
(7) review annually all marine science activities conducted by departments and agencies. . . .
(8) In the planning and conduct of a coordinated Federal program the President and the Council shall utilize such staff [and other broad advice as necessary]. . . .
Commission
(b) The Commission shall make a comprehensive investigation . . . to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will meet the present and future national needs . . . [An illustrative list of topics follows.]
(1) Review the known and contemplated needs for natural resources. . . .
(2) Review the surveys, applied research programs, and ocean engineering projects required to obtain the needed resources from the marine environment.
(3) Review the existing national research programs to ensure realistic and adequate support for basic oceanographic research. . . .
(4) Review the existing oceanographic and ocean engineering programs, including education and technical training, to determine which programs are required to advance our national oceanographic competence and stature and which are not adequately supported.
(5) Analyze the findings of the above reviews . . . and recommend an adequate national marine science program. . . .
(6) Recommend a governmental organizational plan with estimated cost.
The Commission, headed by Dr. Julius Stratton, has completed its tasks. Its report, Our Nation and the Sea, with the supporting reports of COMSER’s technical panels, constitutes a forthright and courageous plan for future scientific and technical efforts to meet the goals of PL89-454. The organization with which COMSER proposes to carry out this task is a new independent agency named the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), to be created from the following existing agencies: U. S. Coast Guard; Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA); Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF) (with parts of Sports Fisheries); Sea Grant Program; U.S. Lake Survey; and the National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC).
In addition to the tasks these agencies already have, COMSER proposes that NOAA undertake chores not now being done, such as: Institutional Support of University /National Laboratories and Coastal Zone Laboratories; Development of Fundamental Marine Technology; Formulation and Implementation of National Projects and Grants to States; and Development of Weather Modification.
The Commission produced some 115 recommendations for action with a gradual build-up of NOAA’s budget to about $1 billion per year over the $1 billion original money and manpower base envisioned for the new agency. The Coast Guard would provide about 65 per cent of the budget and 85 per cent of the manpower. Of the capital investment—ships, aircraft, bases, logistics, command and control, etc.—the Coast Guard’s share would be about 95 per cent.
There has been much criticism of the Commission’s work—it goes too far or not far enough; it avoids marine transportation; it omits the civil functions of the Corps of Engineers; it is all or not at all for science, it does not consider defense interests adequately, and so on. Insofar as defense is concerned, NOAA is intended to be a civil agency and theoretically would have no impact on defense matters. In fact, however, it probably would, and intelligent interfaces would have to be developed.
The President has referred the technical proposals of the Commission to the Marine Sciences Council for advice, and the organizational proposal was passed to the Ash Council on Executive Organization, which is to recommend overall Executive Branch reorganization. Reports are expected soon.
The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee commenced hearings on the Commission Report early in 1969 and will probably complete hearings this fall. Many of the national expectations for “marine science” and its contributions to the national interest have been focused on the activities of this Committee, particularly the subcommittee on oceanography.
In the Marine Sciences Council, a Committee for Policy Review has been formed. Members are mostly on the assistant secretary level, and several task groups are energetically preparing evaluations of some of COMSER’s recommendations as well as plans for U.S. participation in the International Decade of Ocean Exploration. Vice President Spiro Agnew, in several public appearances such as the Marine Technology Society Symposium in Miami, has made it clear that the Administration will not move precipitously on the COMSER recommendations, organizational or technical. The industry response to this, then, despite the purposeful air of the Council’s efforts, has been one of disenchantment. The American Management Association has, in fact, published its opinion that the absence of any Federal program in the oceans leaves industry with state or local authorities as its only immediate sources of contractual work. Many ocean-oriented companies made significant investments in time, talent, money and hardware to be ready for a Federal ocean program that is yet to come. Their disappointment is more than emotional since it involves investments that have yielded little return. Some are reducing their ocean commitments quite radically.
Of immediate, specific concern to Coast Guardsmen is the problem contained in the question: should the Coast Guard be in the Department of Transportation or should it be a part of the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency? Not having the results of the Ash Council on government reorganization before us, we need only consider these two alternatives now.
In the early stages, the concept of the Department of Transportation included not only Coast Guard but, among others, the Maritime Administration, the civil functions of the Corps of Engineers, and Coast and Geodetic Survey. As enacted, however, only the Coast Guard was included in the new department.
If a new agency dealing with the oceans and atmosphere, or a Department of Oceans were to be created today, the circumstances would materially change. Responsibility in the marine environment, of course, would have to be re-evaluated, including the organizational placement of the Coast Guard.
It can be assumed that each of the departments that stand to lose agencies and functions in an organizational reshuffling to create NOAA, will be less than pleased at the prospect. In the absence of an Executive Branch statement on organization, it is reasonable to assume then that each department will propose that it could and would accommodate NOAA within that department. Transportation can hardly be expected to accede graciously to its partial dismemberment before it has even had a chance to get started on a comprehensive national transportation program. Moreover, transportation customers are largely NOAA’s customers. Thus, it could be argued, DOT could encompass NOAA.
The Commerce Department, with ESSA so recently formed, and having just lost land transportation to DOT, may be quite reluctant to lose any more and it, too, could undertake NOAA’s tasks.
Interior can make a logical case for resources as the key to all the answers.
The Department of Transportation published its policy on “marine sciences” a year and a half ago:
Statement of Policy. In order to respond to national goals in a manner commensurate with its capacity and its missions, the Department of Transportation marine science program shall:
Identify, support and, as necessary, plan and implement policies and programs in furtherance of the Department’s transportation and marine science responsibilities.
Press for the development within the Department of an improved research and development capability in the marine sciences, supported by a permanent staff of scientific and technical personnel having the highest possible level of professional competence and experience.
Accept responsibility to provide services in support of validated marine science projects within its capabilities.
Seek funds for additional capability for the marine sciences where there is a relative scientific technical or operational void in the Federal establishment and where management by the Department can be clearly cost-effective and in the national interest.
Yet, all of the discussion so far avoids a very basic issue: Is what the Commission proposes really in the national interest? Merely wanting to do something about the oceans is not enough. A validation of national tasks in the oceans is really the first step, before deciding who should do what. Having validated the tasks, can we afford to accomplish them? How do they rank alongside other urgent national priorities?
The creation of NOAA would create new strains on an already beleaguered national budget, for the grouping of talent which is proposed can hardly be expected to wait passively for funds. If we are not ready to spend money on oceanic business, perhaps we don’t need an agency to help us spend.
But, there is another side to the argument. The United States has not adjusted her activities in the oceans to meet her needs. The public record, particularly in the last ten to 15 years, makes this quite clear. More emphasis, as well as a national program is needed to meet specific goals. The present organizational arrangement is unsatisfactory because of the separation of related ocean activities in various departments of government. Activities are frequently at too low a level to attract sufficient budgetary attention. The Stratton Commission has identified the problem, as did the Congress when it enacted PL89-454. Perhaps a new agency should come ahead of a definition of new tasks, if only for better co-ordination of what we now do.
For the members of the Coast Guard, there is the highly important question: does the Coast Guard want to be a part of NOAA?
The lure of NOAA is strong. It promises an exciting future in the oceans—and agencies which become a part of it can expect to grow as the U. S. commitment to the oceans grows. Those who climb aboard NOAA’s ark even before its launching can expect their future to be both dynamic and rewarding, both professionally and personally. The challenge is great. It is not for the timid or the traditionalist. Is it for the Coast Guard? It certainly could be.
On the other hand, what is the Coast Guard’s future in the Department of Transportation?
The Department has been in business since April 1967. That is hardly long enough to tell where it is going and how well it will be able to meet the objectives set for it in PL89-670, which created it. So far, the marine presence of the Department has been somewhat limited because the organization does not contain all the major elements which affect marine transportation. Absent for example, are: Civil functions of the Corps of Engineers, waterways and ports; civil functions of the Naval Oceanographic office; Panama Canal Company; Maritime Administration; Coast and Geodetic Survey; and marine weather functions of the Weather Bureau.
Yet, in fact there is much the Department could do with the authority for marine affairs it now has—and by broad use of the Coast Guard’s authority. Air traffic control, high speed ground transportation, urban congestion and other “people” problems have taken much of the time of Department officials. The well-known disenchantment of the Merchant Marine industry (including labor) with DOT has so far precluded the ready inclusion of MARAD in the Department, and without it there has been little new activity in marine matters. What we are concerned with is what we always have been concerned with: marine transportation safety.
The Department clearly has not had the full maritime transportation responsibility. The Administration has postulated a new maritime policy for the near future. Yet, without funds to implement a maritime program, it is doubtful that any meaningful maritime effort (merchant or otherwise) can be attempted by the Department of Transportation or anyone else in the near future.
So far, the people-congestion aspects of transportation have been most demanding, and solutions have been understandably slow in coming. If a Coast Guardsman considers this situation, coupled with the lack of people-congestion in the oceans, and with a lack of a clear maritime mandate for the Department, he is likely to conclude that perhaps his Service is misplaced in the organization of the Federal government.
If the Department of Transportation were to go into the marine business in a more serious way, there is no assurance that the Coast Guard would remain an integral service, beyond some sort of Search and Rescue force. A marine division of the Department would certainly contain the Coast Guard, but an ardent administrator might well rationalize functions within the agencies he receives, in the interests of economy and centralization of talent. Since the Coast Guard is a conglomerate, some disassembly could be rationalized.
Might the Coast Guard become the cadre for a Marine Transportation Administration, to encompass the entire range of activities which affect marine affairs? The Coast Guard might well provide the largest percentage of muscle, excluding subsidy, grant, trust fund, and major waterways project funds. This, incidentally, is the same situation that might well be encountered in NOAA. Could the Coast Guard remain a multi-mission Service, a successful conglomerate, with close relationships to its customers? The answer is yes, either in NOAA or in Transportation.
Does everybody agree? Probably not. What all can agree on is that the situation will not remain static. A choice for the past is unrealistic. A choice between NOAA or DOT is, obviously, not an easy one. Maybe there will be other choices before this game is over. There certainly are many alternative ways of doing U.S. business at sea.
Finally, the question must be asked: Is the Coast Guard in the national interest? Surely, the answer is yes. But, explaining an affirmative reply in today’s budgetary terms is difficult. How does one quantify the benefits of what the Coast Guard does? Is the Service’s multi-mission approach to employment of its resources both cost-effective and cost-beneficial in terms meaningful to the hard-eyed analyst? It makes sense that it should be so. Businessmen now employ diversification as a mode of operation, and they do it for money. Could it be that long ago the Coast Guard stumbled on a successful system for the economic use of resources to do its job?
In the absence of a clear identification of the national interest; it becomes necessary for the individual to decide which organization would best serve that interest. The choice for the Coast Guard between Transportation and NOAA may not be relevant because these may not be all of the choices which will be available when the Ash Council completes its review of Federal Executive Branch organization. What is certain, however, is that a strong and viable organization for the marine affairs of the United States is needed. If the organization came first, it could help identify the details of the national interest which are as yet unclear. Given such an organization, the Coast Guard should be in it. Our business is the sea.