HR1333 - current status

RiverAux · June 23, 2008, 09:54:21 PM

QuoteHB-1333: Is a proposed law to STUDY changing the current law. The study by the GAO would focus on whether or not it would be a good idea to allow DHS to DIRECTLY task CAP assets, eliminating the need to go through the Air Force.

John, there is no such language in the law that I see. It doesn't say a darn thing about command and control.

JohnKachenmeister · June 23, 2008, 10:47:41 PM

The whole issue is command and control.

The study is to determine if:

1. It is feasable to allow DHS to directly task CAP without going through the USAF as is currently required, or...

2. If CAP should remain an Air Force asset when performing missions for DHS or any other federal agency.

JohnKachenmeister · June 23, 2008, 10:53:24 PM

Quote from: FW on June 22, 2008, 02:17:36 AM
^ Well done. CAP will remain the Air Force Auxiliary. DHS will reimburse the Air Force for CAP's use. That's how it will work. "USAF Aux" is taken off aircraft because of PC conflicts; that's the only reason. We are now prohibited from flying some DHS missions because funding comes from our "grant". If AF says no to mission, aircrews don't get govt. insurance protection. IF DHS would fund these missions, AF would say "great, go for it". Aircrew is protected (DHS picks up insurance costs), mission has AFAM or DODAM status (doesn't matter which). Life goes on. No uniform changes, no procedure changes. Maybe some extra training.

I don't see any major differences in the way we will do business however, we may need to get more members to get this stuff acomplished.

You have correctly summarized current law. If we are to conduct business as usual, why is GAO going to study the effect of new laws?

RiverAux · June 23, 2008, 11:03:34 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 23, 2008, 10:47:41 PM
The whole issue is command and control.

The study is to determine if:

1. It is feasable to allow DHS to directly task CAP without going through the USAF as is currently required, or...

2. If CAP should remain an Air Force asset when performing missions for DHS or any other federal agency.

And again, I'll ask you to point out exactly where in the the proposed law it says anything at all about studying those issues. They're supposed to be looking at how CAP might be used. It doesn't follow that they're considering the drastic changes that you're talking about in current federal law, AF policy, and CAP regulations that would need to take place for DHS to bypass the AF.

RiverAux · June 23, 2008, 11:07:22 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 23, 2008, 10:53:24 PM
If we are to conduct business as usual, why is GAO going to study the effect of new laws?

Easy, because CAP convinced a Congressman to try to force DHS to use CAP more for disaster relief missions. The congressman wrote a bill forcing DHS to sign an MOU with CAP to do just that. Somehow enough opposition to that idea was found (presumably from DHS) that they watered it down to just a study.

Tubacap · June 23, 2008, 11:21:51 PM

What is the precident for anything actually coming from a GAO study?

RiverAux · June 24, 2008, 12:44:36 AM

They do a billion of them a year, so just by the laws of chance something might happen. But, if DHS was really interested in doing an MOU with CAP for this stuff, they would have said, "great, we like the law...pass it." But, we have to assume that they didn't like it and don't want us (or at least don't want us forced on them like this).

FW · June 24, 2008, 01:09:14 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 23, 2008, 10:53:24 PM
Quote from: FW on June 22, 2008, 02:17:36 AM
^ Well done. CAP will remain the Air Force Auxiliary. DHS will reimburse the Air Force for CAP's use. That's how it will work. "USAF Aux" is taken off aircraft because of PC conflicts; that's the only reason. We are now prohibited from flying some DHS missions because funding comes from our "grant". If AF says no to mission, aircrews don't get govt. insurance protection. IF DHS would fund these missions, AF would say "great, go for it". Aircrew is protected (DHS picks up insurance costs), mission has AFAM or DODAM status (doesn't matter which). Life goes on. No uniform changes, no procedure changes. Maybe some extra training.

I don't see any major differences in the way we will do business however, we may need to get more members to get this stuff accomplished.

You have correctly summarized current law. If we are to conduct business as usual, why is GAO going to study the effect of new laws?

Good question Kach. Our problem, IMHO, is not with the current statute, it's AF interpretation of our SOW and Cooperative Agreement. I've had "conversations" with more than a few individuals and, let's just say a GAO study is welcome.
I'm hoping that once the GAO comes through, we will be able to renegotiate a new SOW and CA allowing us to perform all govt. missions; not just the ones the AF allows.

Tubacap · June 24, 2008, 01:19:05 AM

^FW is it your understanding that we would perform this missions IAW current policy in regards to the Aux status with associated benefits, or as the corporation?

FW · June 24, 2008, 01:33:06 AM

As I understand the state of things, we will operate these missions under a new SOW and CA as the USAF Auxiliary. The only difference would be the tasking agencies "paying" for our status as an "instrumentality" of the govt. as well as mission expenses.

Tubacap · June 24, 2008, 01:35:32 AM

That makes sense. Here's another question, why is it the SOW and CA that govern our operations in this particular venue and not the 10 USC 9442?

FW · June 24, 2008, 01:48:49 AM

It is the SOW and CA which difine the way we may spend our "grant". No money, no mission...

Tubacap · June 24, 2008, 01:58:55 AM

So the issue is really a request comes from a Federal Agency, which by law we would have to take as the USAF Aux coming out of the grant, and the AF doesn't want the money spent there.

So there needs to be a mechanism that allows DHS to pay for it, yet still act as the Aux for the benefits it provides?

KyCAP · June 24, 2008, 02:45:27 AM

I think that the problem is not the money. I worked in the University environment for six years very closely with NIH in Bethesda and the National Center for Research Resources. Moving the money between departments that are appropriated to spend from a budget like AF to DHS is probably not to complicated in my opinion. It lurks elsewhere. I also wouldn't characterize the funding as a "grant" those are usually "Competitive" in nature and don't have Statements of Work per se I would think that this is really more closely worded as a sole-source Subcontractor between the USAF and a Congressional organized non-profit corporation -> Civil Air Patrol, Inc. I think a lot of our folks tend to think that we more closely related to a Federal Agency like the Postal Service or other.

I am the first to admit, even in my mind, it's hard to grasp exactly the legal organization of our organization and the implications / ramifications of how it all works.

RiverAux · June 24, 2008, 02:48:10 AM

Our funding from the AF comes under a grant. Seen the grant announcements before -- they pop up in my news browser every now and again.

KyCAP · June 24, 2008, 02:50:43 AM

In the industry papers it's referred to as a contract.. That's where my little pieces are coming from..

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-national-bargain-the-us-civil-air-patrol-02016/

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3380478/USA-CIVIL-AIR-PATROL-AWARDED.html

RiverAux · June 24, 2008, 02:57:59 AM

There are always contracts associated with grants. Nobody just sends you a check without a contract saying what you're going to do.

KyCAP · June 24, 2008, 03:01:22 AM

Yes, but in the Federal spending world those are called Awards, not contracts.

The statement of work..

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_011504073611.pdf

The contract information from USAspending... Although this site is ambiguous in how it is delineating Award / Contract data. It's all lumped together...

http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?fiscal_year=2006&company_name=Civil+Air+Patrol&sortby=r&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&detail=4&submit=GO

There is such a thing called a non-competing grant award. I worked on one for a while that was about the size of the Civil Air Patrol's annual budget. However, those are typically multi-year from what I had seen and not something that would have been appropriated annually.

JohnKachenmeister · June 24, 2008, 03:14:57 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on June 23, 2008, 09:54:21 PM
QuoteHB-1333: Is a proposed law to STUDY changing the current law. The study by the GAO would focus on whether or not it would be a good idea to allow DHS to DIRECTLY task CAP assets, eliminating the need to go through the Air Force.
John, there is no such language in the law that I see. It doesn't say a darn thing about command and control.

"In conducting this study the Comptroller General shall review the process by which use of the Civil Air Patrol may provide assistance to the Secretary of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and States to support Homeland Security missions..."

and:

"... such other activities the Secretary as may be determined appropriate..."

The "Secretary" is NOT the Secretary of the Air Force.

What this means is simply that they are studying if placing us directly under DHS when performing DHS missions is or is not better than the current arrangement where DHS requests use of CAP from the Air Force, and CAP remains an Air Force asset supporting DHS.

You guys have been so busy not reading what I've written and flaming me that nobody has noticed that I have NOT said that this is a "Bad" thing. I just don't know, but I am pretty sure that this may have some very far-reaching implications for CAP.

And, if this study results in changes to our legal status, it will NOT be business as usual. We need to understand the implications of what is being considered.

KyCAP · June 24, 2008, 03:19:48 AM

My last post on the "vehicle" that funding gets to us because I am thoroughly confused.

On the CAP-USAF home page they call it a Cooperative Agreement and refer to a Program Office. That along the right nomenclature for a "grant"... but then... this.... (I call Uncle on this one and defer).

http://www.au.af.mil/au/capusaf/fm.asp

Director, Financial Management (FM)
Welcome to the Financial Directorate of Headquarters (HQ) Civil Air Patrol (CAP)-United States Air Force (USAF). Under the director of Financial Management (FM) are a financial budget analyst (FMB) and a financial management analyst (FMA). Below are brief synopses of the functions/duties these financial personnel:

FM - The FM is the senior financial advisor to the CAP-USAF commander and leads the HQ CAP-USAF FM operations. FM oversees CAP and CAP-USAF financial operations from the HQ level. The FM is responsible for timely and accurate analysis of all planning, programming, and budget execution. FM provides day-to-day advice, liaison, and oversight of the Cooperative Agreement between the Air Force and CAP.

FMB - The FMB is responsible for monitoring and overseeing funds added to the Cooperative Agreement between CAP, Inc. and the Air Force. These funds are coordinated through the grants officers at Air University and Air Education and Training Command. The FMB is responsible for ensuring customer funds (other Department of Defense and federal agencies) are properly added to the Cooperative Agreement. The FMB is the financial "middle man" between CAP, Inc. and all federal agencies.

FMA - The FMA is the lead financial management analyst for CAP-USAF Operations and Maintenance funding and is responsible for monitoring the execution of funds for HQ and its eight liaison regions. The FMA manages the Government Travel Card Program, the Government Purchase Card Program, General Services Administration vehicle leases, and miscellaneous contracts.