PA Rep to introduce legislation on CAP border & homeland security missions

[lordmonar]

It's all about the mission.

We will get the funding from whoever has the mission for us.

No one is saying anything about arming CAP members...but right now if our country has a need for us to DHS mission but our affiliation with the USAF is stopping us...it is not selfish...it is about getting the mission done.

I understand your desire to be part of the USAF....but our country is calling.

[DNall]

They don't though. Turning against the AF tradition & sentiment that is the one & only way CAP can stay alive in govt appropriations, to step in the middle of an inter-agency rivalry thinking that'll get us more flight time is just a bad idea no matter how you cut it. DHS doesn't have missions for us. If they did they could task us thru AF right now. They have their own air components, and much more capable than ours, but the mission they have is very narrow - air monitoring of US territory is 1AF, who we already work for.

Look I'm sorry the country doesn't need us flying cessnas looking out the window or tracking down ELTs very often anymore, but no one else needs us doing that either. Till you spend a few million on detection gear it might as well be a paper airplane. Get some rad detection gear on there, get some FLIR, then you're talking about something the govt needs. Moving out from under the AF isn't going to change our current state of obsolescence, it's just going to compound the problem. Adapt within the current framework & relatioships, and find other things we can extend to beyond ES. You have to do that, the world outside those walls is cruel & unmerciful, especially when you don't have an enthusiastic sponsor.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dennis:

The question is, certainly, what is the best for the defense of the United States.

We were moved from the Office of Civil Defense to the Army Air Corps because it was in the interests of the US to arm our little planes and attack the enemy directly. 

We could just as easily be moved from the USAF to DHS for the same reason.

I wouldn't like it, but the question has to be asked:  Are we here for our own satisfaction, or to serve the nation as best we can?

I could see a situation where we would be a DHS agency, but one which could be called into service by the USAF to perform USAF missions.  The Coast Guard has the same lifestyle.  They are a DHS agency (Ustabe Transportation Dept., and before that, they were under the Treasury Dept.) but when the Navy wants them, the Navy gets them, and then those USCG forces that are assigned to the Navy fall under DOD.

Now before we get too wrapped up in "Direct Law Enforcement is Bad," lets consider the threat.  We have armed drug dealers on the border engaging American troops.  The Mexican Army has been corrupted, and has also fired on Americans.  There are private militias employed by the drug smugglers there with forces that are actually stronger than the Mexican Army.  As long as the nation wants to consider this a "Crime" problem, which is more politically correct than calling it an "Invasion," we will continue to let our own laws get in the way  of defending our country.

If the decision is made to meet this threat with Law Enforcement assets rather than with military force, placing CAP under DHS makes sense.

And, assuming that there will be some training involved, what's wrong with meeting the threat armed?  I carried a sidearm every day of my life for 25 years as a law enforcement officer.  You get used to it.  Sometimes its kinda cool.  Chicks dig it. 

[FARRIER]

Just adding a piece of information to this argument:

https://ntc.cap.af.mil/ops/hls/HLS_National_Strategy.pdf

Quoting the above document, Civil Air Patrol Support For the Presidents National Strategy For Homeland Security, "CAP has asked the Air Force General Counsel to review its interpretation of the (PCA)Act to enable the CAP to detect and conduct surveillance of any potential HLS threat until relieved by competent authority".

[lordmonar]

They don't though. Turning against the AF tradition & sentiment that is the one & only way CAP can stay alive in govt appropriations, to step in the middle of an inter-agency rivalry thinking that'll get us more flight time is just a bad idea no matter how you cut it. DHS doesn't have missions for us. If they did they could task us thru AF right now. They have their own air components, and much more capable than ours, but the mission they have is very narrow - air monitoring of US territory is 1AF, who we already work for.

Look I'm sorry the country doesn't need us flying cessnas looking out the window or tracking down ELTs very often anymore, but no one else needs us doing that either. Till you spend a few million on detection gear it might as well be a paper airplane. Get some rad detection gear on there, get some FLIR, then you're talking about something the govt needs. Moving out from under the AF isn't going to change our current state of obsolescence, it's just going to compound the problem. Adapt within the current framework & relatioships, and find other things we can extend to beyond ES. You have to do that, the world outside those walls is cruel & unmerciful, especially when you don't have an enthusiastic sponsor.

There you go with the doom and gloom again.  USAF is not the only source of funds out there.  Maybe a HLS mission will get the DHS to fund the cool toys that will make us more effective in our SAR role.   The USAF is not going to pay for it.  With a change of mission and change in a source of funds we may be on a better footing to get better equipment.  Working desk jobs at Air Force bases and filling in personnel shortages is not going to get us better equipment either.

Right now our hands are tied by the USAF on what we can and cannot do.  Switching over to DHS does not mean we can't still fly SAR missions.  It does mean we are closer to all our other missions and are separated from the road block to even more missions.  FEMA works for DHS (IIRC) ergo we will have a better in with NIIMS, a better relationship with local law enforcement/fire/ENS.  If we are not under the DOD umbrella we would not have PCA to stop us from working with law enforcement on a multitude of LE/CD operations.  ICE being under DHS would give use access to the border missions and other ICE missions.

It is nice being the USAF-AUX...but that is not the end all, beat all of why most people join CAP.  Serving their country in a meaningful way is more important than just being the USAF-AUX.

[RiverAux]

You guys are jumping over into an entirely different topic.  Nothing at all has indicated they're talking about moving CAP. 

[lordmonar]

You guys are jumping over into an entirely different topic.  Nothing at all has indicated they're talking about moving CAP.

They are talking about shared controled.  Which I don't have any problems with.

[RiverAux]

Also something not apparently being proposed in the legislation. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Just to keep the discussion on track, nobody is saying this is right around the corner.  I used the term "Slippery slope" to describe what may become (although I hope it does not) a trend.  We're not in the valley just yet.

DNall expressed some concerns for the future implications of this legislation, and I concurred that there are potential long-term outcomes that may affect CAP in ways that we think are damaging.

But, and as a way of assessing the possible damage, I speculated that certain possible outcomes may not be as bad as they seem.  DNall insisted that they were as bad as they seem.

"Again with the negative waves, Moriarty!" 

[DNall]

There you go with the doom and gloom again.  USAF is not the only source of funds out there.  Maybe a HLS mission will get the DHS to fund the cool toys that will make us more effective in our SAR role.   The USAF is not going to pay for it.  With a change of mission and change in a source of funds we may be on a better footing to get better equipment.  Working desk jobs at Air Force bases and filling in personnel shortages is not going to get us better equipment either.

Right now our hands are tied by the USAF on what we can and cannot do.  Switching over to DHS does not mean we can't still fly SAR missions.  It does mean we are closer to all our other missions and are separated from the road block to even more missions.  FEMA works for DHS (IIRC) ergo we will have a better in with NIIMS, a better relationship with local law enforcement/fire/ENS.  If we are not under the DOD umbrella we would not have PCA to stop us from working with law enforcement on a multitude of LE/CD operations.  ICE being under DHS would give use access to the border missions and other ICE missions.

It is nice being the USAF-AUX...but that is not the end all, beat all of why most people join CAP.  Serving their country in a meaningful way is more important than just being the USAF-AUX.

Let me just add this up for ya (near as I can tell on these numbers from 05 & what I know off hand about this year)...

Other than AF funds:
Donations: 150k
appropriations from states: 3.5mil
(including state funded corporate missions)
from member dues ~4mil
Subtotal: 7.65mil

Appropriations from AF budget:
O&M: 25mil
(AF funded missions = 9mil; Oter fed agency missions = 290k)
Procurment from AF
Planes: 10mil
Comm: 4mil
Vehicles: 600k-1.5mil
Subtotal: ~40mil
Total: 47.65mil ~ in 2006.
This excludes a lot of items, from the cadet uniform program to facilities usage.

Fact of the matter is no one in any budget year has that kind of money to spare. The CAP program as a whole is not that important to Congress or the country. It's nice to have, but it's not strictly necessary. If we disappeared & they gave our missions to someone else (like states) very few people would notice.

Now I love CAP. I think what we do is very important in it's own small way, and I'd like to be able to do a lot more, but the problems that keep us from doing that are absolutely not the AF.

You wanna fly the border to prevent drugs or terrorists from comming across, that's 1AF. We can fly that mission all day long directly reporting all suspicious activity to LE for investigation, and we can remain overhead to provide comm support. That's perfectly legal right now. There's not a ton of money out there for it though. Fact is politically no one really wants the border closed. And even if they did, they aren't willing to spend millions for us to fly around looking for crap. If they did want that mission done & had the money to pay for it, they'd be spending it on ground sensors, 1AF directed predators, and more agents. DHS does not have a border mission for us to fly, at least beyond the one we fly for ICE right now, & that's a traffic pattern survey that's been dropping off over the last few years & will continue to do so. What DHS does is interdiction. Regardless of PCA, we can't physically do that in a cessna, especially not daylight eyeball.

The other thing is, yeah you may be able to theoretically slide our ES aspects under DHS. Okay, that's about 10mil now, say you enhance that to 15m. 7.3m to administer CAP w/o cadet programs or AE; plus procurment that varies between 5m in a low year & 15 in a high one. CAP ES is not worth what it costs to run!! I can only exist in partnership with AE & CP, and even then ONLY because of the sentimental traditional attatchment AF has for us. Meanwhile AF will reabsoard their 40mil & DHS will have to take 32m away from their own programs, and chiefly those air interdiction units they love so much.

You want to fly more? I thas zero to do with AF & everything to do with us being the right tool for a job that has priority & funding, not just lip service. Right now we aren't equiped to be that right tool. Toss some FLIR on & that changes fast, be able to do high sensitivity rad mapping & detection & yeah you're in business. You get those things & trustworthy cleared competent people to participate in the missions & it doesn't matter if we under AF, DHS, or the moon, we'll have more missions than we can fly. And with 1500 or so mission pilots nationwide flying 56k hours, how much can you realistically expect the govt to pay for? DHS won't pay for that gear & the missions, the money isn't there. We can & do get money from DHS every year, through state administered grant programs. We can fund some of this more advanced gear that way too & DHS is willing to help, but they won't pay for the missions you want to fly cause they don't have the cash & mostly those aren't their missions in the first place.

Fact is the problems that keep us from doing more have nothing at all to do with AF & everything to do with CAP. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm not being negative, I'm saying you can't blame the AF, or Congress, or anyone else, and you can't believe moving out from under them or sharing resources or anything like that is going to be a some kind of magic bullet to solve everything. The problems that keep us from doing more are right here at home. If we take responsibility for our own house, & fix the things that keep us from being trusted & respected, then we become the right hand to weild the right tools for the jobs that need to get done. Right now that isn't the case, and it'll never get fixed while we keep pointing outwards.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dennis:

You are, as always, correct.

Our biggest problems are internal, and will REQUIRE a radical fix to gear us up for war, regardless of who we report to.  We have discussed this fix, and are working on a paper to present to propose a fix.  (Gentle reminder...?)

I think your earlier point that started this discussion was that the proposed legislation would place CAP under DHS directly, and NOT as an asset of 1AF for purposes of patrol of the Southwest border as well as other border and port security missions.  You stated that working outside of the chain of command under 1AF might not be a good idea.  DHS could always rquest CAP support from 1AF, and does not need a new law to do so.

So... why is a new law proposed, and what would be the impact on our operations and organization?

First, I see this as another attempt to find a "Loophole" in Posse Comitatus.  There is no political will to repeal or amend PCA, but there is pressure to find ways around it.  This is something I do not understand.  As a military officer, I am uncomfortable looking for loopholes in the law to do a mission.  That is what the Mafia dons and Enron executives do.

And, I am not certain that we would NOT be, under the current law, subject to the PCA.  We are the Aux. of the USAF whenever we serve ANY federal agency.  Whether or not we report to 1AF, we are still legally, Air Force.

This is where I see the "Slippery Slope" part.  Once that law is passed, but it is determined that we still can't do what DHS would like to have us do, the next step would be to change our enabling legislative charter, and re-create CAP on the model of the Coast Guard.  Law Enforcement under DHS most of the time, military under the Navy some of the time.

Only we would be Law Enforcement under DHS most of the time, and military under the Air Force some of the time.

Done properly, and adequately resourced, this can work.  Our track record for doing things properly, however, is not good.

You are right, to do this, we will need toys.  FLIR, Rad monitors, etc.  We also need training, and a new approach to communications.

Potentially, we could provide a great asset to DHS. Training up our officers, and having them be considered "Aviation Law Enfocement"  officers in the same sense that Coast Guard officers (and petty officers) are could open up some serious opportunities to serve the United States.

But, and coming back to my original point, we have to get our internal act together first.

[ZigZag911]

The problem is that our personnel are not trained in law enforcement (except for those, of course, who are in the LE profession!).

Furthermore, comparisons with CG/CGAux are troubling....anyone who follows the work of the USCG knows they are seriously over-burdened....they do an incredible job for an organization that lacks the people and resources to half of what they are tasked with....but sooner or later someone needs to realize that part time, vplunteers are not the ultimate answer to well funded, highly resourced and highly resourceful opponents.

Are there valid contributions CAP can make to the overall effort? Certainly....but, for the most part, these are going to be mission support and/or 'backfill' assignments (we take on a non-LE type task to release other resources).....there simply is not much of a front line role for CAP in the age of Stinger missles!

[JohnKachenmeister]

The problem is that our personnel are not trained in law enforcement (except for those, of course, who are in the LE profession!).

Furthermore, comparisons with CG/CGAux are troubling....anyone who follows the work of the USCG knows they are seriously over-burdened....they do an incredible job for an organization that lacks the people and resources to half of what they are tasked with....but sooner or later someone needs to realize that part time, vplunteers are not the ultimate answer to well funded, highly resourced and highly resourceful opponents.

Are there valid contributions CAP can make to the overall effort? Certainly....but, for the most part, these are going to be mission support and/or 'backfill' assignments (we take on a non-LE type task to release other resources).....there simply is not much of a front line role for CAP in the age of Stinger missles!

We are not trained in Law Enforcement... yet.  That condition is an easy fix.  Besides, how much police training do you need to fly a plane?

Your post is more of a red flag than what you may think.

Yes, the USCG is overburdened.  Yes, CAP has very little USAF role in an era of missiles.

But take those two paragraphs together.  Our people moved from USAF to DHS and serving as a second, flying auxiliary arm of the USCG?  Easy move. 

You take the USCG Aux Air assets, and make them CAP.  Repaint the planes (again).

Our non-flyers either get some of the limited flight-line and mission base duties, work the cadet program exclusively, or transfer to the "Fleet" as USCG auxiliarists.  Ground teams can be civilian LE or volunteers with a CAP pilot as liasion.

Hmmmm...

[DNall]

(Gentle reminder...?)

Yeah, man I'm sorry, I've been swamped, I'm on it.

Bottom line, DHS doesn't have missions for us. If they did, we'd be flying them. They don't want us flying those missions or in their agency because it screws them out of their air wings. DoD & DHS do not always play well together, particularly on HLD/S, and the last place you want to be is between them. Going over there instantly means no more cadet program or AE, just ES, which has never been strong enough to support itself or the logistics of operating this org.

The problem is that our personnel are not trained in law enforcement (except for those, of course, who are in the LE profession!).

Furthermore, comparisons with CG/CGAux are troubling....anyone who follows the work of the USCG knows they are seriously over-burdened....they do an incredible job for an organization that lacks the people and resources to half of what they are tasked with....but sooner or later someone needs to realize that part time, vplunteers are not the ultimate answer to well funded, highly resourced and highly resourceful opponents.

Are there valid contributions CAP can make to the overall effort? Certainly....but, for the most part, these are going to be mission support and/or 'backfill' assignments (we take on a non-LE type task to release other resources).....there simply is not much of a front line role for CAP in the age of Stinger missles!

I'm also troubled by comparisons to the CG, who are themselves a stepchild agency still driving some WWII museum pieces as front line assets. They sure as hell don't have 40mil in cap space to give (it's a whole lot like the NFL salary cap).

I wouldn't sell CAP short. Yes you're talking about part time volunteers, but with enough of them in rotation it can be awfully close to full-time capable, especially if you add job protection and maybe some reasonable per-diem, if you train them to the same professional stadands as paid full-time folks (NIMS, OTS, etc), and you spend an extra 5 mil a year on hi-tech gear (FLIR, CBRNE detection, etc) for the next 10 years.... well then you're talking abotu some pretty front line roles you can roll out on these folks. you're not talking about full-time missions, but rather a low level buzz that can surge big in an emergency. It is indeed standing the line so as to free up paid folks for other things, but that isn't to say the lines we can stand aren't vitally important.

[RiverAux]

I too see very little prospects for DHS to use CAP, especially since they've been spending tens of millions of dollars developing full-time air wings made up partially of aircraft just like ours.  If anything, CAP is a threat to that budding empire within DHS.  Right now those air wings seem to be going up along the border, but I suspect that in a few years there will be air wings set up inside the country and before you know it they are going to be the go-to guys to do major missions, not CAP.  I think they will cut us out of any homeland security missions for the feds pretty soon.  Wouldn't be surprised if they start doing the counternarcotics flying we've been doing as well. 

Keep in mind that we're talking about the federal government.  They're not terribly interested in saving money.  And the problem is that there may be some operational benefits as well.  Say FEMA needs 25 light aircraft rushed to a disaster zone.  Why wouldn't they call on their cousins in DHS to order their guys to go down for the duration rather than call CAP up and maybe get the planes, and maybe only for a few days, etc....

In the short term if this bill passes we may get some benefits, but we have to realize we have strong competition on the horizon for most non-AF missions. 

[ZigZag911]

Yes, the USCG is overburdened.  Yes, CAP has very little USAF role in an era of missiles.

John,

I am referring to the bad guys' missiles...in other words, think of little red-white-and blue planes with a target painted on them....which, of course, I do not want to see.

Frankly I'm surprised CN missions have not attracted hostile action...I'm not sure if it's good security, dumb luck, or lack of significant impact on the business.

[ZigZag911]

My apologies for messing up the bold....did not mean to use it for most of message.

[ZigZag911]

I wouldn't sell CAP short. Yes you're talking about part time volunteers, but with enough of them in rotation it can be awfully close to full-time capable, especially if you add job protection and maybe some reasonable per-diem, if you train them to the same professional stadands as paid full-time folks (NIMS, OTS, etc), and you spend an extra 5 mil a year on hi-tech gear (FLIR, CBRNE detection, etc) for the next 10 years.... well then you're talking abotu some pretty front line roles you can roll out on these folks. you're not talking about full-time missions, but rather a low level buzz that can surge big in an emergency. It is indeed standing the line so as to free up paid folks for other things, but that isn't to say the lines we can stand aren't vitally important.

How can I put this?

"They" are armed, we are not....many of us probably should not be under any circumstances!  And a lot of those that are capable of defending themselves with weapons probably have full time jobs in LE or military.

If we go down this road (and perhaps we should, but I need persuading), then we need also to consider splitting into two organizations, clearly separating the cadet program from whoever is going to be doing this work....because I think once the other side figures out what's going on, they will see us for what we are as a whole, a big, soft target that looks like a military one, with virtually none of the attendant risk of attacking the actual military.

[DNall]

Frankly I'm surprised CN missions have not attracted hostile action...I'm not sure if it's good security, dumb luck, or lack of significant impact on the business.

They have, but not in the last several years, and I don't think anyone has actually been hit by ground fire, not to my knowledge anyway, that's the job though.

What we do for customs is record traffic we see over the border & report it in the paperwork. The requestor gets the results 11 days later. It's traffic patter analysis, not interdiction, and pretty useless in my mind, which is why there was less money for it nationwide than my Gp gets annually for AF funded training.

Far as guns, I've been in some ground team situations where it would have been nice to have, we've always pulle dcops out of the line to follow us around, and it is a key factor that keeps us from deploying into the heart of disaster zones early on. That's all problematic on both sides of the coin.

Far as missile though, that doesn't matter. If terrorists have a manpad in the US, they are going to want to use that on an airliner, not a CAP cessna. Running FLIR allows you to do the same mission more effectively with less exposure. It's also one of the basic equipment levels designated by FEMA to do disaster SaR flying. Really it would get you tons & tons of missions. The CBRNE gear I'm talking about, the advanced stuff, that is a narrow field, but it could get you some environmental & hazmat backup type stuff in addition to the deterence mission. Either way, you are not running LE missions & not confronting bad guys. No one is going to shoot a missile at you, & what we do isn't going to be directly offensive to them to motivate them to do so even if they had it to shoot.

[FARRIER]

To add some facts to already mentioned items, and to make this argument a more informed argument, I went online and found the following articles/links:

1. Lawmakers seek inquiry into Homeland Security aviation program

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1105/111105kp1.htm

2. Border Patrol wins control of Homeland Security aircraft
http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0805/082505kp1.htm

3. DORGAN ANNOUNCES HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIALS TO VISIT NORTH DAKOTA TO DISCUSS NEW AIR WING BRANCH
http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=267531

(Above article talks about the Air Wing Branch being operated by Customs and Border patrol and will also operate UAV's)

4. CBP Launches Third Northern Border Air Branch
Fleet Includes State-Of-The-Art Surveillance Aircraft to Increase Border Security

http://communitydispatch.com/Department_of_Homeland__Security_63/CBP_Launches_Third_Northern_Border_Air_Branch_6744.shtml

5. Increasing Manpower and Assets Along the Borders

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0938.shtm
(This article provides the most statistics)

From what I read above, the Air Wing Branches are operated by the Customs and Border Patrol. And border being the operative word, I didn't see any mention of units being planed for further inland.

My two cents.