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

[DNall]

CAP is far superior for most potential border missions.  It would take a wholesale change in CG and CG Aux culture, funding mechanisms, and force structure to make it even remotely feasible to use CG Aux in any such role.  The exception to that general rule being transportation-related missions where a larger plane would come in handy, which the CG Aux has more of.

I think you're underestimating the massive change to CAP, our personnel & programs, funding, structure, our AF relationship, everything that must occur for this to be feasible, and what would be lost for what could be gained.

You want a more workable solution, sit down with CBP & talk about changing the profile & pproceedures of the current CN missions we fly for them. You want to fly the border, we do that right now. You want to stop illegal immigration, well Congress really doesn't but if you want to sneak one by them then get customs to fund additional missions & we'll report suspicious activity in real time for them to investigate. We can do that now, this law is badly concieved & quite risky to CAP.

[RiverAux]

We can do that now, this law is badly concieved & quite risky to CAP.

A pretty sweeping statement on a law whose text we haven't even seen yet. 

[DNall]

Just going by the way it has been posed so far. You want something nice... a non-binding resolution passes w/o a full vote, says... the secrecretary of Homeland Security is encouraged to make full use of Civil Air Patrol available on request through 1AF. CAP resources and personnel are uniqely suited to HLS flight activities of DHS & DoD in the following ways.... Bang bang, done deal.

A law ordering DoD & DHS to share CAP in some wierd more than one master kind of thing is a recipe for disaster down range.

[RiverAux]

Nothing in the news stories indicates they're ordering anyone to use CAP for anything.  Just seems like they're removing restrictions that keep us from being utilized fully now.  If that is the extent of it, I don't see how it harms us and it potentially could help us. 

A constructive analogy might be the CN program itself.  Because of some changes in federal law various law enforcement agencies were given the opportunity to use CAP as part of their marijuana eradication program.  We developed some extra training and implemented some stricter security requirements for partipants and in some places that opportunity is being used, in other places it isn't.  However, the closer relationship with DEA and other agencies at state and federal levels that were able to be developed by these legal changes haven't seemed to have hurt CAP at all.  End result -- lots of flying for CAP and over a billion dollars of drugs off the street last year. 

[DNall]

The bill would require the nation's Homeland Security and Air Force secretaries to share the Civil Air Patrol

CAP pilots and observers assisted other agencies in taking more than $637 million in illicit drugs and money off U.S. streets.(2005)

That's the total confiscation by those agencies, not what CAP did alone.

over 25 years ago PCA was modified to allow DoD assistance to LE for matters involving drugs, it was alreayd allowed to be involved in matters of insurrection or threat by foreign power (to include terrorism). CAP has been a very minor role player in that process along with a vast amount of other military resources. We are perfectly able to continue doing that & more in a vast array of areas within the bounds of PCA.

We need not flee from under AF oversight of our activities or behave as an independent contractor in order to make a differnce... and ultimately that's what I'd ask you is if we are more interested in making a difference or getting more flight hours regardless of the cost. Because everything in government is most assuradly a zero sum game. If we gain then someone else must lose, or if we gain in one place we have to take a hit in another. That is the nature of the budget process & nothing is ever free.

You want this Congressman to help you, have him propose an emergency funding bill of an additional 50million to fund FLIR, CRBNE detection, satcom for live-vid feed, and vehicles for disaster assessment ready reaction teams; plus work protection & per diem for deploment over 48hrs, and order full compliance with NIMS within 18months with a training & implementation budget overseen by CAP-USAF at thedirection of A3/SHA. Order AF to integrate CAP to the greatest extent possible to conus non-combat operations, and to aide in the reorganization of CAP as neccessary to meet training & quality requirements of the sensitive & high priority work we will be tasked with over the coming decade.

What keeps CAP down is silly infighting & childish behavior, the need to lower the bar so there's a kingdom to govern, and the shameful way we use up our members & throw them out when we're done while making this service cost a small fortune.

PCA isn't a limiting factor. The only reason it's being discussed is cause we got knocked on our butts over the years & since we can't get up we're squirming around looking for other directions to slither off in. What we need to do grab the jock & pull ourselves up by the bootstraps as we confront all the BS about this org, because that is the only thing that keeps us down. That patriotism, valor, & fidelity of our members, and the noble premise of this organization couldn't be any greater, but we have to face our problems & earn our place, then there will be more work than we can handle. Until then, the law is not hurting us.

[RiverAux]

Okay, I'm tired of arguing about a bill that isn't even proposed yet.  I'll be back when it is...

[DNall]

Sounds good.

[afgeo4]

Yeah I'm a bit uncomfortable with that as stated.

The first point is dangerously close to law enforcement. I mean surveil & report, then break off to a safe distance for comm support, that's doable, but staying on target & guiding LE in on top of them is not okay in any way shape or form. Border Patrol has thier own air force for that, and better equipped than us.

The second point river is Conngress authorizing the secretary of DHS to task CAP on missions. That is a little wierd. DHS can already task CAP thru AF now, so is this allowing DHS to task CAP directly & using DHS funds w/o talking to AF? Cause that would be real bad for us in the long run.

In other words, good intentions chasing after an idea but not addressing the critical issues that have prevented this from being solved decisively to date. I'll have to see exactly how the bill is written & try to figure out how that stands in relation to PCA. Interesting development though, I think I'd spend some time talking with him about the details & see if it can be fixed up.

US Civil Air Patrol anyone?

[wingnut]

I Like It

United States Civil Air Patrol

Got a nice ring to it, sort of Like: :United States Marshal, United States Border Patrol, see they are all Law Enforcement agencies. Hows about United States Civilian Air Defense "USCAD", or United States Civilian Air Reserves "USCAR".

[SAR-EMT1]

I Like It

United States Civil Air Patrol

Got a nice ring to it, sort of Like: :United States Marshal, United States Border Patrol, see they are all Law Enforcement agencies. Hows about United States Civilian Air Defense "USCAD", or United States Civilian Air Reserves "USCAR".

Dont give the National Leadership any ideas. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Can I take a moment to put this into perspective?

There IS a bill being proposed (Not law yet, passage not guaranteed) that would place CAP at the call of DHS.  The bill SEEMS to make CAP a direct asset of DHS.  That is not for sure at this point now.

I posed the rhetorical question "Why?"  CAP already CAN be used as an asset of DHS. All any federal agency needs to do is pick up the phone, call 1AF, and ask for us.  They call, we haul.  So why do we need a new law to permit DHS to do that which they already CAN do?

So, like any good poser of rhetorical questions, I speculated on an answer.  I suggested that the mood of the Congress MAY (emphasis) be to re-create CAP in the model of the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard serves as a maritime law enforcement agency working under DHS most of the time.  The Navy Dept. has "Dibs" on the USCG, and can transfer assets of the USCG to the Navy for warfighting.

Following this model, it is POSSIBLE that the CAP could become the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, assigned under "Normal" conditions to DHS, but available on request to the USAF for any Air Force mission requiring light aircraft.  In this role we would no longer be a military force, and therefore we would no longer be subject to the Posse Commitatus Act, just as the PCA does not apply to the USCG, except those USCG assets in Navy service.

This proposed law will not accomplish that.  This proposed law seems to be nothing more than eyewash, and at the MOST will simplify the procedure for DHS agencies to call upon CAP assets.  The law that says that CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF when performing missions for any federal agency is still there.  As a part of the USAF, we are subject to the PCA.

There are two ways to exempt CAP from the PCA:

1.  Make CAP an asset of the National Guard, under state control.

2.  Re-write the Congressional Charter of CAP to make us a "Full-time" asset of DHS and available on-call to USAF, on the USCG model.  If the federal response to inland SAR were to be transfered to DHS, we probably would never be part of the USAF again. 

I also pointed out that there were some things that have transpired that make option #2 above appear to be likely:

1.  We now have a military style uniform independent of the USAF uniform.

2.  "USAF Auxiliary" is being purged from aircraft, vehicles, and uniforms.

After I wrote this original post...

3.  The NB ordered that our BDU's are to read: "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

Also:  For the record, I am NOT a conspiracy theory-type guy.  I do know, however, that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under the little airplane at National Headquarters, and Elvis was spotted wearing a TPU in Des Moines.

[FARRIER]

Instead of sounding like a bunch of old women, sitting around, drinking hot toddy's, lets wait for the legislation.

[ZigZag911]

DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

John, your reasoning makes a lot of sense...also, feel free to include me in the list of those who don't like it!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Instead of sounding like a bunch of old women, sitting around, drinking hot toddy's, lets wait for the legislation.

We don't drink hot toddies in Florida.

Margaritas, Beer, Pina Colada, sure.

But no hot toddies.

[SAR-EMT1]

Can I take a moment to put this into perspective?

There IS a bill being proposed (Not law yet, passage not guaranteed) that would place CAP at the call of DHS.  The bill SEEMS to make CAP a direct asset of DHS.  That is not for sure at this point now.

I posed the rhetorical question "Why?"  CAP already CAN be used as an asset of DHS. All any federal agency needs to do is pick up the phone, call 1AF, and ask for us.  They call, we haul.  So why do we need a new law to permit DHS to do that which they already CAN do?

So, like any good poser of rhetorical questions, I speculated on an answer.  I suggested that the mood of the Congress MAY (emphasis) be to re-create CAP in the model of the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard serves as a maritime law enforcement agency working under DHS most of the time.  The Navy Dept. has "Dibs" on the USCG, and can transfer assets of the USCG to the Navy for warfighting.

Following this model, it is POSSIBLE that the CAP could become the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, assigned under "Normal" conditions to DHS, but available on request to the USAF for any Air Force mission requiring light aircraft.  In this role we would no longer be a military force, and therefore we would no longer be subject to the Posse Commitatus Act, just as the PCA does not apply to the USCG, except those USCG assets in Navy service.

This proposed law will not accomplish that.  This proposed law seems to be nothing more than eyewash, and at the MOST will simplify the procedure for DHS agencies to call upon CAP assets.  The law that says that CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF when performing missions for any federal agency is still there.  As a part of the USAF, we are subject to the PCA.

There are two ways to exempt CAP from the PCA:

1.  Make CAP an asset of the National Guard, under state control.

2.  Re-write the Congressional Charter of CAP to make us a "Full-time" asset of DHS and available on-call to USAF, on the USCG model.  If the federal response to inland SAR were to be transfered to DHS, we probably would never be part of the USAF again. 

I also pointed out that there were some things that have transpired that make option #2 above appear to be likely:

1.  We now have a military style uniform independent of the USAF uniform.

2.  "USAF Auxiliary" is being purged from aircraft, vehicles, and uniforms.

After I wrote this original post...

3.  The NB ordered that our BDU's are to read: "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

Also:  For the record, I am NOT a conspiracy theory-type guy.  I do know, however, that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under the little airplane at National Headquarters, and Elvis was spotted wearing a TPU in Des Moines.

I dont like it either. And, knowing that Pineda works for the Florida FBI I ask this: how tight is he with DHS? Everything you said- from new uniforms to removing Aux of the gear makes sense now.

So in fear of losing this organizationto the dog that is politics ~ could the proposal to let pineda stay in office for life, be an attempt to keep him secured there until we are no longer AF but a section of DHS, with Pineda as an assistant DHS Secretary and a big federal pension?

[DNall]

I don't really think he or anyone else wants to trade one master for another. There are elements though that would like to have no master & be freely independent org that can do whatever it wants with millions in tax payer money & no one to take orders from unless we want to. That's just not acceptable no matter how you justify it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Can I take a moment to put this into perspective?

There IS a bill being proposed (Not law yet, passage not guaranteed) that would place CAP at the call of DHS.  The bill SEEMS to make CAP a direct asset of DHS.  That is not for sure at this point now.

I posed the rhetorical question "Why?"  CAP already CAN be used as an asset of DHS. All any federal agency needs to do is pick up the phone, call 1AF, and ask for us.  They call, we haul.  So why do we need a new law to permit DHS to do that which they already CAN do?

So, like any good poser of rhetorical questions, I speculated on an answer.  I suggested that the mood of the Congress MAY (emphasis) be to re-create CAP in the model of the Coast Guard.  The Coast Guard serves as a maritime law enforcement agency working under DHS most of the time.  The Navy Dept. has "Dibs" on the USCG, and can transfer assets of the USCG to the Navy for warfighting.

Following this model, it is POSSIBLE that the CAP could become the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, assigned under "Normal" conditions to DHS, but available on request to the USAF for any Air Force mission requiring light aircraft.  In this role we would no longer be a military force, and therefore we would no longer be subject to the Posse Commitatus Act, just as the PCA does not apply to the USCG, except those USCG assets in Navy service.

This proposed law will not accomplish that.  This proposed law seems to be nothing more than eyewash, and at the MOST will simplify the procedure for DHS agencies to call upon CAP assets.  The law that says that CAP is the Auxiliary of the USAF when performing missions for any federal agency is still there.  As a part of the USAF, we are subject to the PCA.

There are two ways to exempt CAP from the PCA:

1.  Make CAP an asset of the National Guard, under state control.

2.  Re-write the Congressional Charter of CAP to make us a "Full-time" asset of DHS and available on-call to USAF, on the USCG model.  If the federal response to inland SAR were to be transfered to DHS, we probably would never be part of the USAF again. 

I also pointed out that there were some things that have transpired that make option #2 above appear to be likely:

1.  We now have a military style uniform independent of the USAF uniform.

2.  "USAF Auxiliary" is being purged from aircraft, vehicles, and uniforms.

After I wrote this original post...

3.  The NB ordered that our BDU's are to read: "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

DNall and I don't like it.  Some folk might, but we don't.

Also:  For the record, I am NOT a conspiracy theory-type guy.  I do know, however, that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under the little airplane at National Headquarters, and Elvis was spotted wearing a TPU in Des Moines.

I dont like it either. And, knowing that Pineda works for the Florida FBI I ask this: how tight is he with DHS? Everything you said- from new uniforms to removing Aux of the gear makes sense now.

So in fear of losing this organizationto the dog that is politics ~ could the proposal to let pineda stay in office for life, be an attempt to keep him secured there until we are no longer AF but a section of DHS, with Pineda as an assistant DHS Secretary and a big federal pension?

SAR:

I am NOT a part of the "South Florida Mafia," (In fact, they actually don't like me very much, and that's a bit of an understatement)  but I am not so quick to cast aspersions upon MG TP.  Consider that it IS very possible that our general has the safety of our country uppermost in his mind.

The USAF has not given us any significant Homeland Defense roles in the 5 years since 9/11.  They have used a few of our planes in exercises as targets, which is a traditional role of ours since the Target-Tug missions in World War II.  Our impact on the border has been marginal.  We are stepping around the Posse Commitatus Act all over the place, and in doing so we are jogging through a legal minefield.

The alternative plan, to place CAP under the National Guard, was shot down by the Air Staff.  They MAY reconsider, but the smart money would not bet on the Air Staff reversing that position.

It is very possible that MG TP has decided that the future of CAP in this war is to get out from under the military umbrella, and to return to our original roots.  He may believe that we can do more good there than as a part of the USAF.

Our cadet program could continue, either in USAF uniforms or CAP.  Actually, I think there was a study done some years ago that cadets actually enlist in the Army and the Marine Corps in greater numbers than those who choose Air Force.   

I still do not like it, but I'm not prepared to speculate that the reasons for such an action, if taken, are personal.

Anyway, I'm glad I only re-up'ed for one year.  We'll see what happens.

[Lancer]

This just in via/from MIWG CC:

From:   Huchette, Marc 
Sent:   Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject:        Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Bill
Importance:     High

I wanted to inform all of you that the Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Bill was introduced today.  The Bill number is HR 1333.  It had 34 co-sponsors.  I've attached a final text version of the bill.  I've also attached a list of the co-sponsors.  The next phase for us will be to follow up with the co-sponsors and let them know that we appreciate their support and that we are available to answer any questions about our capabilities.  The next phase will be to hit all the members on the Homeland Security Committee and ask for their support of the bill.  I would approach this from a national level but also ask the wing commanders of those representatives to approach from the state level as well.  The last phase would be to have a very steady stream of emails and phone calls to all house members concerning the bill and that we would appreciate their support. 

John Swain and I will be working the companion bill on the Senate side with Senator Harkin.  This will help out tremendously in keeping this a bi-partisan bill.

Marc Huchette
Director of Program Development
Civil Air Patrol National Headquarters

See Attachments...

[lordmonar]

Looking at the language of the bill, it looks like all that the only thing being proposed is that HLS will have to pay the USAF (and us) for any HLS missions we fly and to include CAP in national level planning.

Anyone think this is a bad thing?

[Al Sayre]

Looks ok to me.  Still curious about PCA implications though.