Anyone familiar with HR1333?

[floridacyclist]

From CQ Homeland Security April 30, 2008 concerning the House HLS Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response:

Civil Air Patrol

Finally, the subcommittee approved, also by an 8-0 vote, an amended version of HR 1333, which would direct the GAO to research the effectiveness and efficiency for the Department of Homeland Security to use the reconnaissance, communications, response and rescue services of the Civil Air Patrol, a nonprofit auxiliary of the Air Force.

[Frenchie]

From the Library of Congress website:

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/6/2007--Introduced.

Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary) to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Defense to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions. Authorizes the Secretary to consider the use of such personnel and resources to provide: (1) aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking; and (2) capabilities to respond to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, search and rescue operations, evacuations, and transporting time-sensitive materials.

Directs the Secretary to consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities

[DNall]

Initial reaction to that text being it causes problems with posse cumitatus, serious legal/liability concerns, and authority issues that need to be worked out.

So now it's reduced to a GAO study. They're usually fair, but don't have a record of coming down on CAP's side. We'll see what the results are. Then see if that promts Congress to further action.

Basically, it's a delay tactic cause the original couldn't get passed. Why would DHS want this? It's making CAP avail to them on request secondary to AF missions, versus them being able to justify funding for their own air/ground/comm resources that are directly under their control all the time.

Now you got CAP working toward NIMS compliance, after that you'll see CAP on board with resource typing/credentialing. With all that done then absolutely DHS will make greater use of CAP, but don't expect it to mean more funding.

[Frenchie]

Initial reaction to that text being it causes problems with posse cumitatus, serious legal/liability concerns, and authority issues that need to be worked out.

Actually it doesn't for at least a couple of reasons.  Posse Comitatus prohibits the military from law enforcement activities unless specifically authorized by congress.  If the bill becomes law, they would be specifically authorizing CAP.  Posse Comitatus also refers to the military enforcing state laws, and assisting Homeland Security in the manner prescribed doesn't involve state laws.

[RiverAux]

I really am surprised that anyone found this rather weak bill objectionable enough to throw a GAO study roadblock in front of it. 

[Frenchie]

I really am surprised that anyone found this rather weak bill objectionable enough to throw a GAO study roadblock in front of it. 

It doesn't look like a roadblock to me.

From what I can tell the bill is basically directing the DHS to write a MOA with DOD to use CAP for Homeland Security missions.  It's not directing DHS to actually do it, only to write the framework so it can be done.

So let's say the bill becomes law, DHS writes the MOA with DOD and then never actually uses CAP for DHS missions.  Now congress has a GAO study in their hands which says DHS could be saving X number of dollars using CAP.  So they call the DHS cabinet member up to the hill and ask him why he isn't doing just that.

It basically puts DHS into a position where they can't refuse to use CAP.  That's how congress works.  They can't tell an Executive Branch agency what to do, but they can pull on the purse strings and do a lot of intimidation and embarrassment.

[RRLE]

DHS writes the MOA with DOD and then never actually uses CAP for DHS missions

Have you ever read an interagency MOA? They are generally loaded with enough 'if, ands and maybes' along with funding issues that they are pretty meaningless.

For an idea of what a CAP/DHS MOA might look like, here is the 2001 MOU Between USCG Aux, USCG, CAP and USAF. Now how much activity did CAP get from that and why do you think one with DHS would make any difference.

Look at section IX. Liability and and X. Funding. In both cases, the parent service pays the freight not the supported agency. So will CAP and/or USAF fund CAP missions for DHS?

Keep in mind DHS already has several air services at its beck and call.

[RiverAux]

Frenchie, the roadblock is the GAO study, not the bill itself. 

[DNall]

Initial reaction to that text being it causes problems with posse cumitatus, serious legal/liability concerns, and authority issues that need to be worked out.

Actually it doesn't for at least a couple of reasons.  Posse Comitatus prohibits the military from law enforcement activities unless specifically authorized by congress.  If the bill becomes law, they would be specifically authorizing CAP.  Posse Comitatus also refers to the military enforcing state laws, and assisting Homeland Security in the manner prescribed doesn't involve state laws.

It's civilian laws, not just state law. The military couldn't enforce federal racketeering laws or anything like that. The bill also does not authorize CAP or the military to enforce immigration law. It directs the DHS Sec to seek MOU w/ SecDef to request support for XYZ. Several big differences there. Also, it must authorize at least AF if not all DoD, not just CAP, to participate in such actions.

I really am surprised that anyone found this rather weak bill objectionable enough to throw a GAO study roadblock in front of it. 

The roadblock here is DHS. Certainly they could write any kind of MOA they want & use it as much or little as they want. That's not really the point. The point is when DHS goes to congress asking for a billion dollars to fund their internal aviation & communications programs... if this bill is law then congress asks them why they need that money when they can use CAP. It doesn't have anything to do with the mission, it has to do with money & power. Just like everything else in Congress.

[Frenchie]

Frenchie, the roadblock is the GAO study, not the bill itself. 

I don't see how since the GAO study doesn't happen until the bill is signed.

[Frenchie]

DHS writes the MOA with DOD and then never actually uses CAP for DHS missions

Have you ever read an interagency MOA? They are generally loaded with enough 'if, ands and maybes' along with funding issues that they are pretty meaningless.

For an idea of what a CAP/DHS MOA might look like, here is the 2001 MOU Between USCG Aux, USCG, CAP and USAF. Now how much activity did CAP get from that and why do you think one with DHS would make any difference.

Look at section IX. Liability and and X. Funding. In both cases, the parent service pays the freight not the supported agency. So will CAP and/or USAF fund CAP missions for DHS?

Keep in mind DHS already has several air services at its beck and call.

I work for the federal government and I read them all the time.

This was precisely my point as far as how I perceive how this bill is shaping up.  Congress is well aware that just because a MOA is in place, DHS may still not use CAP services.  That's why they want the GAO study so they can use it to hammer DHS if they don't.  That's just my interpretation of what's going on.

[Flying Pig]

It seems like we are already doing most of that.  We are patrolling the US border, doing recon for law enforcement, etc.

[RiverAux]

Frenchie, the roadblock is the GAO study, not the bill itself. 

I don't see how since the GAO study doesn't happen until the bill is signed.

What is being said is that the bill has been amended to just instruct the GAO to do a study.  The legislation as introduced to do an MOA would be no more. 

It should be noted that the Congressional web page doesn't have the text of the amendments on line yet.

[DNall]

This was precisely my point as far as how I perceive how this bill is shaping up.  Congress is well aware that just because a MOA is in place, DHS may still not use CAP services.  That's why they want the GAO study so they can use it to hammer DHS if they don't.  That's just my interpretation of what's going on.

Exactly!! You want money for what? (waving GAO study) Why aren't you using this CAP resource over here to cut that number down to size?

DHS wants money/power over internal resources & missions. CAP is a competitor to them getting that.

This doesn't result in a DHS that's interested in using CAP for sexy missions. It results in a DHS that picks & chooses missions that are hard for CAP to do - during the week, short notice, pushing our legal/equip/training limits, req lots of extra trng... all of which results in the look of CAP not being up to the job.

Friendly nego btwn DHS & CAP/AF that lead to them coming to an MOU, or lead to coming to congress together on a bill are workable solutions. Forcing an agency to do something not in its own interests doesn't bode well.

[RRLE]

Other then organizational loyalty (usually a fine thing), why is everyone assuming that CAP would 'win' the GAO study? DHS could very well state its requirements in such a way that CAP could not or maybe even would not want to meet them.

There is a old saying that if you tell a knowledgeable expert who is on the study committee, he can tell you what the result will be - before they even start.

And at the risk of thread drift, don't you think the recent events in PA just might have some influence on any study. That is a pretty big black spot to try and hide from a study committee.

[RiverAux]

The fact that it is going to a GAO study in the first place shows that there is very little chance of anything actually being done.  I suspect that the study will focus more on the legal issues rather than operational capability. 

[Flying Pig]

Im curious.  As a Mission/CD pilot in CAP, exactly what types of missions are you guys looking for from DHS?Im curious. 

By DNall
This doesn't result in a DHS that's interested in using CAP for sexy missions. It results in a DHS that picks & chooses missions that are hard for CAP to do - during the week, short notice, pushing our legal/equip/training limits, req lots of extra trng... all of which results in the look of CAP not being up to the job.

Friendly nego btwn DHS & CAP/AF that lead to them coming to an MOU, or lead to coming to congress together on a bill are workable solutions. Forcing an agency to do something not in its own interests doesn't bode well.

This is exactly right.  If you force yourself on an agency who doesnt want you, they are going to make you regret it.  You will be a business forcing yourself on a customer and it isnt going to work.  You start making a stink and trust me, you'll get the missions.  And the first time you cant perform, or meet their quals, they'll wash their hands of you.  Get some cooperation and things will come slowly.

[DNall]

Im curious.  As a Mission/CD pilot in CAP, exactly what types of missions are you guys looking for from DHS?Im curious. 

The original bill spells out the scope of what is asked for (by CAP thru authors):

...use of such personnel and resources to provide: (1) aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking; and (2) capabilities to respond to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, search and rescue operations, evacuations, and transporting time-sensitive materials.

Directs the Secretary to consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities

I would personally like to bring CAP into the mutual aid network as an AF federal resource. And build a relationship w/ FEMA for front end disaster assessment (air/grd photo recon & real time relay) & comm support (air P25).

Other then that I want to stay out of law enforcement or anything remote close or related to any form of it in any way. And I want to keep our primary focus on the AF primary domestic mission set - SaR/DR.

[Frenchie]

This is exactly right.  If you force yourself on an agency who doesnt want you, they are going to make you regret it. 

This may or may not be true.  There are many layers of management between the political appointee positions and the 1st line managers we'd be working with.  So the opinions of one may not accurately reflect the opinions of the other.  If CAP does their job reliably and professionally, the lower levels of management may very well like using CAP resources very much.

Next, everyone is assuming DHS doesn't want CAP and this may be a poor assumption.  Every federal manager must work within a budget.  Using CAP aircraft and crews is a very cheap way to get things done.  The last few months CAP has been doing firewatch missions for the Texas Forestry Dept.  They love to use CAP resources and used us extensively.  If a federal agency's flying resources are stretched to the limit, they may welcome the addition of a cheap resource to augment what they already have.  It's literally a way to do more with less, which rarely happens.

On the other hand, if congress cuts the agency's flying budget and forces them to use CAP, it may not be a good situation for anyone.

[RiverAux]

If a federal agency's flying resources are stretched to the limit, they may welcome the addition of a cheap resource to augment what they already have.  It's literally a way to do more with less, which rarely happens.

We're assuming that DHS may be bucking on this because they are building their own air force of light aircraft, both fixed and rotary.  Recognizing that CAP could potentially do some of those jobs (but not all) could make it more difficult to get more money to expand their Homeland Security Air Wings.  And while we are only a minor potential threat to DHS, these Air Wings are a large potential threat to CAP.  Depending on the extent to which they expand these throughout the country it may negatively impact the need for the sort of service that CAP can provide.