HR1333 - current status

[Major Carrales]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

Behold...

A BILL
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary to enter into
an agreement with the Secretary of the Air Force to use Civil Air Patrol personnel
and resources to support homeland security missions.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2007.'SEC. 2. 1. CIVIL AIR PATROL STUDY.

(a) Study- The Comptroller General2002 is amended by adding at the end of the United States`SEC. 890A.
CIVIL AIR PATROL SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS.`(a) In General- The Secretary shall conduct a study understanding or other agreements with of the functions and capabilities of the Civil Air personnel and resources Patrol to support the homeland security in accordance with this section.`(
b) Use missions of State, local, and tribal governments and the Department of Homeland Security.

In conducting the 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 by--
`(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities for
border security;
`(2) providing capabilities for collective response to an act of terrorism,
natural disaster, or other man-made event, by assisting in damage assessment
and situational awareness, conducting search and rescue operations,
assisting in evacuations, transporting time-sensitive medical or
other materials; or
`(3) such other activities the Secretary as may be determined appropriate by`(c) Inclusion in National Planning Activities- Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource
for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities, including the National Response Plan.` (d) Reimbursement- A memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall include a provision addressing the Comptroller General which the Department
of Defense is to be reimbursed for costs associated with in the conduct of this review.

(b) Report- Not later than 180 days after the date the of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report containing the findings of the review
conducted under subsection (a). The report shall include--

(1) an assessment of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using Civil Air Patrol assets for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
(2) an assessment as to whether the current mechanisms for Federal agencies and States to request support from the Civil Air Patrol are sufficient or whether new agreements between relevant Federal agencies and the Civil Air Patrol are necessary.
(c) Report to Congress- Not later than 90 days after completing the study under this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review and analyze the study and submit to the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on such review and analysis, which shall include any recommendations of the Secretary for further action that could affect the organization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘A bill to direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and re- sources to support homeland security missions, and for other purposes.’. .

the above is what they are up to, nothing more and nothing less (at this time)

[RiverAux]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

No, all it does is to direct that a study be done on that topic.  It doesn't "allow" anything new. 

[MIKE]

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I guess I'm missing out on all those CG Aux combat missions that they're doing for DHS....

Yeah... they ain't had me qual on the Sig and M-4 yet either.

[JohnKachenmeister]

All I am saying is... be careful what you wish for.

The CG is an armed force, its auxiliary performs unarmed duties.

Based on what is being studied here, we would cease to be an auxiliary of the Air Force, and become (at least for HLS missions) a direct reporting agency to DHS.  In effect, we would become the flying coast guard, and nobody's auxiliary.  That will certainly entail direct involvement in law enforcement duties (That, as I understand it, is the whole purpose of the study) and probably will result in some or all CAP members being armed.

This was discussed right after 9/11, and was rejected by the Air Staff.  The Air Force wanted to retain control of its auxiliary.

[Major Carrales]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

No, all it does is to direct that a study be done on that topic.  It doesn't "allow" anything new. 

Yes, but it does quell the "WILD SPECULATON."  I encourage everyone to explore the matter further before adding to any "misinformation."

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have examined the wording of the "Amendment."  This Bill would amend the Homeland Security acts to allow CAP to be a "tool" in the execution of certain homeland security missions...

No, all it does is to direct that a study be done on that topic.  It doesn't "allow" anything new. 

Yes, but it does quell the "WILD SPECULATON."  I encourage everyone to explore the matter further before adding to any "misinformation."

I don't consider it "Wild" speculation, Sparky.  Just plain, old, everyday, generic speculation. 

We can do HLS missions right now.  All DHS has to do is say:  "Hey, Air Force... let us use some of the 500+ light planes you have pre-positioned around the country."  But when that happens, we are activated as an element of the USAF, and therefore restricted from LE missions.  That's why we're calling the Border Patrol missions "Rescue" missions, looking for under-hydrated Mexicans who just happen to be under-documented as well.

The new law being studied, if passed, will allow us to serve as a direct arm of DHS.  A "Tool" to use the term from the law itself.  Is a "Tool" the same as an "Instrumentality?"  The only possible reason for this change to our command relationship would be to assign us direct Law Enforcement support missions.

Personally, I do not mind.  I carried a gun for most of my life.  I still carry a gun, even though I am retired.  I not only can qualify, I am a certified police firearms instructor.  I still never sit with my back to a door, and I would no more walk into a bank lobby unarmed than I would walk in naked.  (Sorry for that visual, but I'm making a point).

Some folks here, and I'm making this judgement based on their postings, would welcome a divorce from the Air Force.  They do not feel the same kinship and affiliation with the military that I and some others feel. 

But IF that happens, stand by.  The nature of our organization will change radically.

[MIKE]

All I am saying is... be careful what you wish for.

The CG is an armed force, its auxiliary performs unarmed duties.

All they have to do is reactivate the Temporary Reserve... Still on the books from WWII... and issue me my Sig.

[JayT]

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I don't have a problem with it, but there's a lot of folks who like to tell me that they are, first, foremost, and always, CIVILIANS.  They just might have some heartburn with our proposed new role.

What do you mean 'hide' behind the PCA?

I'm sorry, but I don't ever see us "performing law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons." Not this year, not next year, not ten years down the road. That sounds like something one of my fourteen year old cadets would have a fantasy about.

You were a cop, no? Would you want some unpaid volunteers who can't even show up dressed right taking over your roles? What would your union say about that?

Border Patrol? Sure, but only if the Border Patrol can't cover area's with drones that have more and better capabilites then our birds. Port Security? What does that mean? Last I checked, the US Coast Guard has that down pretty well. Fi they need more troopers to cover the ports, then increase the side of the CG. That's their job, and they're good at it.
Surveillance? Again, what does that even mean? An expanded CD mission? Greater use of the the ARCHER platforms? If we can do a great service to our country by flying enviromental impact missions, or helping track flights of birds, is that okay with you? Or is that not sexy enough for our great, green bag wearing aviators?

As for 'qualifying on weapons.' Honestly...........

[Eclipse]

I'm sorry, but I don't ever see us "performing law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons." Not this year, not next year, not ten years down the road. That sounds like something one of my fourteen year old cadets would have a fantasy about.

We're already doing border patrol, harbor surveillance and assisting law enforcement today, pushing things a little harder and further won't be much of a stretch at all.

You were a cop, no? Would you want some unpaid volunteers who can't even show up dressed right taking over your roles? What would your union say about that?

Probably very little - the harsh reality is that fewer and fewer agencies are unionized, and where they are, the union has much less to say about anything, let alone staffing and assignments.

Most of the decent-sized suburbs around here already have a corps of unpaid volunteers who do traffic patrol, parking enforcement, crowd control and similar activities, and the comment had been made to  me by my town that they'd welcome more help, especially in an on-demand capacity.

Many departments made efforts to professionalize their officers in the 90's, which is fine, except it makes it much more difficult to hire them and the pool is much smaller.

For the record, I have no interest whatsoever in being an unpaid LEO, the risks associated in the implied authority where there is no means to enforce it are too great for me.

[JohnKachenmeister]

If we fall under DHS, you will not be able to hide behind the Posse Comitatus Act.  You will be called upon to perform law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons.

I don't have a problem with it, but there's a lot of folks who like to tell me that they are, first, foremost, and always, CIVILIANS.  They just might have some heartburn with our proposed new role.

What do you mean 'hide' behind the PCA?

I'm sorry, but I don't ever see us "performing law enforcement, port security, border patrol, surveillance, and even combat missions.  You will have to get additional training and you will most likely have to qualify to federal standards with weapons." Not this year, not next year, not ten years down the road. That sounds like something one of my fourteen year old cadets would have a fantasy about.

You were a cop, no? Would you want some unpaid volunteers who can't even show up dressed right taking over your roles? What would your union say about that?

Border Patrol? Sure, but only if the Border Patrol can't cover area's with drones that have more and better capabilites then our birds. Port Security? What does that mean? Last I checked, the US Coast Guard has that down pretty well. Fi they need more troopers to cover the ports, then increase the side of the CG. That's their job, and they're good at it.
Surveillance? Again, what does that even mean? An expanded CD mission? Greater use of the the ARCHER platforms? If we can do a great service to our country by flying enviromental impact missions, or helping track flights of birds, is that okay with you? Or is that not sexy enough for our great, green bag wearing aviators?

As for 'qualifying on weapons.' Honestly...........

Well, I mean exactly what I said.

And it is NOT a 14 year old fantasy, unless the 14 year olds of which you speak are our elected officials in the House of Representatives.

It is the House that has proposed making CAP a "Tool" of the DHS, and has proposed a study to see if that is cost effective.

IF that happens, what I am saying is that CAP will no longer be serving as a part of the Air Force.  If we are not a part of the Air Force, we can be assigned law enforcement duties and missions.

Then... what will happen is that some terrorist will try to use a general aviation aircraft to spread ebola virus, or something.  CAP will then suddenly be tasked with GA security and enforcement.  I don't know if you recall "Operation Drop In," but such a role is not all that farfetched.

I realize you think the CAP is incapable of such missions, and you take particular delight in denigrating the organization.  But in this case, it does seem like there is a possibility that such missions may go forward, if the GAO comes to the conclusion that we are a cost-effective asset.

And for the record, I do NOT agree that such missions are in the best interest of either CAP or the US.  Our present role as an AF auxiliary performing CONUS SaR missions is what we were designed for and what we do best.  But on the other hand, I have no moral objections to carrying weapons and I am not averse to getting, or (considering my background)giving, additional training.

[KyCAP]

Maybe I am going to step out on a limb...

My puny brain sees the CAP "Corporation" holding a Statement of Work to accept a "Purchase/Task Order" from the USAF to work as an instrumentality of the Air Force at certain times when they request it.

I don't see why anything would change with the CAP "Corporation" if we were to hold an additional Statement of Work from the DHS and work as a "tool" for them from time to time.

This funding stream and task order for the statement of work would define the requirements.  I think that is why that the leadership has been peeling the CAP-USAF AUX off the gear we own.  In order to be able to in a sense serve multiple clients without the everyday citizenry immediately screaming "posse comitatus" the Air Force can't do that...

If we look at this from the perspective if we were "employees" of a corporation rather than volunteers then CAP would just be another subcontractor rather than a Federal Non-profit Corporation.   We would some times need one type of tool and some times another type of tool depending on the job.

Maybe I am over simplifying this.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
    Subtitle D - Air Force
    PART III - TRAINING
    CHAPTER 909 - CIVIL AIR PATROL

-HEAD-
    Sec. 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

-STATUTE-
      (a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a
    volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of
    the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any
    branch of the Federal Government.      (b) Use by Air Force. - (1) The Secretary of the Air Force may
    use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat
    programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
      (2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality
    of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the
    Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in
    carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

[FW]

^ 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.

[Eclipse]

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.

Me either - DHS would just be another corporate client, and would likely help us maintain our viability and credibility as a service organization.

Unlike professional organizations where you can tell people what they will do and wait for them to show up, CAP would still have to rely on the benevolence of volunteers willing to participate.

As an example, I'd do just about anything in an airframe, surveillance from a good distance, and REMF support for real LEO's, but I'd leave any kind of "in your face" stuff for the pros.

CAP today is like the Fire Department, people beg them to come and thank them for helping, unlike the police, where generally >somebody< involved would prefer they weren't there, many times with great enthusiasm.

[JayT]

IF that happens, what I am saying is that CAP will no longer be serving as a part of the Air Force.  If we are not a part of the Air Force, we can be assigned law enforcement duties and missions.

Then... what will happen is that some terrorist will try to use a general aviation aircraft to spread ebola virus, or something.  CAP will then suddenly be tasked with GA security and enforcement.  I don't know if you recall "Operation Drop In," but such a role is not all that farfetched.

I realize you think the CAP is incapable of such missions, and you take particular delight in denigrating the organization.  But in this case, it does seem like there is a possibility that such missions may go forward, if the GAO comes to the conclusion that we are a cost-effective asset.

Agian, fourteen year fantasy old stuff. We can be 'assigned' law enforcement stuff all our assigners want. It doesn't mean we're capable of it, or that we can get people to show up for it. I realize that you, as an ex service guy, and ex cop, wouldn't have a problem. You have a training I don't have. I'm willing to be a good chunk of our guys are in the same boat as me.

I really am having trouble seeing how you can see CAP being tasked for 'GA security and enforcment.' If the bad guys start spreading Ebola Zaire via small planes.........are we suddenly gonna break out our stores of weapons and NBC suits and stand posts at Airports? Or are my counties extremely well trained, extremely well armed, and extremely, extremely well paid cops gonna do it?

Are we gonna start having our volunteers going through advance training now?

Again, a lot of this sounds like stuff I hear from young cadets who want medals.

I do recall reading of Operation Drop In, and I recall that it was bad for us. Members of the GA community didn't like it, and our members didn't like doing it.

You seem to have a problem with the PCA. I don't know why. The reason we have a military is to protect the people from outside threats, and the reason we have police is to protect the people from internal ones. When you use the military as police, the people end up being the threat.

And, Major, please have the maturity to resist the urge to label me as hating the organization because I don't agree with your view of it. CAP is what it is. We do somethings very well every where, and we do somethings very well only some places. I love the organization, if I didn't, I wouldn't invest as much time and money as I do in it. Just because I don't want to turn it into something it's not, doesn't mean I don't like it.

[Tubacap]

I'm going to throw my two cents in here.  The big issue that people throw around is the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) [PCA].  This Act prevents the use of federal troops to patrol, participate in search and seizure, and conduct law enforcment activities in a domestic capacity except as authorized by act of congress. 

Many people have complained at how we had to take our USAF Aux off the tails of our aircraft due to PCA concerns while doing law enforcement and the National Guard helicopters can keep U.S. Army on theirs during the same type operations.  The difference being, we are an asset under 10 USC 9442 which has no exemptions to PCA.  The National Guard under 32 USC 112 has this exemption and are therefore able to circumvent PCA as part of their state level mission.

H.R. 1333 does not change any laws or create any "holes."  However, it does open the door to the possibility of these exemptions and loopholes to be created.  Therefore, just has been said before, it grants us the ability to act on an AFAM status with the insurance benefits afforded that status.  Plus it does not violate any federal laws.

[FW]

^ The major obstacle for CAP to perform the bulk of current proposed DHS taskings is no longer the PCA, it is AF decision that these taskings do not coincide with the interests of the AF (my current understanding of recent discussions).  
When the study is complete and, if the study reccommends CAP's use, the SECAF's people will work out a solution with SECDHS's people and we can get back to business.  

[RiverAux]

This is the heart of what they're wanting to study using CAP for for DHS:

1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities for
border security;
`(2) providing capabilities for collective response to an act of terrorism,
natural disaster, or other man-made event, by assisting in damage assessment
and situational awareness, conducting search and rescue operations,
assisting in evacuations, transporting time-sensitive medical or
other materials;

# 2 is no different than what we've been doing for FEMA as AFAMs for decades.

#1 is absouletly no more law enforcement than what we've been doing on CD missions for 20 years.  So, doing that sort of work won't make us any more beholden to DHS than doing it now makes us beholden to the state police or the DEA. 

By the way, note that the new CAPabilities handbook that just came out (available through eservices) sort of opens the door for us doing more law enforcement support as corporate missions.  But, to do them as AFAMs (which is required when we support any federal agency), very well could require some PCA change or possibly someone could just come to their senses and realize that PCA shouldn't apply to us since we aren't members of the armed forces even if the AF were to assume liability for us on these missions. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

All of your guys have either missed the point I'm trying to make, or have intentionally mis-stated it to act as flamers.  Let me run the point by you again.

Right now:  Yes, we CAN fly missions for DHS.  The process, as mandated by current law, is that the DHS requests the use of CAP assets from the AF.  The DHS funds it, but we remain under USAF command as an auxiliary.  Being under USAF command means that we ARE subject to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, no matter what is painted on the side of the airplane. 

HB-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.  If we are directly tasked by DHS, we are then NOT acting as an element of the Air Force, and therefore NOT subject to PCA.

(Note:  I do not have any undefined "Problems" with the PCA, and don't understand where a certain poster gets the idea that I do,)

We would still be the Aux of the USAF anytime the AF called up our assets for an AF mission.  SAR, for example, would be unchanged.

Under present law, we are also the Aux of the AF anytime we are flying for ANY federal agency.  HB-1333 is studying if it is desirable to change that.

Since GAO is conducting the study, they will focus on total costs to the government.  IF some measure of direct law enforcement support is envisioned, CAP members would have to be trained up to the standards desired by the Feds.  That would have some cost involved, and I don't have a clue how much.  I suppose GAO has a clue, but I don't.

The rest of what I have posted is speculation, but fairly reasoned speculation.  Follow my thinking, and read slower if you have trouble keeping up.

IF HB-1333 passes into law...

and IF the GAO study concludes that CAP can be an effective DHS asset...

and IF Congress subsequently passes a law allowing DHS to directly task CAP with missions...

THEN the CAP would, when called into DHS service, become a military force exempt from the provisions of the PCA.   We would be in the same legal postion in the air that the CG is on the water.

The DHS could, assuming all those "If's" happen, task us with ANY law enforcement mission it wanted to.  I used GA airport security as an example, and mentioned Operation Drop In.  We did NOT like ODI, and neither did the GA community.  ODI was done at the request of DHS and as a courtesy.  If DHS can TASK us, the next ODI mission may not be in the form of a request.

If DHS intends for CAP to maintain some direct LE/HLS role, they would have to provide training.  As a volunteer organization, we cannot require people to participate in this training, but I'm sure some folk will.

I am not certain that any changes will happen, but I am indicating that certain changes are likely based on the proposed study to change our legal basis for existance.  If no operational changes were contemplated, why even study the implications of changing the laws governing our organization?

Be careful what you wish for.  The result could be a CAP that none of us will recognize.

[RRLE]

THEN the CAP would, when called into DHS service, become a military force exempt from the provisions of the PCA.   We would be in the same legal postion in the air that the CG is on the water.

As a former  USCG Auxie I have no idea what you mean by the above. The USCG Aux is defined by statute to be non-military. It is barred from all military and direct law enforcement functions. The closest the Aux gets to LE is in rare cases it can transport a USCG boarding team. And you wouldn't believe the rigamorole the boarding team must go thru on the boarded boat to explain the USCG Aux's role in the boarding (they are not allowed to board the other boat either).

The Aux's role on the water is 'observe and report'. Other then reporting, they can take no action against anyone no matter what they observe.

If you mean the last statement then CAP's legal position in the air is that of a civilian volunteer agency with no military or direct law enforcement power or authority - which is the CG Aux's position on the water.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK.  Try this again.

I did NOT say that CAP's position would be the same as the CG Auxiliary.

Please READ what I wrote.

The CAP, if we end up reporting directly to DHS, would not be the "Auxiliary" of anything.