Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 25, 2019, 08:22:46 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill  (Read 9428 times)
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #40 on: March 24, 2009, 03:06:18 AM »

Well, it looks like Rep. Dent got fed up with his study bill (HR1178) and on 3/19  reintroduced his original legislation from last year that basically tells DHS to make an agreement with CAP and to start using us. 

This is HR 1627
Quote
Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 1627 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1627
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.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 19, 2009
Mr. DENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. CIVIL AIR PATROL SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS.

(a) In General- Subtitle H of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`SEC. 890A. CIVIL AIR PATROL SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall seek to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with the Secretary of Defense to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions in accordance with this section.

`(b) Use of Assets- Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a), the Secretary may consider the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources for--

`(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking in goods, currency, people, and other substances;

`(2) providing capabilities to respond 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 as the Secretary may determine in coordination with the Secretary of Defense.

`(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 manner in which the Department of Defense is to be reimbursed for costs associated with the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel or resources for homeland security purposes.'.

(b) Report- Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense 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 on the status of any memorandum of understanding or other agreement authorized under section 890A of the Homeland Security Act, as added by subsection (a).

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to such subtitle the following:

`Sec. 890A. Civil Air Patrol support of homeland security missions.'.

I'm not sure if he is using this as a sort of stick to convince DHS to support the lesser of two evils and to get them to support the study bill or if he just decided taht study bill alone was stupid, or maybe DHS came back and said, sure we'll do an MOU so drop the study bill. 

No co-sponsors on this one.  Has been referred to the House Homeland Security and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. 

Basically, though it doesn't say it outright, this bill would negate any applicability  of the posse comitatus law as it regards CAP and border security operations, even those involving other criminal activity.  So, it might actually generate some new work for us.  The other stuff regarding disasters is already possible without an MOU, so isn't any big deal.   
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2009, 07:43:14 PM »

Sen. Harkin of Iowa has introduced a bill (S. 704) in the Senate on the 25th which apparently will match the House bill directing GAO to do a study. 
Cosponsored by Sen. Burr of NC. 
Report to moderator   Logged
heliodoc
Suspended

Posts: 945

« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2009, 08:22:00 PM »

Not holdin my breath

We May argue all the HS missions we are doing but until a study is done, standards established, uniform arguments out of the way and quite possibly our 501 (C) 3 status .... some folks could be shying away from CAP's wares


Stay tuned, stand by to standby, and get ready for more of the same...... HAsn't working for the US Government taught anything to CAP and expecting anything right away???

AFRCC, some LE agencies, State EM's will continue to be our friend for missions, in the meantime, wait for GAO report.  Some GAO reports have been scathing to the natural resource agencies and why should CAP be exempt from the same process??  In all reality, I would welcome GAO's look into us and see why and how more volunteers need to be assigned any more missions and may be even have the  535 on the Hill see how the AF sees us for future restructuring if we take on these DHS roles.  I say bring on the GAO study >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2009, 08:24:13 PM »

Congress is not required to have the GAO study something before they pass a law telling agencies to do something.  Heck, I'd say that mostly they do not do so. 


Report to moderator   Logged
heliodoc
Suspended

Posts: 945

« Reply #44 on: March 27, 2009, 08:33:49 PM »

Noted

But I could seeing DHS using us on a limited basis  BUT I sure do not see Congress passing a law "forcing" us on DHS

Again I would not hold my breath on ANY of it UNTIL it's law, current, and in print for everyone to see...

Something that CAP continues to be re ICL's 39-1 etc... If I was Congress I'd have a real hard look at NHQ and the system we operate minus the AF and see if we could stand by ourselves to be included in the system of DHS and all its operational agencies

I know the argument, CAP can do it cheaper, BUT we can not always do it faster and be on station when required
Report to moderator   Logged
heliodoc
Suspended

Posts: 945

« Reply #45 on: March 27, 2009, 10:40:12 PM »

On an aside

Before CAP gets excited about "more missions"

I suggest the members here read from GAO.gov
 
NSIAD-00-136 dated Jun 2000 about some of the "Corporations" issues with the USAF

So before we go lloking for Federal missions, we'd best be looking at how we treat the hand that feeds us

Even CAP agreed with the report...

Again, BEFORE we get excited about DHS missions we HAD BETTER get a better accountability of ourselves and that means MORE THAN 39-1 isssues

Read the report  I did and opened my eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2009, 12:05:11 AM »

That stuff is ancient history. 
Report to moderator   Logged
heliodoc
Suspended

Posts: 945

« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2009, 12:33:14 AM »

^^^^^

Could be........ But some of those folks have a long memory just like CAP'ers and its ancient history

Our CAP ancient history is what alot of folks remember us by

AND the DHS'ers may maybe lurking here also, checking US out

So call it what you want.  Ancient history or not, CAP's foibles may be SOME reason we may not always get what we want!!! >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2009, 09:21:33 PM »

Okay, HR 1178 (the bill ordering a study) has moved foward in one of the two committees where it was sent in the House.  The Aviation subcommittee of the Transportation Committee approved it on the 2nd.  Still no action in the House Homeland Security Committee.  This has picked up a bunch of co-sponsors and now has 26. 

No movement on S. 704 (the Senate version of the study bill).  Still only 1 co-sponsor (not a good sign).

HR 1627 (which orders that the agreement be made) has no movement. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Gunner C
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,748

« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2009, 03:40:19 AM »

Okay, HR 1178 (the bill ordering a study) has moved foward in one of the two committees where it was sent in the House.  The Aviation subcommittee of the Transportation Committee approved it on the 2nd.  Still no action in the House Homeland Security Committee.  This has picked up a bunch of co-sponsors and now has 26. 

No movement on S. 704 (the Senate version of the study bill).  Still only 1 co-sponsor (not a good sign).

HR 1627 (which orders that the agreement be made) has no movement. 
Any idea who the senate co-sponsor is?
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2009, 11:48:04 AM »

IIRC it was somebody from North Carolina. 
Report to moderator   Logged
flyguync
Member

Posts: 77

« Reply #51 on: April 12, 2009, 03:23:45 PM »

Richard Burr who is a 1st term Senator from NC. He's a pretty good guy but a relative nobody in the pecking order in DC.
Report to moderator   Logged
Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,043

« Reply #52 on: April 12, 2009, 04:10:21 PM »

Im curious,  what are the Homeland Security missions CAP is getting so excited about? And who is doing those missions now?
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2009, 05:59:56 PM »

Hard to say, but then again thats what they're probably going to be studying...what needs are out there, what CAP can clearly do now, what CAP could do that might cause posse comitatus problems (for those who believe that this law actually applies to CAP members and resources), and what legal changes, if any, might be necessary to let us do what needs to be done. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,043

« Reply #54 on: April 12, 2009, 06:04:26 PM »

I could see if we fall under DHS, our Posse Commitatus issues would arise. I still think its interesting that no CAP members have been called to court regarding CD issues.
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2009, 06:15:59 PM »

Quote
I could see if we fall under DHS, our Posse Commitatus issues would arise.
Don't matter what federal agency has requested our services, legally, we're doing it as the Air Force auxiliary (USC Title 10 Sect. 9442).  We work for DHS all the time through FEMA.  The issue is the type of work, not who we're working for. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Flying Pig
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,043

« Reply #56 on: April 12, 2009, 06:30:31 PM »

What needs do we anticipate?  Anything come up yet?  What I would be curious to see is who is doing the jobs now that CAP may be tasked with taking over?  The battle that will be ugly is if/when funding is taken from local agencies, if that were to occur.  Sheriff's, State Police, etc. 

I went back and modified while River posted....I hope it didnt throw off your response.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 06:42:13 PM by Flying Pig » Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #57 on: April 12, 2009, 06:39:56 PM »

I don't see that as much of an issue.  You could do an awful lot of CAP flying before you come anywhere close to costing enough money to really impact grants or other support currently going to other agencies.  Personally, I thought that this was a weird bill for CAP to push (even in the original format which skipped the study and ordered that an MOU with CAP be drawn up).  No law is necessary for that to happen. 

Now, if they want a law to specifically exclude CAP from posse comittatus concerns related to homeland security missions for the federal government, that would be helpful to at least get that "issue" out of the way. 
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2009, 08:42:04 PM »

Posse Comitatus is the issue that the proposed law, or study of law, is designed to address.

You, and others, are right in that CAP is an auxiliary of the USAF whenever it is called into the service of any federal agency under existing law.  If, on the other hand, CAP were to be able to be called up as an agency of DHS independent of the AF, then the PossComm Act would have no effect.  CAP would not be an element of the USAF.

This, of course, would require a new law.

But be careful what you wish for.  This could mean that we would have to take a more active role in DHS missions, and could mean that we would actually engage threat forces.  That will get the anti-military pacifist CAP members' panties in a HUGE wad!
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #59 on: April 12, 2009, 08:47:45 PM »

Or they could study the issue and agree with me that PC never applies to CAP since we are not members of the military at any time no matter who is paying for our gas or bought our airplanes.  Or, they could put an exemption in for CAP to do LE-type missions for DHS just like they did to allow the military to do counterdrug missions. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me