Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Blue Ribbon Commission
on Defense Management
Box: 5
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: ROBERTS, JOHN G.: Files
Archivist: smf/cas
File Folder: JGR/Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management
Date: April 14, 1997
Box 12657 1265710017
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1.memo
McFarlane to the President re NSDD Establishing a
6/15/85
P1
Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management
(2 pp.)
R 5/12/99 NLSF95-030
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].
F-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].
P-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].
F-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].
the FOIA].
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial
F-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].
information [(a)(4) of the PRA].
F-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA].
between such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].
F-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of
the FOIA].
the PRA].
F-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of
the FOIA].
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
F-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions
[(b)(8) of the FOIA].
F-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9)
of the FOIA].
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Bethesda, Maryland)
For Immediate Release
July 15, 1985
STATEMENT BY THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY
The President is today naming fourteen distinguished citizens as
members of the Commission on Defense Management. These are
leaders with a broad range of experience in government, industry,
and national defense. They have observed the government
procurement system and the defense establishment from different
perspectives, and will provide a well-rounded assessment of
defense management for the President.
David Packard was named by the President as Commission Chairman
on June 17.
The President today at 2:05 pm signed the Executive Order
establishing the Commission and outlining its purpose and
objectives. The Commission will review the progress already made
in improving management and procurement, and will take a broad
look at how the Department of Defense does business, internally
and with its contractors and the Congress. They will recommend
further improvements where necessary in the defense acquisition
process and in the organization of the Department of Defense.
The President has directed that the Commission will send him a
blueprint for action that will be helpful to him and to the
Secretary of Defense in furthering defense management priorities
for the next three years. The President has discussed the
Commission's mandate with Secretary of Defense Weinberger, who
fully supports the Commission's work.
The Commission is to report on the procurement section of its
study by the end of this year. An interim report is due in
March, and the final report will be sent to the President no
later than June 30, 1986.
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Bethesda, Maryland)
For Immediate Release
July 15, 1985
The President today announced his intention to appoint the
membership of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management. In addition to David Packard, who was previously
announced to serve as Chairman, the President has selected the
following individuals to serve as members of the Commission:
Ernest Arbuckle, of California
Dean Emeritus, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
General Robert H. Barrow, of Louisiena
Former Commandant of the U.S. Marl Corps
Nicholas F. Brady, of New Jersey
Chairman, Dillon, Read and Company, Inc.
Louis Wellington Cabot, of Massachusetts
Chairman of the Board, Cabot Corporation
Frank C. Carlucci, of Virginia
Chairman and CEO, Sears World Trade, Inc.
William P. Clark, of California
Counsel, Rogers and Wells
General Paul Francis Gorman, of Virginia
Vice President, Burdeshaw and Associates
Carla Anderson Hills, of Washington, D.C.
Partner, Latham, Watkins and Hills
Admiral James Holloway, of Maryland
President, Council of American Flagship Operators
William James Perry, of California
Managing Director, Hambrecht and Quist
Charles J. Pilliad, Jr., of Ohio Director and Consultant,
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
General Brent Scowcroft, of Maryland
Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Herbert Stein, of Virginia
Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Robert James Woolsey, of Maryland
Partner, Shea and Gardner
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 23, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR W. DENNIS THOMAS
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
RICHARD A. HAUSER
DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Executive Director of the President's
Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management
This memorandum will confirm my prior oral advice to you
concerning the proposal to compensate the Executive Director
of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Manage-
ment at Executive Level II. As I have indicated, it is my
opinion that such a scheme would not comply with applicable
law.
The Blue Ribbon Commission is a Federal advisory committee
expressly subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Section 7 (d) (1) (A) of that Act provides that "no member of
any advisory committee or of the staff of any advisory
committee shall receive compensation at a rate in excess of
the rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule"
(emphasis supplied).
Section 7 (d) (2) of the Act provides an exception to this
rule for an individual who is, or was immediately before
joining the advisory committee, a full-time employee of the
United States. Such an individual need not take a reduction
in pay to serve on the advisory committee. This exception
is not available in this case. The individual in question
is not a full-time Federal employee. The various proposals
to hire the individual at a rate of compensation exceeding
GS-18 and then assign him to the advisory committee would
not survive legal challenge. Such an effort would be a
transparent attempt to circumvent the limitation of Section
7 (d) (1) (A), and the exception in Section 7 (d) (2) cannot be
interpreted in such a fashion as to swallow the rule. That
exception is clearly meant only for individuals already
serving in the Federal Government, and not for those hired
for no purpose other than to be detailed to the advisory
committee.
In conclusion, the Executive Director may not be compensated
at a rate exceeding GS-18. An individual may not be hired
by the White House, the Department of Defense, or any other
- 2 -
agency at a rate exceeding GS-18, and then detailed to the
Blue Ribbon Commission to serve as Executive Director at
that higher rate.
RAH:JGR:aea 7/23/85
CC: FFFielding
RAHauser
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 23, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR W. DENNIS THOMAS
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
RICHARD A. HAUSER
Original signed by RAH
DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Executive Director of the President's
Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management
This memorandum will confirm my prior oral advice to you
concerning the proposal to compensate the Executive Director
of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Manage-
ment at Executive Level II. As I have indicated, it is my
opinion that such a scheme would not comply with applicable
law.
The Blue Ribbon Commission is a Federal advisory committee
expressly subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Section 7 (d) (1) (A) of that Act provides that "no member of
any advisory committee or of the staff of any advisory
committee shall receive compensation at a rate in excess of
the rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule"
(emphasis supplied).
Section 7 (d) (2) of the Act provides an exception to this
rule for an individual who is, or was immediately before
joining the advisory committee, a full-time employee of the
United States. Such an individual need not take a reduction
in pay to serve on the advisory committee. This exception
is not available in this case. The individual in question
is not a full-time Federal employee. The various proposals
to hire the individual at a rate of compensation exceeding
GS-18 and then assign him to the advisory committee would
not survive legal challenge. Such an effort would be a
transparent attempt to circumvent the limitation of Section
7 (d) (1) (A), and the exception in Section 7 (d) (2) cannot be
interpreted in such a fashion as to swallow the rule. That
exception is clearly meant only for individuals already
serving in the Federal Government, and not for those hired
for no purpose other than to be detailed to the advisory
committee.
In conclusion, the Executive Director may not be compensated
at a rate exceeding GS-18. An individual may not be hired
by the White House, the Department of Defense, or any other
- 2 -
agency at a rate exceeding GS-18, and then detailed to the
Blue Ribbon Commission to serve as Executive Director at
that higher rate.
RAH:JGR:aea 7/23/85
CC: FFFielding
RAHauser
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 16, 1985
EXECUTIVE ORDER
PRESIDENT'S BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON DEFENSE MANAGEMENT
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and
in order to establish, in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.
App. I), a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, it is
hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is established
the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.
The Commission shall be composed of no fewer than ten and no
more than seventeen members appointed or designated by the
President.
(b) The composition of the Commission shall include
persons with extensive experience and national reputations
in commerce and industry, as well as persons with broad
experience in government and national defense.
(c) The President shall designate a Chairman from
among the members of the Commission. The Chairman shall
appoint a professional and administrative staff to support
the Commission.
Sec. 2. Functions. (a) The Commission shall study the
issues surrounding defense management and organization, and
report its findings and recommendations to the President and
simultaneously submit a copy of its report to the Secretary of
Defense.
(b) The primary objective of the Commission shall be to
study defense management policies and procedures, including
the budget process, the procurement system, legislative over-
sight, and the organizational and operational arrangements,
both formal and informal, among the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Unified and Specified Command system, the Military Depart-
ments, and the Congress. In particular, the Commission shall:
1. Review the adequacy of the defense acquisition
process, including the adequacy of the defense industrial
base, current law governing Federal and Department of Defense
procurement activities, departmental directives and management
procedures, and the execution of acquisition responsibilities
within the Military Departments;
2. Review the adequacy of the current authority and
control of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the
Military Departments, and the efficiency of the decisionmaking
apparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
3. Review the responsibilities of the Organization of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military
advice and force development within a resource-constrained
environment;
more
(OVER)
2
4.
Review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified
Command system in providing for the effective planning for and
use of military forces;
5. Consider the value and continued role of intervening
layers of command on the direction and control of military
forces in peace and in war;
6. Review the procedures for developing and fielding
military systems incorporating new technologies in a timely
fashion;
7.
Study and make recommendations concerning
congressional oversight and investigative procedures relating
to the Department of Defense; and
8. Recommend how to improve the effectiveness and
stability of resources allocation for defense, including the
legislative process.
(c) In formulating its recommendations to the President,
the Commission shall consider the appropriate means for
implementing its recommendations. The Commission shall first
devote its attention to the procedures and activities of the
Department of Defense associated with the procurement of
military equipment and materiel. It shall report its
conclusions and recommendations on the procurement section of
this study by December 31, 1985. The final report, encom-
passing the balance of the issues reviewed by the Commission,
shall be submitted not later than June 30, 1986, with an
interim report to be submitted not later than March 31, 1986.
(d) The Commission shall be in place and operating as
soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the Commission shall
brief the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on the Commission's plan
of action.
(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the
Commission's recommendations shall be considered in accordance
with regular administrative procedures coordinated by the
Office of Management and Budget, and involving the National
Security Council, the Department of Defense, and other depart-
ments or agencies as required.
Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of Executive
agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the
Commission such information as it may require for purposes of
carrying out its functions.
(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without
additional compensation for their work on the Commission.
However, members appointed from among private citizens may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving
intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707),
to the extent funds are available.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the
Commission with such administrative services, facilities,
staff, and other support services as may be necessary. Any
expenses of the Commission shall be paid from such funds as
may be available to the Secretary of Defense.
more
3
Sec. 4. General. (a) Notwithstanding any other
Executive order, the functions of the President under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that of
reporting to the Congress, which are applicable to the
Commission, shall be performed by the Secretary of Defense,
in accordance with guidelines and procedures established by
the Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the
submission of its final report.
RONALD REAGAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 15, 1985.
#######
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ROUTE SLIP
Take necessary action
TO
John Roberts
Approval or signature
Comment
Prepare reply
Discuss with me
For your information
See remarks below
FROM John Cooney
DATE 6/27
REMARKS
I found your comments very helpful and
agreed with the attempt to rewrite section
2. NSC responded that the wording there
was virtually verbatim-from the NSDD
which authorized this entire process and
that it was critical from their point of
view to have this language as they proposed
it, to preserve the peace treaty with
Defense.'
I have attempted a rewrite which incorpor-
ates your structural revisions but attempts
to give NSC the language in 2 (b), both in
the long introduction and in the (admittedly
duplicative) 8 subpoints, from the NSDD.
Would you please review my redraft and
see if it is acceptable?
Charlie Kolb is going to handle the EO Friday
in my absence. Please call him with your
reactions or edits.
OMB FORM 4
Rev Aug 70
EXECUTIVE ORDER
PRESIDENT'S BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON DEFENSE MANAGEMENT
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in
order to establish, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. I), a
Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is established the
President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. The
Commission shall be composed of no fewer than ten and no more
than seventeen members appointed or designated by the President.
The membership shall be bipartisan.
(b) The composition of the Commission shall include persons
with extensive experience and national reputations in commerce
and industry, as well as persons with broad experience in
government and national defense.
(c) The President shall designate a Chairman from among the
members of the Commission. The Chairman shall appoint a
professional and administrative staff to support the Commission.
Sec. 2. Functions. (a) The Commission shall study the
issues surrounding defense management and organization, and
report its findings and recommendations to the President.
(b) The primary objective of the Commission shall be to
study defense management policies and procedures, including the
budget process, the procurement system, legislative oversight,
and the organizational and operational arrangements, both formal
and informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and
specified Command System, the Military Departments, and the
Congress. In particular, the Commission shall:
1. Review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,
including the adequacy of the defense industrial base, current
law governing Federal and Department of Defense procurement
activities, departmental directives and management procedures,
and the execution of acquisition responsibilities within the
Military Departments;
2. Review the adequacy of the current authority and control
of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military
Departments, and the efficiency of the decisionmaking apparatus
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
3. Review the responsibilities of the Organization of the
Joint Chiefs to Staff in providing for joint military advice and
force development within a resource-constrained environment;
4. Review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command
system in providing for the effective planning for and use of
military forces;
5. Consider the value and continued role of intervening
layers of command on the direction and control of military forces
in peace and in war;
6. Review the procedures for developing and fielding
military systems incorporating new technologies in a timely
fashion;
7. Study and make recommendations concerning Congressional
oversight and investigative procedures relating to the Department
of Defense; and
8. Recommend how to improve the effectiveness and stability
of resources allocation for defense, including the legislative
process.
(c) In formulating its recommendations to the President, the
Commission shall consider the appropriate means for implementing
its recommendations. The Commission shall first devote its
attention to the procedures and activities of the Department of
Defense associated with the procurement of military equipment and
materiel. It shall report its conclusions and recommendations on
the procurement section of this study by December 31, 1985. The
final report, encompassing the balance of the issues reviewed by
the Commission, shall be submitted no later than June 30, 1986,
with an interim report to be submitted not later than March 31,
1986.
(d) The Commission shall be in place and operating as soon
as possible. Shortly thereafter, the Commission shall brief the
Assisant to the President for National Security Affairs and the
Secretary of Defense on the Commission's plan of action.
(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the Commission's
recommendations shall be considered in accordance with regular
administrative procedures coordinated by the Office of Management
and Budget, and involving the National Security Council, the
Department of Defense, and other departments or agencies as
required.
Sec. 3. Administration (a) The heads of Executive agencies
shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Commission
such information as it may require for purposes of carrying out
its functions.
(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without additional
compensation for their work on the Commission. However, members
appointed from among private citizens may be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the
government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707), to the extent funds are
available.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Commission
with such administrative services, facilities, staff and other
support services as may be necessary. Any expenses of the
Commission shall be paid from such funds as may be available to
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 4. General. (a) Notwithstanding any other Executive
Order, the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the
Congress, which are applicable to the Commission, shall be
performed by the Secretary of Defense, in accordance with
guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of
General Services.
(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submission
of its report, or on September 30, 1986, whichever date is
earlier.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JJR
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management"
Mike Horowitz has staffed for agency comment a draft Executive
Order to implement NSDD 175, which called for a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management. He has asked for comments
by close of business today. You will recall that when this
issue was first broached our main concerns were (1) the
Commission not be given the function of communicating to the
public what the Administration has done in the way of
defense management reform, (2) the membership of the Commis-
sion not be restricted to the ill-defined category of the
"non-defense business sector," and (3) potential conflicts
problems. (See attached copy of your June 10 memorandum for
David Chew.) The proposed Executive Order responds to the
first two concerns; the third must await the submission of a
list of prospective members.
The functions of the Commission do not include a public
relations role, and the composition is described as in-
cluding "people with extensive experience and national
reputations in commerce and industry, as well as people with
broad experience in government and national defense."
Section l(b). The description of the functions of the
Commission is organizationally somewhat unusual. Section
2 (a) states that the Commission will "study the issues
surrounding defense management and organization in
accordance with the charter and objectives established in
this section." Section 2 (b) lists as the "charter" of the
Commission more specific areas of review, and then lists
eight even more specific, and largely redundant, "objectives."
I think this is very confusing. A "charter" of a Federal
advisory committee is a specific document required by law to
be filed with the Administrator of GSA, including the
detailed information specified in Section 9 (c) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9 (c). The
term "charter" should not be loosely used in the Executive
Order. I also do not understand how "objectives" differ
from "functions." I would redraft section 2 simply to list
the various responsibilities of the Commission as functions.
- 2 -
The remainder of the Executive Order states that the
Commission should "be in place and operating as soon as
possible," briefing the National Security Adviser and the
Secretary of Defense on its plan of action. A report on
procurement is due by December 31, 1985, an interim report
on other issues by March 31, 1986, and a final report by
June 30, 1986.
The attached memorandum for Horowitz suggests the restructuring
of section 2 of the Order, and also asserts that we should
formally review the proposed Order as we usually do, after
receipt of agency comments. We have been provided a copy of
the Order at this point in light of the planned July 1
signing, but we should make clear that by providing comments
now we are not forfeiting our right to final review.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING F³|
RAH
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
NSDD and Draft Statement Regarding
Establishment of a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management
I have reviewed the memorandum for the President, draft
National Security Decision Directive, draft Presidential
remarks, and draft remarks by David Packard prepared in
connection with the proposed establishment of a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management.
The Commission is to be established by an Executive Order,
which is not yet available. The Commission will be subject
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II.
Most questions concerning compliance with that Act cannot be
answered without reference to the Executive Order establish-
ing the Commission. For example, the Act requires the
membership of any Federal advisory committee to be "fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the
functions tc be performed by the advisory committee,"
5 U.S.C. App II $ 5. FI. assessment of whether the member-
ship of an advisory committee satisfies this requirement
turns on careful analysis of the function of the committee
as articulated in the Executive Order.
It this point I can state that an Executive Order can be
developed to establish an advisory committee meeting the
goals outlined in the National Security Decision Directive,
with one important caveat. Both the directive and the draft
remarks refer to one purpose of the Commission being "to
present to the people" the progress that has been made in
improving defense management. The Commission can certainly
assess and evaluate management reforms that have been
undertaken, and report its conclusions to the President.
However, as I advised the President at last week's Issues
Luncheon, for the Commission to be formally tasked with a
public relations mission would subject the "independence" of
the Commission to attack, as well as presenting serious
problems under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other
statutes. Federal advisory committees are generally limited
to advisory functions, 5 U.S.C. App. II $ 9(b). The
- 2 -
President may, by specific directive, provide for additional
functions, but no committee with such additional functions
may operate for more than one year without specific congres-
sional authorization and appropriation to pay its expenses.
31 U.S.C. $ 1347. More relevant, a public relations function
would present difficulties in calling this a "Blue Ribbon"
group and in assessing the "balanced membership" requirement.
I also think the Commission's credibility would be seriously
impaired from the outset if its mission were described in
part as being to inform the public of the great strides
already made by the Administration in reforming defense
management. It would be far preferable to describe the
function as being to assess and evaluate progress made in
management reform, and delete any references to presenting
the facts to the public. The work of the Commission will of
course reach the public, but this should not appear as a
formal goal.
I am also concerned that the description of the prospective
membership of the Commission is unnecessarily restrictive.
The National Security Decision Directive states that the
Commission "should consist mainly but not exclusively of
people with extensive experience and national reputations in
the non-defense business sector. I would change this to
simply "should consist of people with extensive experience
and national reputations in commerce and industry.' It is
difficult to define the "non-defense business sector.' in
Hewlett-Packard certainly would not qualify. I assume the
intent is to avoid the major defense contractors -- Northrup,
TRW, etc. -- but the danger is that we would be excluding
other corporations that are not thought of as major defense
contractors but nonetheless have significant defense business,
such as General Motors.
Appointees to the Commission will have to undergo the normal
White House clearance procedures. I do not foresee any
serious conflicts problems, in view of the broad mandate of
the Commission, but will need to consider each prospective
appointee individually. It appears that full-field investi-
gations of prospective appointees will be necessary, since
they will likely need access to classified material, and
accordingly the goal of having the Commission begin its work
by June 30 may be unrealistic.
FFF:JGR:aea 6/10/85
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL HOROWITZ
COUNSEL TO THE DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management"
You have asked for comments on the above-referenced proposed
Executive Order by close of business today. In view of the
short deadline, I am submitting the following without await-
ing receipt of agency comments and formal staffing of the
Executive Order for final clearance. This office must,
igned by FFF
however, review and clear the final version of the Executive
Order, before it goes forward for Presidential action.
Orig.
The structure and organization of section 2 is confusing. I
have no quarrel with the content of the description of the
functions of the Commission, but do not think this descrip-
tion should be broken down into "functions," "charter," and
"objectives." The term "charter" is a term of art under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 9(c), and should not
be loosely used in the Executive Order. I see no difference
between "objectives" and "functions" in section 2, and think
it would be more straightforward simply to list the various
"functions," "charter," and "objectives" of the Commission
as functions under section 2. A proposed redraft of section
2 is attached; I believe it is "revenue neutral," i.e., it
retains all of the functions of the Commission and simply
reorganizes them in a more coherent fashion.
Attachment
FFF:JGR:aea 6/25/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
Section 2. Functions
(a) The Commission shall study the issues sur-
rounding defense management and organization, including:
1. the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,
including the adequacy of the defense industrial base,
current law governing Federal and Department of Defense
procurement activities, departmental directives and manage-
ment procedures, and the execution of acquisition responsi-
bilities within the Military Departments;
2. the adequacy of the current authority and control
of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military
Departments, and the efficiency of the decision-making
apparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
3. the responsibilities of the Organization of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice
and force development within a resource-constrained
environment;
4. the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command
system in providing for the effective planning for and use
of military forces;
5. the value and continued role of intervening layers
of command on the direction and control of military forces
in peace and in war;
6. the procedures for developing and fielding military
systems incorporating new technologies in a timely fashion.
7. Congressional oversight and investigative
procedures relating to the Department of Defense; and
- 2 -
8. the effectiveness and stability of resource allocation
for defense, including the legislative process.
(b) The Commission shall report its findings and
recommendations to the President. In formulating its
recommendations to the President, the Commission should
consider the appropriate means for implementing its re-
commendations. The Commission should first devote its
attention to the procedures and activities of the Depart-
ment associated with the procurement of military equipment
and material. It should report its conclusions and
recommendations on the Procurement section of this study by
December 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the
balance of those issues highlighted above should be
submitted no later than June 30, 1986, with an interim
report to be submitted not later than March 31, 1986.
(c) The Commission should be in place and
operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the
Commission should brief the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on
the Commission's plan of action.
(d) Where appropriate, implementation of the
Commission's recommendations shall be considered in
accordance with regular administrative procedures
coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget, and
involving the National Security Council, the Department of
Defense, and other departments or agencies as required.
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
0 - OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: mile Harourity
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Proposed executive order intitled "Blue
Ribbon Commission an Defense management 11
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR
85,06,24
/
/
Referral Note:
CUAT 02+
D. 85,06,24
5 85,06,25 5 85 106125
COB
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
)
Referral Note:
/
/-
/
1
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A - Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B - * Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
June 24, 1985
DISTRIBUTION
STATE
TREASURY
DEFENSE
JUSTICE
COMMERCE
ENERGY
Enclosed is a proposed Executive order entitled "Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management."
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 11030, as
amended, it was submitted to this office, along with the enclosed
transmittal memorandum, by the National Security Council.
On behalf of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I
would appreciate receiving any comments you may have concerning
this proposal. The proposed order must be submitted to the
President for signature no later than Monday, July 1, 1985.
Accordingly, if you have any comments or objections they should be
received no later than cob Tuesday, June 25, 1985.
Comments or inquiries may be submitted by telephone to Mr. John F.
Cooney of this office (395-5600).
Sincerely,
Signed
Michael J. Horowitz
Counsel to the Director
Enclosure
CC: EO Records
General Counsel
GC Chron
John Cooney, GC
Bill Mathis, OFPP
Dave Sitrin, NS
WH Counsel's Office
DO:GC:JCooney:tas:6/21/85
4896
MEMORANDUM
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
June 21, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL HOROWITZ
FROM:
WILLIAM F. MARTI UPM
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order
In accordance with the provisions of National Security Decision
Directive 175, we are forwarding herewith a draft Executive Order
to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.
Because this Order is necessary to initiate the legal and
administrative operations related to the Commission, we would ask
that the interagency and staff review be completed, and the Order
available for the President's signature, no later than July 1st.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Attachment
Tab A
Draft Executive Order
EXECUTIVE ORDER
Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and
in order to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment
(a) There is established the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management. The Commission shall be
composed of no fewer than ten and no more than seventeen members
appointed by the President. The membership shall be bipartisan.
(b) The composition of the Commission will include
people with extensive experience and national reputations in
commerce and industry, as well as people with broad experience
in government and national defense.
(c) The President shall designate a chairman from
among the members of the Commission, who shall appoint a
professional and administrative staff to support the Commission.
Section 2. Functions
(a) The Commission shall study the issues surrounding
defense management and organization, and report to the President
its findings and recommendations thereon, in accordance with the
charter and objectives established in this section.
2
(b) The charter of the Commission shall be to study
defense management policies and procedures, including the budget
process, the procurement system, legislative oversight, and
the organizational and operational arrangements, both formal
and informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and
Specified Command System, the Military Departments, and the
Congress. Objectives of the Commission shall include but not be
limited to the following:
1. To review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,
including the adequacy of the defense industrial base,
current law governing Federal and Department of Defense
procurement activities, departmental directives and
management procedures, and the execution of acquisition
responsibilities within the Military Departments.
2. To review the adequacy of the current authority and control
of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military
Departments, and the efficiency of the decision-making
apparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
3. To review the responsibilities of the Organization of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice
and force development within a resource-constrained
environment.
3
4. To review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command
system in providing for the effective planning for and use
of military forces.
5. To consider the value and continued role of intervening
layers of command on the direction and control of military
forces in peace and in war.
6. To review the procedures for developing and fielding
military systems incorporating new technologies in a timely
fashion.
7. To study and make recommendations regarding Congressional
oversight and investigative procedures relating to the
Department of Defense.
8. To recommend proposals to improve the effectiveness and
stability of resource allocation for defense, including
the legislative process.
(c) The Commission should be in place
and operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the
Commission should brief the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on the
Commission's plan of action.
4
(d) In formulating its recommendations to the
President, the Commission should consider the appropriate means
for implementing its recommendations. The Commission should
first devote its attention to the procedures and activities
of the Department associated with the procurement of military
equipment and materiel. It should report its conclusions and
recommendations on the Procurement section of this study by
December 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the balance
of those issues highlighted above should be submitted no later
than June 30, 1986, with an interim report to be submitted not
later than March 31, 1986.
(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the
Commission's recommendations shall be considered in accordance
with regular administrative procedures coordinated by the Office
of Management and Budget, and involving the National Security
Council, the Department of Defense, and other departments or
agencies as required.
Section 3. Administration
(a) The heads of Executive agencies shall, to the
extent permitted by law, provide the Commission such information
as it may require for purposes of carrying out its functions.
(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without
any additional compensation for their work on the Commission.
5
However, members appointed from among private citizens may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving
intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707),
to the extent funds are available therefor.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the
Commission with such administrative services, facilities, staff
and other support services as may be necessary. Any expenses of
the Commission shall be paid from such funds as may be available
to the Secretary of Defense.
Section 4. General
(a) Notwithstanding any other Executive Order, the
functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress, which
are applicable to the Commission, shall be performed by the
Secretary of Defense, in accordance with guidelines and
procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after
submission of its report, or on September 30, 1986, whichever
date is earlier.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
6-11
TO:
FFF
FROM: John G. Roberts, Jr.
Associate Counsel Job
to the President
FYI
COMMENT
ACTION
THE ATTACHED INCORPORATES
YOUR REVISIONS
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
NSDD and Draft Statement Regarding
Establishment of a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management
I have reviewed the memorandum for the President, draft
National Security Decision Directive, draft Presidential
remarks, and draft remarks by David Packard prepared in
connection with the proposed establishment of a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management.
The Commission is to be established by an Executive Order,
which is not yet available. The Commission will be subject
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II.
Most questions concerning compliance with that Act cannot be
answered without reference to the Executive Order establish-
ing the Commission. For example, the Act requires the
membership of any Federal advisory committee to be "fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the
functions tc be performed by the advisory committee,'
5 U.S.C. App II $ 5. An assessment of whether the member-
ship of an advisory committee satisfies this requirement
turns on careful analysis of the function of the committee
as articulated in the Executive Order.
At this point I can state that an Executive Order can be
developed to establish an advisory committee meeting the
goals outlined in the National Security Decision Directive,
with one important caveat. Both the directive and the draft
remarks refer to one purpose of the Commission being "to
present to the people" the progress that has been made in
improving defense management. The Commission can certainly
assess and evaluate management reforms that have been
undertaken, and report its conclusions to the President.
However, as I advised the President at last week's Issues
Luncheon, for the Commission to be formally tasked with a
public relations mission would subject the "independence" of
the Commission to attack, as well as presenting serious
problems under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other
statutes. Federal advisory committees are generally limited
to advisory functions, 5 U.S.C. App. II $ 9 (b). The
- 2 -
President may, by specific directive, provide for additional
functions, but no committee with such additional functions
may operate for more than one year without specific congres-
sional authorization and appropriation to pay its expenses.
31 U.S.C. $ 1347. More relevant, a public relations function
would present difficulties in calling this a- "Blue Ribbon"
group and in assessing the "balanced membership" requirement.
I also think the Commission's credibility would be seriously
impaired from the outset if its mission were described in
part as being to inform the public of the great strides
already made by the Administration in reforming defense
management. It would be far preferable to describe the
function as being to assess and evaluate progress made in
management reform, and delete any references to presenting
the facts to the public. The work of the Commission will of
course reach the public, but this should not appear as a
formal goal.
Appointees to the Commission will have to undergo the normal
White House clearance procedures. I do not foresee any
serious conflicts problems, in view of the broad mandate of
the Commission, but will need to consider each prospective
appointee individually.
FFF: JGR:aea 6/11/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
RICHARD A. HAUSER
FROM:
H. LAWRENCE GARRETT Dol
III
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
NSDD and Draft Statement Regarding
Establishment of a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management
We have reviewed the materials on the proposed Blue Ribbon
Commission. The Commission should not present serious
problems, although we cannot opine on the details of compli-
ance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act until we see an
Executive Order, or with the conflicts laws until we see a
list of prospective appointees. The attached memorandum to
Chew makes these fairly elementary points.
The memorandum also objects to something in the materials
that is likely to present problems. Both in the NSDD and
the draft remarks one function of the Commission is de-
scribed as "presenting to the public" what the Adminis-
tration has done so far. Such a self-conscious public
relations role would be more than solely advisory, and would
present a wide range of complications. The Commission can
achieve the desired effect simply by being given the task of
"assessing and evaluating" what has been done.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS JJR
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management"
Mike Horowitz has staffed for agency comment a draft Executive
Order to implement NSDD 175, which called for a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management. He has asked for comments
by close of business today. You will recall that when this
issue was first broached our main concerns were (1) the
Commission not be given the function of communicating to the
public what the Administration has done in the way of
defense management reform, (2) the membership of the Commis-
sion not be restricted to the ill-defined category of the
"non-defense business sector," and (3) potential conflicts
problems. (See attached copy of your June 10 memorandum for
David Chew.) The proposed Executive Order responds to the
first two concerns; the third must await the submission of a
list of prospective members.
The functions of the Commission do not include a public
relations role, and the composition is described as in-
cluding "people with extensive experience and national
reputations in commerce and industry, as well as people with
broad experience in government and national defense."
Section 1 (b). The description of the functions of the
Commission is organizationally somewhat unusual. Section
2 (a) states that the Commission will "study the issues
surrounding defense management and organization in
accordance with the charter and objectives established in
this section.' Section 2 (b) lists as the "charter" of the
Commission more specific areas of review, and then lists
eight even more specific, and largely redundant, "objectives."
I think this is very confusing. A "charter" of a Federal
advisory committee is a specific document required by law to
be filed with the Administrator of GSA, including the
detailed information specified in Section 9 (c) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9 (c). The
term "charter" should not be loosely used in the Executive
Order. I also do not understand how "objectives" differ
from "functions." I would redraft section 2 simply to list
the various responsibilities of the Commission as functions.
- 2 -
The remainder of the Executive Order states that the
Commission should "be in place and operating as soon as
possible," briefing the National Security Adviser and the
Secretary of Defense on its plan of action. A report on
procurement is due by December 31, 1985, an interim report
on other issues by March 31, 1986, and a final report by
June 30, 1986.
The attached memorandum for Horowitz suggests the restructuring
of section 2 of the Order, and also asserts that we should
formally review the proposed Order as we usually do, after
receipt of agency comments. We have been provided a copy of
the Order at this point in light of the planned July 1
signing, but we should make clear that by providing comments
now we are not forfeiting our right to final review.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 10, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW
STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING / RAH
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
NSDD and Draft Statement Regarding
Establishment of a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management
I have reviewed the memorandum for the President, draft
National Security Decision Directive, draft Presidential
remarks, and draft remarks by David Packard prepared in
connection with the proposed establishment of a Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management.
The Commission is to be established by an Executive Order,
which is not yet available. The Commission will be subject
to the Federal Advisory Committee Lct, 5 U.S.C. App. II.
Most questions concerning compliance with that Act cannot be
answered without reference to the Executive Order establish-
ing the Commission. For example, the Act requires the
membership of any Federal advisory committee to be "fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the
functions tc be performed by the advisory committee,"
5 U.S.C. App II $ 5. An assessment of whether the member-
ship of an advisory committee satisfies this requirement
turns on careful analysis of the function of the committee
as articulated in the Executive Order.
It this point I can state that an Executive Order can be
developed to establish an advisory committee meeting the
goals outlined in the National Security Decision Directive,
with one important caveat. Both the directive and the draft
remarks refer to ONE purpose of the Commission being "to
present to the people" the progress that has been made in
improving defense management. The Commission can certainly
assess and evaluate management reforms that have been
undertaken, and report its conclusions to the President.
However, as I advised the President at last week's Issues
Luncheon, for the Commission to be formally tasked with a
public relations mission would subject the "independence" of
the Commission to attack, as well as presenting serious
problems under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other
statutes. Federal advisory committees are generally limited
to advisory functions, 5 U.S.C. App. II $ 9(b). The
- 2 -
President may, by specific directive, provide for additional
functions, but no committee with such additional functions
may operate for more than one year without specific congres-
sional authorization and appropriation to pay its expenses.
31 U.S.C. § 1347. More relevant, a public relations function
would present difficulties in calling this a= "Blue Ribbon"
group and in assessing the "balanced membership" requirement.
I also think the Commission's credibility would be seriously
impaired from the outset if its mission were described in
part as being to inform the public of the great strides
already made by the Administration in reforming defense
management. It would be far preferable to describe the
function as being to assess and evaluate progress made in
management reform, and delete any references to presenting
the facts to the public. The work of the Commission will of
course reach the public, but this should not appear as a
formal goal.
I am also concerned that the description of the prospective
membership of the Commission is unnecessarily restrictive.
The National Security Decision Directive states that the
Commission "should consist mainly but not exclusively of
people with extensive experience and national reputations in
the non-defense business sector." I would change this to
simply "should consist of people with extensive experience
and national reputations in commerce and industry.' It is
difficult to define the "non-defense business sector. in
Hewlett-Packard certainly would not qualify. I assume the
intent is to avoid the major defense contractors -- Northrup,
TRW, etc. -- but the danger is that we would be excluding
other corporations that are not thought of as major defense
contractors but nonetheless have significant defense business,
such as General Motors.
Appointees to the Commission will have to undergo the normal
White House clearance procedures. I do not foresee any
serious conflicts problems, in view of the broad mandate of
the Commission, but will need to consider each prospective
appointee individually. It appears that full-field investi-
gations of prospective appointees will be necessary, since
they will likely need access to classified material, and
accordingly the goal of having the Commission begin its work
by June 30 may be unrealistic.
FFF: JGR:aea 6/10/85
cc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL HOROWITZ
COUNSEL TO THE DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Entitled
"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management"
You have asked for comments on the above-referenced proposed
Executive Order by close of business today. In view of the
short deadline, I am submitting the following without await-
ing receipt of agency comments and formal staffing of the
Executive Order for final clearance. This office must,
however, review and clear the final version of the Executive
Order, before it goes forward for Presidential action.
The structure and organization of section 2 is confusing. I
have no quarrel with the content of the description of the
functions of the Commission, but do not think this descrip-
tion should be broken down into "functions," "charter," and
"objectives." The term "charter" is a term of art under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 9 (c), and should not
be loosely used in the Executive Order. I see no difference
between "objectives" and "functions" in section 2, and think
it would be more straightforward simply to list the various
"functions," "charter,' and "objectives" of the Commission
as functions under section 2. A proposed redraft of section
2 is attached; I believe it is "revenue neutral," i.e., it
retains all of the functions of the Commission and simply
reorganizes them in a more coherent fashion.
Attachment
FFF:JGR:aea 6/25/85
CC: FFFielding
JGRoberts
Subj
Chron
Section 2. Functions
(a) The Commission shall study the issues sur-
rounding defense management and organization, including:
1. the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,
including the adequacy of the defense industrial base,
current law governing Federal and Department of Defense
procurement activities, departmental directives and manage-
ment procedures, and the execution of acquisition responsi-
bilities within the Military Departments;
2. the adequacy of the current authority and control
of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military
Departments, and the efficiency of the decision-making
apparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
3. the responsibilities of the Organization of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice
and force development within a resource-constrained
environment;
4. the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command
system in providing for the effective planning for and use
of military forces;
5. the value and continued role of intervening layers
of command on the direction and control of military forces
in peace and in war;
6. the procedures for developing and fielding military
systems incorporating new technologies in a timely fashion.
7. Congressional oversight and investigative
procedures relating to the Department of Defense; and
- 2 -
8. the effectiveness and stability of resource allocation
for defense, including the legislative process.
(b) The Commission shall report its findings and
recommendations to the President. In formulating its
recommendations to the President, the Commission should
consider the appropriate means for implementing its re-
commendations. The Commission should first devote its
attention to the procedures and activities of the Depart-
ment associated with the procurement of military equipment
and material. It should report its conclusions and
recommendations on the Procurement section of this study by
December 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the
balance of those issues highlighted above should be
submitted no later than June 30, 1986, with an interim
report to be submitted not later than March 31, 1986.
(c) The Commission should be in place and
operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the
Commission should brief the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on
the Commission's plan of action.
(d) Where appropriate, implementation of the
Commission's recommendations shall be considered in
accordance with regular administrative procedures
coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget, and
involving the National Security Council, the Department of
Defense, and other departments or agencies as required.
1
6/20/85
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO: JOR
FROM: Richard A. Hauser RAIF
Deputy Counsel to the President
FYI:
COMMENT:
ACTION:
NSC has asked for an
news (urformally) an the
attoched draft E.O. which
is about ready to be
circulated by OMB.
namer from
mefallane
-
Packard L. to 25 then to Tattle,
cru be nanured
wall need TS charames
EXECUTIVE ORDER
Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and
in order to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense
Management, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment
(a) There is established the President's Blue Ribbon
Commission on Defense Management. The Commission shall be
composed of no fewer than ten and no more than seventeen members
appointed by the President. The membership shall be bipartisan.
(b) The composition of the Commission will include
people with extensive experience and national reputations in
commerce and industry, as well as people with broad experience
in government and national defense.
(c) The President shall designate a chairman from
among the members of the Commission, who shall appoint a
professional and administrative staff to support the Commission.
Section 2. Functions
(a) The Commission shall study the issues surrounding
to the Prendent
defense management and organization, and report its findings
and recommendations thereon, in accordance with the charter
and objectives established in this section.
2
(b) The charter of the Commission shall be to study
defense management policies and procedures, including the budget
process, the procurement system, legislative oversight, and
the organizational and operational arrangements, both formal
and informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and
Specified Command System, the Military Departments, and the
Congress. Objectives of the Commission shall include but not be
limited to the following:
1. To review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,
including the adequacy of the defense industrial base,
current law governing Federal and Department of Defense
procurement activities, departmental directives and
management procedures, and the execution of acquisition
responsibilities within the Military Departments.
2. To review the adequacy of the current authority and control
of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military
Departments, and the efficiency of the decision-making
apparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
3. To review the responsibilities of the Organization of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice
and force development within a resource-constrained
environment.
3
4. To review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command
system in providing for the effective planning for and use
of military forces.
5. To consider the value and continued role of intervening
layers of command on the direction and control of military
forces in peace and in war.
6. To review the procedures for developing and fielding
military systems incorporating new technologies in a timely
fashion.
7. To study and make recommendations regarding Congressional
oversight and investigative procedures relating to the
Department of Defense.
8. To recommend proposals to improve the effectiveness and
stability of resource allocation for defense, including
the legislative process.
(c) The Commission should be in place
and operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the
Commission should brief the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on the
Commission's plan of action.
4
(d) In formulating its recommendations to the
President, the Commission should consider the appropriate means
for implementing its recommendations. The Commission should
first devote its attention to the procedures and activities
of the Department associated with the procurement of military
equipment and materiel. It should report its conclusions and
recommendations on the Procurement section of this study by
December 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the balance
of those issues highlighted above should be submitted no later
than June 30, 1986, with an interim report to be submitted not
later than March 31, 1986.
(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the
Commission's recommendations shall be considered in accordance
with regular administrative procedures coordinated by the Office
of Management and Budget, and involving the National Security
Council, the Department of Defense, and other departments or
agencies as required.
Section 3. Administration
(a) The heads of Executive agencies shall, to the
extent permitted by law, provide the Commission such information
as it may require for purposes of carrying out its functions.
(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without
any additional compensation for their work on the Commission.
5
However, members appointed from among private citizens may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving
intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707),
to the extent funds are available therefor.
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the
Commission with such administrative services, facilities, staff
and other support services as may be necessary. Any expenses of
the Commission shall be paid from such funds as may be available
to the Secretary of Defense.
Section 4. General
(a) Notwithstanding any other Executive Order, the
functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress, which
are applicable to the Commission, shall be performed by the
Secretary of Defense, in accordance with guidelines and
procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after
submission of its report, or on September 30, 1986, whichever
date is earlier.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
System 11
MEMORANDUM
90513
Received SS
CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
1285 JUN 15 PM
ACTION
June 15, 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
RR
FROM:
ROBERT C. McFARLANE RCM
SUBJECT:
NSDD Establishing a Blue Ribbon Commission on
Defense Management
Issue
Whether to approve the NSDD at Tab A to establish a broad-based
Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.
Facts
The charter for a Presidential Commission on Defense Management
was approved in your meeting with Secretary Weinberger on June
4th.
Discussion
The NSDD reflects the full range of acquisition, management, and
organizational issues we will face during the next few years,
many of which are being pushed by Congress. It establishes the
Commission's charter, and lays out milestones to be achieved in
the course of making its final recommendations.
While we are not endorsing or planning for a major reorganization
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Department of Defense, the
NSDD is structured to ensure that you will receive an assessment
of such proposals and recommendations on how to proceed. In
addition, the NSDD requires the Commission to put its Acquisition
report, which will cover some of our most immediate problems,
on a "fast-track." The Acquisition section is to be completed
by December, where the complete report is not required until
June 1986.
An Executive Order to implement this directive is being drafted
for your consideration next week.
Recommendation
OK
NO
PR
That you approve the NSDD at Tab A.
CONFIDENTIAL
DECLASSIFIED
Declassify on: OADR
NLS F95-030 4179
BY ship NARA, DATE 5/12/99
Attachment
Tab A
NSDD for signature
Prepared by:
Michael Donley
CONFIDENTIAL
System II
90513
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
National Security Decision
Directive Number 175
ESTABLISHMENT OF A BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
ON DEFENSE MANAGEMENT
During the last four years we have made great progress in
rebuilding our national defense and in confronting the many
challenges involved in managing this buildup. We have much to
be proud of.
Now the time has come not only to reflect and ensure that the
people know of our accomplishments, but also to prepare for the
future. Particularly in the context of the resource constrained
environment we face, we must do all we can to consolidate our
gains and sustain our efforts to reinvigorate the defense
program.
Pursuant to the advice of the Secretary of Defense, and in
consultation with Members of Congress, I have decided to
establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. The
purpose of this Commission is to review the progress already
made in improving the management, organization, acquisition,
and decision-making procedures of the Department of Defense,
and to propose such further changes as may be appropriate.
The charter of the Commission shall be to study defense
management policies and procedures, including the budget
process, the procurement system, legislative oversight, and
the organizational and operational arrangements, both formal
and informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and
Specified Command System, the Military Departments, and the
Congress.
Objectives of the Commission shall include but not be limited to
the following:
1. To review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,
including the adequacy of the defense industrial base,
current law governing Federal and Department of Defense
procurement activities, departmental directives and
management procedures, and the execution of acquisition
responsibilities within the Military Departments.
2. To review the adequacy of the current authority and control
of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military
Departments, and the efficiency of the decision-making
apparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
3. To review the responsibilities of the Organization of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice
and force development within a resource-constrained
environment.
4. To review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command
system in providing for the effective planning for and use
of military forces.
5. To consider the value and continued role of intervening
layers of command on the direction and control of military
forces in peace and in war.
6. To review the procedures for developing and fielding
military systems incorporating new technologies in a timely
fashion.
7. To study and make recommendations regarding Congressional
oversight and investigative procedures relating to the
Department of Defense.
8. To recommend proposals to improve the effectiveness and
stability of resource allocation for defense, including
the legislative process.
In formulating its recommendations to the President, the
Commission should consider the appropriate means for
implementing its recommendations. The Commission should
first devote its attention to the procedures and activities
of the Department associated with the procurement of military
equipment and materiel. It should report its conclusions and
recommendations on the Procurement section of this study by
December 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the balance
of those issues highlighted above should be submitted no later
than June 30, 1986, with an interim report to be submitted not
later than March 31, 1986.
The Commission will be bipartisan in nature and should consist
mainly but not exclusively of people with extensive experience
and national reputations in commerce and industry, as well as
people with broad experience in government and national defense.
The Department of Defense will be responsible for administrative
support to the Commission.
3
The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,
in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, should prepare- -
an Executive Order implementing this directive, and a list of
recommended Commissioners. The Commission should be in place
and operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the
Commission should brief the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on the
Commission's plan of action.
Ronald Regan
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 531d35f244665cea
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 118567632
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "118567632",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567632",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "JGR/Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567632",
"identifierLocal": "485",
"collections": [
"Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
"John Roberts' Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-005-018-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-005-018-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-005-018-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "118567632",
"label": "JGR/Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567632"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "118567632",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567632",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "JGR/Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567632",
"identifierLocal": "485",
"collections": [
"Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
"John Roberts' Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-005-018-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-005-018-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-005-018-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567632",
"naId": 118567632,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
"year": 1986
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
"year": 1982
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-005-018-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "531d35f244665cea",
"ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Blue Ribbon Commission\non Defense Management\nBox: 5\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nWITHDRAWAL SHEET\nRonald Reagan Library\nCollection: ROBERTS, JOHN G.: Files\nArchivist: smf/cas\nFile Folder: JGR/Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management\nDate: April 14, 1997\nBox 12657 1265710017\nDOCUMENT\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nNO. AND TYPE\n1.memo\nMcFarlane to the President re NSDD Establishing a\n6/15/85\nP1\nBlue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management\n(2 pp.)\nR 5/12/99 NLSF95-030\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].\nF-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].\nP-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].\nF-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of\nP-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].\nthe FOIA].\nP-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial\nF-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].\ninformation [(a)(4) of the PRA].\nF-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial\nP-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA].\nbetween such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].\nF-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of\nP-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of\nthe FOIA].\nthe PRA].\nF-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of\nthe FOIA].\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.\nF-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions\n[(b)(8) of the FOIA].\nF-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9)\nof the FOIA].\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\n(Bethesda, Maryland)\nFor Immediate Release\nJuly 15, 1985\nSTATEMENT BY THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY\nThe President is today naming fourteen distinguished citizens as\nmembers of the Commission on Defense Management. These are\nleaders with a broad range of experience in government, industry,\nand national defense. They have observed the government\nprocurement system and the defense establishment from different\nperspectives, and will provide a well-rounded assessment of\ndefense management for the President.\nDavid Packard was named by the President as Commission Chairman\non June 17.\nThe President today at 2:05 pm signed the Executive Order\nestablishing the Commission and outlining its purpose and\nobjectives. The Commission will review the progress already made\nin improving management and procurement, and will take a broad\nlook at how the Department of Defense does business, internally\nand with its contractors and the Congress. They will recommend\nfurther improvements where necessary in the defense acquisition\nprocess and in the organization of the Department of Defense.\nThe President has directed that the Commission will send him a\nblueprint for action that will be helpful to him and to the\nSecretary of Defense in furthering defense management priorities\nfor the next three years. The President has discussed the\nCommission's mandate with Secretary of Defense Weinberger, who\nfully supports the Commission's work.\nThe Commission is to report on the procurement section of its\nstudy by the end of this year. An interim report is due in\nMarch, and the final report will be sent to the President no\nlater than June 30, 1986.\n#\n#\n#\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\n(Bethesda, Maryland)\nFor Immediate Release\nJuly 15, 1985\nThe President today announced his intention to appoint the\nmembership of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement. In addition to David Packard, who was previously\nannounced to serve as Chairman, the President has selected the\nfollowing individuals to serve as members of the Commission:\nErnest Arbuckle, of California\nDean Emeritus, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University\nGeneral Robert H. Barrow, of Louisiena\nFormer Commandant of the U.S. Marl Corps\nNicholas F. Brady, of New Jersey\nChairman, Dillon, Read and Company, Inc.\nLouis Wellington Cabot, of Massachusetts\nChairman of the Board, Cabot Corporation\nFrank C. Carlucci, of Virginia\nChairman and CEO, Sears World Trade, Inc.\nWilliam P. Clark, of California\nCounsel, Rogers and Wells\nGeneral Paul Francis Gorman, of Virginia\nVice President, Burdeshaw and Associates\nCarla Anderson Hills, of Washington, D.C.\nPartner, Latham, Watkins and Hills\nAdmiral James Holloway, of Maryland\nPresident, Council of American Flagship Operators\nWilliam James Perry, of California\nManaging Director, Hambrecht and Quist\nCharles J. Pilliad, Jr., of Ohio Director and Consultant,\nGoodyear Tire and Rubber Company\nGeneral Brent Scowcroft, of Maryland\nVice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.\nHerbert Stein, of Virginia\nSenior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute\nRobert James Woolsey, of Maryland\nPartner, Shea and Gardner\n# # #\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 23, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR W. DENNIS THOMAS\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nRICHARD A. HAUSER\nDEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nExecutive Director of the President's\nBlue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement\nThis memorandum will confirm my prior oral advice to you\nconcerning the proposal to compensate the Executive Director\nof the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Manage-\nment at Executive Level II. As I have indicated, it is my\nopinion that such a scheme would not comply with applicable\nlaw.\nThe Blue Ribbon Commission is a Federal advisory committee\nexpressly subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.\nSection 7 (d) (1) (A) of that Act provides that \"no member of\nany advisory committee or of the staff of any advisory\ncommittee shall receive compensation at a rate in excess of\nthe rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule\"\n(emphasis supplied).\nSection 7 (d) (2) of the Act provides an exception to this\nrule for an individual who is, or was immediately before\njoining the advisory committee, a full-time employee of the\nUnited States. Such an individual need not take a reduction\nin pay to serve on the advisory committee. This exception\nis not available in this case. The individual in question\nis not a full-time Federal employee. The various proposals\nto hire the individual at a rate of compensation exceeding\nGS-18 and then assign him to the advisory committee would\nnot survive legal challenge. Such an effort would be a\ntransparent attempt to circumvent the limitation of Section\n7 (d) (1) (A), and the exception in Section 7 (d) (2) cannot be\ninterpreted in such a fashion as to swallow the rule. That\nexception is clearly meant only for individuals already\nserving in the Federal Government, and not for those hired\nfor no purpose other than to be detailed to the advisory\ncommittee.\nIn conclusion, the Executive Director may not be compensated\nat a rate exceeding GS-18. An individual may not be hired\nby the White House, the Department of Defense, or any other\n- 2 -\nagency at a rate exceeding GS-18, and then detailed to the\nBlue Ribbon Commission to serve as Executive Director at\nthat higher rate.\nRAH:JGR:aea 7/23/85\nCC: FFFielding\nRAHauser\nJGRoberts\nSubj\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 23, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR W. DENNIS THOMAS\nASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nRICHARD A. HAUSER\nOriginal signed by RAH\nDEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nExecutive Director of the President's\nBlue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement\nThis memorandum will confirm my prior oral advice to you\nconcerning the proposal to compensate the Executive Director\nof the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Manage-\nment at Executive Level II. As I have indicated, it is my\nopinion that such a scheme would not comply with applicable\nlaw.\nThe Blue Ribbon Commission is a Federal advisory committee\nexpressly subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.\nSection 7 (d) (1) (A) of that Act provides that \"no member of\nany advisory committee or of the staff of any advisory\ncommittee shall receive compensation at a rate in excess of\nthe rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule\"\n(emphasis supplied).\nSection 7 (d) (2) of the Act provides an exception to this\nrule for an individual who is, or was immediately before\njoining the advisory committee, a full-time employee of the\nUnited States. Such an individual need not take a reduction\nin pay to serve on the advisory committee. This exception\nis not available in this case. The individual in question\nis not a full-time Federal employee. The various proposals\nto hire the individual at a rate of compensation exceeding\nGS-18 and then assign him to the advisory committee would\nnot survive legal challenge. Such an effort would be a\ntransparent attempt to circumvent the limitation of Section\n7 (d) (1) (A), and the exception in Section 7 (d) (2) cannot be\ninterpreted in such a fashion as to swallow the rule. That\nexception is clearly meant only for individuals already\nserving in the Federal Government, and not for those hired\nfor no purpose other than to be detailed to the advisory\ncommittee.\nIn conclusion, the Executive Director may not be compensated\nat a rate exceeding GS-18. An individual may not be hired\nby the White House, the Department of Defense, or any other\n- 2 -\nagency at a rate exceeding GS-18, and then detailed to the\nBlue Ribbon Commission to serve as Executive Director at\nthat higher rate.\nRAH:JGR:aea 7/23/85\nCC: FFFielding\nRAHauser\nJGRoberts\nSubj\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFor Immediate Release\nJuly 16, 1985\nEXECUTIVE ORDER\nPRESIDENT'S BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON DEFENSE MANAGEMENT\nBy the authority vested in me as President by the\nConstitution and the laws of the United States of America, and\nin order to establish, in accordance with the provisions of\nthe Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.\nApp. I), a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, it is\nhereby ordered as follows:\nSection 1. Establishment. (a) There is established\nthe President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.\nThe Commission shall be composed of no fewer than ten and no\nmore than seventeen members appointed or designated by the\nPresident.\n(b) The composition of the Commission shall include\npersons with extensive experience and national reputations\nin commerce and industry, as well as persons with broad\nexperience in government and national defense.\n(c) The President shall designate a Chairman from\namong the members of the Commission. The Chairman shall\nappoint a professional and administrative staff to support\nthe Commission.\nSec. 2. Functions. (a) The Commission shall study the\nissues surrounding defense management and organization, and\nreport its findings and recommendations to the President and\nsimultaneously submit a copy of its report to the Secretary of\nDefense.\n(b) The primary objective of the Commission shall be to\nstudy defense management policies and procedures, including\nthe budget process, the procurement system, legislative over-\nsight, and the organizational and operational arrangements,\nboth formal and informal, among the Office of the Secretary of\nDefense, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the\nUnified and Specified Command system, the Military Depart-\nments, and the Congress. In particular, the Commission shall:\n1. Review the adequacy of the defense acquisition\nprocess, including the adequacy of the defense industrial\nbase, current law governing Federal and Department of Defense\nprocurement activities, departmental directives and management\nprocedures, and the execution of acquisition responsibilities\nwithin the Military Departments;\n2. Review the adequacy of the current authority and\ncontrol of the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the\nMilitary Departments, and the efficiency of the decisionmaking\napparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense;\n3. Review the responsibilities of the Organization of\nthe Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military\nadvice and force development within a resource-constrained\nenvironment;\nmore\n(OVER)\n2\n4.\nReview the adequacy of the Unified and Specified\nCommand system in providing for the effective planning for and\nuse of military forces;\n5. Consider the value and continued role of intervening\nlayers of command on the direction and control of military\nforces in peace and in war;\n6. Review the procedures for developing and fielding\nmilitary systems incorporating new technologies in a timely\nfashion;\n7.\nStudy and make recommendations concerning\ncongressional oversight and investigative procedures relating\nto the Department of Defense; and\n8. Recommend how to improve the effectiveness and\nstability of resources allocation for defense, including the\nlegislative process.\n(c) In formulating its recommendations to the President,\nthe Commission shall consider the appropriate means for\nimplementing its recommendations. The Commission shall first\ndevote its attention to the procedures and activities of the\nDepartment of Defense associated with the procurement of\nmilitary equipment and materiel. It shall report its\nconclusions and recommendations on the procurement section of\nthis study by December 31, 1985. The final report, encom-\npassing the balance of the issues reviewed by the Commission,\nshall be submitted not later than June 30, 1986, with an\ninterim report to be submitted not later than March 31, 1986.\n(d) The Commission shall be in place and operating as\nsoon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the Commission shall\nbrief the Assistant to the President for National Security\nAffairs and the Secretary of Defense on the Commission's plan\nof action.\n(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the\nCommission's recommendations shall be considered in accordance\nwith regular administrative procedures coordinated by the\nOffice of Management and Budget, and involving the National\nSecurity Council, the Department of Defense, and other depart-\nments or agencies as required.\nSec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of Executive\nagencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the\nCommission such information as it may require for purposes of\ncarrying out its functions.\n(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without\nadditional compensation for their work on the Commission.\nHowever, members appointed from among private citizens may\nbe allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of\nsubsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving\nintermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707),\nto the extent funds are available.\n(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the\nCommission with such administrative services, facilities,\nstaff, and other support services as may be necessary. Any\nexpenses of the Commission shall be paid from such funds as\nmay be available to the Secretary of Defense.\nmore\n3\nSec. 4. General. (a) Notwithstanding any other\nExecutive order, the functions of the President under the\nFederal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that of\nreporting to the Congress, which are applicable to the\nCommission, shall be performed by the Secretary of Defense,\nin accordance with guidelines and procedures established by\nthe Administrator of General Services.\n(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the\nsubmission of its final report.\nRONALD REAGAN\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nJuly 15, 1985.\n#######\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nROUTE SLIP\nTake necessary action\nTO\nJohn Roberts\nApproval or signature\nComment\nPrepare reply\nDiscuss with me\nFor your information\nSee remarks below\nFROM John Cooney\nDATE 6/27\nREMARKS\nI found your comments very helpful and\nagreed with the attempt to rewrite section\n2. NSC responded that the wording there\nwas virtually verbatim-from the NSDD\nwhich authorized this entire process and\nthat it was critical from their point of\nview to have this language as they proposed\nit, to preserve the peace treaty with\nDefense.'\nI have attempted a rewrite which incorpor-\nates your structural revisions but attempts\nto give NSC the language in 2 (b), both in\nthe long introduction and in the (admittedly\nduplicative) 8 subpoints, from the NSDD.\nWould you please review my redraft and\nsee if it is acceptable?\nCharlie Kolb is going to handle the EO Friday\nin my absence. Please call him with your\nreactions or edits.\nOMB FORM 4\nRev Aug 70\nEXECUTIVE ORDER\nPRESIDENT'S BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON DEFENSE MANAGEMENT\nBy the authority vested in me as President by the\nConstitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in\norder to establish, in accordance with the provisions of the\nFederal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. I), a\nBlue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, it is hereby\nordered as follows:\nSection 1. Establishment. (a) There is established the\nPresident's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. The\nCommission shall be composed of no fewer than ten and no more\nthan seventeen members appointed or designated by the President.\nThe membership shall be bipartisan.\n(b) The composition of the Commission shall include persons\nwith extensive experience and national reputations in commerce\nand industry, as well as persons with broad experience in\ngovernment and national defense.\n(c) The President shall designate a Chairman from among the\nmembers of the Commission. The Chairman shall appoint a\nprofessional and administrative staff to support the Commission.\nSec. 2. Functions. (a) The Commission shall study the\nissues surrounding defense management and organization, and\nreport its findings and recommendations to the President.\n(b) The primary objective of the Commission shall be to\nstudy defense management policies and procedures, including the\nbudget process, the procurement system, legislative oversight,\nand the organizational and operational arrangements, both formal\nand informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the\nOrganization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and\nspecified Command System, the Military Departments, and the\nCongress. In particular, the Commission shall:\n1. Review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,\nincluding the adequacy of the defense industrial base, current\nlaw governing Federal and Department of Defense procurement\nactivities, departmental directives and management procedures,\nand the execution of acquisition responsibilities within the\nMilitary Departments;\n2. Review the adequacy of the current authority and control\nof the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military\nDepartments, and the efficiency of the decisionmaking apparatus\nof the Office of the Secretary of Defense;\n3. Review the responsibilities of the Organization of the\nJoint Chiefs to Staff in providing for joint military advice and\nforce development within a resource-constrained environment;\n4. Review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command\nsystem in providing for the effective planning for and use of\nmilitary forces;\n5. Consider the value and continued role of intervening\nlayers of command on the direction and control of military forces\nin peace and in war;\n6. Review the procedures for developing and fielding\nmilitary systems incorporating new technologies in a timely\nfashion;\n7. Study and make recommendations concerning Congressional\noversight and investigative procedures relating to the Department\nof Defense; and\n8. Recommend how to improve the effectiveness and stability\nof resources allocation for defense, including the legislative\nprocess.\n(c) In formulating its recommendations to the President, the\nCommission shall consider the appropriate means for implementing\nits recommendations. The Commission shall first devote its\nattention to the procedures and activities of the Department of\nDefense associated with the procurement of military equipment and\nmateriel. It shall report its conclusions and recommendations on\nthe procurement section of this study by December 31, 1985. The\nfinal report, encompassing the balance of the issues reviewed by\nthe Commission, shall be submitted no later than June 30, 1986,\nwith an interim report to be submitted not later than March 31,\n1986.\n(d) The Commission shall be in place and operating as soon\nas possible. Shortly thereafter, the Commission shall brief the\nAssisant to the President for National Security Affairs and the\nSecretary of Defense on the Commission's plan of action.\n(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the Commission's\nrecommendations shall be considered in accordance with regular\nadministrative procedures coordinated by the Office of Management\nand Budget, and involving the National Security Council, the\nDepartment of Defense, and other departments or agencies as\nrequired.\nSec. 3. Administration (a) The heads of Executive agencies\nshall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Commission\nsuch information as it may require for purposes of carrying out\nits functions.\n(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without additional\ncompensation for their work on the Commission. However, members\nappointed from among private citizens may be allowed travel\nexpenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as\nauthorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the\ngovernment service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707), to the extent funds are\navailable.\n(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the Commission\nwith such administrative services, facilities, staff and other\nsupport services as may be necessary. Any expenses of the\nCommission shall be paid from such funds as may be available to\nthe Secretary of Defense.\nSec. 4. General. (a) Notwithstanding any other Executive\nOrder, the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory\nCommittee Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the\nCongress, which are applicable to the Commission, shall be\nperformed by the Secretary of Defense, in accordance with\nguidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of\nGeneral Services.\n(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submission\nof its report, or on September 30, 1986, whichever date is\nearlier.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 25, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS JJR\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\n\"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement\"\nMike Horowitz has staffed for agency comment a draft Executive\nOrder to implement NSDD 175, which called for a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management. He has asked for comments\nby close of business today. You will recall that when this\nissue was first broached our main concerns were (1) the\nCommission not be given the function of communicating to the\npublic what the Administration has done in the way of\ndefense management reform, (2) the membership of the Commis-\nsion not be restricted to the ill-defined category of the\n\"non-defense business sector,\" and (3) potential conflicts\nproblems. (See attached copy of your June 10 memorandum for\nDavid Chew.) The proposed Executive Order responds to the\nfirst two concerns; the third must await the submission of a\nlist of prospective members.\nThe functions of the Commission do not include a public\nrelations role, and the composition is described as in-\ncluding \"people with extensive experience and national\nreputations in commerce and industry, as well as people with\nbroad experience in government and national defense.\"\nSection l(b). The description of the functions of the\nCommission is organizationally somewhat unusual. Section\n2 (a) states that the Commission will \"study the issues\nsurrounding defense management and organization in\naccordance with the charter and objectives established in\nthis section.\" Section 2 (b) lists as the \"charter\" of the\nCommission more specific areas of review, and then lists\neight even more specific, and largely redundant, \"objectives.\"\nI think this is very confusing. A \"charter\" of a Federal\nadvisory committee is a specific document required by law to\nbe filed with the Administrator of GSA, including the\ndetailed information specified in Section 9 (c) of the\nFederal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9 (c). The\nterm \"charter\" should not be loosely used in the Executive\nOrder. I also do not understand how \"objectives\" differ\nfrom \"functions.\" I would redraft section 2 simply to list\nthe various responsibilities of the Commission as functions.\n- 2 -\nThe remainder of the Executive Order states that the\nCommission should \"be in place and operating as soon as\npossible,\" briefing the National Security Adviser and the\nSecretary of Defense on its plan of action. A report on\nprocurement is due by December 31, 1985, an interim report\non other issues by March 31, 1986, and a final report by\nJune 30, 1986.\nThe attached memorandum for Horowitz suggests the restructuring\nof section 2 of the Order, and also asserts that we should\nformally review the proposed Order as we usually do, after\nreceipt of agency comments. We have been provided a copy of\nthe Order at this point in light of the planned July 1\nsigning, but we should make clear that by providing comments\nnow we are not forfeiting our right to final review.\nAttachments\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 10, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING F³|\nRAH\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nNSDD and Draft Statement Regarding\nEstablishment of a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management\nI have reviewed the memorandum for the President, draft\nNational Security Decision Directive, draft Presidential\nremarks, and draft remarks by David Packard prepared in\nconnection with the proposed establishment of a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management.\nThe Commission is to be established by an Executive Order,\nwhich is not yet available. The Commission will be subject\nto the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II.\nMost questions concerning compliance with that Act cannot be\nanswered without reference to the Executive Order establish-\ning the Commission. For example, the Act requires the\nmembership of any Federal advisory committee to be \"fairly\nbalanced in terms of the points of view represented and the\nfunctions tc be performed by the advisory committee,\"\n5 U.S.C. App II $ 5. FI. assessment of whether the member-\nship of an advisory committee satisfies this requirement\nturns on careful analysis of the function of the committee\nas articulated in the Executive Order.\nIt this point I can state that an Executive Order can be\ndeveloped to establish an advisory committee meeting the\ngoals outlined in the National Security Decision Directive,\nwith one important caveat. Both the directive and the draft\nremarks refer to one purpose of the Commission being \"to\npresent to the people\" the progress that has been made in\nimproving defense management. The Commission can certainly\nassess and evaluate management reforms that have been\nundertaken, and report its conclusions to the President.\nHowever, as I advised the President at last week's Issues\nLuncheon, for the Commission to be formally tasked with a\npublic relations mission would subject the \"independence\" of\nthe Commission to attack, as well as presenting serious\nproblems under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other\nstatutes. Federal advisory committees are generally limited\nto advisory functions, 5 U.S.C. App. II $ 9(b). The\n- 2 -\nPresident may, by specific directive, provide for additional\nfunctions, but no committee with such additional functions\nmay operate for more than one year without specific congres-\nsional authorization and appropriation to pay its expenses.\n31 U.S.C. $ 1347. More relevant, a public relations function\nwould present difficulties in calling this a \"Blue Ribbon\"\ngroup and in assessing the \"balanced membership\" requirement.\nI also think the Commission's credibility would be seriously\nimpaired from the outset if its mission were described in\npart as being to inform the public of the great strides\nalready made by the Administration in reforming defense\nmanagement. It would be far preferable to describe the\nfunction as being to assess and evaluate progress made in\nmanagement reform, and delete any references to presenting\nthe facts to the public. The work of the Commission will of\ncourse reach the public, but this should not appear as a\nformal goal.\nI am also concerned that the description of the prospective\nmembership of the Commission is unnecessarily restrictive.\nThe National Security Decision Directive states that the\nCommission \"should consist mainly but not exclusively of\npeople with extensive experience and national reputations in\nthe non-defense business sector. I would change this to\nsimply \"should consist of people with extensive experience\nand national reputations in commerce and industry.' It is\ndifficult to define the \"non-defense business sector.' in\nHewlett-Packard certainly would not qualify. I assume the\nintent is to avoid the major defense contractors -- Northrup,\nTRW, etc. -- but the danger is that we would be excluding\nother corporations that are not thought of as major defense\ncontractors but nonetheless have significant defense business,\nsuch as General Motors.\nAppointees to the Commission will have to undergo the normal\nWhite House clearance procedures. I do not foresee any\nserious conflicts problems, in view of the broad mandate of\nthe Commission, but will need to consider each prospective\nappointee individually. It appears that full-field investi-\ngations of prospective appointees will be necessary, since\nthey will likely need access to classified material, and\naccordingly the goal of having the Commission begin its work\nby June 30 may be unrealistic.\nFFF:JGR:aea 6/10/85\nCC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 25, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL HOROWITZ\nCOUNSEL TO THE DIRECTOR\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\n\"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement\"\nYou have asked for comments on the above-referenced proposed\nExecutive Order by close of business today. In view of the\nshort deadline, I am submitting the following without await-\ning receipt of agency comments and formal staffing of the\nExecutive Order for final clearance. This office must,\nigned by FFF\nhowever, review and clear the final version of the Executive\nOrder, before it goes forward for Presidential action.\nOrig.\nThe structure and organization of section 2 is confusing. I\nhave no quarrel with the content of the description of the\nfunctions of the Commission, but do not think this descrip-\ntion should be broken down into \"functions,\" \"charter,\" and\n\"objectives.\" The term \"charter\" is a term of art under the\nFederal Advisory Committee Act, section 9(c), and should not\nbe loosely used in the Executive Order. I see no difference\nbetween \"objectives\" and \"functions\" in section 2, and think\nit would be more straightforward simply to list the various\n\"functions,\" \"charter,\" and \"objectives\" of the Commission\nas functions under section 2. A proposed redraft of section\n2 is attached; I believe it is \"revenue neutral,\" i.e., it\nretains all of the functions of the Commission and simply\nreorganizes them in a more coherent fashion.\nAttachment\nFFF:JGR:aea 6/25/85\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj\nChron\nSection 2. Functions\n(a) The Commission shall study the issues sur-\nrounding defense management and organization, including:\n1. the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,\nincluding the adequacy of the defense industrial base,\ncurrent law governing Federal and Department of Defense\nprocurement activities, departmental directives and manage-\nment procedures, and the execution of acquisition responsi-\nbilities within the Military Departments;\n2. the adequacy of the current authority and control\nof the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military\nDepartments, and the efficiency of the decision-making\napparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense;\n3. the responsibilities of the Organization of the\nJoint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice\nand force development within a resource-constrained\nenvironment;\n4. the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command\nsystem in providing for the effective planning for and use\nof military forces;\n5. the value and continued role of intervening layers\nof command on the direction and control of military forces\nin peace and in war;\n6. the procedures for developing and fielding military\nsystems incorporating new technologies in a timely fashion.\n7. Congressional oversight and investigative\nprocedures relating to the Department of Defense; and\n- 2 -\n8. the effectiveness and stability of resource allocation\nfor defense, including the legislative process.\n(b) The Commission shall report its findings and\nrecommendations to the President. In formulating its\nrecommendations to the President, the Commission should\nconsider the appropriate means for implementing its re-\ncommendations. The Commission should first devote its\nattention to the procedures and activities of the Depart-\nment associated with the procurement of military equipment\nand material. It should report its conclusions and\nrecommendations on the Procurement section of this study by\nDecember 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the\nbalance of those issues highlighted above should be\nsubmitted no later than June 30, 1986, with an interim\nreport to be submitted not later than March 31, 1986.\n(c) The Commission should be in place and\noperating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the\nCommission should brief the Assistant to the President for\nNational Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on\nthe Commission's plan of action.\n(d) Where appropriate, implementation of the\nCommission's recommendations shall be considered in\naccordance with regular administrative procedures\ncoordinated by the Office of Management and Budget, and\ninvolving the National Security Council, the Department of\nDefense, and other departments or agencies as required.\nID #.\nCU\nWHITE HOUSE\nCORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET\n0 - OUTGOING\nH . INTERNAL\nI . INCOMING\nDate Correspondence\nReceived (YY/MM/DD)\n/\n/\nName of Correspondent: mile Harourity\nMI Mail Report\nUser Codes: (A)\n(B)\n(C)\nSubject: Proposed executive order intitled \"Blue\nRibbon Commission an Defense management 11\nROUTE TO:\nACTION\nDISPOSITION\nTracking\nType\nCompletion\nAction\nDate\nof\nDate\nOffice/Agency\n(Staff Name)\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nResponse\nCode\nYY/MM/DD\nCUHOLL\nORIGINATOR\n85,06,24\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nCUAT 02+\nD. 85,06,24\n5 85,06,25 5 85 106125\nCOB\nReferral Note:\n/\n/\n/\n/\n-\nReferral Note:\n/ /\n/\n/\n)\nReferral Note:\n/\n/-\n/\n1\n/\n/\nReferral Note:\nACTION CODES:\nDISPOSITION CODES:\nA - Appropriate Action\nI . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary\nA Answered\nC Completed\nC Comment/Recommendation\nR Direct Reply w/Copy\nB - * Non-Special Referral\nS Suspended\nD Draft Response\nS For Signature\nF Furnish Fact Sheet\nX Interim Reply\nto be used as Enclosure\nFOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:\nType of Response = Initials of Signer\nCode = \"A\"\nCompletion Date = Date of Outgoing\nComments:\nKeep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.\nSend all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).\nAlways return completed correspondence record to Central Files.\nRefer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.\n5/81\nJune 24, 1985\nDISTRIBUTION\nSTATE\nTREASURY\nDEFENSE\nJUSTICE\nCOMMERCE\nENERGY\nEnclosed is a proposed Executive order entitled \"Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management.\"\nIn accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 11030, as\namended, it was submitted to this office, along with the enclosed\ntransmittal memorandum, by the National Security Council.\nOn behalf of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I\nwould appreciate receiving any comments you may have concerning\nthis proposal. The proposed order must be submitted to the\nPresident for signature no later than Monday, July 1, 1985.\nAccordingly, if you have any comments or objections they should be\nreceived no later than cob Tuesday, June 25, 1985.\nComments or inquiries may be submitted by telephone to Mr. John F.\nCooney of this office (395-5600).\nSincerely,\nSigned\nMichael J. Horowitz\nCounsel to the Director\nEnclosure\nCC: EO Records\nGeneral Counsel\nGC Chron\nJohn Cooney, GC\nBill Mathis, OFPP\nDave Sitrin, NS\nWH Counsel's Office\nDO:GC:JCooney:tas:6/21/85\n4896\nMEMORANDUM\nNATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL\nJune 21, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL HOROWITZ\nFROM:\nWILLIAM F. MARTI UPM\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order\nIn accordance with the provisions of National Security Decision\nDirective 175, we are forwarding herewith a draft Executive Order\nto establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.\nBecause this Order is necessary to initiate the legal and\nadministrative operations related to the Commission, we would ask\nthat the interagency and staff review be completed, and the Order\navailable for the President's signature, no later than July 1st.\nWe appreciate your assistance in this matter.\nAttachment\nTab A\nDraft Executive Order\nEXECUTIVE ORDER\nBlue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management\nBy the authority vested in me as President by the\nConstitution and the laws of the United States of America, and\nin order to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement, it is hereby ordered as follows:\nSection 1. Establishment\n(a) There is established the President's Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management. The Commission shall be\ncomposed of no fewer than ten and no more than seventeen members\nappointed by the President. The membership shall be bipartisan.\n(b) The composition of the Commission will include\npeople with extensive experience and national reputations in\ncommerce and industry, as well as people with broad experience\nin government and national defense.\n(c) The President shall designate a chairman from\namong the members of the Commission, who shall appoint a\nprofessional and administrative staff to support the Commission.\nSection 2. Functions\n(a) The Commission shall study the issues surrounding\ndefense management and organization, and report to the President\nits findings and recommendations thereon, in accordance with the\ncharter and objectives established in this section.\n2\n(b) The charter of the Commission shall be to study\ndefense management policies and procedures, including the budget\nprocess, the procurement system, legislative oversight, and\nthe organizational and operational arrangements, both formal\nand informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense,\nthe Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and\nSpecified Command System, the Military Departments, and the\nCongress. Objectives of the Commission shall include but not be\nlimited to the following:\n1. To review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,\nincluding the adequacy of the defense industrial base,\ncurrent law governing Federal and Department of Defense\nprocurement activities, departmental directives and\nmanagement procedures, and the execution of acquisition\nresponsibilities within the Military Departments.\n2. To review the adequacy of the current authority and control\nof the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military\nDepartments, and the efficiency of the decision-making\napparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.\n3. To review the responsibilities of the Organization of the\nJoint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice\nand force development within a resource-constrained\nenvironment.\n3\n4. To review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command\nsystem in providing for the effective planning for and use\nof military forces.\n5. To consider the value and continued role of intervening\nlayers of command on the direction and control of military\nforces in peace and in war.\n6. To review the procedures for developing and fielding\nmilitary systems incorporating new technologies in a timely\nfashion.\n7. To study and make recommendations regarding Congressional\noversight and investigative procedures relating to the\nDepartment of Defense.\n8. To recommend proposals to improve the effectiveness and\nstability of resource allocation for defense, including\nthe legislative process.\n(c) The Commission should be in place\nand operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the\nCommission should brief the Assistant to the President for\nNational Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on the\nCommission's plan of action.\n4\n(d) In formulating its recommendations to the\nPresident, the Commission should consider the appropriate means\nfor implementing its recommendations. The Commission should\nfirst devote its attention to the procedures and activities\nof the Department associated with the procurement of military\nequipment and materiel. It should report its conclusions and\nrecommendations on the Procurement section of this study by\nDecember 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the balance\nof those issues highlighted above should be submitted no later\nthan June 30, 1986, with an interim report to be submitted not\nlater than March 31, 1986.\n(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the\nCommission's recommendations shall be considered in accordance\nwith regular administrative procedures coordinated by the Office\nof Management and Budget, and involving the National Security\nCouncil, the Department of Defense, and other departments or\nagencies as required.\nSection 3. Administration\n(a) The heads of Executive agencies shall, to the\nextent permitted by law, provide the Commission such information\nas it may require for purposes of carrying out its functions.\n(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without\nany additional compensation for their work on the Commission.\n5\nHowever, members appointed from among private citizens may\nbe allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of\nsubsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving\nintermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707),\nto the extent funds are available therefor.\n(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the\nCommission with such administrative services, facilities, staff\nand other support services as may be necessary. Any expenses of\nthe Commission shall be paid from such funds as may be available\nto the Secretary of Defense.\nSection 4. General\n(a) Notwithstanding any other Executive Order, the\nfunctions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee\nAct, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress, which\nare applicable to the Commission, shall be performed by the\nSecretary of Defense, in accordance with guidelines and\nprocedures established by the Administrator of General Services.\n(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after\nsubmission of its report, or on September 30, 1986, whichever\ndate is earlier.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n6-11\nTO:\nFFF\nFROM: John G. Roberts, Jr.\nAssociate Counsel Job\nto the President\nFYI\nCOMMENT\nACTION\nTHE ATTACHED INCORPORATES\nYOUR REVISIONS\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 10, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nNSDD and Draft Statement Regarding\nEstablishment of a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management\nI have reviewed the memorandum for the President, draft\nNational Security Decision Directive, draft Presidential\nremarks, and draft remarks by David Packard prepared in\nconnection with the proposed establishment of a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management.\nThe Commission is to be established by an Executive Order,\nwhich is not yet available. The Commission will be subject\nto the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II.\nMost questions concerning compliance with that Act cannot be\nanswered without reference to the Executive Order establish-\ning the Commission. For example, the Act requires the\nmembership of any Federal advisory committee to be \"fairly\nbalanced in terms of the points of view represented and the\nfunctions tc be performed by the advisory committee,'\n5 U.S.C. App II $ 5. An assessment of whether the member-\nship of an advisory committee satisfies this requirement\nturns on careful analysis of the function of the committee\nas articulated in the Executive Order.\nAt this point I can state that an Executive Order can be\ndeveloped to establish an advisory committee meeting the\ngoals outlined in the National Security Decision Directive,\nwith one important caveat. Both the directive and the draft\nremarks refer to one purpose of the Commission being \"to\npresent to the people\" the progress that has been made in\nimproving defense management. The Commission can certainly\nassess and evaluate management reforms that have been\nundertaken, and report its conclusions to the President.\nHowever, as I advised the President at last week's Issues\nLuncheon, for the Commission to be formally tasked with a\npublic relations mission would subject the \"independence\" of\nthe Commission to attack, as well as presenting serious\nproblems under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other\nstatutes. Federal advisory committees are generally limited\nto advisory functions, 5 U.S.C. App. II $ 9 (b). The\n- 2 -\nPresident may, by specific directive, provide for additional\nfunctions, but no committee with such additional functions\nmay operate for more than one year without specific congres-\nsional authorization and appropriation to pay its expenses.\n31 U.S.C. $ 1347. More relevant, a public relations function\nwould present difficulties in calling this a- \"Blue Ribbon\"\ngroup and in assessing the \"balanced membership\" requirement.\nI also think the Commission's credibility would be seriously\nimpaired from the outset if its mission were described in\npart as being to inform the public of the great strides\nalready made by the Administration in reforming defense\nmanagement. It would be far preferable to describe the\nfunction as being to assess and evaluate progress made in\nmanagement reform, and delete any references to presenting\nthe facts to the public. The work of the Commission will of\ncourse reach the public, but this should not appear as a\nformal goal.\nAppointees to the Commission will have to undergo the normal\nWhite House clearance procedures. I do not foresee any\nserious conflicts problems, in view of the broad mandate of\nthe Commission, but will need to consider each prospective\nappointee individually.\nFFF: JGR:aea 6/11/85\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 10, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nRICHARD A. HAUSER\nFROM:\nH. LAWRENCE GARRETT Dol\nIII\nJOHN G. ROBERTS\nSUBJECT:\nNSDD and Draft Statement Regarding\nEstablishment of a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management\nWe have reviewed the materials on the proposed Blue Ribbon\nCommission. The Commission should not present serious\nproblems, although we cannot opine on the details of compli-\nance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act until we see an\nExecutive Order, or with the conflicts laws until we see a\nlist of prospective appointees. The attached memorandum to\nChew makes these fairly elementary points.\nThe memorandum also objects to something in the materials\nthat is likely to present problems. Both in the NSDD and\nthe draft remarks one function of the Commission is de-\nscribed as \"presenting to the public\" what the Adminis-\ntration has done so far. Such a self-conscious public\nrelations role would be more than solely advisory, and would\npresent a wide range of complications. The Commission can\nachieve the desired effect simply by being given the task of\n\"assessing and evaluating\" what has been done.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 25, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING\nFROM:\nJOHN G. ROBERTS JJR\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\n\"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement\"\nMike Horowitz has staffed for agency comment a draft Executive\nOrder to implement NSDD 175, which called for a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management. He has asked for comments\nby close of business today. You will recall that when this\nissue was first broached our main concerns were (1) the\nCommission not be given the function of communicating to the\npublic what the Administration has done in the way of\ndefense management reform, (2) the membership of the Commis-\nsion not be restricted to the ill-defined category of the\n\"non-defense business sector,\" and (3) potential conflicts\nproblems. (See attached copy of your June 10 memorandum for\nDavid Chew.) The proposed Executive Order responds to the\nfirst two concerns; the third must await the submission of a\nlist of prospective members.\nThe functions of the Commission do not include a public\nrelations role, and the composition is described as in-\ncluding \"people with extensive experience and national\nreputations in commerce and industry, as well as people with\nbroad experience in government and national defense.\"\nSection 1 (b). The description of the functions of the\nCommission is organizationally somewhat unusual. Section\n2 (a) states that the Commission will \"study the issues\nsurrounding defense management and organization in\naccordance with the charter and objectives established in\nthis section.' Section 2 (b) lists as the \"charter\" of the\nCommission more specific areas of review, and then lists\neight even more specific, and largely redundant, \"objectives.\"\nI think this is very confusing. A \"charter\" of a Federal\nadvisory committee is a specific document required by law to\nbe filed with the Administrator of GSA, including the\ndetailed information specified in Section 9 (c) of the\nFederal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 9 (c). The\nterm \"charter\" should not be loosely used in the Executive\nOrder. I also do not understand how \"objectives\" differ\nfrom \"functions.\" I would redraft section 2 simply to list\nthe various responsibilities of the Commission as functions.\n- 2 -\nThe remainder of the Executive Order states that the\nCommission should \"be in place and operating as soon as\npossible,\" briefing the National Security Adviser and the\nSecretary of Defense on its plan of action. A report on\nprocurement is due by December 31, 1985, an interim report\non other issues by March 31, 1986, and a final report by\nJune 30, 1986.\nThe attached memorandum for Horowitz suggests the restructuring\nof section 2 of the Order, and also asserts that we should\nformally review the proposed Order as we usually do, after\nreceipt of agency comments. We have been provided a copy of\nthe Order at this point in light of the planned July 1\nsigning, but we should make clear that by providing comments\nnow we are not forfeiting our right to final review.\nAttachments\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 10, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR DAVID L. CHEW\nSTAFF SECRETARY\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING / RAH\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nNSDD and Draft Statement Regarding\nEstablishment of a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management\nI have reviewed the memorandum for the President, draft\nNational Security Decision Directive, draft Presidential\nremarks, and draft remarks by David Packard prepared in\nconnection with the proposed establishment of a Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management.\nThe Commission is to be established by an Executive Order,\nwhich is not yet available. The Commission will be subject\nto the Federal Advisory Committee Lct, 5 U.S.C. App. II.\nMost questions concerning compliance with that Act cannot be\nanswered without reference to the Executive Order establish-\ning the Commission. For example, the Act requires the\nmembership of any Federal advisory committee to be \"fairly\nbalanced in terms of the points of view represented and the\nfunctions tc be performed by the advisory committee,\"\n5 U.S.C. App II $ 5. An assessment of whether the member-\nship of an advisory committee satisfies this requirement\nturns on careful analysis of the function of the committee\nas articulated in the Executive Order.\nIt this point I can state that an Executive Order can be\ndeveloped to establish an advisory committee meeting the\ngoals outlined in the National Security Decision Directive,\nwith one important caveat. Both the directive and the draft\nremarks refer to ONE purpose of the Commission being \"to\npresent to the people\" the progress that has been made in\nimproving defense management. The Commission can certainly\nassess and evaluate management reforms that have been\nundertaken, and report its conclusions to the President.\nHowever, as I advised the President at last week's Issues\nLuncheon, for the Commission to be formally tasked with a\npublic relations mission would subject the \"independence\" of\nthe Commission to attack, as well as presenting serious\nproblems under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other\nstatutes. Federal advisory committees are generally limited\nto advisory functions, 5 U.S.C. App. II $ 9(b). The\n- 2 -\nPresident may, by specific directive, provide for additional\nfunctions, but no committee with such additional functions\nmay operate for more than one year without specific congres-\nsional authorization and appropriation to pay its expenses.\n31 U.S.C. § 1347. More relevant, a public relations function\nwould present difficulties in calling this a= \"Blue Ribbon\"\ngroup and in assessing the \"balanced membership\" requirement.\nI also think the Commission's credibility would be seriously\nimpaired from the outset if its mission were described in\npart as being to inform the public of the great strides\nalready made by the Administration in reforming defense\nmanagement. It would be far preferable to describe the\nfunction as being to assess and evaluate progress made in\nmanagement reform, and delete any references to presenting\nthe facts to the public. The work of the Commission will of\ncourse reach the public, but this should not appear as a\nformal goal.\nI am also concerned that the description of the prospective\nmembership of the Commission is unnecessarily restrictive.\nThe National Security Decision Directive states that the\nCommission \"should consist mainly but not exclusively of\npeople with extensive experience and national reputations in\nthe non-defense business sector.\" I would change this to\nsimply \"should consist of people with extensive experience\nand national reputations in commerce and industry.' It is\ndifficult to define the \"non-defense business sector. in\nHewlett-Packard certainly would not qualify. I assume the\nintent is to avoid the major defense contractors -- Northrup,\nTRW, etc. -- but the danger is that we would be excluding\nother corporations that are not thought of as major defense\ncontractors but nonetheless have significant defense business,\nsuch as General Motors.\nAppointees to the Commission will have to undergo the normal\nWhite House clearance procedures. I do not foresee any\nserious conflicts problems, in view of the broad mandate of\nthe Commission, but will need to consider each prospective\nappointee individually. It appears that full-field investi-\ngations of prospective appointees will be necessary, since\nthey will likely need access to classified material, and\naccordingly the goal of having the Commission begin its work\nby June 30 may be unrealistic.\nFFF: JGR:aea 6/10/85\ncc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJune 25, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR MICHAEL HOROWITZ\nCOUNSEL TO THE DIRECTOR\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nFROM:\nFRED F. FIELDING\nCOUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nProposed Executive Order Entitled\n\"Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement\"\nYou have asked for comments on the above-referenced proposed\nExecutive Order by close of business today. In view of the\nshort deadline, I am submitting the following without await-\ning receipt of agency comments and formal staffing of the\nExecutive Order for final clearance. This office must,\nhowever, review and clear the final version of the Executive\nOrder, before it goes forward for Presidential action.\nThe structure and organization of section 2 is confusing. I\nhave no quarrel with the content of the description of the\nfunctions of the Commission, but do not think this descrip-\ntion should be broken down into \"functions,\" \"charter,\" and\n\"objectives.\" The term \"charter\" is a term of art under the\nFederal Advisory Committee Act, section 9 (c), and should not\nbe loosely used in the Executive Order. I see no difference\nbetween \"objectives\" and \"functions\" in section 2, and think\nit would be more straightforward simply to list the various\n\"functions,\" \"charter,' and \"objectives\" of the Commission\nas functions under section 2. A proposed redraft of section\n2 is attached; I believe it is \"revenue neutral,\" i.e., it\nretains all of the functions of the Commission and simply\nreorganizes them in a more coherent fashion.\nAttachment\nFFF:JGR:aea 6/25/85\nCC: FFFielding\nJGRoberts\nSubj\nChron\nSection 2. Functions\n(a) The Commission shall study the issues sur-\nrounding defense management and organization, including:\n1. the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,\nincluding the adequacy of the defense industrial base,\ncurrent law governing Federal and Department of Defense\nprocurement activities, departmental directives and manage-\nment procedures, and the execution of acquisition responsi-\nbilities within the Military Departments;\n2. the adequacy of the current authority and control\nof the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military\nDepartments, and the efficiency of the decision-making\napparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense;\n3. the responsibilities of the Organization of the\nJoint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice\nand force development within a resource-constrained\nenvironment;\n4. the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command\nsystem in providing for the effective planning for and use\nof military forces;\n5. the value and continued role of intervening layers\nof command on the direction and control of military forces\nin peace and in war;\n6. the procedures for developing and fielding military\nsystems incorporating new technologies in a timely fashion.\n7. Congressional oversight and investigative\nprocedures relating to the Department of Defense; and\n- 2 -\n8. the effectiveness and stability of resource allocation\nfor defense, including the legislative process.\n(b) The Commission shall report its findings and\nrecommendations to the President. In formulating its\nrecommendations to the President, the Commission should\nconsider the appropriate means for implementing its re-\ncommendations. The Commission should first devote its\nattention to the procedures and activities of the Depart-\nment associated with the procurement of military equipment\nand material. It should report its conclusions and\nrecommendations on the Procurement section of this study by\nDecember 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the\nbalance of those issues highlighted above should be\nsubmitted no later than June 30, 1986, with an interim\nreport to be submitted not later than March 31, 1986.\n(c) The Commission should be in place and\noperating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the\nCommission should brief the Assistant to the President for\nNational Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on\nthe Commission's plan of action.\n(d) Where appropriate, implementation of the\nCommission's recommendations shall be considered in\naccordance with regular administrative procedures\ncoordinated by the Office of Management and Budget, and\ninvolving the National Security Council, the Department of\nDefense, and other departments or agencies as required.\n1\n6/20/85\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nTO: JOR\nFROM: Richard A. Hauser RAIF\nDeputy Counsel to the President\nFYI:\nCOMMENT:\nACTION:\nNSC has asked for an\nnews (urformally) an the\nattoched draft E.O. which\nis about ready to be\ncirculated by OMB.\nnamer from\nmefallane\n-\nPackard L. to 25 then to Tattle,\ncru be nanured\nwall need TS charames\nEXECUTIVE ORDER\nBlue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management\nBy the authority vested in me as President by the\nConstitution and the laws of the United States of America, and\nin order to establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense\nManagement, it is hereby ordered as follows:\nSection 1. Establishment\n(a) There is established the President's Blue Ribbon\nCommission on Defense Management. The Commission shall be\ncomposed of no fewer than ten and no more than seventeen members\nappointed by the President. The membership shall be bipartisan.\n(b) The composition of the Commission will include\npeople with extensive experience and national reputations in\ncommerce and industry, as well as people with broad experience\nin government and national defense.\n(c) The President shall designate a chairman from\namong the members of the Commission, who shall appoint a\nprofessional and administrative staff to support the Commission.\nSection 2. Functions\n(a) The Commission shall study the issues surrounding\nto the Prendent\ndefense management and organization, and report its findings\nand recommendations thereon, in accordance with the charter\nand objectives established in this section.\n2\n(b) The charter of the Commission shall be to study\ndefense management policies and procedures, including the budget\nprocess, the procurement system, legislative oversight, and\nthe organizational and operational arrangements, both formal\nand informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense,\nthe Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and\nSpecified Command System, the Military Departments, and the\nCongress. Objectives of the Commission shall include but not be\nlimited to the following:\n1. To review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,\nincluding the adequacy of the defense industrial base,\ncurrent law governing Federal and Department of Defense\nprocurement activities, departmental directives and\nmanagement procedures, and the execution of acquisition\nresponsibilities within the Military Departments.\n2. To review the adequacy of the current authority and control\nof the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military\nDepartments, and the efficiency of the decision-making\napparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.\n3. To review the responsibilities of the Organization of the\nJoint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice\nand force development within a resource-constrained\nenvironment.\n3\n4. To review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command\nsystem in providing for the effective planning for and use\nof military forces.\n5. To consider the value and continued role of intervening\nlayers of command on the direction and control of military\nforces in peace and in war.\n6. To review the procedures for developing and fielding\nmilitary systems incorporating new technologies in a timely\nfashion.\n7. To study and make recommendations regarding Congressional\noversight and investigative procedures relating to the\nDepartment of Defense.\n8. To recommend proposals to improve the effectiveness and\nstability of resource allocation for defense, including\nthe legislative process.\n(c) The Commission should be in place\nand operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the\nCommission should brief the Assistant to the President for\nNational Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on the\nCommission's plan of action.\n4\n(d) In formulating its recommendations to the\nPresident, the Commission should consider the appropriate means\nfor implementing its recommendations. The Commission should\nfirst devote its attention to the procedures and activities\nof the Department associated with the procurement of military\nequipment and materiel. It should report its conclusions and\nrecommendations on the Procurement section of this study by\nDecember 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the balance\nof those issues highlighted above should be submitted no later\nthan June 30, 1986, with an interim report to be submitted not\nlater than March 31, 1986.\n(e) Where appropriate, implementation of the\nCommission's recommendations shall be considered in accordance\nwith regular administrative procedures coordinated by the Office\nof Management and Budget, and involving the National Security\nCouncil, the Department of Defense, and other departments or\nagencies as required.\nSection 3. Administration\n(a) The heads of Executive agencies shall, to the\nextent permitted by law, provide the Commission such information\nas it may require for purposes of carrying out its functions.\n(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without\nany additional compensation for their work on the Commission.\n5\nHowever, members appointed from among private citizens may\nbe allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of\nsubsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving\nintermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707),\nto the extent funds are available therefor.\n(c) The Secretary of Defense shall provide the\nCommission with such administrative services, facilities, staff\nand other support services as may be necessary. Any expenses of\nthe Commission shall be paid from such funds as may be available\nto the Secretary of Defense.\nSection 4. General\n(a) Notwithstanding any other Executive Order, the\nfunctions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee\nAct, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress, which\nare applicable to the Commission, shall be performed by the\nSecretary of Defense, in accordance with guidelines and\nprocedures established by the Administrator of General Services.\n(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after\nsubmission of its report, or on September 30, 1986, whichever\ndate is earlier.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nSystem 11\nMEMORANDUM\n90513\nReceived SS\nCONFIDENTIAL\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n1285 JUN 15 PM\nACTION\nJune 15, 1985\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nRR\nFROM:\nROBERT C. McFARLANE RCM\nSUBJECT:\nNSDD Establishing a Blue Ribbon Commission on\nDefense Management\nIssue\nWhether to approve the NSDD at Tab A to establish a broad-based\nBlue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management.\nFacts\nThe charter for a Presidential Commission on Defense Management\nwas approved in your meeting with Secretary Weinberger on June\n4th.\nDiscussion\nThe NSDD reflects the full range of acquisition, management, and\norganizational issues we will face during the next few years,\nmany of which are being pushed by Congress. It establishes the\nCommission's charter, and lays out milestones to be achieved in\nthe course of making its final recommendations.\nWhile we are not endorsing or planning for a major reorganization\nof the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Department of Defense, the\nNSDD is structured to ensure that you will receive an assessment\nof such proposals and recommendations on how to proceed. In\naddition, the NSDD requires the Commission to put its Acquisition\nreport, which will cover some of our most immediate problems,\non a \"fast-track.\" The Acquisition section is to be completed\nby December, where the complete report is not required until\nJune 1986.\nAn Executive Order to implement this directive is being drafted\nfor your consideration next week.\nRecommendation\nOK\nNO\nPR\nThat you approve the NSDD at Tab A.\nCONFIDENTIAL\nDECLASSIFIED\nDeclassify on: OADR\nNLS F95-030 4179\nBY ship NARA, DATE 5/12/99\nAttachment\nTab A\nNSDD for signature\nPrepared by:\nMichael Donley\nCONFIDENTIAL\nSystem II\n90513\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nNational Security Decision\nDirective Number 175\nESTABLISHMENT OF A BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION\nON DEFENSE MANAGEMENT\nDuring the last four years we have made great progress in\nrebuilding our national defense and in confronting the many\nchallenges involved in managing this buildup. We have much to\nbe proud of.\nNow the time has come not only to reflect and ensure that the\npeople know of our accomplishments, but also to prepare for the\nfuture. Particularly in the context of the resource constrained\nenvironment we face, we must do all we can to consolidate our\ngains and sustain our efforts to reinvigorate the defense\nprogram.\nPursuant to the advice of the Secretary of Defense, and in\nconsultation with Members of Congress, I have decided to\nestablish a Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. The\npurpose of this Commission is to review the progress already\nmade in improving the management, organization, acquisition,\nand decision-making procedures of the Department of Defense,\nand to propose such further changes as may be appropriate.\nThe charter of the Commission shall be to study defense\nmanagement policies and procedures, including the budget\nprocess, the procurement system, legislative oversight, and\nthe organizational and operational arrangements, both formal\nand informal, among the Office of the Secretary of Defense,\nthe Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified and\nSpecified Command System, the Military Departments, and the\nCongress.\nObjectives of the Commission shall include but not be limited to\nthe following:\n1. To review the adequacy of the defense acquisition process,\nincluding the adequacy of the defense industrial base,\ncurrent law governing Federal and Department of Defense\nprocurement activities, departmental directives and\nmanagement procedures, and the execution of acquisition\nresponsibilities within the Military Departments.\n2. To review the adequacy of the current authority and control\nof the Secretary of Defense in the oversight of the Military\nDepartments, and the efficiency of the decision-making\napparatus of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.\n3. To review the responsibilities of the Organization of the\nJoint Chiefs of Staff in providing for joint military advice\nand force development within a resource-constrained\nenvironment.\n4. To review the adequacy of the Unified and Specified Command\nsystem in providing for the effective planning for and use\nof military forces.\n5. To consider the value and continued role of intervening\nlayers of command on the direction and control of military\nforces in peace and in war.\n6. To review the procedures for developing and fielding\nmilitary systems incorporating new technologies in a timely\nfashion.\n7. To study and make recommendations regarding Congressional\noversight and investigative procedures relating to the\nDepartment of Defense.\n8. To recommend proposals to improve the effectiveness and\nstability of resource allocation for defense, including\nthe legislative process.\nIn formulating its recommendations to the President, the\nCommission should consider the appropriate means for\nimplementing its recommendations. The Commission should\nfirst devote its attention to the procedures and activities\nof the Department associated with the procurement of military\nequipment and materiel. It should report its conclusions and\nrecommendations on the Procurement section of this study by\nDecember 31, 1985. The final report encompassing the balance\nof those issues highlighted above should be submitted no later\nthan June 30, 1986, with an interim report to be submitted not\nlater than March 31, 1986.\nThe Commission will be bipartisan in nature and should consist\nmainly but not exclusively of people with extensive experience\nand national reputations in commerce and industry, as well as\npeople with broad experience in government and national defense.\nThe Department of Defense will be responsible for administrative\nsupport to the Commission.\n3\nThe Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,\nin coordination with the Secretary of Defense, should prepare- -\nan Executive Order implementing this directive, and a list of\nrecommended Commissioners. The Commission should be in place\nand operating as soon as possible. Shortly thereafter, the\nCommission should brief the Assistant to the President for\nNational Security Affairs and the Secretary of Defense on the\nCommission's plan of action.\nRonald Regan"
}