BY

COMMENTS/DIRECTION:

••?........•""an'Sffewt4.74"finnit7.4.:w.e's : it ..:.

• 4 \ e •

t31

.. VP.

' . . . ...: .. AA

. • .

•

•

SIO6TURE

APPROVAL

comers

COORDINATION

ACT ION

aNFONMATIONh.

'.03

• ' , •

E: £6.°F4100.47

" 11'

L. •

'MIME - 

RETURN TO

FILE 

«'Mrlrea:WITH SgracC

SUSPENSE

ordd QeotritspStiip

cofr of lir to Secbe F

beueere) 1451 Pighf
• TOP SECRET

JS '

 NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

24 February 1977

14ENNIANDUM FOR THE SEX:RETARY OF DEFENSE

SUBJECT: NRO Relations With OMB - n134141243ANDUM

Over the past several years, the Office of Management and Budget

has been requesting increasingly det ailed information on the National

Reconnaissance Program. The N1E) does not have the manning to provide

the level of detail requested. The amount of information to be provided to CHB and the mechanism for CHB to obtain such infommation has

been a subject of controversy.

•

Last fall, prior to Presidential budget submission, these issues

cuindnated with a discussion between Secretary Elleworth, Mr. Lynn and

the President. The immediate pm:lila:was resolved to the extent that

the Presidential budget was finalized. Further definition of the

relationship was deferred.

Secretary Ellsworth established the policy that OMB requests

should be submitted, in writing through his office, for any written

naterial. At the present time, OMB is again informally asking for

information and requesting permission to visit our facilities. This

raises again the Ellsworth policy.

In the past, CNB has been represented at NRP Executive Committee

=AO neetings but not at thenore recent Cammittee an Pereign

Intelligence (CFMnectings. The current Policy Review Committee has

not yet addressed the question of cHB participation. The level of

information that a requires to properly review the NRP budget is

no greater than that required by the PRC (CFI or =Imm), and we have

provided this same information to

Since the NRO is nut manned to properly respond to detailed 0%

requests, we believe that we should centime with the Ellsworth policy

of responding only to written requests approved by CGD until such time

that you or the Policy Review Committee decides on an alternate mode

of operation. I would like to •

:meting tomorrow.

CCHZUR: .

ioo • lc, . tAeL fie et..."

&Ayr

I

LAMM EXEMPT PROM

VI LCUTIVI ItS4.11014 CAr 10PSECIET---- GI KRAL SCIIEDULE

L Garr 1,112 treculssery nal sky act

Data

CON, 7

COPY Of COP I ES

PAflIøI PAC1ES

Jr••n••• •••••••••• ••••

• • •
MOPS

CAW! NAL WV=

Ilar ld Br

XI•N,7 IRON

IWO CATHefill V WO DI.CLAINPV ON IMP OCI.

: .

Date

coNT:1111112628-77

COPY cot,'"

PAGE Of ---/-PAGF$

--TOP-SECRET II

itlif NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON: D.C.

24 February 1977

241523RANDLt4 FOR TEE =REM( OF DEPOSE

NI O Relations With OMB - ACTION MEMDRigfai

Over the past several years, the Office of Management and Budget

has been requesting increasingly detaile d information on the National

Reoonnaissance Program. The MO does not have the manning to provide

the level of detail requested. The amount of information to be provided to CHB and themechanimn for OMB to obtain such information has

been a subject of controversy.

Last fall, prior to Presidential budget submission, these issues

culminated with a discussion between Secretary Ellsworth, Mr. Lynn and

the President. The immediate problem was resolved to the extent that

the Presidential budget was finalized. Further definition of the

relationship was deferred.

Secretary Ellsworth established the policy that GB requests

should be submitted, in writing through his office, for any written

material. At the present time, OMB is again informally asking for

information and requesting permission to visit our facilities. This

raises again the Ellsamfthpolicy.

In the past, OMB has been represented at NRP Executive Ccraaittee

OMODOK meetings but not at tbemore recent Committee on Foreign

Intelligence (CFI)meetings. The current Policy Review Committee has

not yet addressed the question of GB participation. The level of

information that OMB requires to properly . review the NBP budget is

no greater than that required by the PRC (CEPI or xc)4), and we have

provided this same information to OMB.

Since the= is not manned to properly respond to detailed as

requests, we believe that we should centime with the Ellsworth policy

of responding only to written requests approved by OSD until sac time

that you or the Policy Review Cannittee decides on an alternate mode

of operation. I would 1'

mamting tomorrow.

CONZUR:

THE DIRECTOR.