Good Morning, I am Richard Russell, chief of staff of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Organization and Management of Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics today to discuss the Administrationís thinking in asking for a review of the Federal astronomy research portfolio.

I would like to provide some of the background that led to the Administration request that NSF and NASA appoint a blue ribbon committee to conduct this review.

I want to start by stating that the Administration is very supportive of astronomy.  We are impressed with the recent discoveries that often attract the attention of the popular press as well as the interest of the broader scientific community.

We also appreciate the fact that the community sets research priorities, since there is always more good science than money.  The question is one of how to best manage the Federal astronomy portfolio so the resources provided will yield the greatest scientific output.

Our investment to date in astronomy research has yielded substantial success.  From the study of supernovas that led to the announcement of "Dark Energy" that may account for about 65 percent of the contents of the universe to tracking tiny variations in the cosmic background radiation temperature, research in astronomy is helping us understand the amount and origins of matter in our universe.

We all share the goal of seeing more such awe-inspiring discoveries.  The question is how can we best assure that such robust accomplishments will continue.
 
Two recent National Research Council reports on the status of astronomy in the United States -- Federal Funding for Research in Astronomy; and Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, known as the Decadal Survey -- suggest that now is the time to assess the Federal government's management and organization of astronomical research.
 

• First, NSF's share of funding for individual research grants in astronomy has fallen from 60 percent at the beginning of the 1980s to 30 percent at the end of the 1990s.

This has been because of growth in the NASA budget for research grants, but also because the number, size, and capability of ground-based observing facilities have increased considerably.
This increase has brought with it a commensurate increase in NSF funds for utilizing the facilities, which has reduced the funding available for research grants to astronomers.
 

• Second, the May 2000 Decadal Survey report recommended a series of ground and space based initiatives intended to maintain U.S. leadership in astronomy.

The ground-based capital investment, which the NSF would be directly or indirectly responsible for, has been proposed at nearly $1 billion over the next decade.  By contrast, over the past decade NSF spent roughly $230 million in astronomy capital investments.  Thus, the NSF would be called upon to substantially increase its investment and be required to define a long-range plan and a multi-year budget structure that could support these recommendations.  Such a plan would likely further impact NSF's balance of activities.
 

• Third, the Decadal Survey also makes the case that future progress in astronomy will require more integration between ground and space based facilities, and cross-wavelength and cross-discipline research.

It may be that the increased integration of the NSF and NASA ground and space based research, not to mention the efforts of the Department of Energy and the Smithsonian Institution, will mean that the current division of responsibilities between NSF and NASA may no longer be the optimal model for the Federal government's support and management of astronomy.

Before the Administration addresses these issues, we believe it is important to get an independent expert assessment of the current disposition of management and operational responsibilities for Federal support of the astronomical sciences.  The Administration wants to ensure the program is optimally managed and effectively coordinated across all agencies.  We are confident your report will help accomplish these critical goals.

There is one final point I would like to make.  Weíve heard concerns from the community that the establishment of the review committee was a way of voicing the Administrationís displeasure with the performance of the Federal governmentís astronomy programs.  This is not the case.  The astronomy programs of NSF and NASA are performing well.  However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels.  The trends I noted earlier indicate now is a good time to review how we can best ensure a coordinated and effective astronomy program well into the future.

Thank you for this opportunity to address this important committee.  We will listen intently to what you have to say as we consider how best to maintain the U.S. preeminence in astronomy research.

I would now like to turn to Marcus Peacock for his comments before we answer any questions the committee may have.