By JIM RUTLEDGE

D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Since the USDA first announced its plans to move and reorganize its two critical agriculture research agencies out of Washington, D.C., seven months ago, the sudden and surprising plans have angered some members of Congress.

In the months following, it appeared the USDA would not back down and drop its plans. Within in the past 30 days, however, lawmakers have stepped in to try to block the move.

Last August, the USDA announced its intention to shift the National Institutes of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and Economic Research Service (ERS) and their combined 700 employees out of the nation’s capital “to save money, better retain staff and operate closer to USDA’s constituents,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said at the time.

The reorganization included controversial plans to move the oversight of the ERS to the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), a plan also stanchly opposed by Democratic members of Congress.

“A lot of people feel strongly that the rationale given doesn’t make sense and (the USDA) doesn’t have much evidence to support it,” an ERS staff member anonymously told Politico.

In mid-February, Reps. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) and 12 other members of the House reintroduced a bill from the last Congress that would prevent the USDA from moving the authority of any of the agencies within the USDA mission area of Research, Education and Economics (REE) to elsewhere within the USDA, and from moving the headquarters of the agencies from outside D.C.

“The NIFA and ERS are already doing great work to support American farmers and consumers right where they are. Uprooting these key agencies is absolutely unnecessary and risks weakening them when our nation’s food system and agricultural economy need them most,” Pingree said in a statement.

“My colleagues and I have repeatedly sent this message to the (USDA) Secretary. Since he’s forging ahead regardless of our feedback, or the concerns of the nation’s agriculture research scientists, this bill is a necessary step.”

The Agriculture Research Integrity Act (ARIA), House Resolution 1221, includes such cosponsors as House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and, from this region, Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio).

Cosponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said, “This shocking proposed move – including the sham application progress for the relocation of ERS and NIFA –threatens to politicize these agencies and undermines their ability to carry out their important missions. Congress must step up and pass this bill to prevent the Trump administration from evading Congressional oversight authority.”

In late January, when Congress passed the Fiscal 2019 Appropriations Bill that reopened the government after a 35-day shutdown, the legislation included language directing the USDA to “delay indefinitely” the proposed moves. Lawmakers also asked that the USDA provide a “detailed analysis” and cost estimates of the proposed move for both agencies.

In a response for comment from Farm World, the USDA stated, “While the report language is not statutory language and is non-binding, we take seriously (Congress’ request) and will provide the requested additional information and justification to Congress.”

Last fall after the USDA announced moving the offices, more than 136 communities and colleges spread across 35 states submitted plans proposing sites for both agencies, but the 2019 shutdown forced the USDA to suspend its search efforts to relocate the two agencies. The USDA stated, “We have since quickly gotten back to work and are making progress. We will provide an updated timeline (on site selection) as soon as feasible.”

Calling on Congress to block the relocations were 58 organizations, including 51 current and former university agricultural administration leaders and former USDA chief scientists. They sent a letter urging lawmakers to “intervene to stop the restructuring of REE at least until there had been a comprehensive independent study and full consultation with the stakeholder community.”

American Statistical Assoc. (ASA) Executive Director Ron Wasserstein has also called on Perdue “to withdraw his plans.”

“Scientific societies, agricultural research leaders, government statistics experts, land-grant university deans, vice presidents and presidents, members of Congress and many others have all expressed their concerns and opposition to USDA’s ill-conceived and counterproductive plans,” he said.

Leaders from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) stated, “Moving and reorganizing ERS and NIFA will have a detrimental impacts on the broader research community, as well as funding and support for agricultural research at large. Of prime concern is the loss of expert staff that will likely be unable to uproot their lives to make the move.

“Such a loss would drastically impact the quality of expertise at the agencies and key relationships with stakeholders in the D.C. area,” the organization added.

About shifting oversight of the ERS to the OCE, a USDA spokesman said, “Realigning ERS with the OCE will improve coordination of resource planning and analysis. The ERS will remain an official federal statistical agency and will continue to be managed by a career senior executive administrator.

“That administrator will directly report to the chief economist, also a career senior executive. Currently, the ERS career administrator reports directly to the politically appointed under secretary for the Research, Education and Economics mission area.”