By RACHEL LANE

D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — What is worth more to the USDA and the farmers they serve: ready access to collaboration and policymakers, or the ability to potentially attracted more talented employees because the cost of living where offices are located is lower?

This question was the focus of a hearing last week conducted by the Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research Subcommittee of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee. USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue announced last year his intention to move two of the USDA’s research branches, the Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), out of the Washington, D.C., area.

He cited the high cost of living in D.C. as a major deterrent to employing the best people. In response, many Democrat members of Congress have asked about the possible impact to these offices and farmers if they do not have ready access to the other institutes and organizations in D.C.

House Democrats reintroduced a bill this year that could block the reorganization and relocation of federal agriculture research agencies.

“I don’t need NIFA and ERS in my community. I do need NIFA and ERS working hard for me in Washington, D.C., and serving policymakers like you,” said Elizabeth Brownlee, owner of Nightfall Farm in Crothersville, Ind., and president of the Hoosier Young Farmers Coalition.

Brownlee helped form the group more than three years ago. It relied on local partners for grants. She never contacted NIFA, she said, but the policies and work the organization did in D.C. did have an impact on her farm.

The agencies’ ability to work with other organizations in D.C. benefits her and other farmers. As climate change intensifies, it will be even more important for farmers to have advocates in the capital reminding policymakers that research is a critical need for agriculture.

She said even if NIFA and the ERS were in Indiana, she wouldn’t go directly to them.

Moving the agencies might increase the perception that they have a bias, said William Tracy, professor of agronomy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. One of the key missions of the NIFA is to be unbiased; if the agency moves out of D.C., some might think the NIFA employees are giving more favor to the farmers in the new state.

When he began teaching in 1985, Tracy was proud to say the United States produced 50 percent of the world’s corn and soybeans, he added. Today, even though production has likely doubled, U.S. farmers only produce about 34 percent of the world’s soybeans and corn.

“We cannot produce our way out of this dilemma,” he said, explaining farmers are relying on researchers to help increase yields.

He has talked to scientists across the country and none of those think the move would be a good idea. Tracy thinks the relocation would diminish the ability to deliver the needed research, as well as decrease communication with other agencies.

When farmers or scientists do go to D.C., they can visit more than one agency, he said, from USDA’s offices to the EPA, to the Department of Energy.

The agriculture industry in Florida succeeds because of the NIFA and ERS locations now, doing what they can to advocate for farmers, said Jack Payne, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the University of Florida.

Bringing diverse branches of science together to work is one of the best ways to solve problems, he said, but it is difficult to do when the people are all in the same geographical region, let alone if they are spread out across the country.

The National Farmers Union has also objected to the proposal since it was announced last August. “As the need for federally-supported science grows, this proposal pulls the rug out from under the agencies who provide it,” said NFU President Roger Johnson.

“Already, USDA’s hasty approach has disrupted operations – as experienced researchers scramble to find new jobs, NIFA and ERS have both lost decades of institutional knowledge. Farmers desperately need more objective, science-based research to face the many challenges of modern-day agriculture, but so far, USDA’s process has done just the opposite.“

Subcommittee Ranking Member Neal Dunn (R-Fla.) didn’t understand why the issue required a hearing. The House bill proposal to keep researchers in the D.C. area would have the consequence of requiring thousands of researchers across the country to relocate to D.C., he said.

“Many USDA offices and programs reside in cities and towns across the country, and successfully provide customer service to our stakeholders. While I understand that it is politically expedient to oppose something the President and his administration support, the Democrats’ own legislation to stop this relocation would actually force USDA to relocate thousands of employees of the Agricultural Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service to Washington, D.C.,” Dunn said.

Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Michael Conaway (R-Texas) said it is an elitist notion that wisdom and knowledge are only found in D.C. and not in the rural areas of the country.

"What is most puzzling is why, out of all the issues facings producers, we’ve chosen to focus in on the issue of relocation. I urge the committee to get back to addressing the real issues that face producers,” he said.