The USDA is working briskly to move two scientific agencies out of Washington, an aide to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told lawmakers on Wednesday, despite skepticism on Capitol Hill about whether the relocations are justified. “We anticipate we will have a site recommendation to the secretary in early May,” said senior advisor Kristi Boswell, who was hired to handle immigration and labor issues at the USDA.
Perdue announced last August that the Economic Research Service, an analytical agency, and the grant-making National Institute for Food and Agriculture would move most of their employees out of the Washington area by the end of 2019. Congress said it would be premature to move the agencies without more information on the expected benefits. Perdue says the relocation will save money on rent and salaries, make it easier to recruit employees, and put the USDA in closer touch with stakeholders, though he has provided few details to support his claims.
Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the USDA’s budget, said the agency had ignored congressional inquiries. It was ironic, he said, “that a proposal involving data-driven agencies seems to have no hard data supporting it.” Democrats Chellie Pingree of Maine and Barbara Lee of California also called for more information.
“It seems like you’re turning your head and refusing to look at existing plans” to move ERS and NIFA into other USDA buildings as their leases expire or into rented office space, Bishop told Boswell. “You don’t have any data that says you’re losing employees because of the cost of living.” The relocation would isolate ERS and NIFA from other federal researchers and from policymakers, he said.
“We don’t see a compelling argument why analysis at the global level can’t be done outside of Washington,” Boswell answered. She did not respond directly to a question from Bishop about how the relocation would improve U.S. food and agriculture research.
The USDA will pay $340,000 to Ernst and Young, a consultancy headquartered in London, to help find the new homes for the agencies. At the moment, at least 68 sites are under consideration. Most of them are in the Midwest and Plains. A shorter list of candidates is expected in the coming days, Boswell said, for consideration during April.
In its proposed budget for fiscal 2020, the White House asked for a 30-percent cut in ERS funding to reduce its staffing by half, “to focus on core programs of data analysis and market outlook.” The agency has a broader portfolio at present, including analyzing USDA programs.
Even as House Appropriations members asserted the power of the purse over the USDA proposal, Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee expressed support for the relocation plan and said Congress should not interfere.
Bishop told reporters that he hasn’t decided whether to block the relocation by putting a rider in the USDA funding bill for fiscal 2020. “We’re going to decide on what the best course of action will be in conjunction with how the department has responded to our concerns,” he said. “I’m not sure the department has data to report.”
Four former USDA officials told Bishop’s subcommittee that the relocations would be wasteful. Former ERS chief John Lee said there was “no evidence it will be better.” Katherine Smith Evans, also a former ERS administrator, said that Washington “is where the market is for economic analysts,” contrary to Perdue’s description of college towns as the USDA’s prime recruiting grounds. Also opposing the relocations were Gale Buchanan and Catherine Woteki, who served as undersecretary for research in the Bush and Obama administrations, respectively.
To watch a video of the hearing or to read statements by the witnesses, click here.