Updated June 13, 2019
Proposed Relocation/Realignment of USDA’s ERS and NIFA
Background
More recently, ERS has developed geospatial online
As part of the proposed reorganization of the U.S.
mapping tools to integrate and display data and research
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Secretary Perdue
results geographically.
announced in August 2018 the department’s intention to
relocate the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) outside
A 2004 USDA task force report recommended the
the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. He also proposed
formation of a National Institute for Food and Agriculture.
moving ERS from the Office of the Undersecretary for
The task force recommended that such an institute should
Research, Education, and Economics (REE) to the Office of
the Chief Economist. Among the stated reasons for the
support fundamental research addressing the frontiers of
agency relocations are (1) improving USDA’s ability to
knowledge while leading to practical results or further
attract and retain qualified staff without the burden of the
scientific discovery;
high cost of living; (2) placing USDA resources closer to
the many agricultural stakeholders who live and work
distribute research grants through a competitive, peer-
outside the Washington, DC, area; and (3) creating
reviewed process and be solely a grant-awarding entity,
departmental savings on high employment costs and rent.
not one that conducts its own in-house research;
In a subsequent USDA notice in the Federal Register,
enhance, not replace, existing USDA research;
interested parties were invited to make proposals for siting
the relocated headquarters of ERS and NIFA. Logistical
receive oversight from committees of scientists and a
needs for a new site included “location within a reasonable
council of advisors;
distance of a commercial primary airport and the
transportation infrastructure to have commuting options for
achieve increasing annual appropriations over a five-
employees.” The notice also stressed the importance of a
year period until it received $1 billion per year; and
site “in close proximity to a critical mass of intellectual
capacity” and stated that economic incentives and lower
be located in Washington, DC, to be close to the other
upfront capital costs would be factors in the site selection
major federal science agencies.
process. The notice also emphasized the need for enhanced
information technology security to handle ERS’s
NIFA was formally established four years later in the 2008
confidential statistical information.
farm bill (Food Conservation and Energy Act, P.L. 110-
234) as the successor agency of the Cooperative State
In October 2018, USDA announced that it had received 136
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
expressions of interest in 35 states. That was narrowed to
Currently, NIFA administers both formula and competitive
68 locations for further consideration. In early May, three
grant funds under the 1887 Hatch Act and the 1914 Smith-
sites were chosen for final determination: the Purdue
Lever Act and oversees a wide range of cooperative
University area (Indiana), Kansas City (Missouri), and
extension and education functions of the former CSREES.
Research Triangle (North Carolina). Two additional back-
up sites were named: Madison, Wisconsin, and St. Louis,
External Response to the Proposed Relocation
Missouri. On June 13, Secretary Perdue announced that the
Criticism of the proposed ERS and NIFA relocations and
Kansas City region would be the new location for NIFA
realignment began almost immediately. The American
and ERS. A cost-benefit analysis of the relocation was also
Statistical Association joined with 59 other organizations in
released with the announcement. Secretary Perdue further
sending a letter to House and Senate agriculture
announced that the department would retain ERS under the
appropriations subcommittees on November 18, 2018,
REE mission area.
requesting that “no funding be used for relocation beyond
that already provided for its relocation within the National
Economic Research Service
Capital Region.” As stated in the letter, the signers’
ERS was founded in 1961 as the successor agency of the
“fundamental concern is that the proposed relocation and
Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which was established
realignment will undermine the quality and breadth of the
in 1922. ERS conducts economic and statistical analyses on
work these agencies support and perform—work that is
agricultural commodities, trade and international
vital to informing and supporting U.S. agriculture, food and
agriculture, rural demography, agricultural marketing, food
rural economies.” This concern about the “quality and
price forecasting, surveys of farm and crop production
breadth of work” may reflect the fact that, within the
practices, farm and rural labor and income analysis, food
metropolitan Washington area, NIFA and ERS researchers
safety and nutrition, natural resources, and the environment.
can more easily communicate and interact with their
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Proposed Relocation/Realignment of USDA’s ERS and NIFA
counterparts in other federal research and statistical
proposed relocation of both ERS and NIFA. The statement
agencies, as was recognized by the 2004 USDA task force.
called for cost estimates and a “detailed analysis of any
research benefits” to be included in the Trump
A second letter opposing the relocation and signed by 99
Administration’s FY2020 budget request when the
academic, statistical, research, and producer groups was
spending blueprint is delivered to Congress. Similar
sent March 25, 2019, to the House and Senate
language also appeared in the explanatory statement of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Senate agriculture appropriations bill for FY2019. These
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
cost estimates were not included in the Administration’s
Agencies. The letter was also sent to the chair and ranking
FY2020 budget request.
members of the House and Senate Appropriation
Committees. That letter requested that “no funding be used
In response to a letter from Representative Steny Hoyer and
for relocation or reorganization of ERS and that no funding
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton in late September 2018,
be used for the relocation of NIFA outside the National
USDA’s Office of the Inspector General (IG) began a
Capital Region.” The letter requested that any
review of the proposed relocation. This review, which has
reprogramming requests from USDA to continue
not been completed, is to address USDA’s legal and
implementing the relocation be denied.
budgetary authority to execute the realignment of ERS
under the Office of the Chief Economist and the relocation
Congressional Response
of the agencies outside the Washington, DC, metropolitan
Members of the minority on the House Agriculture
area. The IG review is expected to determine “USDA’s
Committee sent a letter on March 27, 2019, to the
adherence to any established procedures relating to agency
Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations supporting
realignment and relocation, and procedures associated with
USDA’s relocation proposal, pointing out that key
cost benefit analyses (including factors such as staff
functions of USDA such as the Agricultural Research
recruitment and retention, access to agency services, and
Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service are
cost efficiencies).”
already located outside the Washington area. The letter’s
signers stated their support for the relocation as a means “to
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture
improve the agency’s ability to recruit top talent from
includes no funding for the proposed relocation in its 2020
universities across the nation while being closer to rural
appropriations bill (H.R. 3164). The bill’s accompanying
America and reducing taxpayer expenditures.” The letter
report states that USDA “flatly refused numerous requests
noted the Secretary’s commitment that no ERS or NIFA
from this committee and other members of Congress to
employee would be involuntarily separated during the
provide the initial cost benefit analysis that preceded the
transition and that employees would be offered relocation
decision to go ahead with the proposal.”
assistance and receive the same base salary as before.
With respect to realigning ERS under the Office of the
Senators Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow—chair and
Chief Economist, former USDA Undersecretaries for REE
ranking member, respectively, of the U.S. Senate
and directors of ERS at a March 28 hearing before the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry—wrote
Subcommittee on Appropriations pointed to the fact that, as
to Secretary Perdue September 7, 2018, pointing out that
one of 13 “principal statistical agencies” of the Federal
the “agencies play a critical role in advancing agricultural
Statistical System, ERS subscribes to the Statement of
research and analysis on topics such as food and nutrition,
Commitment to Scientific Integrity of the National
food safety, global markets and trade, resources and
Research Council’s (NRC) Principles and Practices for a
environment and the rural and agricultural economy.”
Federal Statistical Agency. Four principles are noted as
Senators Roberts and Stabenow asked 12 detailed questions
fundamental for a federal statistical agency: relevance to
regarding the proposed relocation and realignment.
policy issues, credibility among data users, trust among data
providers, and independence from political and other undue
On December 19, 2018, Representative Chellie Pingree
external influence. The federal statistical agencies may
introduced the Agriculture Research Integrity Act (115th
conduct analyses, but they do not advocate policies or take
Congress, H.R. 7330), which would have blocked the
partisan positions.
proposed relocation. The bill would have also retained ERS,
NIFA, the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the
Concern was expressed that a realignment of ERS under the
Agricultural Research Service within REE. No action was
Office the Chief Economist and away from the Washington
taken on the bill before closure of the 115th Congress.
region could raise questions about the independence and
Representative Pingree reintroduced the bill (H.R. 1221) in
objectivity of future ERS analyses and might conflict with
the 116th Congress, and Senator Van Hollen introduced a
the NRC principles. The decision not to move forward with
companion bill in the Senate on May 23, 2019 (S. 1637).
the realignment of ERS could reduce some of that concern.
The explanatory statement accompanying the FY2019
Tadlock Cowan, Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
appropriations bill contained language directing USDA to
Development
“delay indefinitely” the proposal to reorganize ERS under
the Office of the Chief Economist and to provide Congress
IF11166
with a “detailed analysis” and cost estimates of the
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Proposed Relocation/Realignment of USDA’s ERS and NIFA
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11166 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED