[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE U.S. GRAIN STANDARDS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL FARM COMMODITIES, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND CREDIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-8
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-671 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
DON BACON, Nebraska Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr., CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio
______
Parish Braden, Staff Director
Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina, Vice SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Ranking
Chair Minority Member
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
DOUG LaMALFA, California SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
MIKE BOST, Illinois DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois, Vice
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois Ranking Minority Member
BARRY MOORE, Alabama ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ------
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas ------
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa ------
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina ------
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Davids, Hon. Sharice, a Representative in Congress from Kansas,
opening statement.............................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Austin, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 34
Witnesses
Friant, Nicholas R., Director, Raw Material Quality and
Regulatory, Cargill, Inc.; Chairman, Grain Grades and Weights
Committee, National Grain and Feed Association, Wayzata, MN.... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Mikesh, Kia, President, American Association of Grain Inspection
and Weighing Agencies; Vice President, North Dakota Grain
Inspection Service Inc., Fargo, ND............................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Walton, Dave, Secretary, American Soybean Association, Wilton, IA 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Donnelly, Ph.D., Kevin J., Professor Emeritus, Department of
Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS............... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
A REVIEW OF THE U.S. GRAIN STANDARDS ACT
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk Management,
and Credit,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Austin Scott
of Georgia [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Austin Scott of Georgia,
Rouzer, LaMalfa, Johnson, Miller, Moore, Finstad, Rose, De La
Cruz, Harris, Taylor, Thompson (ex officio), Davids of Kansas,
Brown, Davis of North Carolina, Budzinski, Sorensen, McDonald
Rivet, and Craig (ex officio).
Staff present: Austin DeBerry, Luke Franklin, Harlea
Hoelscher, Sofia Jones, Josie Montoney, Thomas Newberry, Sam
Rogers, John Konya, Kate Fink, Emily Pliscott, Ashley Smith,
Michael Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AUSTIN SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining
us today. I would like to start by welcoming the witnesses
before us as they help to lay the groundwork for legislation to
reauthorize the United States Grain Standards Act. I also want
to thank Ranking Member Davids for participating with me to
make today's hearing happen.
Originally passed in 1916, the United States Grain
Standards Act (Pub. L. 64-190, Part B) gives the Federal
Government the authority to set official marketing standards
for grains and oilseeds. It provides procedures for grain
inspection and weighing that are essential to helping U.S.
grain maintain its strong reputation for reliable quality and
consistencies. Bad actors in the 1970s routinely manipulated
the market in various ways to take advantage of producers and
buyers, including through bribing officials or contaminating
shipments. However, over the years, this Committee, working
with the USDA and industry partners, devised a system of
standards and measurements that have earned the positive
reputation we see now, ultimately benefiting both farmers and
consumers.
While much of the Act is permanently authorized, such as
mandatory inspection and weighing of exported grain, there are
still key provisions that are set to expire this September. A
lapse in authorization would disrupt the current grain
inspection and weighing process, potentially creating dramatic
consequences for the U.S. grain industry.
Grain standards play a critical role in keeping a key
agricultural supply chain strong and supporting U.S. trade,
while ensuring farmers receive a fair price and buyers get the
product they need. Trust and consistency are what make the U.S.
grain industry the gold standard across the globe. I hope the
discussion today will provide Congress with necessary insight
into the importance of grain standards and shed light on areas
where improvements may be necessary. I look forward to getting
this vital piece of legislation across the finish line.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Austin Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today--I would
like to start by welcoming the witnesses before us as they help to lay
the groundwork for legislation to reauthorize the United States Grain
Standards Act.
I also want to thank Ranking Member Davids for partnering with me
to make today's hearing happen.
Originally passed in 1916, the United States Grain Standards Act
gives the Federal Government the authority to set official marketing
standards for grains and oilseeds. It provides procedures for grain
inspection and weighing that are essential to helping U.S. grain
maintain its strong reputation for reliable quality and consistency in
global markets.
Bad actors in the 1970s routinely manipulated the market in various
ways to take advantage of producers and buyers, including through
bribing officials or contaminating shipments. However, over the years,
this Committee, working with USDA and industry partners, devised the
system of standards and measurements that have earned the positive
reputation we see now, ultimately benefiting farmers and consumers
alike.
While much of the Act is permanently authorized, such as mandatory
inspection and weighing of exported grain, there are still key
provisions that are set to expire this September. A lapse in
authorization would disrupt the current grain inspection and weighing
process, potentially creating dramatic consequences for the U.S. grain
industry.
Grain standards play a critical role in keeping a key agriculture
supply chain strong and supporting U.S. trade; while ensuring farmers
receive a fair price and buyers get the product they need. Trust and
consistency are what make the U.S. grain industry the golden standard
across the globe.
I hope the discussion today will provide Congress with the
necessary insight into the importance of grain standards and shed light
on areas where improvements may be necessary. I look forward to getting
this vital piece of legislation across the finish line.
With that, I'll turn it over to Ranking Member Davids for her
opening remarks.
The Chairman. With that, I will turn it over to Ranking
Member Davids for her opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHARICE DAVIDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM KANSAS
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding today's hearing. I look
forward to working with you and the rest of the Subcommittee on
reauthorizing the U.S. Grain Standards Act later this year.
The inspections provided by the Federal Grain Inspection
Service define and classify grains, as well as assign grades to
specify weight and quality requirements. These inspections
provide a gold standard assurance, backed by the Federal
Government, to both grain buyers and sellers.
Grain farmers in Kansas and across the country participate
in a very competitive world market. Foreign grain buyers should
be confident in the process we have in place to ensure that our
exports are adequately inspected. As we move ahead with
reauthorization, I hope we can take this as an opportunity to
support and improve our grain inspection system, which remains
critical to global grain trade.
I am proud that Kansas is home to the one-of-a-kind Kansas
State University Department of Grain Science and Industry,
which prepares students to become agricultural professionals in
this space. As we discuss potential improvements in technology
for grain grading, we must consider how to prepare the next
generation of our workforce to adapt to changing jobs.
I would like to thank our panel of witnesses for making the
trip all the way to D.C. during one of the hottest weeks of the
year. I very much look forward to your testimony and appreciate
your time and your expertise.
Again, thank you to our Chairman for holding today's
hearing, and I look forward to working together on
reauthorization this year. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davids of Kansas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sharice Davids, a Representative in Congress
from Kansas
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for holding today's
hearing.
I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Subcommittee
on reauthorizing the U.S. Grain Standards Act later this year.
The inspections provided by the Federal Grain Inspection Service
define and classify grains, as well as assign grades to specify weight
and quality requirements.
These inspections provide a ``gold standard'' assurance backed by
the Federal Government to both grain buyers and sellers.
Grain farmers in Kansas and across the country participate in a
very competitive world market.
Foreign grain buyers should be confident in the process we have in
place to ensure our exports are adequately inspected.
As we move ahead with reauthorization, I hope that we take this as
an opportunity to support and improve our grain inspection system,
which remains critical to global grain trade.
I am proud that Kansas is home to the one-of-a-kind Kansas State
University Department of Grain Science and Industry, which prepares
students to become agricultural professionals in this space.
As we discuss potential improvements in technology for grain-
grading, we must consider how to prepare the next generation of our
workforce to adapt to changing jobs.
I'd like to thank our panel of witnesses for making the trip all
the way to D.C. during one of the hottest weeks of the year.
I very much look forward to your testimony and appreciate your time
and expertise.
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding today's hearing and look
forward to working together on reauthorization this year.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Davids.
I should have said this before, but in consultation with
the Ranking Member pursuant to Rule XI(e), I want to make
Members of the Subcommittee aware that other Members of the
full Committee may join us today. I expect Chairman Thompson to
come back from a meeting that he is in right now.
And I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Craig for
any opening comments she would like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Chairman Scott and Ranking
Member Davids.
Considering the fact that we are in the middle of a
worldwide trade war, we should be doing everything we can to
avoid further disruption to our domestic trade system.
Every summer, grains planted by hardworking Minnesotans
cover 40 percent of my district. Ensuring grain can get from
our farms and grain elevators and onto ships bound for overseas
markets requires an operationally efficient and properly funded
Federal Grain Inspection Service. That is why I am so glad to
see the bipartisan nature of this hearing today and the support
from across this Subcommittee for reauthorizing the U.S. Grain
Standards Act. Our grain farmers need to know they can rely on
the Federal Government and USDA as reliable partners, not
roadblocks to trade. Reauthorizing the U.S. Grain Standards Act
is important for our farmers and their customers, and I am glad
to see this bipartisan effort to ensure we meet their needs.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, and thank you to
our witnesses for coming to educate us today about the critical
role grain standards play in your businesses and the farm
economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Davids.
Considering the fact that we are in the middle of a worldwide trade
war, we should be doing everything we can to avoid further disruption
to our domestic trade system.
Every summer, grains planted by hardworking Minnesotans cover 40
percent of my district. Ensuring grain can get from our farms and grain
elevators and onto ships bound for overseas markets requires an
operationally efficient and properly funded Federal Grain Inspection
Service.
That is why I am glad to see the bipartisan nature of this hearing
today and the support from across this Subcommittee for reauthorizing
the U.S. Grain Standards Act.
Our grain farmers need to know that they can rely on the Federal
Government and USDA as reliable partners, not roadblocks, to trade.
Reauthorizing the U.S. Grain Standards Act is important for our
farmers and their customers, and I am glad to see this bipartisan
effort to ensure we meet their needs.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, and thank you to our
witnesses for coming to educate us today about the critical role grain
standards play in your businesses and the farm economy.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony and to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
Each of the witnesses will have approximately 5 minutes.
And our first witness today is Mr. Nicholas Friant. Nick serves
as the Chairman of the National Grain and Feed Association
Grain Grades and Weights Committee and is the Director of Raw
Material Quality and Regulatory at Cargill.
Our next witness is Ms. Kia Mikesh, the President of the
American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies,
Kia is also the Vice President of the North Dakota Grain
Inspection, where she oversees the operations and strategic
direction of her family-owned network of agricultural
inspection and testing businesses in Fargo, North Dakota.
Our third witness today is Mr. Dave Walton, Secretary of
the American Soybean Association. He grows soybeans, corn,
alfalfa, grass, hay, and also raises beef cattle at his family
farm in Wilton, Iowa, with his wife and two sons.
I will now turn it over to Ranking Member Davids to
introduce our final witness.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am excited
and proud to introduce a Kansan to testify today. Dr. Kevin
Donnelly is an Emeritus Professor of Agronomy at Kansas State
University and a farmer in central Kansas. During Dr.
Donnelly's 47 year teaching career, he taught college students
about grain quality and grain grading using Federal Grain
Inspection Service, or FGIS, standards. He also conducts
workshops illustrating FGIS grain inspection procedures for the
International Grains Program at Kansas State University for
industry professionals throughout the world. Dr. Donnelly,
thank you for joining us today.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Doctor, I used to go right past your area
headed to Tuttle Creek. It is a wonderful, wonderful part of
the world.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today. We
will now proceed to your testimony. You have 5 minutes. The
timer in front of you will count down to zero, at which point,
time has expired. If you go over by 5 seconds, that is okay. If
you go over by 10 or 15, it is $5 per second.
Mr. Friant, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS R. FRIANT, DIRECTOR, RAW
MATERIAL QUALITY AND REGULATORY, CARGILL, INC.; CHAIRMAN, GRAIN
GRADES AND WEIGHTS COMMITTEE,
NATIONAL GRAIN AND FEED ASSOCIATION, WAYZATA, MN
Mr. Friant. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Davids, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to provide the perspective of the
National Grain and Feed Association on reauthorizing the U.S.
Grain Standards Act. I am Nick Friant, Director of Raw Material
Quality and Regulatory at Cargill and Chairman of NGFA's Grain
Grades and Weights Committee. Cargill is proud to be a long-
time participant in the U.S. grain system and member of NGFA.
Since 1896, NGFA has represented grain industry members
that operate more than 8,000 facilities. This includes farmer-
owned cooperatives and multinational grain exporters. Together,
we rely on a strong, consistent, and transparent official
inspection and weighing system to deliver confidence and value
across the global supply chain.
We urge Congress to reauthorize the U.S. Grain Standards
Act in a timely and bipartisan manner. Doing so will provide
certainty to farmers, grain handlers, and international
customers who depend on the integrity of the U.S. official
grain inspection system.
I want to focus on two core issues that are top priorities
for our industry in this reauthorization. First, investment in
grain grading technology to speed and improve the inspection
process; and second, strengthening the emergency waiver
authority to ensure continuity and flexibility in grain export
inspection services.
The U.S. grain inspection system has long set a global
benchmark for quality and reliability. While this basic
framework of grain standards has remained stable over time, the
international grain market has become increasingly competitive.
Thus, our inspection and grading systems must evolve
accordingly.
Today, the Federal Grain Inspection Service still relies on
legacy technologies for determining grade factors that
ultimately influence a commodity's value and fungibility. FGIS
must prioritize research, development, and validation of modern
grain grading technologies that improve accuracy, speed, and
consistency. The agency should actively collaborate with
industry and academia to identify innovative tools that can
reduce human error and improve grading objectivity.
Furthermore, we believe that new technologies can help the
agency drive efficiencies, reduce costs, and address the
staffing challenges it faces, all of which ultimately benefit
U.S. farmers, agribusiness, and rural economies. We believe the
U.S. Department of Agriculture should allocate dedicated
resources, both staffing and funding, to expedite this process.
NGFA and its members are ready and willing to partner with
USDA and FGIS to pilot and implement new technologies, provided
there is a clear pathway for scientific validation,
standardization, and eventual deployment. Therefore, we have
worked with our partners at the American Association of Grain
Inspection and Weighing Agencies and the American Soybean
Association, who are also testifying today, on language for the
U.S. Grain Standards Reauthorization Act that will provide FGIS
with the necessary tools to focus their resources on this
important issue. We encourage this Committee to approve this
proposal.
The second central area we urge Congress to address is the
need for enhanced flexibility in issuing emergency waivers of
official inspection requirements during service disruptions.
The 2015 reauthorization wisely included provisions requiring
FGIS to act transparently when official services are disrupted
at export ports due to withdrawal of a service by delegated
state agencies.
Let me be clear, the U.S. industry strongly supports the
requirement for mandatory official inspection and weighing of
export grain. It is fundamental to preserving market integrity
and the credibility of our supply chain. But during natural
disasters or other force majeure events, or in rare instances
where buyers and sellers mutually agree to waive inspection due
to service disruptions, the Act must allow for pragmatic
flexibility. We recommend that Congress revise the Act to
clarify the definition of emergency and authorize FGIS to issue
conditional waivers.
Further, the waiver would be applied provided that the
buyer and seller voluntarily agree, the absence of an official
inspection does not impair the transaction, and such a waiver
would not undermine the objectives of the Act. Establishing
transparent and predictable contingency planning for future
disruptions would provide exporters, importers, and customers
with confidence that the flow of U.S. grains can continue
during unexpected challenges without compromising overall
integrity of the system.
While I have highlighted two key priorities, we are ready
to discuss other elements of the Act, including advisory
committee functionality, ensuring timely appointments and
maintaining a quorum, clarify use of user fees. We support
FGIS's final rule that decoupled Schedule A fees from tonnage-
based rolling average fees, we will continue to monitor the
impact of the new fees on the industry moving forward. And user
fee cap reform--limit the cap to USGSA-regulated commodities.
The U.S. grain inspection system is a foundation of our
country's reputation as a reliable agricultural supplier.
Timely reauthorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act,
combined with the enhancements we have outlined today, will
ensure that our inspection system continues to meet the high
expectation of U.S. producers and our global customers.
As Chairman of the NGFA Grain Grades and Weights Committee
and on behalf of Cargill and the broader grain industry, I
would like to express my sincere appreciation for your
oversight and bipartisan leadership on this issue. We look
forward to working with you to modernize and strengthen this
vital Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Friant follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicholas R. Friant, Director, Raw Material
Quality and Regulatory, Cargill, Inc.; Chairman, Grain Grades and
Weights
Committee, National Grain and Feed Association, Wayzata, MN
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Davids, and Members of the
Committee, I am Nick Friant, Director, Raw Material Quality and
Regulatory at Cargill and Chairman of NGFA's Grain Grades and Weights
Committee. I am pleased to testify today on the very important topic of
reauthorizing the U.S. Grain Standards Act (USGSA) on behalf of the
National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), where I serve as Chairman
of the Grain Grades and Weights Committee. I have also served several
terms as an appointed member of the Federal Grain Inspection Service's
(FGIS) Grain Inspection Advisory Committee.
I have been with Cargill for more than 20 years and I provide
technical and regulatory compliance assistance on a wide range of
issues related to grain quality, handling and inventory for Cargill's
operations and merchandizing.
For 160 years, Cargill has been proudly headquartered in the United
States, where today we connect 54,000 American farmers and ranchers to
domestic and global markets and employ 39,000 people across 39 states.
We have operations in 70% of the Congressional districts represented by
Members of this Subcommittee and are privileged to play an important
role in your communities and local economies.
Globally, Cargill employs 160,000 people in 70 countries, providing
food, ingredients, agricultural solutions, and industrial products that
help nourish the world in a safe, responsible, and sustainable way. We
are proud to connect farmers with markets so they can prosper. And by
providing customers with products that are vital for living, we help
businesses grow, communities prosper, and consumers live well in their
daily lives.
NGFA, established in 1896, consists of grain, feed, processing,
exporting and other grain handling companies that operate more than
8,000 facilities that handle grains and oilseeds. NGFA's membership
encompasses all sectors of the industry, including country, terminal
and export grain elevators; commercial feed and feed ingredient
manufacturers; biofuels producers; cash grain and feed merchants; end-
users of grain and grain products, including processors, flour millers,
and livestock and poultry integrators; commodity futures brokers and
commission merchants; and allied industries. The NGFA also has a
strategic alliance with the North American Export Grain Association. In
addition, affiliated with the NGFA are twenty-seven state and regional
grain and feed trade associations.
NGFA strongly supports reauthorization of the USGSA to maintain and
continually improve the U.S. Official grain inspection system. Our
association has a long history of advocating for a Federal Official
grain inspection and weighing system. We have worked continuously for
over 50 years to encourage continued improvements to this system--and
have several recommendations to further enhance it in our testimony
today. NGFA also works to improve the broader regulatory and commercial
environment to enhance the value, safety, competitiveness and
sustainability of U.S. agriculture, and the positive contribution it
makes to America's balance of trade and job-creation.
FGIS performs an essential role by establishing, maintaining and
updating the Official U.S. grain standards, which are critical to
establishing value and price-discovery in the U.S. and global grain and
oilseed marketplace. The inspection and other services provided by
FGIS, which are funded principally through industry-paid fees,
contribute significantly to the marketing and trading of U.S. grains
and oilseeds by farmers and other commercial parties. The U.S. grain
handling and export system is recognized around the world for its
ability to market and provide a competitively priced, fungible,
abundant, safe and sustainable commodity supply that is responsive to
customer needs.
U.S. competitiveness in global markets, as well as stakeholders
ranging from farmers to end-users, benefit when FGIS and its delegated
and designated state and private agencies provide state-of-the-art,
market-responsive Official inspection and weighing of bulk grains and
oilseeds, and do so in a reliable, uninterrupted, consistent and cost-
effective manner.
At the outset, I want to state that NGFA aligns itself with, and
supports, the testimony being provided here today by the American
Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies whose member
companies provide Official inspection and weighing services on behalf
of FGIS.
NGFA wishes to begin by expressing its appreciation to Congress--
and particularly this Committee--for its leadership in enacting
fundamental reforms as part of the 2015 reauthorization of this
statute, which set in motion dramatic improvements within FGIS that
place our industry and our farmer-customers in a much better position
today than we were then, when the reputation of the Official system for
providing reliable and cost-effective Official inspection and weighing
service was under serious challenge during a service disruption in
2013-2014.
The second major contribution was former Secretary of Agriculture
Sonny Perdue's decision as part of his 2017 USDA reorganization plan to
extricate FGIS from the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA) and return it to the Agricultural Marketing
Service, where it had resided prior to 1994, as well as to install
fresh new leadership at the agency.
NGFA strongly supported this aspect of Secretary Perdue's
reorganization plan. The merger of FGIS and the Packers and Stockyards
Administration into GIPSA during the Clinton Administration had always
been an odd fit, since the two agencies have distinctly different
missions and functions. FGIS is an agency focused on maintaining grain
standards and providing Official inspection and weighing service to
facilitate the marketing of U.S. agricultural products under authority
provided by both the U.S. Grain Standards Act and the Agricultural
Marketing Act, under the latter of which AMS operates. By contrast, the
Packers and Stockyards Administration is primarily an enforcement
agency operating under a completely different statute (the Packers and
Stockyards Act).
In addition, the synergy provided by AMS's administrative support
services, development of quality standards, training expertise and
experience in operating user-fee-funded services have enhanced FGIS's
performance. So, too, has the capable new leadership installed at the
agency. Further, the reorganization helped FGIS address problems that
occurred over the last decade involving the overall expense and
effectiveness of federally mandated FGIS Official grain inspection
services by eliminating programmatic redundancies, reducing
administrative costs, and providing opportunities for interaction with
AMS personnel with a similar mission and focus. We especially want to
recognize and commend the dedication of many career public servants
within AMS and FGIS for their hard work and commitment in addressing
important stakeholder issues during this transition.
While continual improvement is necessary and important for all
enterprises, NGFA believes that the service-oriented culture of AMS has
had a demonstrable and transformatively positive impact that is serving
American farmers and our industry well.
While changes to the USGSA in 2015 and the reorganization of FGIS
in 2017 have improved Official inspection and weighing services, NGFA
believes there are several additional improvements that can be made to
create an even more reliable, competitive and cost-effective system to
facilitate the marketing of U.S. grains and oilseeds in export and
domestic markets.
NGFA's recommendations consist of the following:
First, we urge that the USGSA be strengthened by
prioritizing the importance of modernizing grain grading
technologies to assist FGIS in the research process to improve
the accuracy, speed, and consistency of the Official inspection
and weighing process.
The U.S. grain inspection system has long set a global benchmark
for quality and reliability. However, as the international
grain market becomes increasingly competitive, our inspection
and grading systems must evolve accordingly.
Today, the FGIS still relies on legacy technologies--some of
which date back decades--for determining grade factors that
ultimately influence a commodity's value and fungibility. While
the basic framework of grain standards has remained stable over
time, the tools used to assess quality must keep pace with the
demands of modern agriculture and the expectations of
international buyers.
FGIS must prioritize research, development, and validation of
modern grain grading technologies that improve accuracy, speed,
and consistency. The agency should actively collaborate with
industry and academia to identify innovative tools--such as
enhanced visual imaging systems, rapid chemical analysis, and
machine learning-based detection platforms--that can reduce
human error and improve grading objectivity. Furthermore, we
believe that new technologies can help the Agency drive
efficiencies, reduce costs, and address the staffing challenges
it faces--all of which ultimately benefit U.S. farmers,
agribusinesses, and rural economies.
We believe the USDA should allocate dedicated resources--both
staff and funding--to expedite this process. Updating the
methods and technologies behind our Official inspections will
enhance customer satisfaction, support U.S. export
competitiveness, and reduce the long-term costs of service
delivery.
NGFA and its members are ready and willing to partner with USDA
and FGIS to pilot and implement new technologies, provided
there is a clear pathway for scientific validation,
standardization, and eventual deployment.
We have worked with our partners at AAGIWA on language for the
USGSA that will provide FGIS with the necessary tools to focus
their resources on this important issue. We encourage the
Committee to approve the proposal.
Our second recommendation pertains to the need for enhanced
flexibility in issuing emergency waivers of Official inspection
and weighing requirements during service disruptions.
The 2015 USGSA Reauthorization wisely included provisions
requiring FGIS to act transparently when Official services are
disrupted at export ports due to the withdrawal of service by
delegated state agencies. However, in practice, the
implementation of these provisions under 7 CFR 800 has been
overly restrictive and has not kept pace with operational
realities.
The U.S. industry strongly supports the requirement for mandatory
Official inspection and weighing of export grain. It is
fundamental to preserving market integrity and the credibility
of our supply chain. But during natural disasters or other
force majeure events, or in rare instances where buyers and
sellers mutually agree to waive inspection due to service
disruptions, the Act must allow for pragmatic flexibility.
We recommend that Congress revise the Act to clarify the
definition of ``Emergency'' and authorize FGIS to issue
conditional waivers. Specifically, after the existence of a
general emergency is declared, the agency would publicly
identify the port(s), terminal(s), or region(s) so affected;
and waive the requirements for official inspection and weighing
for 7 days or until the general emergency has concluded,
whichever occurs first.
Further, the waiver would be applied provided that:
The buyer and seller voluntarily agree;
The absence of an official inspection does not
impair the transaction;
And such a waiver would not undermine the objectives
of the Act.
Establishing a transparent and predictable contingency plan for
future disruptions would provide exporters, importers, and
customers with confidence that the flow of U.S. grain can
continue during unexpected challenges without compromising the
overall integrity of the system.
Third, we recommend that the FGIS Grain Inspection Advisory
Committee (GIAC) be reauthorized and modifications made to the
process for accepting applications and officially announcing
new members.
The advisory committee provides counsel to the FGIS administrator
on the implementation of the USGSA. It is comprised of members
who represent the interests of grain producers, exporters and
handlers. NGFA believes the advisory committee serves a
worthwhile function by providing expert advice and assistance
to FGIS--and helps hold the agency accountable--for fulfilling
its core mission of ensuring that Official inspections are
performed in a reliable, consistent, cost-effective and
uninterrupted manner to facilitate the export of U.S. grains
and oilseeds to global customers.
However, delays in approving nominees and failure to have a
quorum for official business, limit the effectiveness of the
committee and the knowledge and expertise of those that are
limited in the time they can participate. Therefore, we propose
that a specific time frame for the Secretary to name new
committee members--e.g., 90 days--be included in the USGSA.
Additionally, we recommend the USGSA allow the option for
current GIAC Members to serve until new Members are announced
by the Secretary. This provides flexibility for achieving a
quorum and conducting business if the nominations process is
delayed.
Fourth, we support FGIS's final rule that decoupled all
other Schedule A fees from the rolling average-based tonnage
fee. We will continue to monitor the user fee formula that was
implemented by the FGIS on January 27, 2025 The formula is the
same one used with other AMS agencies but is the first time
that it has been used for Official grain inspection services.
Overall, NGFA supported the fee increase but urged the FGIS to
take the necessary steps to mitigate the issues that could lead
to significant fee increases moving forward. FGIS acknowledged
that they supported the comments and are addressing the
concerns raised.
FGIS published an interim rule in the Federal Register on June 6,
2024 establishing revised fees for official services performed
by FGIS and requesting comments. The revised fees announced in
the interim rule became effective on July 8, 2024. On December
27, FGIS published a final rule that adopts the fees
established by the interim rule without change and responds to
the comments submitted by NGFA.
The hourly contract rate increased from $41.20 to $65, and the
non-contract rate increased from $73 to $93.30. The contract
rate for weekends and overtime increased from $49.10 to $81.30.
The non-contract rate increased from $73 to $116.60. With the
increased revenue, as well as the continued implementation of
cost-saving measures, FGIS ``projected'' positive revenue and a
positive operating reserve balance by the end of FY24. Based on
the interim final rule and the increase Officially inspected
grain, FGIS completed FY24 with a 1 month operating surplus of
$3.5 million. Further, FY24 Officially inspected grain reached
108mmt, a 12 percent increase from the previous year. The
current revenue for FY25 is projected at $38M. Prior years
revenue was around $30M.
All official USGSA services are financed by user fees, with the
Federal portion of fee revenue maintained in an operating
reserve (OR) fund. Activities such as developing grain
standards and procedures for measuring quality are financed
through Congressional appropriations (management level salaries
are also covered by appropriated funds). Currently, 70 percent
of FGIS's budget is based on user fees while the other 30
percent is covered through appropriated funds. In addition,
there is a $55 million cap on these user fees that is
maintained annually through Congressional appropriations. This
means that FGIS cannot exceed $55 million in expenses unless
the Secretary of Agriculture makes a formal request to
Congress. Therefore, any increase in expenses to perform
official services counts against the user fee cap. In addition,
the user fee cap includes work that FGIS does in inspecting
rice and lentils which is regulated by the Agricultural
Marketing Act, not the USGSA.
The USGSA provides FGIS with the authority to charge and collect
reasonable fees to cover the cost of performing official
services. In 2015, the USGSA was amended by the Agriculture
Reauthorizations Act of 2015, to require FGIS to adjust
annually the export grain inspection and weighing fees when the
operating reserve (OR) is less than or more than 4\1/2\ months
of operating expenses. The amendments also instructed the
Program to adjust tonnage fees on an annual basis using a
rolling 5 year average of export tons.
NGFA led the efforts to amend the USGSA in 2015. NGFA believed
that the rolling 5 year average in tonnage fee calculations
would result in predictable tonnage rates that will accurately
reflect and gradually adjust to changing national and local
tonnage volumes. Since the change to the fee structure, the
national tonnage fees have decreased significantly while
exports have increased which was the original intent. In
addition, since the tonnage fee rates are directly impacted by
FGIS's national and field office administrative costs, FGIS
administrative cost reductions have also helped to lower the
fees.
The significant increases in hourly contract rates and other
Schedule A fees, not tonnage fees, paid by industry are
unsustainable. User fees should be predictable and market-based
to provide enough funding and properly reflect the work
performed. We encourage the FGIS to continually monitor the fee
formula, maintain transparency with industry and be flexible in
streamlining the process to make changes when applicable.
Fifth, and finally, we recommend that the USGSA-related
expenses should only apply to the user fee cap. Each year,
Congressional Appropriations Committees set a cap on how much
of the industry-funded user fees can be spent on FGIS's
inspection and weighing services--currently set at $55 million.
The user cap covers commodities that fall under the scope of
both the USGSA (e.g., corn, wheat and soybeans) as well as the
Agricultural Marketing Act, or AMA, (e.g., rice and pulses).
The additional expenses for AMA commodities has limited the
amount of resources that can be spent on administrative costs
to improve grading and inspection services, e.g., technology
related to the USGSA. This cap should exclude AMA crops since
most fees are used to cover expenses for services on USGSA
commodities.
Conclusion
The grain storage, handling and export industry specializes in the
logistics of purchasing the commodities a farmer grows and finding a
market for it here at home or in global markets. In serving this role,
our industry relies on FGIS and its delegated and designated state and
private agencies to provide competent, state-of-the-art and reliable
Official inspection, weighing and related services for which the
industry pays to facilitate the efficient and cost-effective marketing
of U.S. grains and oilseeds.
NGFA believes our legislative recommendations to amend the USGSA
will strengthen the Official inspection and weighing system, foster the
competitive position of U.S. grains and oilseeds in world markets, and
maintain the integrity of Official inspection results. In addition,
reauthorizing the USGSA on schedule--or even a bit early--would provide
continued certainty to grain handlers, farmers and our global
customers. NGFA is committed to working constructively with Congress to
enact policies that achieve these positive outcomes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am pleased to respond
to questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Mikesh.
STATEMENT OF KIA MIKESH, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF GRAIN INSPECTION AND WEIGHING
AGENCIES; VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA GRAIN
INSPECTION SERVICE INC., FARGO, ND
Ms. Mikesh. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Scott and
Ranking Member Davids, as well as Chairman Thompson and Ranking
Member Craig, for prioritizing this important issue and working
together to hold this bipartisan hearing. My name is Kia
Mikesh. I am privileged to serve as President of the American
Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies, or
AAGIWA. I am also the Vice President of North Dakota Grain
Inspection, the third generation of my family to help lead the
business.
AAGIWA's members are agencies delegated and designated by
USDA's Federal Grain Inspection Service to weigh and inspect
the nation's grain. From the public agencies, such as the State
Departments of Agriculture of Washington, Missouri, Alabama, or
North Carolina, to private agencies like my own, AAGIWA's
members work alongside USDA's FGIS to provide essential support
to the agricultural economy. The U.S. Grain Standards Act
authorizes this unique public-private partnership to carry out
its uniform standards and export grain inspection mandate.
While FGIS and certain state agencies weigh and inspect
every load of grain on an export vessel, state and private
agencies will conduct nine times as many inspections before
grain ever reaches port. At all hours of the day and night, our
inspectors are at railyards, grain elevators, and in the lab.
Yes, we work to maintain trust in U.S. grain contracts, but we
are also testing for toxins harmful to Americans and our
livestock herds. The export inspection mandate underlies
official inspection, but it also allows a uniform voluntary
inspection system to provide trust in U.S. grain, no matter
whether it is destined for export or for domestic feed, food,
or biofuels production. The significance of this system might
not be obvious, but it helps explain why America remains the
world's leading agricultural exporter.
Before the 1976 Act (Pub. L. 94-582, United States Grain
Standards Act of 1976), our grain markets were inefficient,
even chaotic. Markets did not trust U.S. grades and weights,
which meant that producers and agribusinesses earned lower
prices abroad than their grain was really worth. Today, thanks
to official inspection, U.S. grain standards and quality are
the gold standard of the world. Buyers will pay a premium for
American grain, giving our farmers and exporters a critical
competitive edge.
American standards are the universal reference for grain
contracts. Even transactions that never touch our country rely
on them. Our system is so successful that changes to the Act
should always be weighed cautiously, but the Committee should
also know that cracks are beginning to show, and maintenance is
required.
Grain inspection has relied on the same basic technology
for 100 years. As the ag supply chain has become more
efficient, inspection remains reliant on an ever-shrinking pool
of highly trained human inspectors. It is time- and personnel-
intensive. The lack of technological advancement is creating
unnecessary costs to taxpayers, exporters, producers, and our
own agencies. We have become the bottleneck. Without new
technology, the consequences could be stark. The rigorous
standards that were yesterday's privilege will be tomorrow's
burden, simply because we lack modern tools to implement them
efficiently.
On the other hand, the efficiencies reaped by grain
inspection technology would reduce costs in the food supply
chain and the direct cost to taxpayers of maintaining the
inspection system. The barriers of new technology reflect the
fact that FGIS and official agencies have a near monopoly on
the data and expertise necessary to develop the technology, but
we are not R&D agencies nor venture capitalists. We need to be
able to work flexibly with the private-sector to find solutions
to our unique problems and foster the conditions necessary for
investors to take risks in our field.
FGIS's dedicated staff have made a heroic effort to advance
technology, but they need more than resources. They need
flexibility that reflects the realities of the unusual small
market for inspection technology. I urge the Committee to
reauthorize the Act with a modest toolbox of new authorities
for FGIS to speed technology development.
Specifically, Congress should clarify in the statute that
FGIS may leverage official agencies for R&D, provide other
transactions authority for inspection technology research and
development, and establish a modest dedicated funding account
through user fees and appropriations to support the evaluation
and deployment of new technology. With these tools, FGIS can
coordinate flexible partnerships with research institutions,
technology developers, official agencies, and the grain trade
so that promising technologies can be developed outside
government, validated in the real world, and approved quickly
once they reach FGIS. This reauthorization is an opportunity to
modernize the most trusted inspection system in the world,
ensuring it remains competitive, cost-effective, and resilient.
I want to thank the Committee for recognizing the urgency
of this issue and for your ongoing support of American
agriculture and the inspection system that underpins it. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mikesh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kia Mikesh, President, American Association of
Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies; Vice President, North Dakota
Grain Inspection Service Inc., Fargo, ND
Good morning. Thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Davids,
as well as Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig, for prioritizing
this important issue, and working together to hold this bipartisan
hearing.
My name is Kia Mikesh. I am privileged to serve as President of the
American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies
(AAGIWA). I am also the Vice President of North Dakota Grain
Inspection--the third generation of my family to help lead the
business.
AAGIWA's members are agencies delegated and designated by USDA's
Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) to weigh and inspect the
nation's grain.
From the public agencies--such as the State Departments of
Agriculture of Washington, Missouri, Alabama, or North Carolina--to
private agencies like my own, AAGIWA's members work alongside USDA's
FGIS to provide essential support to the agricultural economy. The U.S.
Grain Standards Act authorizes this unique public-private partnership
to carry out its uniform standards and export grain inspection mandate.
While FGIS and certain state agencies weigh and inspect every load
of grain on an export vessel, state and private agencies will conduct
nine times as many inspections before grain ever reaches port. At all
hours of the day and night, our inspectors are at railyards, grain
elevators, and in the lab. Yes, we work to maintain trust in U.S. grain
contracts, but we're also testing for toxins harmful to Americans and
our livestock herds. The export inspection mandate underlies official
inspection, but it also allows a uniform voluntary inspection system to
provide trust in U.S. grain, no matter whether it is destined for
export or for domestic feed, food, or biofuels production.
The significance of this system might not be obvious, but it helps
explain why America remains the world's leading agricultural exporter.
Before the 1976 Act, our grain markets were inefficient, even
chaotic. Markets did not trust U.S. grades and weights, which meant
that producers and agribusinesses earned lower prices abroad than their
grain was really worth.
Today, thanks to official inspection, U.S. grain standards and
quality are the gold standard of the world. Buyers will pay a premium
for American grain, giving our farmers and exporters a critical
competitive edge. American standards are the universal reference for
grain contracts--even transactions that never touch our country rely on
them.
Our system is so successful that changes to the Act should always
be weighed cautiously. But the Committee should also know that cracks
are beginning to show, and maintenance is required.
Grain inspection has relied on the same basic technology for one
hundred years. As the ag supply chain has become more efficient,
inspection remains reliant on an ever-shrinking pool of highly-trained
human inspectors. It's time and personnel intensive. The lack of
technological advancement is creating unnecessary costs to taxpayers,
exporters, producers, and our own agencies--we have become the
bottleneck.
Without new technology, the consequences could be stark. The
rigorous standards that were yesterday's privilege will be tomorrow's
burden, simply because we lack modern tools to implement them
efficiently.
On the other hand, the efficiencies reaped by grain inspection
technology would reduce costs in the food supply chain and the direct
cost to taxpayers of maintaining the inspection system.
The barriers to new technology reflect the fact that FGIS and
official agencies have a near-monopoly on the data and expertise
necessary to develop technology, but we are not R&D agencies nor
venture capitalists. We need to be able to work flexibly with the
private-sector to find solutions to our unique problems and foster the
conditions necessary for investors to take risks on our field.
FGIS's dedicated staff have made a heroic effort to advance
technology. But they need more than resources--they need flexibility
that reflect the realities of the unusual, small market for inspection
technology.
I urge the Committee to reauthorize the Act with a modest toolbox
of new authorities for FGIS to speed technology development.
Specifically, Congress should clarify in the statute that FGIS may
leverage official agencies for R&D, provide Other Transactions
Authority for inspection technology research and development, and
establish a modest, dedicated funding account--through user fees and
appropriations--to support the evaluation and deployment of new
technology.
A Technology Toolbox for FGIS
Authorizing Research Activities by Official Agencies
The objective of authorizing research activities by official
agencies would be to resolve regulatory uncertainty that slows data
collection in grain inspection technology development.
Under current regulation, Official agencies cannot use
unapproved inspection methods under any circumstances. The
intent of the existing restriction in CFR 800.76 is well-
meaning and a straightforward application of the Act's intent.
But the regulation did not anticipate the need to leverage the
whole official inspection network for technology development--
these technologies often require an enormous volume of data,
and collecting such data is a key bottleneck in the speed of
developing technologies.
Permitting the use of the whole network would exponentially
increase the pace of data collection. It is unclear under
current law if FGIS has the authority to except R&D purposes
from the restriction--an outcome universally supported by
stakeholders. The proposed provisions are essentially technical
correction that would resolve the uncertainty.
We recommend two changes toward this objective:
7 U.S.C. 87(e) of the United States Grain Standards Act
currently authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a
continuing research program, in cooperation with other agencies
within the Department of Agriculture, aimed at improving the
accuracy and uniformity of grain grading methods. Additional
language would explicitly authorize the Federal Grain
Inspection Service (FGIS) to engage official agencies in its
research and development efforts.
Additionally, positive language could be included to clarify
that official inspection agencies may use unofficial inspection
methods solely for research and development purposes, but not
for issuing official inspection certificates.
Other Transactions Authority
Lawmakers have long acknowledged that the constraints required of
grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts, which are heavily
regulated and are not always fit for small-scale technology
development. Congress has situationally carved out innovation
initiatives from these onerous requirements, authorizing lean and
nimble research and development partnerships--called ``Other
Transactions.''
AAGIWA recommends the inclusion of Other Transactions Authority
(OTA) to permit FGIS to enter into flexible research and development
agreements led by the private-sector with the facilitation and
assistance of FGIS:
OTA enables FGIS to pursue unconventional, outcome-driven
agreements not governed by traditional procurement or
cooperative agreement regulations.
This tool is important for engaging vendors outside the
usual Federal contractors (which is most potential inspection
technology developers) and accelerating experimentation.
This provision does not require FGIS to assume development
risk but enables it to support innovative partnerships where
appropriate.
Grain Inspection Technology and Efficiency Fund
The Committee should consider establishing a dedicated fund to
support innovation in grain inspection technology. The benefit of such
a fund would be to:
Hold multi-year or non-expiring appropriations and limited
user fee funds;
Allow outlays to follow the technology cycle rather than the
fiscal year;
Ensure that technology development expenditures need not
compete for resources with the day-to-day activities of FGIS.
One such model could be a ``Grain Inspection Technology and
Efficiency Fund:''
Provide authorization for additional appropriations of $5
million annually for FY 2026-2030;
Additional funding flexibility could be granted through
permissive use of other appropriated dollars and up to 5% of
user fees collected in the prior fiscal year, allowing the
investment of excess collections from exporters after FGIS has
met its reserve requirements;
The fund would support the use of current personnel and
short-term experts on technology evaluation, and provide
funding for incentives, financing, or other resources useful to
other transactions or cooperative agreements for research,
development, and implementation of grain inspection
technologies.
Conclusion
With these tools, FGIS can coordinate flexible partnerships with
research institutions, technology developers, official agencies, and
the grain trade--so that promising technologies can be developed
outside government, validated in the real world, and approved quickly
once they reach FGIS.
Other Recommendations
AAGIWA is aligned with and supports the testimony provided by the
National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA). AAGIWA supports NGFA's
proposals on:
The definition of a new category of emergency to address
major disruptions to grain inspection.
Amendments to the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee.
Decoupling Schedule A fees from the rolling average-based
tonnage fee.
Applying the user fee-cap only to USGSA expenses.
Conclusion
AAGIWA believes that these changes would improve the grain
inspection system and enhance the significant value it provides to
American agriculture. I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity
to testify, for recognizing the urgency of this issue, and for your
ongoing support of American agriculture and the inspection system that
underpins it.
I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Walton from the great State of
Iowa, 5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF DAVE WALTON, SECRETARY, AMERICAN SOYBEAN
ASSOCIATION, WILTON, IA
Mr. Walton. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Scott,
Ranking Member Davids, and distinguished Members of the House
Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Risk
Management, and Credit. It is an honor to join you today to
testify on behalf of the American Soybean Association regarding
this Committee's review of the U.S. Grain Standards Act.
My name is Dave Walton, and I am a soybean farmer from
Iowa. I also have the privilege of serving as Secretary of ASA,
which represents U.S. soybean farmers across 30 main soy-
producing states.
Soybeans are the largest ag export in the U.S., and a
robust international trade is a priority of our industry.
Market access and relationship maintenance would not be
possible if it were not for the trusted and reliable grain
inspection and marketing efforts undertaken by the Agricultural
Marketing Service's Federal Grain Inspection Service, as
authorized by this U.S. Grain Standards Act.
For most soybean farmers, our sole interaction with FGIS
designated or delegated agencies and the U.S. grain standards
are at our local elevator. When I deliver my soybeans to the
elevator, they are then tested, sorted, and consolidated into
larger lots for eventual shipment. The grain standards
determine the price a farmer like me receives for their
soybeans at the elevator, and I know the official grain grades
provide our international customers with the knowledge that the
commodity they receive has been assessed for quality, purity,
moisture, and soundness.
Recently, the industry conducted a series of conversations
with stakeholders across the soybean sector, including farmers,
inspectors, regulators, exporters, and international buyers,
about the value and perception of FGIS and the U.S. grain
standards. While the full results are still being evaluated,
initial feedback shows that the value of the U.S. grain
standards and the Federal inspection is extremely high for the
soybean exports value chain and our international customers.
Global customers consider FGIS the international gold standard
for grain grading. Inspections carry the weight of the U.S.
Government, creating peace of mind for international customers
and providing impartiality that private inspections may lack.
Additionally, the standards are simple, and the customers
rely on that simplicity to mitigate risk. The ability to
effectively hedge risk through the futures market is a key
differentiator for U.S.-origin soybeans. The longstanding
simplicity and consistency of U.S. grain standards have allowed
for the development of extensive futures markets for U.S.
products that promote true price discovery.
The U.S. soybean industry has a strong relationship with
FGIS, and when issues arise, we can address them in a manner
that meets the needs of U.S. farmers while maintaining the
integrity of the standards. Most recently, the U.S. soy
industry worked with FGIS to review and remove soybeans of
other color, or SBOC, as an official grade-determining factor
under the U.S. standard for soybeans. This was due to rising
occurrences of SBOC resulting from a new soybean seed variety
that had a tendency to produce off-color seed coats. This had
no impact on the soybean's protein or oil content, but farmers
were being penalized because of the seed coat color.
In response to rising levels of SBOC, FGIS conducted a
study on the functionality of protein and oil content of the
soybean samples containing varying amounts of SBOC. The results
found that there was no significant differences in the protein
or oil content as compared to samples not containing SBOC.
However, marketing concerns still remained, and FGIS took
multiple meetings with industry, solicited feedback, and
provided notice of proposed rulemaking to remove SBOC from the
U.S. standards for soybeans.
In July of 2023, a final rule was issued removing SBOC as a
grade-determining factor for soybeans, a win for soybean
farmers, an example of this industry collaboration that we
seek. Changing the standard for soybeans benefited farmers,
exporters, and international customers by providing additional
clarity and ensuring our trading partners knew that no matter
what, they were still receiving the soybeans that they
required.
Reauthorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act is vital
for the continued success of U.S. soy in the international
marketplace. On behalf of ASA, I thank the Subcommittee for
their timely attention to the expiring provisions of the U.S.
Grain Standards Act. We appreciate the opportunity to share the
importance of the Federal grain inspection system and look
forward to working with this Committee to reauthorize the Grain
Standards Act this year.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dave Walton, Secretary, American Soybean
Association, Wilton, IA
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Davids, and Members of
the House Agriculture Committee General Farm Commodities, Risk
Management, and Credit Subcommittee. It is an honor to join you today
to testify on behalf of the American Soybean Association regarding the
reauthorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act. My name is Dave
Walton. I am a soybean farmer from Wilton, Iowa, where I grow soybeans,
corn, alfalfa, grass hay, and raise beef cattle and sheep alongside my
wife and sons. I serve as Secretary of the American Soybean Association
(ASA) and am also a member of the ASA Executive Committee. Our
association, founded in 1920, represents U.S. soybean farmers on
domestic and international policy issues important to the soybean
industry. ASA has 26 affiliated state soybean associations representing
nearly 500,000 farmers in the 30 primary soybean-producing states.
The U.S. soybean industry has a profound, positive impact on the
U.S. economy. We have long been U.S. agriculture's No. 1 export crop,
and a by-the-numbers look demonstrates the value of the soybean
industry to our domestic economic health. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) reported 86 million acres of soy were harvested in
2024, with production of 4.4 billion bushels. Soybean production
accounts for more than $4 billion in wages and over $80 billion in
economic impacts, according to a study by the United Soybean Board
(USB)/Soy Check-off and National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA).
This economic impact does not include secondary soy markets and
supporting industries like biofuels, grain elevators, feed mills,
ports, rail, refining, barges, etc., which bring the national total
economic impact of the soybean value chain to a significant $124
billion.
Soybeans are the largest agricultural export in the U.S., and
robust international trade is a priority of the U.S. soybean industry.
In conjunction with our partners at the U.S. Soybean Export Council
(USSEC), the World Initiative for Soy in Human Health (ASA-WISHH),
USDA, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), our
industry is working actively across the world to open new markets and
introduce new customers to the value of high quality, high protein U.S.
soy. Opening new markets is just the beginning: Markets require time,
attention, and long-term relationship maintenance to ensure that once a
market is open to U.S. soybean exports, access remains unhindered.
Market access and relationship maintenance would not be possible if
it were not for trusted and reliable grain inspection and marketing
efforts undertaken by the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS)
Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) as authorized by the U.S. Grain
Standards Act of 1916 (since amended). The Act authorized FGIS to
establish official marketing standards for certain grains and oilseeds,
including soybeans, corn, oats, wheat, and sorghum, among others. Prior
to export, inspections are carried out by FGIS or by state agencies
that have delegated inspection authority by FGIS.
FGIS offers specialized testing in addition to standard grading
offered by inspectors. These tests can vary by commodity, and include
aflatoxin testing for corn, testing oil content in soybeans, and
protein content in wheat. Inspectors also conduct cargo inspections to
ensure grain vessels are free from contamination, ensuring U.S. grain
reaches its international customers at the same high-quality it was
when it left the U.S.
For most soybean farmers, our sole interaction with FGIS,
designated or delegated agencies, and the U.S. grain standards are at
our local grain elevator. When I deliver my soybeans to the elevator,
they are then tested, sorted, and consolidated into larger lots for
eventual shipment. The grain standards determine the price a farmer
receives for their soybeans at the elevator, and I know the official
grain grades provide our international customers with the knowledge
that the commodity they receive has been assessed for quality, purity,
moisture, and soundness.
The official standard for U.S. soybeans includes the following:
1. U.S. Grades No. 1 to 4 (1 being highest quality) are based on:
a. Test weight (52-60 pounds/bushel)
b. Damaged kernels (2-8%)
c. Foreign material (1-5%)
d. Splits (10-30%)
Additional grading factors can include moisture and oil content for
processing into vegetable oil and soybean meal. Grain grades are a true
vector for price discovery due to their influence over the
marketability for U.S. soybeans and other commodities.
Recently, the industry conducted a set of conversations with
stakeholders across the soybean sector (including farmers, inspectors/
regulators, exporters, and international buyers) about the value and
perception of FGIS and the U.S. grain standards. While the full results
from those conversations are still being evaluated, initial feedback
shows that the value of the U.S. grain standards and Federal inspection
is extremely high for the soybean exports value chain and our
international customers. A few highlights of these conversations
include these themes:
Trust: Global customers consider FGIS the ``gold standard''
internationally for grain grading. Inspections carry the weight and
impartiality of the U.S. Government, creating peace of mind for
international customers and providing impartiality that private
inspections may lack. Customers in export markets trust that when they
receive a shipment of U.S. soybeans, they are receiving a high-quality,
inspected product because of the services provided by FGIS.
Furthermore, this trust is reinforced by the transparent and impartial
appeal system available through FGIS. Samples are retained by FGIS for
90 days, allowing any disputes between customers to be resolved by an
independent board. U.S. customers can also file complaints and note
discrepancies in grades through U.S. embassies throughout the world,
further reinforcing the integrity of U.S. grain standards and FGIS's
services with U.S. soy customers[.]
Consistency: The standards established and carried out by FGIS are
simple, and customers rely on that simplicity to mitigate risk. The
ability for buyers and sellers to effectively hedge risk through
futures markets is a key differentiator for U.S. origin soybeans.
FGIS's standards and their simplicity and consistency over time have
allowed for the development of extensive futures markets for U.S.
products that promote price discovery and liquidity. These markets
benefit the entire supply chain, from farmers to end-users, and are
underwritten by the grade factors developed by FGIS.
FGIS's quality controls also ensure that when trading partners in
Japan place an order for No. 1 soybeans in November, and another order
for that same grade soybeans in February, both orders--despite being
placed months apart--will comprise of soybeans graded to the grade
standard for No. 1 yellow soybeans.
When asked about what would happen should the U.S. grain standards
no longer be in place, the most common answer was ``chaos.''
Ultimately, our strong grain standards, backed by the force and weight
of the U.S. Government, are one of the strongest reputational
enhancements available to U.S. soybean farmers.
The U.S. soybean industry has a strong relationship with FGIS, and
when issues arise, we can address them in a manner that meets the needs
of U.S. farmers while maintaining the integrity of the standards. As
part of its duties, AMS regularly reviews grain standards to ensure
they are able to effectively meet the marketing needs of the grain
trade, and groups like ASA regularly engage with AMS when our industry
faces issues regarding the standard.
Prior to 2023, USDA maintained ``soybeans of other colors,'' or
SBOC, as an official grade-determining factor under the U.S. Standard
for Soybeans. The seed coat of a soybean can naturally vary in color
based on a variety of reasons, and the grading standard allowed for a
certain percentage of SBOC within the soybean standards. For example,
U.S. No. 1 soybeans could have up to 1% SBOC, U.S. No. 2 soybeans up to
2%, et cetera.
However, occurrences of SBOC began to rise in 2021, and in 2022 hit
levels that had not been seen before in the modern era. This was due to
adoption of a new seed variety by many farmers across the U.S. This new
variety is extremely popular and has proven to combat herbicide-
resistant weeds. An unexpected side effect of this new soybean seed
variety was the occasional occurrence of off-color seed coats. In
response to rising levels of SBOC, FGIS conducted a study on the
functionality of protein and oil content of soybean samples containing
amounts of SBOC. The results found no significant differences in the
protein or oil content as compared to samples not containing SBOC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2022). ``Study of
Soybeans of Other Colors and the Impact on End-Use Functionality in
2021-2022 Market Samples.'' (Link: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/media/FGISSBOCStudy.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, marketing concerns remained, and FGIS took multiple
meetings with industry, solicited feedback, and provided notice and
comment on a proposed rule to remove SBOC from the U.S. Standard for
Soybeans. In July 2023, a final rule was issued removing SBOC as a
grade-determining factor for U.S. soybeans--a win for soybean farmers
and an example of industry collaboration. Changing the U.S. Standard
for Soybeans benefited farmers, exporters, and international customers
by providing additional clarity and ensuring our trading partners knew
that no matter what, they were still receiving the soybeans they
wanted.
Reauthorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act is vital for the
continued success of U.S. soy in the international marketplace. As
industry noted in a letter to the Senate during the 2020
reauthorization process, international buyers place a premium on the
U.S. inspection service, which helped U.S. farmers maintain some
competitiveness despite the negative impact of tariffs on exports. In
2025, we are again seeing negative tariff impacts on exports, and the
value provided by FGIS and our grain inspection system can help keep
our exports competitive.
On behalf of U.S. soybean farmers, I thank the Subcommittee for
their timely attention to the expiring provisions of the U.S. Grain
Standards Act. We appreciate the opportunity to share the importance of
the Federal grain inspection system. ASA looks forward to working with
this Committee to reauthorize the Grain Standards Act this year.
Thank you again for your attention to this matter, and I look
forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Walton.
Dr. Donnelly, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN J. DONNELLY, Ph.D., PROFESSOR EMERITUS,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY, KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, MANHATTAN, KS
Dr. Donnelly. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Davids, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I am Dr. Kevin Donnelly, Emeritus Professor of
Agronomy at Kansas State. My experience with the U.S. Grain
Standards Act is through my teaching, so I will offer a
different perspective since I am not directly involved with
grain handling, merchandising, or processing. I am most
familiar with the FGS standards and inspection process, which
is the focus of my grain grading course, the crops contests
that I have trained students for, and the workshops that I
conduct for the International Grains Program at K-State. I also
own a farm in central Kansas, so I know how important reliable
and consistent grain standards are for our producers.
I have been interested in grain quality since my 4-H and
FFA days exhibiting grain samples at the county fair, so as a
professor, I have tried to integrate crop quality topics into
several of my agronomy courses. In the Grain Science Program at
K-State, we offer three very unique degrees in milling, feed,
and bakery science. Graduates typically enter industries with a
vested interest in quality as end-users of grain. Agronomy
students learn how environmental and management practices
affect the quality of grains produced, which may in turn impact
the grade and price received by the farmers, as noted by Mr.
Walton. So although most of our students do not take specific
courses on the subject or become grain inspectors, we strive to
incorporate some knowledge of the Federal grain standards into
our curricula, especially for these majors.
As mentioned, the system is also called the gold standard.
What that means is that it provides benefit to producers,
handlers, merchandisers, processors, exporters, importers, and
end-users of grain. It also determines the manner in which
grain is segregated, stored, handled, and transported along the
supply chain. As I interact with foreign visitors enrolled in
the IGP courses at K-State, I have found them eager to
understand how our integrated system of impartial third-party
inspection functions. A visit to the National Grain Center is
generally included in these courses to showcase FGIS activities
which maintain the integrity of our export markets.
FGIS standards typically describe physical characteristics
of grain, such as test weight, damaged kernels, foreign
material, et cetera. Factors and factor limits differ for each
crop and reflect the levels of soundness and purity consistent
with typical end-uses. The system provides a basis for
marketing that can include quality specifications, and the FGIS
official inspection certificate then provides validation of the
actual quality and weight of grain loaded. Although not
required for the official grade, FGIS also provides many other
quality tests upon request, such as mycotoxins or chemical
residues and composition factors such as oil or protein that
may impact end-use.
Most of the Act is permanently authorized as noted, but
several provisions expire in September. It is critical that we
maintain the ability of FGIS to continue its functions and not
allow a lapse that could disrupt grain exports so critical to
our trade balance.
My peer witnesses have offered some recommendations to
consider as you develop legislation for reauthorization, which
I support. As already noted, there is a strong focus on
advancing technology-driven solutions to reduce costs and
improve efficiency. An example that I might relate from my
personal experience is the potential use of imaging to
facilitate inspection. Our FGIS personnel pass rigorous tests
and undergo extensive continuing training to ensure inspection
accuracy. I know from training my crops team that is a very
challenging and tedious process. Many of them become very good
at it and can well transition into a grain inspection position,
but still very few of them aspire to do that.
Although visual inspection has served the system very well
for many years, advanced imaging technology may be able to give
equal or even better inspection results and could help meet
limited workforce challenges in the future. Incorporating more
technology might also make careers in grain inspection more
attractive to young people. If their focus can be first on the
interest in technology rather than tedious inspections or
crawling around taking samples on top of a barge, they may be
more interested in entering the profession.
I strongly encourage you to move forward promptly with
reauthorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act to avoid a
lapse, including the proposed provisions that will further
enhance the Act.
A more detailed version of my testimony will be included in
the record. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Donnelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin J. Donnelly, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus,
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Davids, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Dr.
Kevin Donnelly, Emeritus Professor of Agronomy at Kansas State
University. My experiences related to the U.S. Grain Standards Act
(USGSA) are through my university teaching career, so I offer a bit
different perspective than the other witnesses, since I am not directly
involved with grain handling, merchandizing or processing. I am most
familiar with application of the Official U.S. Standards for Grain and
the FGIS inspection process, as that is the focus of what I have taught
in my grain grading course, the crops team contests that I have trained
students for, and the workshops that I direct for the International
Grains Program at Kansas State. I also own a farm in central Kansas, so
I also know how important reliable and consistent grain quality
standards are for our producers.
I have long been interested in grain quality, probably stemming
from my 4-H and FFA days when my projects involved crop production, and
I started exhibiting grain samples at the county fair. As a college
professor, I have integrated crop quality topics into several of my
courses. We offer three unique degree programs in Grain Science at
Kansas State (Milling Science and Management, Feed and Pet Food
Science, and Bakery Science and Management). These programs produce
graduates that typically enter industries with a vested interest in
quality characteristics as end-users of grain and oilseeds. Agronomy
students who enter farming or consulting jobs need to understand how
environmental and management practices impact the quality of grains
produced and delivered to market, which may impact the grade and price
received. Although most or our students do not take specific courses on
the subject, nor become grain inspectors, we strive to incorporate at
least some knowledge of the Federal grain standards into our curricula
at Kansas State, especially in these majors.
The United States Grain Standards Act originally passed in 1916,
and as amended since, authorizes the Federal Grain Inspection Service
to establish uniform standards for grain and oilseed quality, regulate
grain handling practices, and manage a network of Federal, state, and
private laboratories that provide impartial official inspection and
weighing services. For over a century, the USGCA has provided the
foundation for quality assessment of grains and oilseeds.
In 1976, to address some issues with export inspections, FGIS was
established, and increased the role and oversight provided by Federal
inspectors. Today, the system is often called the ``gold standard'' for
grain quality assessment that assures uniform and consistent standards
are applied for the benefit of producers, handlers, merchandisers,
processors, exporters, importers, and end-users of grain. It also
determines the manner in which grain is segregated, stored, handled and
transported along the supply chain.
As I have interacted with foreign visitors from across the globe
enrolled in short courses with our International Grains Program at
Kansas State, I have found them eager to understand how our integrated
system of impartial, third-party inspection functions. A visit to the
National Grain Center in Kansas City is generally included in these
courses to showcase FGIS quality assurance and science and technology
activities and give them more confidence in the integrity of the
system. The USGSA is critically important to maintain the integrity of
our export markets, especially with ongoing international trade
negotiations.
The USGSA requires that all exported grains and oilseeds be
officially weighed and inspected. Domestically marketed grain and
oilseeds are often officially inspected, but are not required to be.
Export inspections must be completed only by FGIS inspectors or FGIS
supervised state inspection agencies, called delegated official
inspection agencies. Domestic official inspections are predominately
done by FGIS supervised state agencies or private companies, called
designated official inspection agencies.
FGIS standards describe physical characteristics (such as test
weight, damaged kernels, foreign material, broken kernels, defects,
etc.), market class, special grades and dockage as appropriate. Grade-
determining factors and factor limits differ for each crop, and reflect
levels of soundness and purity consistent with typical end-use of the
crop. Under the USGSA, FGIS establishes and maintains official
standards for barley, canola, corn, flaxseed, oats, rye, sorghum,
soybeans, sunflower seed, triticale, wheat, and mixed grain. This
system provides a basis for contract marketing by allowing sellers and
buyers a reliable and consistent measure of quality to value
commodities, and the FGIS official inspection certificate provides
validation of the actual quality and weight of the grain loaded for
domestic delivery or export.
Although not required for the official grade, FGIS also provides
many other quality assessments upon request, including sanitary factors
such as mycotoxins or chemical residues and composition factors such as
oil, protein or starch that impact nutritional value and end-use
functionality. These factors are often very critical in domestic or
international marketing. In addition, numerous other agricultural and
food commodities not covered by the USGSA are assigned to FGIS for
standardization, classing, inspection, grading, sampling, or testing.
Official inspection and weighing services are provided based on
user fees. Per recent amendments to the USGSA, federally collected fees
can only be used for activities directly related to the performance of
inspection and weighing services. Costs for activities such as
developing grain standards and or new procedures for measuring quality
must use Federal appropriations.
Most of the USGSA is permanently authorized, including mandatory
inspection and weighing of exported grain, as well as authority to
amend the grain standards. However, several provisions expire in
September of 2025, including a number that were added during the past
two reauthorizations in 2015 and 2020. Those include the authority for
USDA to collect fees to fund official inspections, a cap on
administrative and supervisory costs, and continued authorization of
the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee. It is critical that we
maintain the ability of FGIS to continue performing its functions and
not allow a lapse in authorization that could disrupt the grain
inspection and weighing program, and grain exports so critical to our
trade balance.
Your witnesses representing organizations more directly involved
with the industry and inspection operations have provided
recommendations to consider as you develop legislation for
reauthorization, for which I encourage your careful consideration. One
area that I might emphasize involves advancing the use of technology
driven solutions in for the grain inspection process to reduce costs
and improve efficiency. The Grain Inspection Advisory Committee has
been discussing this topic also. Examples include use of imaging
technology and equipment that is more automated or combines separate
measurements into one apparatus (i.e., moisture and test weight).
Official personnel pass rigorous tests and undergo extensive and
continuous training to ensure inspection accuracy. I know from personal
experience in training my K-State Crops Team students for competitions
using FGIS standards that it is very challenging, and tedious. System-
wide quality control requirements ensure that official personnel
consistently provide high-quality, accurate services and information.
Although visual inspection has served the system very well for many
years, we should think ahead. I would encourage continued evaluation of
advancements in imaging technology, which may provide potential for
equal or even more consistent inspection results, and could also be a
key to meeting limited workforce challenges in the future.
Incorporation of more advanced technology would likely make careers in
the grain inspection profession more attractive to young people.
I strongly encourage you to move forward promptly with
reauthorization of the U.S. Grain Standards Act to avoid a lapse. The
2020 bill included a number of improvements, and we hope that the next
reauthorization bill will consider additional provisions that further
enhance the Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
The Chairman. Thank you all for your important testimony
today.
At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
Members in order of arrival for those who joined us after the
hearing convened. Every Member will be recognized for 5 minutes
each in order to allow us to get as many questions as possible.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
During the first Trump Administration, significant efforts
were made to restructure and streamline key functions within
the USDA, including the realignment of FGIS. Mr. Friant, you
noted your support for former Secretary Perdue moving FGIS back
under AMS. Are you able to speak to any measurable improvements
as a result of the realignment? And additionally, are there any
issues remaining, whether structural or cultural, that hinder
the effectiveness of FGIS that we should be aware of?
Mr. Friant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. And
I would also like to thank former Secretary Perdue for that
decision to realign FGIS to put the agency under AMS. And I
think some of the areas that we definitely saw improvements in,
and what we heard both from the agency and actually Mr. Perdue,
was putting the service back in Federal Grain Inspection
Service. And so we saw a much, much better relationship with
the agency where we wanted to collaborate and make sure that we
still had the most effective, efficient grain inspection
service in the world, so we definitely have seen those types of
improvements.
As far as future improvements, current leadership at the
agency has been very open to maintaining that dialogue, and
that is what we would like to continue to see going forward is
that opportunity to interact with them when we have concerns,
when there are issues that the industry needs to address
together, and be able to continue to have that open dialogue
and conversation with them.
The Chairman. Consistent and reliable grain standards are
an essential piece of the puzzle for our producers being able
to maintain market access. Mr. Walton, your testimony alluded
to the fact that, as a producer, the work of the FGIS is done
beyond the farmgate and is not necessarily felt on a daily
basis within your operation, but it is foundational to your
overall success as a farmer. Even though farmers may not
directly feel the impact of the work that FGIS does, it is
critical. Can you share what some of the real, immediate
impacts would be if services were disrupted due to a lapse in
authorization, even for a short period of time?
Mr. Walton. Yes, thanks for the question. You are correct.
We don't normally have direct contact with it, but what we do
is rely on that system to keep the grain flowing through. So
once we deliver to the elevator, it gets consolidated. In my
case, I consolidate onto a barge shipped to New Orleans,
transloaded there. And if there was any disruption to that
system, it would disrupt the flow of soybeans from my farm to
our foreign customers. And that would basically back up the
system and create an impact on price. So the direct impact on
us would be lower price. The longer-term impact would be just a
disruption of that supply chain from my farm to our foreign
customers.
The Chairman. Thank you. I am going to yield now to Ms.
Davids.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. I am sorry. I am going to recognize Ms.
Davids for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Here in Congress, I have the privilege of representing a
district in Kansas. Kansas is often called the wheat state,
where agriculture plays such a critical role in our country's
economy. Kansas farmers and ranchers feed not just the nation
but the world. And in 2023 alone, Kansas farmers exported $5.2
billion in agricultural products around the world. Whether it
is wheat, sorghum, or soybeans, Kansans know what it means to
work hard and produce results.
As a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I have made
it a priority to support family farmers and strengthen our
supply chains because I know that this is a way to support our
economy. I know how vital these folks are to rural economies
and to our country's global competitiveness. I am also proud
that the Kansas City region is home to the National Grain
Center and that Kansas State University continues to lead in
agricultural research and workforce development through its
Department of Grain Science and Industry.
So Dr. Donnelly, I will say I have continued to be
impressed by the work that is happening at K-State,
particularly in the International Grains Program. I am curious
if you could share a bit more about how the program helps build
relationships with our international trading partners and
supports the export of high-quality American grain.
Dr. Donnelly. Well, thank you for the question. I think the
International Grain Program Institute mission really reflects
the answer to your question in that we try to work with
industry professionals internationally, do some training for
them, and hopefully, in return, that will start their use or
enhance their use of U.S. grains. So these relationships
established through these courses are a first step in that.
Many of the courses involve partnerships then with our
national organizations focused on grain exports, like the U.S.
Wheat Associates and U.S. Export Grain Council, United Sorghum
Check-off Program. In fact, wrapping up today is the 18th year
of a Sub-Saharan African milling course that is supported by
U.S. Wheat Associates. And some facts from that, in 2024, IGP
hosted 814 participants from 44 countries and 31 onsite and 11
distance courses, so certainly, it is a way to make a
connection with folks from around the world that uses our
grain.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. That is amazing. Thank you. And I
might want to get a few more of the stats after. We will follow
up on that.
My next question I was hoping to hear from Ms. Mikesh about
your testimony you gave. You started to talk about this--I know
it is in your written testimony as well--the potential for
grain grading technologies. I am curious if you could share a
bit more about how additional either appropriations--you had
mentioned user fee allocations--or additional staffing could be
used to support the Federal Grain Inspection Service research
and development partnerships.
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you, Raking Member Davids. At the most
basic level, the private-sector should be the driver of the
research and development, and FGIS should remain being able to
quickly evaluate and approve technology when a finished product
is submitted to them. However, there are many tools that we can
work on to be a partnership with industry, official agencies,
and FGIS.
Right now, flexible partnerships would allow for FGIS to
dedicate personnel and experts to technical assistance and
facilitation at any stage of the development process as
necessary. The partnerships could do a number of things that
would improve investor and entrepreneur confidence in final
approval down the road, which is important because it means
more developers will make an attempt in the first place.
Cooperative agreements are a good start, and FGIS has utilized
this tool, but they have much more red tape that can scare away
small developers. Other transactions authority were
specifically designed to remove those barriers to entry for
small innovators and would allow for more flexible partnership
structures that follow the needs of the technology.
So in review, FGIS would not drive the process
specifically, but their formal involvement as a resource to
developers could make the R&D smoother and increase attempts at
innovation. Many of these flexibilities might not be used in
full right away, but we are looking at this for the long-term.
For example, FGIS could use funding to incentivize development
of an especially important technology, or FGIS could work with
the private-sector to facilitate a consortium of developers and
researchers working toward the technology goal that private
markets struggle to produce on their own, and other
transactions authority can also help for those flexibilities
using grad students in other areas.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. And I would love to stay
in touch about additional innovations happening.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. I thank the Chairman and my friend from
Georgia.
Mr. Friant, I am going to start with you. I always have a
few basic elementary questions that I like to get the answers
on the record because I think they are important for the
record.
As you know, the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee is
authorized under the Grain Standards Act. This is a group that
advises the Department on matters dealing with grain
inspection, of course. Recommendations by the Committee help
AMS to better meet the needs of growers, handlers, processors,
and their customers. Can you tell me what happens to the Grain
Inspection Advisory Committee if the Grain Standards Act is not
reauthorized?
Mr. Friant. Thank you for the question. And if the Act is
not reauthorized, it is one of four provisions that it expires,
and so in fact, we would lose the advisory committee.
Mr. Rouzer. So tell me what are some of the areas that you
have seen the advisory committee work on that have benefited
growers and others in the grain value chain?
Mr. Friant. So I have personally had the chance to be on
the committee three different times, and what we see is a great
opportunity for industry, producers, grain handlers to have a
public forum to talk with FGIS about ways we can see the agency
improve. And in the example that we heard from Mr. Walton, that
is where some of the SBOC discussion started was at the
advisory committee. Some of the conversations around technology
and new technology adaptation and adoption have come out of the
advisory committee. So we see that as that good opportunity to
bring multiple groups together and have that conversation with
the agency on what do we want to see going forward.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes, I noted in your testimony, your oral
testimony, you made reference to the need for flexibility,
perhaps waivers. Sometimes waivers can be really, really good
policies. Sometimes waivers can be abused and become very bad
policy. When you were mentioning that, are there any specific
examples or criteria you could elaborate on there?
Mr. Friant. So one thing--and I want to make sure that we,
from an industry perspective, are clear--we do not want waivers
at any time. We want it to be very specific during times of
service disruption. And if you think back to the 2015
reauthorization, that is where that section came from was we
had a service disruption in the industry and the company was
not able to get official services. And so we want to avoid that
risk of any disruption in official services so that, as many
folks on the panel have said today, we can still export our
grain from the U.S.
Mr. Rouzer. Very good. I appreciate the clarification.
Any other comment from any other panelists?
[No response.]
Mr. Rouzer. Okay. Sticking with you, Mr. Friant, your
testimony mentioned that NGFA and its members are ready to
partner with USDA and the Federal Grain Inspection Service to
pilot new grain grading technologies. To your knowledge, has
there been any engagement or investment from the private-sector
to support that effort?
Mr. Friant. Yes, there has been, and I would say it started
about 2 years ago. We actually held a workshop or a summit
hosted by NGFA at the Cargill offices in Minneapolis where we
brought together industry, technology providers, folks from the
official system, so Kia, and then folks from FGIS, where we
could, first of all, find out what technology was available
that could be adapted for grain inspection, and we are able to
get some sense of what might be available. And now we have seen
where FGIS has started to explore some of those technologies
that we have been learning about. And maybe more specifically
in the case of Cargill, we have engaged with at least one
technology provider to see how their system works, could it be
fit for grain grading purposes, visual imaging for damage, and
that is where we have seen that private partnership start.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you. Any other comment from any other
panelists on that?
[No response.]
Mr. Rouzer. Dr. Donnelly, in the last 45 seconds, just real
quickly, you mentioned in your testimony that you have
interacted with international students and buyers at the
National Grain Center in Kansas. Can you speak to what parts of
the U.S. grain inspection system they find are most effective?
And are there areas where we are clearly falling behind our
foreign competitors?
Dr. Donnelly. In terms of specific, I always try to
actually have them pick some samples so they can understand the
detail of the process as far as the class, and so I think that
gives them a confidence. It is a bit confusing, and so I think
in the end the integrity of the system is important. And they
appreciate it if they are involved with it. If they are sort of
remote, it can be kind of confusing. But I think in the end we
have smooth marketing and an efficient system, then it speaks
for itself.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes, my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, panelists.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Ohio for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Davids.
Homegrown American grain is a top-quality product. When our
trading partners see the ``Product of the USA'' label, they
know they are getting a product that is reliable, consistent,
and of the highest quality. This trust has been earned over
decades of hard work by our farmers, exporters, and the
reliability and consistency and standards that have been set to
ensure that our products are truly top-notch. The U.S. Grain
Standards Act has long served as the foundation for that trust.
It serves as the blueprint to guarantee that our grain is
graded fairly, weighed accurately, and certified transparently,
protecting the reputation of American agriculture around the
world.
In a time when farmers are facing uncertainty on all
fronts, from inconsistent policy promises from this
Administration to rising input costs and climate volatility,
Congress must step up and do our job. Reauthorizing the Grain
Standards Act is a practical and necessary step in order to
give our producers the clarity, stability, and confidence they
deserve. So thank you to our expert panel of witnesses for
being here today. Your input is critical as we look towards the
next era of the USGSA.
In a time of such uncertainty, we want to make sure that
there is clarity on this system and that it is working for the
people it is meant to serve. I know many of you are farmers
yourselves with direct experience in navigating how the Grain
Standards Act plays out in real-world day-to-day operations.
For any of our panelists, can you share ways we might
improve the interaction, whether it is clear grading, feedback,
better access to dispute resolution, or more practical guidance
on how standards are applied?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you. One of the ways that I think almost
all of us have discussed in our oral testimonies is improving
through technology. Right now, we have a wonderful system, as
Nick alluded to, where FGIS leadership is very welcoming of any
feedback that industry or official agencies may have regarding
any standards, as seen with SBOC. But what we are really
lacking right now is the way to keep us the gold standard
without technology. There are many other countries that are
starting to use this, and we would like to be able to keep up
with that and make sure that we can continue to be that gold
standard.
Ms. Brown. All right. Well, since we don't have a lot of
time, I would also add that consistent communication between
USDA farmers is also critical, and I am increasingly concerned
about the loss of USDA personnel, both administrative staff and
inspectors who have been released or taken deferred
resignation. These holes in staffing risk undermining one of
the most important aspects of the U.S. Grain Standards Act, the
relationship between the Department and producers on the
ground. As we consider reauthorization, we need to ensure that
the USDA is not only equipped to uphold strong standards, but
also staffed to maintain the relationships and responsiveness
that make those standards work in practice.
Dr. Donnelly and Mr. Friant, in your testimonies, you both
emphasized the importance of integrating and modernizing
technology throughout the inspection process. As this
legislation was first written in 1916, I agree. Can you talk
about what technologies are available and ready to be deployed?
And how can we ensure that the next generation of farming
workforce is equipped to adapt and effectively use these tools?
Dr. Donnelly. I think the example I used is probably one of
those. If we look even in other ag industries, for example, in
the seed processing industry, nobody counts seeds anymore. By
counting seeds, you take a picture of it and count seeds. In
the food processing industry, you clean and you knock out
damaged samples in the processing process. So there is a lot of
technology there involved with use of automation and imaging
that I think could come to the FGIS system. If I can look at a
sample, take a picture of it, and then analyze what are the
damaged kernels, the off types, that would be much more
efficient than having to pick through a kernel at a time. But
it does need to be standardized against the traditional.
Mr. Friant. Yes, and I would just build on that visual
imaging, visual imaging, visual imaging. We see that as an area
that can speed up and make the process more efficient, make it
more standardized, and overall be better for the system. I
think that is a big area of opportunity.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. I appreciate this conversation and
look forward to working with my colleagues in a thoughtful way
to reauthorize and modernize the legislation.
And with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you for
holding this important hearing today. And thank you to all the
witnesses for being here with us.
As we have heard today, the U.S. Grain Standards Act has
been in existence since the Woodrow Wilson Administration, and
it stood the test of time throughout the decades since as a
cornerstone of farm policy, ensuring that farm country has the
tools they need to produce the highest quality fuel and food
supply in the world.
So with that, no offense to Iowa, but I am going to have a
conversation with my fellow Minnesotan here. Mr. Friant, thank
you for your testimony, and thank you for being here today. It
is an honor to have Cargill call Minnesota home, and I
appreciate the role that you play in supporting southern
Minnesota's farmers and the farm economy.
As you know, the U.S. Grain Standards Act established
marketing standards for grains and oilseeds and procedures for
grain inspection and weighing to encourage the marketing of
high-quality grain for an agriculture sector that is highly
dependent on export demand. The Act requires that exported
grains and oilseeds be officially inspected and weighed.
So with laying that out, can you explain how the U.S. Grain
Standards Act helps facilitate the exports of U.S. grain and
why it is so important for ensuring U.S. grain continues to be
competitive in the global grain trade market?
Mr. Friant. I appreciate that question, Congressman
Finstad. And I think we heard I believe maybe from all four
witnesses how we consider the U.S. Grain Standards the gold
standard, right? Our customers ask for that official USDA
certificate. And that is really the first step in ensuring that
our products can be exported, right? That is what the buyers
want is that official FGIS certificate.
And then as I think we look at how we can continue to do
that going forward, it is what you have heard from all of us
already, right? We have opportunities for increased use of
technology, adaptation, and adoption in the system so we can
still be efficient and effective.
And I think the other piece is that the standard, is the
standard, right? So no matter whether you are delivering grain
in southern Minnesota or my hometown of Minooka, Illinois, or
Topeka, Kansas, a U.S. No. 2 yellow soybean is a U.S. No. 2
yellow soybean wherever you deliver, and that standard is the
same. And the seller knows that, the buyer knows that, and the
international buyer knows that when they buy a U.S. No. 2
yellow soybean, that is what the grade is going to be.
Mr. Finstad. Yes, I appreciate that. As a farmer myself, I
have just seen on our farm how adapting and incorporating new
technologies and the advancement of really where the collision
of science, agriculture, and technology has collided has
provided all kinds of opportunities. And really it just
emphasizes that we are the gold standard, and so we should make
sure that legislation around this, continues to evolve and
become even more efficient and really incorporate that
collision of science, technology, and agriculture.
One area that I wanted to get to here with my last couple
minutes is I want to highlight the importance of protecting the
surplus we have in grain trade. Over the last few years, the
Biden Administration refused to be at the table for negotiating
market access for our producers. And grain continued through
this to be a bright spot for farm country. In fact, America
enjoys right now a $65 billion trade surplus on the U.S. grains
and oilseed side. This is a credit to our farmers, who again
have done a great job with what I just stated, with
incorporating that collision of science, technology, and
agriculture, and we continue to grow the highest quality grain
in the world, our transportation infrastructure, including
critical American waterways, highways, rail systems, and
decades of diligent work to develop and grow new markets.
So again, Mr. Friant, what are some of the challenges that
we face right now on grain exports and what can we do in the
Grain Standards Act reauthorization to help overcome maybe some
of these challenges?
Mr. Friant. I think the first and foremost thing is get the
Act reauthorized on time or early. It provides us that
stability. We know that the standards will be there when it
comes time, when we want to export that grain, and it provides
that consistency for us. So first and foremost, we want to have
it reauthorized.
I think some of the things that we have laid out in terms
of--and you have heard from all of us--the technology piece. We
have talked a lot about continuing to look for those technology
opportunities that are out there.
And then as we referenced in my oral testimony, the
waivers. When we do have a disruption in service, let's make
sure that, as long as buyer and seller agree and it doesn't
impair the Act, we can still get that grain exported from the
U.S. to those customers that want that U.S. grain and that U.S.
certificate.
Mr. Finstad. I appreciate that. Thank you again to all of
you for being here, taking time away from your busy lives to
help us craft hopefully a better policy in the future, so I
appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Illinois.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Chairman Scott. Thank you,
Ranking Member Davids. Thank you so much for all the panelists
for being here today for this hearing.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important
piece of legislation set for reauthorization this year. We are
proud of the grains we produce in this country, particularly
the high-quality corn and soybeans grown in my district in
central and southern Illinois, and Congressman Sorensen's
district as well, and want to ensure that these grains enjoy
market access around the world, something you have obviously
heard a lot about today.
And just actually building on the comments and questions
from Congressman Finstad, just talking about the U.S. Grain
Standards Act and the importance of it, if others maybe on the
panel might like to elaborate further on the importance of its
reauthorization. We heard about looking for technological
advancements and how that might be able to continue to build on
the success of the Standards Act. Just kind of curious, any
other ideas potentially from the panel that you might like to
elaborate on that further?
Dr. Donnelly. I might speak on the reauthorization and the
importance of it. I believe we have had a very dependable and
reliable system that is well respected, but currently, grain
farmers are facing some really challenging times with low
commodity prices and weakened exports, coupled with high-input
and credit costs. So I think we must maintain the quality of
our export system, and let's not add this as another excuse
maybe for a further reduction of opportunity for exports.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Walton. Yes, so if I might add to that from the
farmer's perspective, as I said in my earlier testimony,
soybeans are the number one ag export from the U.S. It is about
$31.2 billion a year, and that is significant. And that is at
risk if there is not timely reauthorization of this Act.
Ms. Budzinski. Right.
Mr. Walton. It disrupts the whole system. So as others have
noted, our foreign buyers look at us as a gold standard, and
they know whether the soybeans come out of Illinois or Iowa or
North Dakota, No. 2 yellow soybean is the No. 2 yellow soybean,
and they place a premium on that quality and that assurance.
And so any disruption to the system is going to create chaos.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Mr. Walton. And at a time, as the doctor noted, the farm
economy isn't great right now, so any disruptions in that is
going to come back directly to my farmgate and impact us.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Mr. Walton. So that is why we really strongly urge this
timely reauthorization and keep it going.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you. Would you like to add?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you. From the perspective of an official
agency, we actually do a lot of what Professor Donnelly was
talking about and hosting foreign groups that come over about
commodity trade. And we do many of those each year. And every
time I have about an hour-long spiel on what I talk about on
why is the official system different than anything else. And if
this were not to be reauthorized, we wouldn't have that gold
standard. When I see their faces when we are talking about how
each of our official agencies, we go through extensive
compliance reviews, we have daily randomized monitoring.
I laugh sometimes that I talk to FGIS more than a lot of
the people in our company sometimes. We are that big of
partners. And they are so impressed by the amount of standards,
even as something as simple as running a moisture. I want to
say the handbook is maybe 70+ pages long. And that shows that
we give so much value and everything is thought out very
intensely. And it is a really enjoyable part each time, each
year to see their faces and how proud they are of what we do.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that.
I just, with the time I have remaining, wanted to emphasize
also the important role that our colleges and universities play
in bringing the next generation of agricultural professionals
to the industry. Getting young people interested in working in
agriculture, particularly farming, has been a priority of mine
since taking office. The University of Illinois is in my
district, which, much like Kansas State, is home to a world-
class agricultural program.
Dr. Donnelly, I know that in your role at Kansas State, you
interact with students who represent the next generation of ag
professionals. How does a deeper understanding of crop quality
and Federal grain inspection system serve students in
indirectly related agricultural careers?
The Chairman. Mr. Donnelly, I need you to be brief for
this, please.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes, sorry.
Dr. Donnelly. We have talked about grain science and
agronomy. An example might be animal science. Buying grain
sometimes for feed production could use a little lesser
quality. And so understanding that system and perhaps being
able to move grain that is not at the best quality into the
livestock feeding operation is important. So an animal feeder
needs to know about the standards as well.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thanks for that short answer.
I yield back.
The Chairman. And I apologize, it is Dr. Donnelly.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Davids. Thank you for holding this Subcommittee hearing and
kicking off the U.S. Grain Standards Reauthorization. And I
appreciate the witnesses being here to share your insights and
expertise and the sacrifices you all made to join us here
today.
Even in a broadband desert like most of my district,
technologies are constantly evolving and changing in the modern
agricultural economy, especially with the increase in AI. Ms.
Mikesh, in your testimony, you talked quite a bit about how
modernizing grain technologies could help improve the
inspection and weighing process. You mentioned the lack of
technological advancement is creating unnecessary cost for
taxpayers, exporters, and more, and I appreciate that
information, but what more could Congress be doing to promote
the adoption of these new technologies?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you. Technology is very important to what
we are needing to do. And we are needing to modernize our
systems with technological instrumentation to enhance the grain
quality, as you noted and many of us did as well. Where
technology is really needed in this system is that when I was
younger, we would do maybe 50+ cars, and it would take a few
days to load that. And now we are looking at trains that are
114 cars, and we are doing that in sometimes less than 5 hours,
but we are still doing it with the same standards, and we are
still doing it with the same personnel. It is getting very
difficult to be in these harsh environments. And so with
technology, we can then not be as much of a bottleneck to our
partners in making sure that they are getting the most reliable
grades in a very quick manner.
And what Congress would be doing to help by passing this is
helping this industry continue to be the most efficient and
cost effective that it can. And a lot of the areas that we have
outlined are some tools that are provided as examples that
could potentially help anything to help with the flexibility. I
believe that is probably the biggest piece of being able to
allow industry, official agencies, to help expedite this
technology. As we know, technology is rapidly changing, and we
want to make sure that we are ahead of it in giving what we can
to our industry.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Has there been much engagement or
investment from the private-sector to support the adoption of
these technologies?
Ms. Mikesh. There have been a lot of discussions around how
this could look. FGIS does have various cooperative agreements
in place looking at visual grading. And it is very impressive
what they are able to do. But there are so many different types
of technology, and FGIS needs those flexible partnerships in
order to continue that. So yes, there are currently some
technologies being looked at, but we need to be able to do it
in a quick manner.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Mr. Walton, you noted that most
farmers are mostly only exposed to the Inspection Service
indirectly at the elevator, and I would say most people don't
realize the Federal Grain Inspection Service even exists. What
would you say is the average farmer's perception of the grain
grading system? And are there gaps in transparency or education
that we as lawmakers could address?
Mr. Walton. I think the answer was in your question. I
mean, there is a transparency there that we know as farmers
when we deliver grain to an elevator, it is done against a
consistent standard. And regardless of multiple points that I
might sell to, that grain is going to be graded the same
regardless of where it goes to. And I think that is the
important piece for farmers, that we know that there is an
assurance behind those grain graders that may be a government
entity that is providing that sort of consistency. So again,
that is why we hope not to have any disruption here. It is set
to expire during harvest for us, and that would be a very
untimely thing to happen.
Mr. Taylor. Sure. Okay. Thanks again to all of you for
being here, and Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you to Chairman Scott and Ranking
Member Davids. Thank you to everyone for joining us today to
discuss the importance of reauthorizing the U.S. Grain
Standards Act. And welcome, Mr. Friant, from Illinois. Glad to
have you here with our Committee and glad that we have
representation from the land of Lincoln.
I was honored to have Illinois farmers in my Capitol Hill
office on this very floor down the hall just a couple of days
ago. When I asked what keeps you up at night, it is not the
weather. It is the fact that we need to expand global markets
for the export of our grain and our oilseeds. Reauthorizing
this initiative gives us the opportunity to not only modernize
our marketing system, but deliver cost savings, improve
reliability, and create a fairer valuation of U.S. grain in a
world marketplace.
Mr. Walton, I will begin with you. You mentioned the toll
that this Administration's tariffs are taking, especially on
our bean farmers. Could you expand a little bit more on how
important classification of grain grades is for not only price
discovery but upholding consumer confidence here and abroad?
Mr. Walton. Sure. We understand that our international
customers have a choice in where they purchase grains. And one
of the reasons why they continue to come back to the United
States is because we provide the international market with the
highest quality grains from around the world, and that is
backed with this U.S. grain standard. So they know when they
come to the U.S. and they are looking for No. 2 yellow
soybeans, that is exactly what they are going to get when they
are delivered. And we as sellers know that the high-quality
soybeans that we grow on our farms will get to those end-users
in that same kind of condition. So as we deliver No. 1 or No. 2
yellow soybeans to the market, that is what our customers in
international markets will receive.
Mr. Sorensen. Ms. Mikesh, you just mentioned my fellow
Congressperson from Illinois, Ms. Budzinski, asked, and you had
mentioned that the United States were proud to be the gold
standard of exported grain. How essential is a bipartisan
reauthorization to keep our American producers on top?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you for that question. Reauthorization is
essential for that. We give stability within the markets. We
give confidence knowing what that grade is. You are going to
know that if we are grading it in Ohio, it is going to be the
same as in California. And if we do not have that ability to
have the Federal Grain Inspection Service system, that can be
very detrimental to the entire grain supply chain and also for
the markets above when it is already difficult. So again, it
would be essential, and we urge Congress to pass it.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. And I will pose this to
everyone. As we consider language to reauthorize this Act, what
is the most important change that we as Members of Congress
should consider?
Mr. Friant. I mean, I think you have heard it from all of
us multiple times, technology. How can we ensure that there is
that language that enables technology from Federal Grain
Inspection Service?
Mr. Sorensen. One of the expiring provisions in 2025 is the
authority to collect fees for Federal supervision of state
agencies' export inspections. What do user fees typically
cover? And what percentage of services and operations are paid
for by appropriations from Congress?
Mr. Friant. So user fees are the direct service, right? So
that is the inspectors that are inspecting and weighing the
grain at port facilities. It is the per unit fees if we want
mycotoxin testing or other factors tested. So it is direct cost
for the services are the user fees.
Mr. Sorensen. Anyone else?
[No response.]
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you all so much for being here today.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The little chair now recognizes
the big chair for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman
Scott, and Ranking Member Davids for convening this important
hearing.
The United States Grain Standards Act has been the linchpin
of American agriculture and trade for nearly a century. And it
is a vital tool that ensures the integrity of our grain
markets, both here at home and around the world. This law
provides the framework for official marketing standards,
inspection and weighing procedures for grains and oilseeds, and
is essential for ensuring transparency, market confidence, and
price discovery. These principles are foundational to a fair
and functioning agriculture economy.
With several provisions of the current law set to expire on
September 30th, it is imperative that we do our job and we
reauthorize this important piece of legislation. Allowing this
authority to lapse would cost the farm economy more than $70
million a day and result in serious consequences for our family
farms, supply chains, and international trading partners. For
example, nearly $100 million of corn and barley are exported
from my home state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, each
year, and more than $26 billion of U.S. grains were exported in
2024.
It is critical that no disruption to the essential services
that underpin our ability to export the safest, most abundant
grain supply in the world. So fulfilling this obligation and
continuing safeguards will allow us to avoid disruptions in
service like what has occurred in the past. Inspection and
weighing services must be dependable, uninterrupted, and cost-
effective. It is not a luxury. It is a necessity for American
food security.
The United States has been at the forefront of agricultural
research, and we are fortunate to have institutions that are
able to spearhead the promotion of science, technology, and
innovation. Dr. Donnelly, given Kansas State's longstanding
leadership in grain science and its connection to FGIS through
the National Grain Center, is there a role for K-State and
other land-grant universities to play in advancing the next-
generation grain inspection technologies?
Dr. Donnelly. Well, I certainly think that there would be
opportunity, but our program at the International Grain Center
is focused primarily on promotion of market, not so much on the
technology of the process, but certainly an opportunity for
partnerships for improving some of the technology. We have
talked technology all morning, but obviously, we are not quite
ready to just jump in and do that. I think it comes down to
having the opportunity to work through appropriations or grants
that could be utilized to really prove that this technology is
as dependable as the current system. So I think that is where
we could participate in that if that opportunity was available.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I think given the status of obviously
American agriculture's science, technology, and innovation,
that is my definition. Obviously, that is why we are doing
significant investments in research and specific funding for
land-grant universities for research facilities as a part of
this Farm Bill 1.0 and Farm Bill 2.0 as we have been moving
ahead with.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we must maintain
transparency, market confidence, and price discovery for grain
standards that have led to our ability to be considered the
gold standard across the globe. Mr. Friant, your testimony
mentions that, in the event of a service disruption, additional
flexibility on emergency waivers for official inspection and
weighing requirements is needed, part of the great work this
Committee did in 2015 to ensure there is transparency and
continuity from FGIS. In the event of service disruption, where
do you believe that there are shortcomings in the current
waiver process? Is there anything Congress can do to rectify
those challenges?
Mr. Friant. I appreciate that question, Mr. Chairman, and
we have seen much better transparency in the process. One of
the areas, as we noted in our testimony, was simply having a
good definition of what constitutes an emergency. There seems
to be some ambiguity around that, and so being much clearer on
what is an emergency would be a very good place for us to
focus.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The big
chair yields back.
The Chairman. Thank you, big chair.
I just want everybody to know, I show the order as Mr.
Rose, Ms. De La Cruz, Mr. Harris, and then Mrs. Miller is what
I show the order on this sheet right now. Mr. Rose, the chair
now recognizes you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Davids, for holding this time-sensitive hearing on the review
of the U.S. Grain Standards Act.
Reauthorizing and modifying the U.S. Grain Standards Act is
yet another opportunity for this Committee to deliver
prosperity for our producers by strengthening flexibilities and
reconfiguring the use of funds. As all of you have mentioned or
alluded to, the Federal Grain Inspection Service, or FGIS, is
the gold standard for grain grading and the vital role the
service plays in promoting U.S. competitiveness in global
markets. Mr. Walton, can you elaborate on the FGIS and how,
since 1976, the service has bolstered U.S. grain grading?
Mr. Walton. Yes, I think in the international marketplace,
it is widely recognized that that is the gold standard. They
know that when they enter a contract with a U.S.-based company
for soybeans, that is exactly what they are going to receive.
And that kind of assurance in the marketplace gives us a
dominant position around the globe. It gives us an advantage
over our competitors. So I think this Grain Standards Act is
something that has been important for our growth of
international trade, and it needs to continue to keep us in
that position.
Mr. Rose. Thank you very much. Ms.--and I hope I am saying
this right--Ms. Mikesh? Okay. In your written testimony, you
suggested that Congress authorize research activities by
official agencies. Will you provide additional details and
examples of this research and how agencies should handle this
authority and the benefits we would see domestically?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you for that question. Yes, I would love
to. So currently, under the Act, there is a gray area of
whether or not official agencies can help with the research and
development, mainly around the visual imaging piece. We are not
able to perform any services that have official standards in a
different manner. And so it has been easy for us to help aid in
different technologies when you are talking about protein where
there is a single result. We can put the sample through our
protein machine and give a result to that instrumentation
entity.
Now, when you are talking about visual imaging, we are
needing to look at things like individual kernels. And there
are current standards for grading, but if we were just to give
a certificate that, states, you have 2.2 percent damage in your
corn, that isn't going to help these instrumentation entities
determine what types of damages these kernels are, as well as
being able to sort them within their models.
And something that we talk about a lot when we are
discussing this is, it is good data in, good data out. And if
it is bad data, it is not going to be a great outcome. And
official agencies and along with FGIS, I believe I stated in my
opening statement, is that we have a near monopoly on the
expertise on how to grade. There are wonderful universities,
like Professor Donnelly, where they go through and they can
teach others how to grade. However, we are the ones doing that
every day. There are approximately 40 agencies across the
country, and we are all very willing to work with
instrumentation manufacturers to develop these models and work
alongside FGIS.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. I appreciate that added insight.
Dr. Donnelly, you noted in your testimony that you are a
former FFA member, so it is great to have a fellow Future
Farmer and alumnus joining us today.
Mr. Donnelly, you explained that FGIS conducts additional
quality assessments not required for the official grade. Will
you elaborate on the impact these additional assessments have
on grain marketing and the value added by these quality
measures?
Dr. Donnelly. Well, certainly. I think oftentimes that they
may be more important than the grade. The grade is, as
everybody has talked about, is very standard, very expected. I
am not directly involved, but I understand that in the export
world, the end-user of wheat, for example, is equally or more
interested in the protein content as it is the damaged kernels.
And so certainly with things like mycotoxins, the residues, all
of those things are included as well.
And not only that, but FGIS is also tasked with dozens of
other testing and monitoring of other feedstocks. And we are
just talking about a limited number of grains here. In fact,
rice is under the AMA, pulses, field beans, under a completely
different system, but still they are involved. So FGIS, if you
really look at it, this is a part of what they do, but it is
much broader than that as well. And some of this additional
testing may be equally or more important to the end-user.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. I appreciate that insight. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. De La
Cruz.
Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
hosting this important meeting today, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here.
The U.S. Grain Standards Act plays a critical role in
establishing uniformity and reliability in grain inspection.
That has secured the United States' role as the most dependable
provider of quality grain in the world. As we continue to
assess the effectiveness of Federal programs, it is important
that we hear from those who are actually engaging in these
systems to ensure their long-term success.
I have heard over and over again the importance of
technology and that when we talk about reauthorization, that we
are talking about technology that would help you all. So I want
to dive into that a little bit here. Ms. Mikesh, you mentioned
that official agencies have much of the data and the expertise
that is needed to drive technological innovation. And you even
said good data in means good work or good data out, correct? We
want to make sure that that data is being put to good use. So
could you speak to how those impacts, the good data or bad data
that is coming out, how we can make innovation better or
inspection tools better or partnership with developments better
when good work comes out of this data?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you for that question. Yes, in our
system, when we are going out and we are grading onsite at
grain elevators, when we are looking for damages, we have a
narrow field of foot candles, light candles that we actually
have to make sure our lights are done by. We have to make sure
we have a very specific color of countertop. I could go on and
on, but I won't bore you. So there are a lot of inputs that go
into making sure that visual grading by a human inspector is
accurate.
Now, there are some things with technology that you are
going to take a lot of that out of play, which is wonderful.
And so if we are there providing good data, we need to make
sure that this technology is as reliable and accurate, if not
more reliable and accurate than human inspectors. Just \1/10\
of a result a difference can make such a huge financial impact
for many of our partners.
Ms. De La Cruz. Reclaiming my time one moment. You said
something very important, as the difference, obviously, between
a human visual inspection and a technology inspection. Do we
have any quantifiable data that we have available to us as far
as an error rate in technology versus human or vice versa?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you. We are actually not at that point
currently. There are some instruments that are being used where
we are doing the data of what the damages are, but until that
is completed, we aren't able to compare the two.
Ms. De La Cruz. So what I am hearing is that there is a
study in place that you are looking for the numbers in what the
difference is between having the technology available and
having the human error rate in this. Is that correct?
Ms. Mikesh. Yes.
Ms. De La Cruz. And when do you think this data would be
available for us to review?
Ms. Mikesh. That is going to be difficult. It is going to
depend on what your Subcommittee passes. We are looking for
ways to expedite the technology study. And once we do that, I
know it is very important to the industry alike that we come
forth with that data. I am the chair of the Grain Inspection
Advisory Committee, and we look at new technologies in protein.
And every time we look at new data, the very first question we
are asking is, is it the same or better? And that is something
that none of us want it to go backwards.
Ms. De La Cruz. Excellent. Thank you so much for your time.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the very patient
gentleman from North Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this important hearing and to all of you that have been
sharing on the panel today.
As a freshman on this Committee, I was fascinated to learn
about the intricate network of inspectors who physically lay
eyes on grain products coming in and around the country.
Whether it is wheat, corn, barley, or one of the other dozen
things the Federal Grain Inspection Service oversees, hundreds
of inspectors are working to ensure the quality of our grain
products.
Ms. Mikesh, I want to ask you, can you briefly describe for
my constituents at home what a day in the life of a grain
inspector entails, and what are the steps that an inspector
goes through when they get a shipment of, say, wheat kernels?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you for that question. That is a fun one
to answer. Every day is quite different. We are constantly
having to check where trains are at, whether or not we are able
to load due to weather conditions, or whether or not we are
able to get out to those elevators due to weather and
conditions.
In each of our areas for--I will talk about NDGI--we have a
little bit different depending on the market. So in our North
Dakota area, we primarily do rail cars. We do shuttle trains.
Now, say, when they get the call at 2:00 a.m. that a train is
going to be heading our way at that particular location within
the next hour, our inspectors, our samplers, and technicians,
essentially, they are on call. They are to wake up, get going,
get on the road, and get out to that location.
Those grain elevators, then they are able to make sure that
there is representative sampling because the grade is only as
good as the sample we receive is. So we have standards that we
go through to ensure that the sample is going through. And then
we go through and run things like moisture, test weight, and
then it gets to the inspector who is doing mainly the visual
damages to make sure that everything is accurate.
And then those trains can last anywhere from 5 hours to 36
hours. It really depends on what happens. But whether it is
rain, shine, or a lovely blizzard in North Dakota, we are
making sure that we are there so that our industry partners can
get the grain out in time.
Mr. Harris. Super. Well, thank you. I know we have talked a
bit about the technological advancements that you would like to
see to improve the processes. Can you give a picture of some of
the cost savings to the system that might occur if Congress can
reduce the regulations to allow for more technological
advancement in the inspection process?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you. Yes. Right now, we are in the midst
of discussions on how exactly having these visual grading
systems could look. But what we are looking at currently is say
that you need four people to be onsite and doing the grading.
We may be able to cut that back to three or less.
And what it also can do is that there are a lot of ups and
downs as far as the volume in the grain industry. So we can go
through phases where maybe we have--I'm speaking of my own
agency--maybe we have 60 people out on the road, and then all
of a sudden there are a few changes and now we are down to 30.
Having that technology will allow us to handle those ups and
downs, those ebbs and flows a lot easier, especially when you
are talking about inspectors.
When we have inspectors, it generally takes to just become
mildly provisioned about a year to get the three main licenses.
And you can imagine that when there is a downturn in the
market, as there always are both ways, if we lose that
expertise of inspecting, it is very difficult to come back
from. So if we can use things as a tool and an aid to help with
that, it can help with staffing substantially.
Mr. Harris. Excellent. And in the last few seconds, Mr.
Friant, the Federal Grain Inspection Service is funded
primarily by user fees with taxpayer dollars from Congress
filling in the rest of the budget. Given our debt crisis, it is
encouraging for me to see this funding structure that isn't
totally reliant on Federal dollars. However, I know that the
authority to collect user fees is given by Congress and that we
play a role in ensuring that process goes smoothly. In your
testimony, you mentioned ways to stabilize the user fees,
saying they are currently not predictable for the industry. In
the last 20 seconds or so, can you share more about what the
issue is and how Congress can fix it?
Mr. Friant. So one of the things that we saw and we
actually got in the 2015 reauthorization was how tonnage fee
was based on a rolling average, and we saw that same approach
applied to other Schedule A fees. And so what FGIS has done is
published a new final rule on a new way to calculate those fees
to help stabilize it. So now we are going to be in a monitoring
mode and ensure that those changes indeed are efficient and we
are achieving the goal that we think as far as stabilizing
costs for the agency.
Mr. Harris. Thank you. Thank you all very much, and thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes Mrs. Miller for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As one of the few family farmers in Congress, I understand
the huge impact that agriculture has on our economy, and I am
guessing I am probably the only Member of Congress that was
actually involved in testing. I had a part-time job in college
testing for mycotoxin in corn, so anyway, kind of a little side
note there. I also understand how critical the U.S. Grain
Standards Act is to the stability and global reputation of our
ag sector.
In Illinois, nearly 44 percent of our grain is exported,
and we rank fifth nationally for the total agricultural
exports, valued at $80.8 billion, including being third for
soybean and feedgrain exports. With so much of Illinois'
production headed for international markets, it is essential
that our inspection system operates with efficiency,
consistency, and integrity. We know that our foreign buyers put
a premium on the trust and reliability offered through official
U.S. inspections, and losing that trust would be devastating to
our farmers.
So we are fortunate today to be hearing from Dave Walton, a
soybean farmer from Iowa and Secretary of the American Soybean
Association, who brings both firsthand experience and national
perspective on how this system serves producers and supports
global competitiveness. As we approach reauthorization, it is
important that we build on the strengths of the Grain Standards
Act while modernizing, where needed, to meet the demands of
today's export-driven markets.
Producers in my district and across the country depend on
timely, uniform inspections to move their grain efficiently,
especially during peak harvest and shipping seasons, so I look
forward to hearing more today about how we can strengthen the
system, improve transparency and responsiveness, and ensure
USDA has the tools it needs to continue delivering the gold
standard in grain inspections.
So my first question is for Mr. Walton. From your
perspective, how well is the current grain inspection and
weighing system serving the needs of high export states like
Illinois and Iowa?
Mr. Walton. Sure, thank you. From my perspective as a
farmer and a member of ASA's Executive Committee, the current
grains inspection system meets our needs. It is working for us
right now. Our international customers know that U.S. soybeans,
whether they originate from our states or any other soybean-
producing state in the nation, they are going to be of the same
uniform and high quality. And mostly what we are here to do is
just ask that Congress reauthorize the USGSA in time so there
is no major service disruptions. It is set to expire sometime
around harvest time, and if we have disruptions at that point
in time, it would be difficult to manage around as farmers and
producers.
Mrs. Miller. Absolutely. And we know that the producers are
really struggling right now, and we need to tamp down inflation
and amp up exports, so thank you very much.
And then also Mr. Walton, as Congress looks toward that
2025 reauthorization, can you be specific on any improvements
or modernizations that you would recommend to ensure the system
continues to work efficiently, reduce bottlenecks, and support
a competitive export environment for U.S. farmers?
Mr. Walton. Yes, and again, I think my partners here on the
panel have highlighted some really important things that we
need to look at, and I defer to them for their expertise on
what specifically they are looking for to improve. As farmers,
all we ask is that the system continues to work at the high
level that it does and gives our international customers that
assurance that when they buy U.S. grain, they are getting
exactly what the contract states.
Mrs. Miller. And I know it is illegal for anybody to add
foreign material at the ports. I am just curious what kind of
penalties there are because we bring clean grain into the
elevators, and we want to have that reputation for exporting
clean grain.
Mr. Friant. So in the Act, there is a penalty for any
foreign material. Frankly, we would need to look into exactly
what the requirements are around that. I don't happen to know
them off the top of my head.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. I think that there is one percent
foreign material allowed. And, I just want to make sure that
the good work that the farmers do and the local grain elevators
to make sure we have clean grain when it is at the ports, ready
for export, that it remains clean grain and we preserve our
excellent reputation.
Thank you, and I yield my time.
The Chairman. The chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa from
California for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I am
sorry I haven't been able to be here the whole hearing today,
so I hope I don't ask anything redundant.
But, I have a great understanding and importance as well,
along with Mrs. Miller, on this. I am a rice grower in
California, and we actually grow seed rice that our neighbors
use as well, so having important grain and seed standards for
germination, for making sure we have like seed and not other
stray seed in there is extremely important. And so it is
important we get this right in many aspects across the board.
So I believe our witnesses touched on the organizational
changes to the Inspection Service moving from GIPSA to the
Marketing Service. So what is that going to do, as far as we
have outdated technology--that is hopefully going to be updated
and realigned to make the process simpler, smoother, and data
more readily available to more people? What do you anticipate,
anybody on the panel here, how that is going to work out? And
do you anticipate any needed changes to continue to refine that
in process, any of you?
Ms. Mikesh. Thank you for that question. Yes, actually, to
touch on your point of moving FGIS over to AMS, it has been
wonderful. Being able to be with other grading programs and see
what it is that they are working on as far as technology and
many other items as well has been very, very eye-opening.
One of the things that I would say, Nick and I actually
were at an innovation summit a few years back with different
AMS grading groups, and when you feel like sometimes when you
are isolated in your industry, you think that your problems are
your problems are alone. And we were excited to go to that
summit and have these discussions to see maybe these other
grading programs are having the exact same problems, and we can
piggyback and work together on finding a solution.
And unfortunately, we found that we are the odd one out in
that when we are looking at our commodities, we are looking at
kernel sizes. We are not looking at whole fruits and vegetables
or an entire cow. And so the technology that we need is very
different than what is already in use out there in these other
grading programs. So we have had----
Mr. LaMalfa. Other grading for non-grains, you mean?
Ms. Mikesh. Yes, for livestock, specialty crops, et cetera.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, yes.
Ms. Mikesh. And so we need a little bit more help and
effort to be able to get the technology to work for us in the
most cost-effective way.
Mr. LaMalfa. So how difficult is it with a current older
system versus what you are seeing with technological
improvements that are available or coming available?
Mr. Friant. So maybe I will give an example. When I walked
into Cargill's offices about 20 years ago, one of my colleagues
came to me and said, we are working on black-box technology for
grain inspection, for grain grading. And I sit before you
today, 20 years later, and we are still working on that
technology. It hasn't been easy. Frankly, it has been quite
difficult. But we still believe that it is the way we need to
go, visual imaging. We think there are great opportunities
there.
And as Kia mentioned, you can tell she and I have talked
about this a lot together between our organizations because she
said exactly what I was going to say. Our eyes were opened at
that technology summit about a year and a half ago to what else
is out there and what other groups in AMS are using for visual
imaging technology.
Mr. LaMalfa. What is the holdup for you all?
Mr. Friant. I think that is a great question that doesn't
have an easy answer. And Kia kind of alluded to it. We need to
look at each individual grain in the sample. And when you are
talking about a sample that could have 100, 200, 300 kernels,
it is a lot to look through. And so just having that technology
to identify it. And then when we talk about damage, the types
of damage and being able to identify this kernel is damaged,
this kernel isn't.
Mr. LaMalfa. Is the damage usually associated with size,
like brokens, things like that, or could it be damaged and have
a like size and really take more microscopic work to find?
Ms. Mikesh. Yes, there are damages that you can visibly see
just right when you are looking at, say, the corn. But there
are also damages, and this is part of the reason why it has
been more difficult to find the technology, is you have to
actually scrape at the kernel to determine. There are some
grains that you have to cut to see the inside of it. And so
with that, it isn't only visual imaging, but we are needing
other things like near-infrared and all of that combined
together, but still cost-effective enough to be able to have at
thousands of onsite labs across the country.
Mr. LaMalfa. So I suppose you are trying to draw samples
kind of at random and hope that sample represents the whole,
and you don't run into too many quality problems.
Ms. Mikesh. Yes, we do have very specific protocols for
sampling to ensure that.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I have to yield back, but I am pleased
to hear that you are very happy with the AMS coming in, and
that is making it a little simpler. So please keep us abreast
at the Committee here of what impediments might be out there
and the good things too.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I have one final question, and
then I will turn it over to Ms. Davids for any final questions
she may have, and then begin closing. We had an issue with
peanuts a couple of years ago where, after they had been
shipped, the port where they were going to, the buyers
questioned the grade. It wasn't that there was a problem with
the grade. It was just that the shipping costs had already been
incurred, and they were trying to get a better deal if you
will. Does that ever happen with grain as well, Doctor?
Dr. Donnelly. I am going to take that. The system has an
appeals process. In fact, one of the main functions of the
National Grain Center in Kansas City is the Board of Appeals.
So there is always a reference sample kept on reserve, and if
there is a disagreement about the grade, then that can be
adjudicated by going back to the reference sample. And the
Board of Appeals in Kansas City is the supreme court of grain
grading, so what they determine is what stands in those cases.
The Chairman. Okay.
Ms. Mikesh. Something else with that as well, us as
official agencies, as well as FGIS, anything that we have,
those file samples that he is speaking of, they are considered
Federal property over an allotted amount of time. And so when
those come back, we are able to look at those particular file
samples, as well as our records are all Federal property in
that sense. And so we are able to go through the various
records to show what it is that we found and making sure that
those people are properly trained and licensed and everything
else with it. So we have very good recordkeeping in order to
help mitigate that.
The Chairman. Do you have anything?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Okay. Ms. Davids?
Ms. Davids of Kansas. I don't have any questions, just a--
--
The Chairman. Closing statement.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just
have a closing statement here.
First, I would like to thank everyone on our panel today.
Thank you for showing up and being witnesses here in front of
the Committee. It is so important for all of us on this
Committee to stay well informed about the U.S. Grain Standards
Act, particularly as we look to take action on the
reauthorization this year. Your time and testimony today have
absolutely provided us with firsthand knowledge on how
essential the grain standards are to farmers, not just in
Kansas, but across the country and to folks in the grain
industry at large across the country.
So again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing, and I look forward to working together on the
reauthorization this year. And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Davids.
And I want to thank all of you for taking the time to come
testify. Your expertise matters to us. And I look forward to
the completion of the legislation in a timely manner.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional materials and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on General Farm
Commodities, Risk Management, and Credit is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]