564 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



the processor group, four from the distributor group, and four that 

 really represent the consumer, if you can ever locate someone who 

 would represent the consumer. But the idea is that we would have a 

 board comprised of 24 members, half of them coming from agricul- 

 ture which really is the most complicated, and is the basis of the whole 

 show. 



We would like to see written into the law the requirement that be- 

 fore these appointments are made the President should consult with 

 the recognized leaders in agriculture, in the distribution industry, 

 and in the processing industry in making nominations. 



Then here is something else that is unorthodox, but we believe it to 

 be absolutely sound. We believe that the Committees on Agriculture 

 from the House and the Senate should have a joint committee to whom 

 the President would refer all the rocemmendations he has received for 

 their consideration and advice, or if they wish, they might make rec- 

 ommendations themselves. The President should then be ordered in 

 the law to consider the recommendations so made in the appointment 

 of the Board. 



Of course, we would have the Board confirmed by the Senate. And 

 we believe that if the recommendations had been made in good faith, 

 and they had been referred to the Joint Committee' on Agriculture, 

 that the Senate is not going to pass by those recommendations lightly. 



I think in most cases the Senate would not confirm if they thought 

 that the purposes which are set forth in detail in the act, were being 

 ignored by the President in making his selection. 



We would write in, as far as practical, that the two major parties 

 should have relative representation on the Board. We believe that 

 in that type of board we could get about as far away from politics as 

 could be expected, and that we could assemble the best brains in the 

 country. 



We would have men who know the problems, and who could advise, 

 and we believe that such a check upon the Secretary in using the ex- 

 isting devices would be very, very helpful to the Secretary and to in- 

 dustry, and that with that kind of a background the Congress could 

 provide the means to be applied at the proper time on the particular 

 commodities in ways which it cannot possibly write into law. 



We do not believe that such a board could be a full time board. It 

 is too big. We believe it should operate through an executive com- 

 mittee, probably of five members, chosen from their own membership, 

 and that that executive committee would probably be on the job most 

 of the time, certainly whenever the Board wanted them to be on the 

 job. 



In the matter of compensation, we also have another suggestion 

 which may be a bit unique. We believe that the Board should be com- 

 pensated in part by salary and in part by a per diem allowance. If 

 you had such a board operating through an executive committee the 

 board would undoubtedly have to spend more or less time between 

 meetings receiving reports of the committee and considering the prob- 

 lems and keeping up with them. So we have suggested the possibility 

 of a salary of say $3,000 a year — I think in my testimony I suggested 

 $2,000 — with a per diem of $25 a day when attending meetings of the 

 Board or of the executive committee as they meet. In suggesting 

 that we have tried to hit at about $10,000 for the full time job. Maybe 



