Political Peanuts

For nearly two months in the House cloakrooms and corridors, the word had been quietly circulated: 90% is worth $1.25. What it meant was that if Northern big-city Democrats would vote for rigid 90% parity farm supports, then the Democrats of the agricultural South would look kindly on labor demands for a $1.25 minimum wage law. The groundwork for the vote trade had been carefully laid, e.g., some 57,000 copies of pro-90% statements by C.I.O. President Walter Reuther and A.F.L. Leader George Meany had been sent out under the franks of Democratic members of the House Agriculture Committee. But when the high-parity bill reached the House floor last week, the farm-labor merger very nearly fell apart. And it was all because of the lowly peanut.

Philadelphia's Democratic Representative William Green sent up a long amendment that proposed, in a nutshell, to exclude peanuts from the list of "basic" farm commodities--wheat, corn, tobacco, rice, cotton--that would receive 90% parity. The Democratic leadership paid little attention to Green's move; similar amendments had been easily defeated in the past.

But the leaders failed to realize that candy manufacturers, hurt by the high price of the peanuts they use in their products, had done an effective job of lobbying. Said Congressman Green, who has some candymakers in his district: "A peanut candy bar sells for a nickel. If peanut prices were at a reasonable level, more peanuts could be put in the bar."

The Costly Seed. Texas Democrat Robert Poage, a peanut supporter, tried to put the blame on the candymakers. Waving a peanut bar over his head, Poage cried: "Mr. Chairman, here is a candy bar I just purchased within the last five min utes. This is the only peanut bar you can buy in the cloakroom. This peanut bar weighs, according to its wrapper, one and one-eighth ounces. You can make more than 14 bars out of one pound of peanuts, if you made them all out of peanuts." Poage slowly unwrapped the bar, continued darkly: "As a matter of fact, it has not got very many peanuts in it. Look inside." He broke the bar in half, held the pieces aloft, and shouted in outraged tones: "It has peanuts all over the outside, but on the inside nothing but corn syrup." Poage's conclusion: the candy manufacturers, by thus fooling their customers, were making profits of some 800%.

For more than three hours, the House resounded with arguments about peanuts. Illinois Republican Charles Vursell charged that the peanut advocates were trying to "deny the children of America the amount of peanuts they want to eat." Georgia's Representative Elijah ("Tic") Forrester snapped back: "The truth of the matter is that the children of the country today are getting more candy and more luxuries than ever before." Boston Democrat Thomas P. O'Neill said that peanuts have "no more right to be called [a basic crop] than cranberries or carnations." Replied Tic Forrester: "If the peanut program in this country is not basic, there is not one thing in this country that is basic." When Texas Democrat Omar Burleson pleaded for the peanut, he left hardly a dry eye in the House. To understand the situation, moaned Burleson, "you would truly have to know the story from the time a costly peanut seed was placed in the ground until it was finally consumed by a school child in Chicago."

That Little Bag. The more talk there was of peanuts, the more northern big-city Democrats began to come unstuck from the 90%-for-$1.25 deal. Brooklyn Democrat Abraham Multer found himself right alongside Brooklyn Republican Francis Dorn in bewailing the high price of peanuts at Ebbets Field: "There are just about twelve peanuts in that little peanut bag for which you pay 10-c-" Georgia's Forrester replied: "I thought we had come to an understanding with you Brooklyn people that you would pay us 10-c- a bag for peanuts and we would continue to pay $75 for a $15 suit of clothes." Cried Multer: "No, no! I would not let you do that ... I will get you a $75 suit for less than $75."

On a test vote, the House went 186 to 150 against peanut supports.

Republicans were delighted; the Democratic leadership was in despair. If Congressman Green's peanut amendment stayed in the bill, it meant the defeat of 90% parity. Reason: Democrats from such states as Virginia and Georgia would not vote for a farm bill that slighted the peanut. To gain time, Speaker Sam Rayburn hastily recessed the House.

The Difference. Overnight activity was furious. Agriculture Committee Chairman Harold Cooley sent word to the New York City delegation that if the farm bill failed there was no chance of a $1.25 minimum wage law. Democratic Whip Carl Albert made the rounds with the same message. Sam Rayburn began collecting political lOU's. Telegrams from labor leaders poured in, urging Representatives to support peanuts. The C.I.O.-P.A.C. rushed in its crack legislative liaison man, Bob Oliver, to work the House corridors.

By the next morning, the Democratic household was again in order. Abraham Multer, who on the previous day had been indignant about high peanut prices, decided that he no longer felt so strongly on the subject. A change of heart was admitted by Brooklyn Democrat Victor Anfuso who, although a member of the Agriculture Committee, had said at one point in the debate: "Frankly. I couldn't tell the difference between buckwheat and cottonseed, or between cornstarch and non-fat milk powder." What Anfuso could tell the difference between was $1.25 and something less.

Finally Sam Rayburn took the floor. His speech was short and simple: the peanut amendment must be killed. It was, by a vote of 215 to 193.

When it came time for the vote on final passage of the parity bill, Republican Leader Joe Martin demanded a roll call. The vote was close; at one point it appeared that the bill had been defeated. After the roll call, there was a long delay, while Democrats switched their votes, some from nay to aye, some from nay to present. Martin, annoyed at the procedure, demanded: "W'hat's the stalling for?" Speaker Rayburn gently replied that there had been no unnecessary delay. Then he carefully studied the Democratic side to make certain he had no more converts there. The results were announced--the bill passed. 206 to 201. After the liveliest political fight of the 84th Congress, the farm bill was sent to the Senate, where it has only an outside chance of passage--with or without peanuts.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.