Farm-state Republicans in the House and Senate predicted they have the strength to override a veto of the farm bill as they completed work on a conference agreement.

Negotiators from both parties and chambers said floor votes on the measure could take place as early as Wednesday, and promised their bill would have solid support despite continued opposition from President Bush.

Goodlatte said Bush reiterated his opposition to the bill during a meeting Wednesday at the White House, but that the president didn’t provide specifics.

“He did indicate that he thought members should vote their districts,” Goodlatte said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday that it is “unlikely” Bush will sign the bill and that he will more probably push for a one-year extension of the 2002 bill that is currently in effect.

“We remain concerned that the positions that the president put out regarding the bill that he could sign have not been addressed fully,” she said.

Congress has successfully overridden a veto by Bush only once. That happened last year after the president vetoed popular legislation authorizing water projects.

Winning the two-thirds majority necessary for an override in the House could be more difficult than the Senate, which approved an earlier version of the bill in a 79-14 tally. The House approved its version of the farm bill last year in a much closer 231-191 vote, although that version of the bill included tax provisions controversial with Republicans. The tax language is not included in the conference report.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) also said he was optimistic about the chances of a successful House override yet mindful of the margin in his chamber.

“We’ve got work to do,” Peterson said.

Goodlatte said there has been no whipping for the farm bill in the House, making predictions tough.

Still, he strongly suggested farm-state lawmakers would have enough support to win a battle with the president.

In the Senate, the bill’s negotiators flatly predicted that an override would sail through the upper chamber. Several GOP senators even volunteered to help drive the effort.

“At this point we’ve worked long enough with the White House that enough is enough,” said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), a former Agriculture Committee member who has played a role in this year’s negotiations. “While it’s not completely the way he wants it, this is a bicameral system here. I would hope he would appreciate it. If he vetoes it, I would lead the charge to override it.”

Tara Smith, a lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Association, said the agriculture industry expects a veto and an override attempt.

“There’s a sense of starting to look ahead down the road” past a veto, Smith said.

She also said farm groups would not like the idea of an extension. The new bill would increase spending above baseline levels by $10 billion. While some new money would go toward conservation, the bill would also continue to funnel subsidies to farmers of crops such as corn, wheat and soybeans that are enjoying high prices.

Farm-state lawmakers argue the payments are needed to provide a safety net in case prices drop.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said he regretted Bush’s stance has left supporters of the farm bill in the position of contemplating a veto override.

 “The president and I are very good friends. Philosophically we’re on the same page for the most part. This is one time we disagree,” he said. “When he’s wrong, as I’ve always told him face to face, I’m not going to be with him.”

Democrats on the Agriculture Committee agreed Congress has already moved far enough toward the White House, and called Craig’s and Chambliss’s stances “very significant.”

“There’s just a lot of disgust with the administration not working with us,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

Not every member of the Senate Agriculture Committee is sold on the new bill, however.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a longtime advocate of reform, says subsidies make no sense because farms have consolidated and gone corporate — and are seeing record-high profits. This is a huge difference from the New Deal days when government subsidies first became law. A better idea, he said, is crop insurance legislation that can protect farmers from severe-weather losses.

 “The idea of a whole lot of family farmers out there just isn’t true anymore,” Lugar said. “These are just antiquated thoughts that come from the ’30s.”