By Erik Wasson - 07/25/12 04:02 PM EDT
The heads of the House and Senate Agriculture Committee are doubling down on their push to pass a full five-year farm bill by Sept. 30 and are resisting efforts to pass a one-year extension.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie StabenowDebbie StabenowOvernight Finance: Senate sends Puerto Rico bill to Obama | Treasury, lawmakers to meet on tax rules | Obama hits Trump on NAFTA | Fed approves most banks' capital plans Senate Dems pledge to keep fighting over Zika Obama official pledges 'adjustments' to controversial Medicare proposal MORE (D-Mich.) and ranking member Rep. Pat RobertsPat RobertsUSDA extends comment period for 'certified organic' animal rule Senate contradicts itself on Gitmo GOP senators propose sending ISIS fighters to Gitmo MORE (R-Kan.) met Tuesday to chart a path forward.
But while Lucas is also preparing to deal with a possible one-year bill, the other agriculture leaders were initially unenthusiastic about the shorter extension.
“Some people want to preconference ... but we want to get support from leaders first,” he told The Hill.
Lucas confirmed there is an attempt to try to pre-conference the farm bill in August. "There is an effort to see if we can get as much done as possible, so that it is possible to move quickly if and when we can," he said.
Lucas would not say when he will next meet with his leadership. "I avail myself of every opportunity I can to talk to my leaders about the importance of the farm bill," he said.
The Senate passed a $969 billion farm bill in June by a 64-35 vote, while the House Agriculture Committee passed its $957 billion bill by a 35-11 vote this month.
So far House leaders have been reluctant to move the bill, saying they have not lined up the votes.
Fiscal conservatives want deeper cuts to farm subsidies and nutrition programs, while liberal lawmakers are against the $16.5 billion in food stamp cuts in the bill.
The head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Wednesday leadership should not bring up the farm bill. "I'm against it," he told The Hill.
There is talk of a one-year extension or moving a drought relief bill and House Speaker John BoehnerJohn BoehnerEXCLUSIVE: Pro-Hillary group takes 0K in banned donations Ryan: Benghazi report shows administration's failures Clinton can't escape Benghazi responsibility MORE (R-Ohio) on Tuesday acknowledged rural areas are facing an “emergency” that needs to be addressed.
Peterson is pushing back against a one-year extension.
“It just isn’t necessary,” he said. Peterson said that farmers will not need subsidies until the spring harvest. Food stamps meanwhile continue on autopilot even when the current 2008 farm bill runs out Sept. 30.
Asked about a one-year extension, Lucas appeared less opposed than Peterson. "I am in favor of anything that helps us get a farm bill done," he said.
Stabenow continues to advocate for a full bill rather than an extension. She has said shepherding the farm bill through would rank up there with saving the Detroit auto industry as career achievements.
Roberts on Wednesday signaled some openness, and said that he does not have a final position on a one-year extension yet.
"Discussions are continuing," he said.
The Iowa delegation on Monday, led by Rep. Dave Loebsack (D), introduced a bill to extend certain expired disaster relief programs that would otherwise be extended or reformed in the 2012 farm bill.
Peterson is also pushing back against that solution while advocating for the full farm bill.
“It isn’t paid for,” he said, estimating that the Loebsack bill would cost $2.5 billion. Sen. Max BaucusMax BaucusGlover Park Group now lobbying for Lyft Wyden unveils business tax proposal College endowments under scrutiny MORE (D-Mont.) has introduced a similar bill in the Senate and is also searching for a pay-for.
A pre-conference on the competing farm bills would be contentious.
The bills have different subsidy and food stamp provisions. Both eliminate direct payments to farmers, even if they no longer farm, and both expand crop insurance by lowering deductibles.
The House bill is less generous on revenue-based crop insurance but it maintains a price-based system that is favored by Southern peanut and rice farmers.
The Senate bill cuts less from food stamps, $4 billion rather than $16.5 billion. It gets its savings from changes to the link between food and heating assistance, but does not address the wider issue of categorical food stamp eligibility.
Story was updated at 1:28 pm.