President Bush has threatened to veto the legislation, saying it costs too much and should instead be cutting subsidies at a time of record-high crop prices. He also has threatened to veto a House version passed in July. White House opposition and criticism from fiscal conservatives has so far had little impact on the politically popular bill.

Farm-state senators deflected several attempts to derail the bill and reduce government payments to large growers. Still, even some from farm country acknowledged the bill doesn’t do enough to trim the government’s massive subsidy programs.

While the House and Senate bills are similar, significant differences will have to be worked out after Congress reconvenes in January. One of them is the creation of new $5 billion fund for weather-related agricultural disasters in the Senate version that was added by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who is up for re-election next year.

Both bills attempt to limit subsidies somewhat. The Senate legislation would eventually ban payments to “nonfarmers” whose income averages more than $750,000 a year. The bill defines farmers as those who earn more than two-thirds of their income from agriculture. There would be no new income-based limits on what a farmer could collect, though the bill would ban some farmers from collecting payments for multiple farm businesses. The House would ban payments to all who earn an average $1 million a year or more. A Bush administration proposal goes much further, suggesting a reduction of payments to individuals who make more than an average of $200,000 yearly. The current cap is $2.5 million.

Acting Agriculture Secretary Charles Conner issued a statement after the vote calling the legislation “fundamentally flawed.” “Unless the House and Senate can come together and craft a measure that contains real reform, we are no closer to a good farm bill than we were before today’s passage,” he said.