WASHINGTON -- A $289 billion farm bill, almost a year in the making, appears destined to become law after the Senate approved it with enough support to defy a presidential veto.

Senators passed it 81 to 15 Thursday, echoing the House's overwhelming three to one passage of the bill the day before. Both houses of Congress have much more than the two-thirds majority necessary to override the likely veto.

President Bush has repeatedly said he will reject the bill because it doesn't do enough to restrict billions of dollars of planned payments to farmers.

Even so, lawmakers were jubilant at the prospect of completing work on the wide-ranging bill after months of negotiations and several delays.

The farm law, which was due for reauthorization last year, sets federal policy for nutrition programs, food stamps, subsidy payments, energy and conservation.

"I am obviously very happy with the 81 votes," said Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who played a prominent role in shaping the bill.

"I'm still hopeful the president will sign it, but if he vetoes it I hope then that we'll expeditiously move to vote to override the veto,"

But not all congressmen were celebrating. Some Democrats found themselves in the odd situation of siding with the Republican president in disapproval of the costly, politically charged legislation.

"This farm bill could be summed up in simple words, it's a missed opportunity," said Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who was among those who voted against the bill. "The president is right. We ought not be giving taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record-high commodity prices in the marketplace."

Critics said the bastion of reform that Democratic leaders claimed they would produce when consideration of the farm bill began last year never materialized. It does set new lower limits for payments to farmers, but did not go as far as President Bush had requested. Bush wanted to stop payments to people making more than $200,000.

Under the final version of the bill, no payments would go to those whose non-farm income is greater than $500,000. Also, automatic direct payments would no longer go to individuals whose farm income is greater than $750,000.

The new caps will affect only 0.2 percent of those who receive payments, according to Kind.

But supporters of the farm bill brushed aside such criticisms, saying they made important changes that shaved a significant amount off the final price tag of the legislation.

"That's billions of dollars of reform that's in this bill. More reform than any bill since the 1949 act, and I'm frankly proud of it," said Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Among the reforms is a $400 million reduction in automatic payments to farmers, holding the subsidies to $25.6 billion over a five-year period. The bill also changes current farm law to authorize a $5.6 billion cut in crop insurance payments and a reduction in an ethanol tax break amounting to $1.2 billion in savings, according to Conrad.

Although subsidy payments to farmers are the most controversial aspect of the bill, they only account for about a third of farm bill spending. The vast majority of the money, about 70 percent, falls under the heading of nutrition.

The bill raises nutrition spending by $10 billion, including nearly $8 billion for food stamps, $1.25 billion for food banks and more than $1 billion to provide fresh fruits and vegetables in schools.

Asked what in the bill would set a lasting precedent, lawmakers pointed to shifts in energy policy that are intended to support the production of next-generation ethanol -- a shift away from corn ethanol. It includes a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for producers of cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from non-food sources such as wood chips, agricultural waste and even municipal waste.

"I predict that within five years, you're going to see cellulose ethanol plants springing up like mushrooms all over this country,"

Harkin said.

Senate supporters conceded the bill was far from perfect, but said compromises were necessary to assure its passage and enactment into law.

"I think what we struck was the right and appropriate balance.

Eighty-one votes in the United States Senate, which is a pretty remarkable thing and evidence that the Senate can work together across partly lines on something that's very important," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

Contact Eric Krogh at newsroom@wcfcourier.com