“That’s where they’re from, the Midwest,” said Paap, who’s pleased so far with the legislation in both houses of Congress.

The basic commodity subsidy programs have been preserved, there’s a new fund set up to provide disaster payments to farmers dealing with crop failures, the conservation programs are in place. And there’s even some money for fruit and vegetable farmers, Paap said.

There have been plenty of complaints by commentators across the country about the size of the subsidy payments to some very large farms and about payments to sometimes wealthy city residents who own farm land. The bills make some adjustments in maximum incomes for those receiving subsidies, but Paap said there’s a limit to how much the subsidies can be capped.

“The farm bill is based on production. It’s not based on per-person,” he said. “So those who produce more get more.”

It’s not realistic to expect the bill to be designed strictly for the Upper Midwest’s vision of what a family farm is, Paap said. It needs to address the wide variety of farm operations across the country if it’s going to get the support of a majority of lawmakers.

“Quite honestly, you have to have the votes all across rural America to get it passed,” he said. “So you have to have a balance. And this bill has a balance.”

The legislation has managed to attract broad support, according to Congressman Tim Walz, DFL-Mankato. That makes him less concerned about Bush’s veto threats, which administration officials have said are based on tax increases in the bill and the failure to more tightly cap subsidy payments.

The House bill passed narrowly in July, but Walz predicts many Republicans who opposed it then will ultimately favor it when it returns for final approval.

“I think many of our members will change their position,” he said. “The people back home love this bill.”

When that final approval will come is uncertain. Walz thinks it could be early in January.

Paap hopes Walz is right, both for practical and political reasons. Politically, he wants the bill done so it doesn’t get caught up in the presidential election campaign. And pragmatic motivation for getting it passed is that farmers will soon be planning for next year’s crop.

“We need some certainty in agriculture as we start preparing for next spring,” he said.