Despite some House Republican opposition to the new farm bill, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say they’re confident Congress would be able to override a veto of the bill.

Conferees unveiled details of the conference agreement Thursday, after having reached a final agreement the evening of May 7. On Thursday, Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer reiterated the administration’s veto threat, saying farm subsidies in the bill are still far too generous.

The Congressional Budget Office has not estimated the final cost of the agreement, but lawmakers and their aides said it could reach upward of $600 billion over 10 years. The wide-ranging bill (HR 2419) includes new limits on who can get crop supports, extra funding for nutrition, rural development programs and expanded conservation initiatives, among other things.

“I am a happy man,” said Senate Agriculture Committee Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who has worked on the bill for nearly a year and a half. “This is a strong, bipartisan farm bill that benefits every American from Cumming, Iowa, population 162, to New York City, population 8 million.”

But that optimism came amid the veto threat and criticism from Republicans such as House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio.

“I don’t think that this farm bill represents our best effort,” said Boehner, who criticized the extension of farm subsidies in a time of high crop prices and some of the perks in the measure included to win votes from farm bill skeptics.

Conferees are expected to sign off on the agreement by early next week, allowing the House and Senate to vote on the conference report May 14, lawmakers said.

Boehner, who did not vote for the 2002 bill (PL 107-171), will probably be joined by other GOP free-traders in rejecting the deal. For example, budget hawks such as Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., have been fighting to trim farm subsidies in the name of fiscal discipline.

But Boehner said he hasn’t decided if he’s going to whip votes against the measure — an especially tricky issue for Republicans given the latest veto threat.

Republican supporters said they were confident they could get the two-thirds majority needed to override. Agriculture ranking member Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., says he’s encouraging the leadership to let members vote based on what is best for their constituents.

“Based on what we understand the bill to be, we expect it will receive broad support,” said Adam H. Putnam, R-Fla., a member of the GOP leadership. “A substantial number of Republicans have farming interests in their states.”

That includes Putnam. His citrus- and produce-growing constituents would benefit from more than $1 billion in new support for fruit and vegetable growers.

The farm bill also has sweeteners for other states and key lawmakers. Alaska and Hawaii would get $18 million for farmers who work in tough climates in return for supporting a dairy tax that they worry could hurt farmers in their states.

And a provision that would allow the price of horses to depreciate faster will be a boon to the racing industry in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s state of Kentucky.

Lawmakers working on the bill say the measure includes some of the most substantial reforms to farm subsidies in recent years.

The capstone of those reforms is new limits on who can collect federal subsidies. Currently, people making more than $2.5 million a year in adjusted gross income cannot take crop subsidies.

The new bill would lower those caps. People making more than $750,000 a year in farm-related income — a list expanded to include income from some biofuel investments and from selling feed and fertilizer, for example — would no longer get direct payments, which farmers get no matter what.

Anyone making more than $500,000 a year in non-farm-related income couldn’t collect subsidies at all.

Some farmers may fall within both categories, meaning one person could make up to $1.25 million a year and collect the full array of government supports. Married couples could make double that and still be eligible for government dollars.

Conservation groups are relieved that the non-farm income cap would be set at $1 million for groups that preserve fragile land. They worried that the limits would discourage preservation of large tracts of land.

Lawmakers are also proud of allocating about $10.3 billion to nutrition programs such as food stamps and school lunch, both priorities of the administration. Meanwhile, food banks would get about $1.2 billion.