[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 101 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5535-H5537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-125)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto
message from the President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 6124, the ``Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.''
The bill that I vetoed on May 21, 2008, H.R. 2419, which became
Public Law 110-234, did not include the title III provisions that are
in this bill. In passing H.R. 6124, the Congress had an opportunity to
improve on H.R. 2419 by modifying certain objectionable, onerous, and
fiscally imprudent provisions. Unfortunately, the Congress chose to
send me the same unacceptable farm bill provisions in H.R. 6124, merely
adding title III. I am returning this bill for the same reasons as
stated in my veto message of May 21, 2008, on H.R. 2419.
For a year and a half, I have consistently asked that the Congress
pass a good farm bill that I can sign. Regrettably, the Congress has
failed to do so. At a time of high food prices and record farm income,
this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline. It continues
subsidies for the wealthy and increases farm bill spending by more than
$20 billion, while using budget gimmicks to hide much of the increase.
It is inconsistent with our objectives in international trade
negotiations, which include securing greater market access for American
farmers and ranchers. It would needlessly expand the size and scope of
government. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be
good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates
that fundamental commitment.
In January 2007, my Administration put forward a fiscally responsible
farm bill proposal that would improve the safety net for farmers and
move current programs toward more market-oriented policies. The bill
before me today fails to achieve these important goals.
At a time when net farm income is projected to increase by more than
$28 billion in 1 year, the American taxpayer should not be forced to
subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes of up
to $1.5 million. When commodity prices are at record highs, it is
irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates for 15 crops,
subsidize additional crops, and provide payments that further distort
markets. Instead of better targeting farm programs, this bill
eliminates the existing payment limit on marketing loan subsidies.
Now is also not the time to create a new uncapped revenue guarantee
that could cost billions of dollars more than advertised. This is on
top of a farm bill that is anticipated to cost more than $600 billion
over 10 years. In addition, this bill would force many businesses to
prepay their taxes in order to finance the additional spending.
This legislation is also filled with earmarks and other ill-
considered provisions. Most notably, H.R. 6124 provides: $175 million
to address water issues for desert lakes; $250 million for a 400,000-
acre land purchase from a private owner; funding and authority for the
noncompetitive sale of National Forest land to a ski resort; and $382
million earmarked for a specific watershed. These earmarks, and the
expansion of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements, have no
place in the farm bill. Rural and urban Americans alike are frustrated
with excessive government spending and the funneling of taxpayer funds
for pet projects. This bill will only add to that frustration.
The bill also contains a wide range of other objectionable
provisions, including one that restricts our ability to redirect food
aid dollars for emergency use at a time of great need globally. The
bill does not include the requested authority to buy food in the
developing world to save lives. Additionally, provisions in the bill
raise serious constitutional concerns. For all the reasons outlined
above, I must veto H.R. 6124.
I veto this bill fully aware that it is rare for a stand-alone farm
bill not to receive the President's signature, but my action today is
not without precedent. In 1956, President Eisenhower stood firmly on
principle, citing high crop subsidies and too much government control
of farm programs among the reasons for his veto. President Eisenhower
wrote in his veto message, ``Bad as some provisions of this bill are, I
would have signed it if in total it could be interpreted as sound and
good for farmers and the nation.'' For similar reasons, I am vetoing
the bill before me today.
George W. Bush.
The White House, June 18, 2008.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be
spread at large upon the Journal, and the veto message and the bill
will be printed as a House document.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only,
I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'm not going to take a lot of time because I think people have heard
enough about this issue, and we apologize. I guess we have to be in
this position, but what we're doing here today is overriding the veto
hopefully for the final time on the farm bill because of the enrolling
error that was made on the initial override or veto that happened a few
weeks ago.
At the time, we made a decision to move ahead. Even though the wrong
bill was vetoed, we moved ahead to override that veto, which we
prevailed on the floor here by a substantial margin. I think in
retrospect that was a good idea because 14 titles of the farm bill have
been law since then.
We had a meeting this morning with the Secretary to talk about
implementation. So the work has been going on within the department to
get ready for implementation. We have gained a couple or 3 weeks in
that process. Just a couple of days ago, the administration Secretary
put out the loan rates and target prices for this crop year. So that
process is moving along.
What this bill does, the 14 titles are now law. The trade title was
left out. What this bill does is reenact the entire 15 titles as they
were passed by the original conference report and does it all as one
complete whole. And in the bill, what it does, it vitiates the 14
titles that have been law for the last 3 weeks I guess, or so.
It cleans up the technical problem that we had created by the
enrolling office and puts into law what was intended by the conference
committee.
This is a good bill. It has wide support in the Congress, as we have
seen by the number of votes that we've had here on the floor. It is not
perfect, but it does address all of the issues that have been brought
to the Agriculture Committee by the various different groups that have
been interested in this piece of legislation, and I encourage my
colleagues to override the veto.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the farm
bill veto. Currently, 14 of the farm bill's 15 titles have been enacted
into law, and the passage of the veto override will ensure that the
whole bill, including the trade title, becomes law.
{time} 1530
The content of the bill before us today is the exact same as it was
when
[[Page H5536]]
317 of my colleagues joined me in May in support of the reform-minded
farm bill the House and Senate Conference Committee produced. The only
things that have changed are the bill number and the title, all else
remains the same.
This farm bill has enjoyed significant bipartisan support in both
Chambers. This bill was a collaborative effort crafted by Members on
both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol and is historic
in the amount and degree of reform that it contains.
We brought this bill a long way with a long list of reforms that
lower cost to the taxpayer and increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the programs, yet retains the fundamental purpose for
having farm programs to begin with, guaranteeing a stable, reliable,
and affordable food supply for the American consumer.
Unlike the last farm bill, which was signed into law by the President
of the United States, this farm bill is less expensive and contains
many of the reforms that the President requested. So I urge my
colleagues to support the farm bill override and ensure that the very
same farm bill that has garnered significant bipartisan support in this
Congress already can finally become law in its entirety.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would just take one
additional small amount of time to thank my colleague and friend, Mr.
Goodlatte, for the work that he did with me on this bill. As he said,
this has been a bipartisan effort; had it not been, we wouldn't be here
today. So I very much want to thank him and the other Members on his
side of the aisle as well as the Members on our side of the aisle for
all their hard work through this process.
And also, I want to mention our staff, both my staff and the minority
staff. The amount of time that they put into this bill has been
extraordinary, the patience that they showed, having to sit in meetings
and not make much progress for a lot of time is what you really want to
see in public service. Our staff went above and beyond the call of
duty.
So, again, I thank all of my colleagues and urge my colleagues to
vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a moment to say to the
chairman of the committee that I also appreciate the very hard work
that he put into this very bipartisan effort. And I want to thank the
staff on both sides of the aisle.
I do believe that this farm bill contains far more reform than any
previous farm bill. And I think the track record in the future in
preserving good farm policy to assure the American people, our
taxpayers, our consumers of the opportunity to have a safe and abundant
and affordable food supply is very, very important. And so I thank the
chairman for his hard work for all this time. The two-and-a-half-year
process it has taken has finally come to a conclusion. I urge my
colleagues to pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. One minute is hardly time to speak against this bill.
Let me just read a statement that was made by the majority leader a
couple of days ago. He commented on the budget that was being passed at
the time. He said, ``There is only one person in the United States of
America that can stop spending in its tracks, the only person.'' He was
referring to the President of the United States and putting a lot of
blame, if you will, on the President for not stopping spending that I
had argued was going on.
Here we have the President standing up and saying, this bill is
bloated; this bill is far too big; it spends far too much. Yet the same
people who were blaming the President for not standing up to spending
are voting now to override the President when he says enough is enough.
This is wrong. We ought to stand up--as Republicans at least, if not
the Democrats as well--to stand up and say enough is enough. This bill
spends too much, far, far too much.
This bill lacks real reform, overspends, hides its real costs with
gimmicks, jeopardizes trade negotiations, increases size and scope of
government, and is disservice to taxpayers.
It contains more than $5 billion a year in handouts to millionaire
farmers and landowners.
It includes the Average Crop Revenue Election program in the
conference report, a program that appears to serve the purpose of
ensuring commodity farmers get federal hand-outs even though crop
prices are soaring. The details of the potential liability to taxpayers
only came out after passage.
Under the supposed salary cap, married farmers could still be making
up to $2.5 billion and receive direct payments.
It weakened the payment limit for farm subsidies--lifting the limit
on marketing loan benefits and increasing the limit on direct payment
benefits.
The gaming of the price support program allows farmers to lock in
their loan rate when prices are lowest and sell when prices are
highest.
The bill adds target prices for additional crops and increases loan
rates and target prices for others.
The brand new and permanent disaster title costs $3.8 billion.
Unfortunately, it includes the extension of marginally reduced
ethanol production tax credits and the import tariff--thus continuing
the failed federal ethanol program that is responsible at least in part
for high food prices plaguing consumers.
The bill includes hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees
for the construction of advanced biofuels plants and a Biomass Crop
Assistance Program to provide incentives to cellulosic ethanol crops.
This bill forces USDA to sell excess sugar into ethanol production,
even though sugar users would continue paying artificially inflated
prices ($4 billion or more). (USDA has estimated that ethanol from
sugar is twice as expensive to produce [as opposed to corn-based
ethanol].)
The bill included disclosed earmarks, plus an undisclosed and
airdropped earmark that provides $170 million for commercial and
recreational ``members of the fishing communities'' affected by missing
salmon, and the ``forestry conservation tax credit bond'' to benefit
the Plum Creek timber company.
This bill represents the worst of legislative process: pandering to
special interests, dark of night negotiations, airdropped earmarks
worth millions of taxpayer dollars, opposition shut out of the floor
process, and a $300 billion boondoggle bill.
The cost of the bill is not fully offset: OMB says as much as $20
billion in budget gimmicks and ``illusionary'' spending stops where
funding for programs abruptly ends.
Conferees waived PAYGO, and went ``baseline shopping'' (did not use
the most current baseline). I have said from the beginning: no way to
do a Farm Bill without waiving the PAYGO rules. I was proven right.
The President has rightly vetoed this bill not once but twice. We
need House Members to stand up for taxpayers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate having expired, without
objection, the previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 317,
nays 109, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 417]
YEAS--317
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
[[Page H5537]]
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NAYS--109
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Boehner
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Goode
Granger
Heller
Hensarling
Hobson
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Reichert
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Bishop (UT)
Gilchrest
Harman
Hulshof
Meeks (NY)
Peterson (PA)
Rush
Stark
{time} 1557
Mr. REICHERT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NEUGEBAUER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the bill was passed, the
objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the
action of the House.
____________________