[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Page 10366]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the 
President's veto message on H.R. 2419, which the clerk will read, and 
which will be spread in full upon the Journal.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message on H.R. 2419, a bill to provide for the 
     continuation of Agricultural programs through fiscal year 
     2012, and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, so that there is no misunderstanding, I 
ask unanimous consent that the veto message on H.R. 2419, the Food 
Security Act, be considered as having been read, that it be printed in 
the Record, and spread in full upon the Journal, and held at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The President's message is as follows:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2419, the ``Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.''
  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. 2419 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. 2419, and I urge the Congress to extend current 
law for a year or more.
  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, May 21, 2008.

                          ____________________