    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2008, Book I)]
    [May 21, 2008]
    [Pages 713-714]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval the
    ``Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008''
    May 21, 2008

    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.

    [[Page 714]]

        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.