[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 44, Number 19 (Monday, May 19, 2008)]
[Page 700]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Statement on Farm Legislation

May 13, 2008

    In January 2007, I was hopeful that leaders in Washington could come 
together on a good farm bill. At that time, my administration had 
completed more than 50 listening sessions across the country and 
developed a reform-minded farm bill based on the thousands of comments 
received. Our proposal would make wise use of the people's money by 
reforming farm programs, funding emerging priorities, and providing a 
safety net that better targets benefits for farmers.
    I am deeply disappointed in the conference report filed today, as it 
falls far short of the proposal my administration put forward. If this 
bill makes it to my desk, I will veto it.
    Today's farm economy is very strong, and that is something to 
celebrate. It is also an appropriate time to better target subsidies and 
put forth real reform. Farm income is expected to exceed the 10-year 
average by 50 percent this year, yet Congress's bill asks American 
taxpayers to subsidize the incomes of married farmers who earn $1.5 
million per year. I believe doing so at a time of record farm income is 
irresponsible and jeopardizes America's support for necessary farm 
programs.
    Congress claims that this bill increases spending by $10 billion, 
but the real cost is nearly $20 billion when you include actual 
Government spending that will occur if this bill becomes law. Instead of 
fully offsetting the increased spending, the bill resorts to a variety 
of gimmicks, such as pushing commodity payments outside the budget 
window. Adding nearly $20 billion in additional costs to the current 10-
year spending level of approximately $600 billion is excessive, 
especially when net farm income is at a record high and food prices are 
on the rise. My administration clearly identified numerous reforms as 
essential to justify even a $10 billion increase in spending, yet this 
bill includes none of those reforms in full.
    Crop prices have averaged a 20-percent increase since just last 
year. Still, Congress wants to raise payment rates for most crops and 
create new subsidies which can be triggered even at very high prices. 
The bill fails to stop the practice of collecting subsidies even when 
crops are sold later at a higher price; it restricts our ability to 
redirect food aid dollars for emergency use in the midst of a global 
food crisis; and it falls short of the administration's conservation 
proposals. By increasing trade-distorting subsidies, the bill undermines 
our ability to open foreign markets to American agricultural goods. The 
bill creates an egregious new sugar subsidy program that will keep sugar 
prices high for domestic consumers, while making taxpayers subsidize a 
handful of sugar growers. These are just a few of the reasons why I 
cannot support this bill.
    In the absence of a good farm bill, I call on Congress to extend 
current law for at least 1 year. The administration's reform-minded 
proposal would be preferable to current law, but in light of the bill 
produced by conferees, an extension is now the better policy for 
American agriculture and American taxpayers. It is a far superior option 
than supporting a bill that increases farm subsidy rates, spends too 
much, and fails to reform farm programs for the future.