[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 44, Number 24 (Monday, June 23, 2008)]
[Pages 876-877]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval the 
``Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008''

June 18, 2008

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.

[[Page 877]]

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.