U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–011 2008

110th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 110–125 

VETO MESSAGE ON H.R. 6124 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF THE VETO OF H.R. 6124, THE ‘‘FOOD, 

CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008’’ 

JUNE 18, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
(1) 

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 hardearned 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING
2 

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. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HEARING