```

[House Document 110-125]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

 
                       VETO MESSAGE ON H.R. 6124

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

 NOTIFICATION OF THE VETO OF H.R. 6124, THE ``FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND 
                          ENERGY ACT OF 2008''

                 June 18, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
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. 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.

                                  

```