===========================================================================
Message to the House of Representatives
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 18, 2008

Message to the House of Representatives

ÿÿWhite House News


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.

# # #

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080618-1.html