[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9] [Senate] [Pages 12712-12714] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the veto message is considered read and spread in full upon the Journal and will be printed in the Record. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: Veto message to accompany H.R. 6124, to provide for the continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes. The veto message ordered to be printed in the Record is as follows: 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 [[Page 12713]] 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. is equally divided. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take much time. We are here again for another vote on whether to override the President's veto of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which we otherwise know as the farm bill. The veto message before the Senate is to accompany H.R. 6124, which is the bill passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives to enact the full conference report on the new farm bill in the exact form it was agreed to and intended by the conferees and approved by both bodies overwhelmingly last month. That conference report, on the bill H.R. 2419, was approved by the House on May 14 by a vote of 318 to 106, and by the Senate on May 15 by a vote of 81 to 15. That measure was vetoed by the President, but after the veto it was discovered that one title of the bill--Title III, covering food aid and agricultural trade--had been inadvertently omitted during the enrollment process. At the time of that discovery the Memorial Day recess was imminent, as was the expiration of the extension of the previous farm bill enacted in 2002. Both bodies then voted to enact H.R. 2419, as it was enrolled, notwithstanding the President's veto. The House vote was 316 to 108 and the Senate vote was 82 to 13. Thus, 14 of the 15 titles of the farm bill, H.R. 2419, were fully enacted into law as agreed to and included in the conference report. On May 22, the House with a vote of 306 to 110 passed the measure now before the Senate, H.R. 6124, which includes the entire farm bill conference report, in order to enact the Title III and, in effect, reenact the other titles that were enacted when the Senate overrode the President's veto of H.R. 2419. The Senate passed H.R. 6124 on June 5 by a vote of 77 to 15. The President vetoed the bill today, and earlier this afternoon the House voted 317 to 109 to enact the legislation notwithstanding the veto. Since this legislation has been thoroughly debated previously, I don't need to take much time now. I will just sum it up by saying this is a very good bill. It continues, reforms and strengthens income protection for the benefit of farm and ranch families and the rural economy. The bill will move our Nation ahead in maintaining our preeminent position in the world in agriculture production. The nutrition title very significantly improves and strengthens food assistance. As we have pointed out, nearly 70 percent of the funding provided in this bill goes for nutrition and food assistance for Americans. The energy provisions will help unleash the potential of agriculture and rural communities to supply energy to our nation. And farmers and ranchers will receive significantly more help through funds and technical assistance to conserve and protect soil, improve water quality, and boost wildlife on their land. Regarding Title III of this legislation, the majority of it involves the operation of our international food aid programs, in particular, the Title II Food for Peace program run by the Agency for International Development; the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs, both run by the Department of Agriculture; and the program for holding food stocks for emergency purposes under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. These authorities are vital to our Nation's efforts to alleviate hunger and poverty, and to foster development around the globe. So it is essential that we reinstate these authorities by enacting the legislation before us. We have included in this bill important reforms of the food aid programs, aimed at improving their operations and making them more responsive to humanitarian needs. All in all, the provisions of Title III of this bill are non-controversial and are definitely needed to ensure the continuity of U.S. food aid, as well as our very important agricultural trade promotion programs at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the ranking member, who started this farm bill process when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss of Georgia, and so many others who helped. I see my good friend, Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, who kept us on track through all these many days and nights of getting this bill put together. I want to thank them both for all their help in finally getting us to this point. Let me also thank my colleagues for their patience and understanding in dealing with the unusual procedural history we have experienced in the course of enacting this bill. I am grateful for the overwhelming support for the legislation and for our work in completing it. Because of the unusual procedural history of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, I want to note that the full legislative history for H.R. 2419, including the conference report statement of managers, committee reports, and statements in the Congressional Record are to be considered as legislative history for the provisions of H.R. 6124. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia. Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I think Senator Harkin has said it all. It seems like we vote on the farm bill once a week as of late, and this is our weekly vote on the farm bill again. I do hope this is our last vote because this is such a serious piece of legislation. I did a talk radio show a little earlier today, and we were talking about gas prices, and I talked about what we did in the farm bill relative to energy. The talk show host said: Wait a minute. All you are doing is getting criticized in the press over this farm bill. He said: This has some good stuff in it relative to gas prices. I said: Yes, it really does. So we did an awful lot in this bill relative to energy. We did an awful lot relative to nutrition, as the chairman said. And, finally, I think, hopefully, that message is going to get out across America. The Chairman did a magnificent job leading us down this road, and I commend him and thank him for his great work. And to my good friend, Senator Conrad, without him this would not have gotten done. I appreciate his great leadership and great support. I want to tell particularly the chairman, as we had our meeting today with the Secretary, we were talking about implementing, Mr. President, this farm bill, and we were reminded in that meeting about what is going on in Iowa today, as we speak. The banks of the Mississippi and a couple of other rivers out there are overflowing onto farmland and destroying crops and creating havoc. In this farm bill we have a disaster package that is not going to require emergency spending for the 2008 crop. And it was criticized very much as we went through the process, yet folks in Iowa are going to be hurting, and folks in Missouri, as that water comes downstream, are going to be hurting, and I think this farm bill is going to turn out to be the best product we have put out, from a farm bill perspective. It will continue to be criticized, and it is not perfect by any means, but under the leadership of the chairman, I think it has been a great product, and I thank him and I thank Senator Conrad for his great leadership and friendship that we have as a result of this farm bill. To our staffs, thanks for great work. I look forward to this 5:30 vote, and I certainly hope this is the last one on the farm bill. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, perhaps I could say the farm bill is so good we would like to have senators put their stamp of approval on it repeatedly. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? [[Page 12714]] Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota whatever time he requires. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. I thank them for their leadership and their partnership and their vision. This is a bill that is good for consumers, good for taxpayers, and good for farmers. This is the same song, second verse. We have been through this whole rotation once already, but we have to do it again. I think it is very important to remind people this is much more than a farm bill. This is a food bill with important nutritional components. In fact, 66 percent of the spending in this bill goes for nutrition. It is an important conservation bill to conserve our national resources. It is an important energy bill, as was referenced by the chairman and the ranking member. This bill is going to turn the page on developing our long-range renewable energy potential, and it contains very significant farm program reform. In addition, it provides a disaster title so the people who are being so devastated in Iowa, in other States, are not going to have to come to the Federal Government and ask for disaster aid. It will be there for them. The bottom line is this bill does not add to the deficit or debt because this bill is paid for. That is not my claim; that is the finding of the Congressional Budget Office, which says over the first 5 years this bill has a modest surplus of $67 million. And over the life of the bill, the 10-year projections that we are required to comply with, this bill saves $110 million. I conclude by again thanking the chairman for his vision, thanking his staff for their incredible dedication, and thanking the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, whom I call Cool Hand Luke. You couldn't have a better guy in the pit, and it is a pit at times when you are writing a bill of this magnitude and this complexity and this importance. But he always kept his calm, and that helped enormously in these negotiations. And to his outstanding staff, we thank you. Thank you for being willing to serve in public life. We know you could make much more money some other place, but you have made an enormous contribution to this country. Finally, to Jim Miller, who is my lead negotiator, my very special, personal thanks for extraordinary dedication, for doing something good for the country and my State. I hope my colleagues will vote to override the President's ill- considered veto. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see the hour is just about upon us to start our vote. Again, I also want to thank our staffs, our great staffs who have worked so hard on this legislation for so many months: Martha Scott Poindexter and Vernie Hubert, I see over here, and Mark Halverson, and all the rest of the staff who are here in the chamber. I mentioned them by name before, and I can't thank them enough for all their hard work. It has been a long endeavor, and they have worked so hard, I hope they will be able to take a vacation. Again, to Senator Chambliss, I cannot thank him enough for a great working relationship and helping to pull this bill through. Now we look ahead to next year and the child nutrition bill, as well as to other matters before us. I also thank Senator Chambliss for his care and his concern, discussing with me--not only today but other times--the serious situation in the State of Iowa. We are hurting bad. It is hard to describe it, what is happening in Iowa. This farm bill will put some new policies in place, including the new permanent disaster program we have included, and others in agriculture, such as for conservation of our soil and water, so we will be able to get through this terrible crisis we are facing in the State of Iowa right now, to recover, to rebuild, and to come back even stronger and prepared for the future. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The question is, Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding? The clerk will call the roll. The assistant journal clerk called the roll. Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent. Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 14, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.] YEAS--80 Akaka Alexander Allard Barrasso Baucus Bayh Biden Bingaman Bond Boxer Brown Brownback Bunning Burr Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Chambliss Cochran Coleman Conrad Corker Cornyn Craig Crapo Dodd Dole Dorgan Durbin Enzi Feingold Feinstein Graham Grassley Harkin Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Isakson Johnson Kerry Klobuchar Kohl Landrieu Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Martinez McCaskill McConnell Menendez Mikulski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Pryor Reid Roberts Rockefeller Salazar Sanders Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith Snowe Specter Stabenow Stevens Tester Thune Vitter Warner Webb Wicker Wyden NAYS--14 Bennett Coburn Collins DeMint Ensign Gregg Hagel Kyl Lugar Murkowski Reed Sununu Voinovich Whitehouse NOT VOTING--6 Byrd Clinton Domenici Kennedy McCain Obama The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 80 and the nays are 14. Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting having voted in the affirmative, the bill, on reconsideration, is passed, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. ____________________