Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act--Veto Message From the President of the United States

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HURD of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 131, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act.

This is not a symbolic vote. It is not messaging. It is not partisan. This is a test of whether Congress keeps its word not just to southeastern Colorado but to every community in every State and district that depends on Federal commitments being honored.

For those of us who represent the American West, this vote is personal. In the West, water means survival. It means whether communities grow or disappear, whether agriculture survives, and whether moms can trust the water they give their kids out of the tap. Westerners understand something instinctively: When the government makes a water promise, it should keep it.

In 1962, Congress authorized the Arkansas Valley Conduit to deliver safe drinking water to rural communities in southeastern Colorado. These communities grow amazing watermelons, cantaloupes, and chilies, and support families who ranch and raise livestock.

When we talk about honoring Federal commitments, we are talking about whether the people who grow our food can have clean water.

Decades later, that promise remains unfinished. More than 50,000 Coloradans, across a distance spanning more than some Eastern States, still rely on contaminated and radioactive groundwater. Eighteen systems are under enforcement orders for violating EPA standards. These are real families, real towns, and real public health consequences.

Rural Colorado and rural America more broadly voted overwhelmingly for this President and for an agenda that promised they would not be forgotten. They expected Washington to keep its word, not abandon them midway.

H.R. 131 doesn't expand this drinking water project, authorize new construction, increase the Federal share, or create any new entitlement. It doesn't bail out any mismanagement. It simply gives rural communities more time and flexibility to repay the Federal Government. It extends the repayment period and lowers the interest rate in cases of economic hardship. It prevents hundreds of millions of dollars from being stranded mid-construction. It lets communities doing their part and repaying the government finally access clean water.

This bill passed both Houses unanimously. Republicans and Democrats from across the entire country all agreed: This is a project worth completing, not abandoning.

Mr. Speaker, veto overrides are rare, and they should be. However, the Constitution gave Congress this authority for moments exactly like this: when the legislative branch speaks with unity and clarity, and the executive branch says no anyway.

In modern congressional history, it is extraordinarily rare, and perhaps unprecedented, for a President to veto a bill that passed both Chambers unanimously while his party holds unified control of the government. That should give every Member pause.

If Congress cannot keep a clear, longstanding, bipartisan commitment like this, then what message does that send to communities in every State and every district relying on similar commitments? What certainty do they have that our word means anything?

Yesterday, the administration issued a statement opposing this override, claiming it continues failed policies of the past and burdens taxpayers with a local water project. This is not a new water project. It is a federally authorized water system underway for decades with consistent bipartisan congressional support. This exact project was previously celebrated by this President himself. On October 3, 2020, President Trump's Department of the Interior issued a press release titled: ``Trump administration breaks ground on long-awaited Arkansas Valley Conduit to bring safe, clean water to rural Colorado communities.''

Earlier that year, the President visited Colorado and praised the Arkansas Valley Conduit. He said that we got the money to begin construction. His own Secretary of the Interior broke ground on this project.

If the project was worth supporting in a campaign rally and celebrating at a groundbreaking, then surely it is worth finishing. It was the right position then, and it is the right position now.

Mr. Speaker, if a bill that passed unanimously that costs almost nothing and fulfills a 60-year Federal promise and protects public health can be vetoed under these circumstances, then bipartisan work in this institution is at risk.

I ask my colleagues: How would you feel if a project like this in your district that was passed unanimously and fulfilled a decades-long promise was vetoed anyway? That is what these rural communities are facing.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are watching, and your constituents are watching, to see whether Congress means what it says. This vote is not about defying a President. It is about defending Congress. It is about strengthening this institution and standing for the people who trust us to fight for them.

For those of us who represent the West, this is also about standing together. Western water projects are long-term, complex, and federally driven by necessity. If Congress walks away from a 60-year commitment mid-project, then no Western project is truly secure, and no district anywhere in the country can trust that a Federal infrastructure promise will be kept.

I ran for Congress to fight for my district, even when it is difficult, even when it is uncomfortable, and even when the outcome is uncertain. This is one of those moments.

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues may be feeling pressure today to accept the veto. I get it. However, I would ask every Member to consider the pressure felt by the communities they represent, especially those in rural America who need infrastructure built, who need clean water, and who need Washington to mean what it says.

What does it say to them, to all of our constituents, if this institution makes this kind of commitment and walks away when it matters most?

This override is about finishing what we started, honoring commitments, protecting taxpayer dollars, and standing by rural communities. Yes, it is also about protecting this institution.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote to override the veto of H.R. 131.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source