[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H205-H208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




FINISH THE ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT ACT--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 
                          OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 2, 2026, the unfinished business is the further consideration 
of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 131) to make 
certain modifications to the repayment for the Arkansas Valley Conduit 
in the State of Colorado.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of January 2, 2026, 
at page H6135.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Huffman), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural 
Resources, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the veto message of the President of the 
United States to H.R. 131.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 131, the Finish the Arkansas Valley 
Conduit Act, facilitates the construction of the Arkansas Valley 
Conduit, or AVC, by easing the repayment requirements for project 
beneficiaries.
  The AVC is designed to provide potable water from Pueblo Reservoir to 
39 communities in southeastern Colorado, many of which are dependent on 
groundwater supplies that contain unacceptable levels of naturally-
occurring heavy metals and radionuclides. According to the Southeastern 
Colorado Water Conservancy District, 18 of those communities are 
currently failing to meet Federal drinking water standards due to these 
contaminants.
  H.R. 131 passed the House Committee on Natural Resources and then the 
House of Representatives in July 2025. However, President Trump has 
returned H.R. 131 to the House without his approval. I respect the 
administration's views on this legislation and its commitment to fiscal 
responsibility. President Trump's record demonstrates a commitment to 
prioritizing unleashing abundant water supplies across the West.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1962, Congress authorized a 130-mile pipeline, known 
as the Arkansas Valley Conduit, to deliver clean, reliable water to 
communities in southeastern Colorado. More than 60 years later, the 
project remains uncompleted, while communities in the region continue 
to face unreliable water supplies and serious water quality challenges.
  The drinking water sources they rely on are often contaminated with 
unsafe levels of radium, uranium, and other pollutants. Treating these 
contaminants places a significant burden on rural communities and 
forces many families to rely on bottled water or expensive filtration 
systems to meet basic needs that we all take for granted.

                              {time}  1330

  The Arkansas Valley Conduit was designed to address these challenges, 
but the project is still not completed largely because the communities 
that it will serve do not have the financial capacity to meet the 
traditional repayment obligations. They need our help.
  For over a decade, the Colorado delegation has worked to advance this 
project so that families in southeastern Colorado can finally have 
access to clean, safe drinking water. Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper 
helped secure $500 million through the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act for this project that was a major step toward completion.
  Last year, this body worked in a bipartisan manner to pass H.R. 131. 
Now, as introduced, Representative Boebert's bill did raise some 
concerns about removing interest payments and extending the repayment 
period, but our colleagues in the Senate worked to address these shared 
concerns, and we in the Natural Resources Committee came together to 
build on that work to ensure that this legislation addresses the real 
water reliability challenges facing the people of southeastern Colorado 
while remaining consistent with core reclamation law principles.
  Together, Congress sent the President a carefully negotiated and 
narrowly tailored bipartisan bill to support the completion of this 
project.
  The administration has no problem subsidizing water for certain 
stakeholders, including large-scale agricultural projects, yet when it 
comes to a tailored bill to ensure access to safe drinking water for 
rural communities, unfortunately, the President has taken a different 
path.
  Now, we are going to talk about the merits of this bill today, I am 
sure, but we all know that this veto has nothing to do with fiscal 
policy, nothing to do with the merits. There has been extensive 
reporting that raises broader concerns about the administration's 
posture toward the State of Colorado and even toward the sponsor of 
this bill.
  We know what this veto was about, and the message that that sends to 
Colorado and communities awaiting the

[[Page H206]]

completion of the Arkansas Valley Conduit is deeply troubling.
  Meanwhile, and the good news, is that this Congress has kept working 
to find a solution, and the legislation before us today is reasonably 
negotiated and bipartisan. It is going to help communities who have 
waited too long to finally have clean water.
  I thank my colleagues for their commitment to working with us to 
reach the language before us today. I am deeply disappointed that the 
President chose to veto a bill that would help communities gain access 
to clean drinking water. The communities of southeastern Colorado 
deserve better, and today we have a bipartisan opportunity to do that 
for them.
  I express my support and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
overriding the President's veto, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the lead sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our House Natural 
Resources Committee and the ranking member of our committee for all the 
work that has been put in on this legislation. I also thank my 
colleagues in the Senate for their work on this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of today's veto 
override to ensure my bill, H.R. 131, becomes law.
  In December of last year, this commonsense, bipartisan, and bicameral 
bill passed both the House and Senate unanimously. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that my bill will not result 
in a measurable increase to Federal spending.
  H.R. 131, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, will help small 
rural communities in southeast Colorado finally complete a Federal 
water project that was authorized in 1962 under the Kennedy 
administration.
  Radium, uranium, and other naturally occurring elements are found in 
the surface and groundwater of southeastern Colorado, and the water 
quality is problematic year-round because of its salinity, selenium, 
sulfate, hardness, and manganese levels.
  The Bureau of Reclamation has found that these contamination levels 
are so severe that local communities could see the costs of their 
drinking water triple without this legislation.
  Contrary to what the veto message states, my bill does not authorize 
any additional Federal funding. It simply modifies the repayment terms 
for small rural communities in my district so they are able to afford 
their 35 percent cost share of the project that they are statutorily 
obligated to repay.
  After the project broke ground, inflation took place. Costs doubled 
under the previous administration. The price tag of this project 
doubled due to construction and labor costs.
  Once completed, the Arkansas Valley Conduit will provide 7,500 acre-
feet of water per year to as many as 50,000 Coloradans across 40 
different communities in Pueblo, Otero, Bent, Kiowa, Prowers, Crowley, 
and Baca Counties.
  I boldly remind my colleagues here today that this project broke 
ground during the first Trump administration in 2020 due to major 
investments from the Trump-led Bureau of Reclamation and the State of 
Colorado.
  From 1962 until 2020, only $24 million had been invested in this 
project. In 2020, President Trump and his team, his administration, did 
the right thing, continuing with their commitment to improve Western 
water infrastructure. He more than doubled the Federal investments in 
this project with $28 million going toward it. The State of Colorado 
then invested over $100 million in this project.
  Former Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt personally attended 
the groundbreaking of the AVC and retweeted: ``For nearly 60 years, 
Colorado's leaders have worked to move the Arkansas Valley Conduit 
forward.''
  The Trump administration got it done.
  A press release from the Department of the Interior announcing the 
groundbreaking reads: ``Western water supply reliability and 
infrastructure investments has been a priority for President Trump and 
his administration.''
  This bill makes good on not only a 60-year plus commitment without 
wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in State and local and Federal 
investments, but it also makes good on President Trump's commitment to 
rural communities, to Western water issues.
  President Trump's commitment to Western water supply and reliability 
will be upheld, and the Arkansas Valley Conduit will finally be 
completed.
  We were able to get this bill passed and sent to the White House the 
right way, the way that I have fought for since I have been in 
Congress. This is a piece of legislation that has gone through 
committee, has been negotiated, has been debated, has gone back and 
forth between both Chambers, and we were able to pass this single-
subject legislation all the way through with unanimous support in this 
body and in the Senate. It is something I am very, very proud of, and 
it is past time that we finally fulfill the promise that the Federal 
Government made to the communities I represent in Colorado. I urge my 
colleagues to support this override to finish the Arkansas Valley 
Conduit.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time. I 
support this bill for many reasons. I support it for the reasons that 
were articulated by the sponsor, my colleague from Colorado, Ms. 
Boebert; by the ranking member; and by the chairman. I think they have 
ably explained why this water infrastructure project for southeastern 
Colorado is so critical, a project 60 years in the making.
  I support it because, as was noted, there are no cogent issues with 
this bill as were purportedly articulated in the veto message from 
President Trump. Far from it, this bill will cost taxpayers virtually 
nothing as was referenced. It makes good on a promise to the people of 
rural Colorado.
  I support the bill because I believe that the people of Otero County 
and Bent County and Crowley County deserve access to clean water just 
as every citizen of the great State that I serve and that Ms. Boebert 
serves, that Mr. Hurd serves, and my other colleagues in the Colorado 
congressional delegation deserve.

                              {time}  1340

  I think what is perhaps missing from this debate, and it is important 
for us to level with the American people, is: Why are we here? Why, 
despite all the reasons that this bill makes a whole lot of sense? Why, 
despite the fact that this bill passed unanimously in the House and in 
the Senate, Mr. Speaker? Why did the President veto this bill?
  We are here, unfortunately and profoundly, because the President has 
declared war on our State. In the last 40 days, he has taken step after 
step to harm the people whom I serve and whom I represent. He is 
denying disaster assistance for folks in Rio Blanco County and down 
south in La Plata County. He is freezing childcare assistance and food 
assistance for hungry families across our State and trying to dismantle 
a scientific institution in my district. Now, he is denying access to 
clean water to 50,000 people in southeastern Colorado.
  It is unconscionable.
  Now, I am speaking to my Democratic colleagues. To be clear, it is 
important in this moment for Members to support this override and 
ensure that this promise that was made to the people of southeastern 
Colorado is not impaired and is not abrogated by the President's 
retaliation against the State of Colorado. We cannot let that become 
the new normal.
  I will say to all of my colleagues: As you consider where you land on 
this particular vote, let me be abundantly clear. It does not matter if 
your community supported Donald Trump politically. If we don't take 
this step, then, trust me, no town is safe, no county is safe, and no 
State is safe from political retaliation by the administration. We will 
be back here on the floor debating a veto for a project in Arkansas or 
in Texas or in Ohio.
  The House has an opportunity, in my view, to do the right thing on 
the merits and to support this important legislation that Ms. Boebert 
has introduced and that she has fought for with our colleagues in the 
Senate, Senator Bennet and Senator Hickenlooper.
  I am urging every Member of this body: Put aside political 
differences. Recognize that this is a bill you already supported as 
recently as last month. Recognize that it is going to

[[Page H207]]

have a dramatic and consequential impact on a lot of hardworking 
Americans in the rural parts of our country. Vote in the affirmative on 
the override.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hurd).
  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.

                              {time}  1350

  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.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I really, in this moment, could care less about Ms. Boebert's 
politics or Mr. Hurd's politics. What I see before us is a piece of 
legislation that does an awful lot of good for people, a bill that was 
carefully negotiated, is bipartisan, and is common sense.
  It is a water infrastructure bill, and every Member of this House 
looked past their political differences and did the right thing when we 
passed this unanimously out of the House of Representatives. That was 
Congress just doing its job.
  If a noncontroversial, bipartisan, good bill like this can be taken 
hostage and become a weapon for settling political scores, well, it may 
not be in your State, it may not be in your district, but that could 
happen and will happen to any of us.
  Mr. Speaker, this may seem like a little water infrastructure bill, 
but this is a bigger moment than that. This is a bit of a Spartacus 
moment for the Members of this body because any of us could face this, 
and we are about to find out.
  I hope the people of this country are watching. I know history is 
actually going to be watching what happens here because if Congress is 
able to override this veto, it is a statement that even in a moment of 
extreme polarization, dysfunction, and conflict, we were able to get 
some work done. That would be Congress doing its job. If we fail to 
override this veto, that would say something much, much more troubling.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I respect the administration's views on 
this legislation, and I respect my colleagues from Colorado's passion 
for their districts and for their State.

[[Page H208]]

  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, 
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________