PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 20, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 13, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Lake Hodges Surface Water Improvement and Reclamation Act of 2008 - Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, California, to participate in the design, planning, and construction of projects to treat, reclaim, and reuse impaired surface water from Lake Hodges in San Diego County, California. Limits the federal share to 25% of the total project costs. Prohibits the Secretary from providing funds for project operation or maintenance.
People & committees
Rep. Bilbray, Brian P. [R-CA-50] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 374 - 39 (Roll no. 336). (text: CR 5/19/2008 H4074)
House roll call 336 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 374 - 39 (Roll no. 336).(text: CR 5/19/2008 H4074)
House roll call 336 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4281-4282)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Issa objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2649.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4074-4075)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 396.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-634.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-634.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Unanimous Consent .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2649 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2649 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2649 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2649 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.