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 · Jun 19, 2008
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2008 - Amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to repeal a provision requiring construction of a water treatment plant to treat effluent discharged from the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel, Colorado.
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the implementation of the operable unit 6 remedy for the California Gulch Superfund Site, as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2003 Record of Decision for such unit, by: (1) treating water behind any blockage or bulkhead in the Tunnel; and (2) managing and maintaining the mine pool behind such blockage or bulkhead at a level that precludes surface runoff and releases and minimizes the potential for Tunnel failure due to excessive water pressure.
Requires the Secretary to take necessary steps to repair or maintain the Tunnel's structural integrity to prevent Tunnel failure and to preclude uncontrolled release of water from the Tunnel.
People & committees
Rep. Lamborn, Doug [R-CO-5] · R–CO
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 6/17/2008 H5430)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 6/17/2008 H5430)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5595)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Ms. Bordallo 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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. 5511.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5430-5431)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 456.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-715.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-715.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings 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.
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.5511 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.5511 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.5511 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.5511 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.