U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–062 PDF 2002

PROPOSED CHANGE OF UTAH-NEVADA STATE

BOUNDARY; AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE-VERMONT INTERSTATE SCHOOL COMPACT; AND TAX TREATMENT OF BONDS ISSUED

BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 2054, H.R. 3180 and H.R. 1448

MARCH 6, 2002

Serial No. 65

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WISCONSIN, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

ED BRYANT, Tennessee 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

BOB BARR, Georgia, Chairman

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona, Vice Chair

GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MELISSA HART, Pennsylvania 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

MAXINE WATERS, California

RAYMOND V. SMIETANKA, Chief Counsel 

SUSAN JENSEN-CONKLIN, Counsel 

ROBERT NEIRA TRACCI, Counsel 

STEPHANIE MOORE, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 6, 2002

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Bob Barr, a Representative in Congress From the State of 

Georgia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 1

WITNESSES 

The Honorable James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Utah 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

The Honorable Charles F. Bass, A Representative in Congress From the 

State of New Hampshire 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress From American Samoa ............................................................ 3

(1)

PROPOSED CHANGE OF UTAH-NEVADA STATE 

BOUNDARY; AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW 

HAMPSHIRE-VERMONT INTERSTATE 

SCHOOL COMPACT; AND TAX TREATMENT 

OF BONDS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT 

OF AMERICAN SAMOA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Barr [Chairman of 

the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. BARR. The meeting of the Subcommittee on Commercial and 

Administrative Law for purposes of hearing and markup of H.R. 

2054, H.R. 3180 and H.R. 1448 will come to order. 

The Subcommittee meets today to conduct a hearing and a markup on three bills. Two of the three measures we consider today deal 

with interstate compacts. 

Among the many privileges associated with being a Member of 

the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee is the opportunity to review compacts between States. Before I begin to discuss the two compacts on today’s agenda, a brief discussion of the 

constitutional provision that commands our attention to these 

measures might be informative. 

Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the Constitution provides that, ‘‘no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty or 

tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into 

any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign 

power, or engage in war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.’’ Happily the bills we consider today do not touch on issues relating to duties or tonnage, to ships of war or invasion by a foreign 

power. Rather our meeting will focus on questions that require congressional consent nonetheless; a change in the territorial boundaries between Utah and Nevada, and an amendment to the Interstate School District Compact between New Hampshire and Vermont. 

We begin with H.R. 2054, a bill that has been introduced in Congress by Utah Representative James Hansen and Nevada RepVerDate Jan 17 2002 16:36 Jun 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\WORK\COMM\030602\78062.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
2

resentative James Gibbons, to provide prospective congressional 

consent to a potential boundary change between Utah and Nevada. 

We are delighted to have Representative Hansen here today with 

us. 

Wendover is a city divided by the Utah-Nevada State line. Since 

its establishment in 1907, Wendover has enjoyed a unique and storied history. Over the last century, Wendover has been transformed 

from a sleepy railroad supply station to a vibrant metropolitan cityscape. During the 1940’s, Wendover’s Air Force base trained B–29 

bomber crews, including that of the Enola Gay which hastened the 

conclusion of World War II. 

Its location in both Nevada and Utah has made it a focus of national prominence, and different State and local laws have had a 

marked impact or marked effect on the economic development of 

both cities. West Wendover, located on the Nevada side of the border, is a city with liberal alcohol laws, legalized gambling, a strong 

tax base and a booming population. Wendover, Utah, is quite different. Wendover, Utah, is typified by weaker businesses, a weaker 

tax base and a stagnant population comprised largely of residents 

who work in neighboring West Wendover. Currently residents of 

both cities support costly and duplicative municipal services with 

separate fire, police and utilities departments. 

For many years now, residents of both States have moved toward 

unifying this divided city. H.R. 2054 would facilitate this effort by 

providing the prospective consent of Congress to a boundary change 

approved by State and local residents of both States. 

It is important to stress that while H.R. 2054 is not without opponents, it does not take a position on substantive details best resolved by the State and local governments and citizens of both 

States. Rather the bill places limits on the total acreage of land 

that might be shifted and creates a window for both States to assent to the measure. 

Some have called Wendover a tale of two cities. Others call the 

State divide line dividing the cities ‘‘the great divide.’’ And to those 

who do not believe that State and local laws affect the social and 

economic development of cities, we say let them go to Wendover. 

See it. 

That is precisely what Chairman James Sensenbrenner did in 

November of last year. Chairman Sensenbrenner’s field briefing in 

Wendover was attended by State and local officials as well as area 

residents. While Chairman Sensenbrenner heard from a number of 

voices, a clear consensus emerged on at least one issue, that local 

residents be given an opportunity to weigh in on any proposed 

boundary change. The Chairman committed to ensuring this outcome, and the amendment I will offer today delivers on this promise by conditioning congressional consent upon local approval of 

any boundary change. 

As the Supreme Court has noted, the interstate compact mechanism contemplated by the framers of the Constitution adapts to our 

union of sovereign States the age-old treaty-making power of independent sovereign nations. While considering this legislation we 

should attempt to adhere to the spirit of this holding and defer to 

the people and representatives of both States, who are best able to 

3

resolve the legal, factual and local considerations that underlie this 

important discussion. 

The second compact we consider today is H.R. 3180, which 

amends the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact 

originally approved in 1969. The measure amends the compact to 

permit participating interstate school districts to modify the manner in which school board issues are considered. 

Last year residents of the Dresden Interstate School District 

voted to approve these changes. The Legislatures of New Hampshire and Vermont subsequently ratified these amendments. The 

New Hampshire portion of this school district lies in Representative Charlie Bass’s congressional district, who we also welcome to 

today’s meeting. 

While the proposed amendments have not drawn national headlines, they nonetheless advance important educational goals. Importantly, H.R. 3180 leaves ultimate balancing procedures to the 

discretion of voters in the local school district, who are free to accept or reject the modified voting procedure the amendment would 

permit. 

It is now our responsibility to effect the will of the people of both 

States by examining these proposed changes. 

The third measure on today’s agenda is not an interstate compact bill, but one of no less significance. H.R. 1448 was introduced 

by Representative Eni Faleomavaega, of American Samoa. 

Like Wendover, American Samoa enjoys a unique cultural and 

political history. American Samoa is a group of five volcanic-based 

islands and two coral atolls located some 2,600 miles south of Hawaii in the beautiful South Pacific. 

Once the object of European colonial competition, American 

Samoa became an unincorporated, unorganized territory of the 

United States in 1900 and passed its own Constitution in 1960. 

American Samoa served as an important naval calling station, and 

during World War II the islands were a vital staging area for U.S. 

Marines operating in the Pacific theatre. 

H.R. 1448 would amend Federal laws to exempt bonds issued by 

the Government of American Samoa from Federal, State and local 

taxation. Government bonds issued by other U.S. Possessions and 

territories such as Guam, the Virgin Islands Puerto Rico enjoy this 

status. Thus, the purpose of this bill is not to craft a special exception to a general rule, but to harmonize the tax treatment of American Samoan bonds with those of other States and territories in 

order to enable American Samoa to better attend to the public 

needs of its residents. 

Representative Faleomavaega had been scheduled to testify at today’s hearing, but is unable to attend because of a family emergency. He asks that I emphasize the importance of this bill to the 

residents of American Samoa and expressed his appreciation for 

our consideration of this measure. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. Chairman: 

4

Thank you for holding this hearing and mark-up on H.R. 1448, a bill to clarify 

the tax treatment of bonds and other obligations issued by the Government of American Samoa. 

Under current federal law, the territories of the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have the authority to issue municipal bonds to foster a broad range of economic activity. These bonds are exempt from income taxation by the federal government, state governments, territorial governments, municipal governments, and the 

government of the District of Columbia. American Samoa also has the authority to 

incur debt and issue bonds, but the income from most bonds is subject to taxation 

by state and municipal governments. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute being offered today by the Chairman 

gives the Government of American Samoa the authority to issue a full range of 

bonds, the interest on which will be exempt from taxation by other governments. 

This is consistent with the tax exemption given to other territories. The amendment 

also makes clear that the bonds would not be exempt from gift, estate, inheritance, 

legacy, succession or other wealth transfer taxes which may at any time be in effect. 

The substance of the amendment is the same as H.R. 1448, but addresses ancillary 

issues such as the existing language relating to industrial development bonds and 

the cross reference to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code in a different manner. 

The existing law on tax exempt bonds for American Samoa (48 USC 1670) consists of three sections. Section (a) authorizes ASG to issue industrial development 

bonds. Section (b) exempts industrial development bonds from state and local taxation. Section (c) cross-references the tax exemption with Section 103 of the Internal 

Revenue Code. The term ‘‘industrial development bonds’’ referred to in Section 

1670(a) is terminology used prior to the changes made to the Internal Revenue Code 

in 1986. 

As introduced, H.R. 1448 repeals all of Sec. 1670, replaces it with authority for 

ASG to issue private activity bonds, and then exempts those bonds from state and 

local taxation. To affirm the legality of bonds issued before enactment of H.R. 1448, 

the bill includes a provision applying current law to bonds issued before enactment, 

and applies new law to bonds issued after enactment. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute leaves Sec. 1670(a) [industrial development bonds] and Sec. 1670(c) [the cross reference to Section 103 of the Internal 

Revenue Code] in place, and substitutes the substantive part of H.R. 1448 for Sec. 

1670(b). 

The existing Section 1670(a) provides authority for the local government to issue 

certain bonds. So there is no inference that any authority to issue bonds is being 

withdrawn from the American Samoa Government, Section 1670(a) is being left in 

place. 

As noted before, what will become the new Section 1670(b) in the substitute contains the substance of H.R. 1448. This provision exempts the interest on bonds 

issued by the local government from taxation by ‘‘the Government of American 

Samoa and the governments of any of the several States, the District of Columbia, 

any territory or possession of the United States, and any subdivision thereof.’’ This 

section also makes it clear that the exemption is only applicable to income taxes and 

not any wealth transfer taxes imposed by other jurisdictions. 

The cross reference to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code contained in Section 1670(c) is not changed. Section 103 is entitled ‘‘Interest on State and local 

bonds’’ and sets forth the exclusion from gross income the interest on certain bonds. 

There is strong support in American Samoa for this legislation. The Governor of 

American Samoa is supportive of this bill, and has indicated that the local government could have saved $100,000 in interest costs if the interest on the bonds the 

government issued in 2000 would have been tax exempt. The local power authority, 

a semi-autonomous government agency, would also like to sell bonds to purchase 

new diesel generator sets to accommodate the territory’s growing population. This 

legislation will lower the interest costs of these prospective sales and will also enable the local government to address deficiencies in its current infrastructure. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. This legislation will 

have a direct and positive impact on the residents of American Samoa, and your 

assistance is very much appreciated.

Mr. BARR. Counsel, how much time do we have before a vote? 

I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Mel Watt from 

the great State of North Carolina for any opening statement he 

5

might care to make. Then we will break briefly to allow both our 

witnesses and Subcommittee’s Members to vote. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, in the hope that we might be able to 

spare one or both of these busy gentlemen the necessity of coming 

back, I will just waive my statement. And hopefully one of them 

at least can get their statement in and not have to come back over 

here. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. 

Mr. BARR. Other Members like to be recognized for opening 

statements? No. We appreciate the attendance of the Members. 

As this time I would like to recognize our two witnesses, Chairman James Hansen, first elected to Congress in 1980 and currently 

Chairman of the House Resources Committee; and Representative 

Charles Bass, who was first elected to the Congress in 1994, at the 

same time I was. Their bios will be made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE HONORABLE JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE HONORABLE CHARLES BASS, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

REP. JAMES HANSEN

Rep. Hansen was first elected to Congress in 1980, and is currently Chairman of 

the House Resources Committee. Before being elected to Congress, Chairman Hansen served in the Utah House of Representatives, where he was Speaker of the 

House his last term. Prior to serving in the Utah Legislature, he served in local government as a three-term City Councilman for Farmington, Utah. 

Mr. Hansen served in the United States Navy during the Korean War, and before 

entering public service, was an independent insurance agent and president of a 

Utah land development company. Hansen is a graduate of the University of Utah, 

and we welcome him to today’s hearing. 

REP. CHARLES BASS

Congressman Charles Bass was first elected to Congress in 1994. He is a graduate 

of Dartmouth College. Before being elected to Congress, Mr. Bass worked in the private sector, served as a New Hampshire State Representative, and as a State Senator. Mr. Bass, we are delighted to have you here today.

Mr. BARR. At this time I would like to recognize, in order of seniority, Representative Hansen on behalf of the bill that you offer 

to us today. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. And 

I appreciate the gentleman giving us this time. 

Let me just point out that listening to your opening statement, 

you covered it all. I mean, I can just say Amen to what you said, 

and you covered everything there is in there. 

Let my say that prior to coming to Congress, I was in the legislature, and I was eventually speaker of the house in the State legislature. It was always a problem for us, what do you do with 

Wendover? I mean, this tiny area out on I–80 that you have got 

to drive 3 hours to get to, and there is nothing but the salt flats, 

a pretty barren area, until you get there. 

I often imagine what the Donner party saw as they were going 

across there, taking about 2 months longer than they should have. 

6

And out of that, that kept them hung up in the Nevada Sierra Nevadas when they had that tragedy. 

But, as you look at this Wendover area, what do you see? You 

see an area that was started by a man by the name of Smith and 

his wife Maggie, who came out to work for him from a place in 

Sanpete County, a little community in the middle of the State. She 

went to work there. They married, and all there was was a gas station and a—I guess we would call it a stop and rob today, or one 

of those little areas where they stop and buy a few things and 

move on further into Nevada or Utah. 

And out of that came the State Line. State Line is quite a casino, 

right on the State line, but about two inches over onto the Nevada 

side. After that came the Silver Smith, two or three others, and because they did have gambling, because they had some other things, 

it turned into quite a metropolitan area by the standards of that 

part of Utah, and that would be a metropolitan area that is not as 

big as this building, if I may so say. 

And in the Utah side, they don’t have much. It is almost poverty 

row. On the other side it is kind of like Paris, France. It is really 

nice. 

And so you look over on the Nevada side and they have for their 

police department maybe five or six brand new Ford Crown Victorias. On the Utah side they have got a 1962 Chevy pickup with 

a little light that they put on the top. 

They have a redundancy in water, in sewer, in school, two school 

systems. Courts have held, for a reason that is beyond me, that 

they cannot not have different police departments, fire departments, even though they kind of violate that. If there is a fire on 

either side, they all rush over and help one another out. 

You alluded to the airport, a really nice airport. We, Congress, 

has helped them out there, because it is an emergency airport for 

Hill Air Force Base, Fallon Navy Base, Nellis Air Force Base, and 

Mountain Home. And you can go in there and you go and see an 

F–14, an F–16, an F–15 that had to be in there for emergency repair. It was very handy to have that. 

So all it is really doing, as you pointed out in your opening statement, is enabling these folks, if they want to do something with it, 

to have the legislatures on both sides meet, the councils, the county 

commissioners, and work out some type of agreement that would 

have to be passed by both State legislatures. 

And I really would just like to say, we did it, we wash our hands, 

you got these 6 years to do it in. If you don’t do it, you have had 

your chance, and I hope it would work. 

But I guess in my 42 years as an elected official, I have always 

heard, what are we going to do with Wendover? This is the first 

time that we have been able to tackle it. 

Mr. Gibbons, I think, has already given you a statement; he 

couldn’t be here. He supports what I am saying. Both Governors 

support it. I think both legislative—both delegations in both States 

support it. And our Governor Mike Leavitt has given me the permission to say that he fully supports the action we are taking. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

7

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 2054, a bill which 

I have co-sponsored along with Mr. Gibbons of Nevada, which would empower the 

communities of Wendover, Utah and West Wendover, Nevada, to determine whether 

the movement of the State boundary between Utah and Nevada would be in their 

mutual best interest. 

By way of background, I have represented the people of Wendover, Utah and 

Tooele County for more than 21 years and have been privileged to work on a number of issues involving this area. 

The greater Wendover community is divided socially, economically, and politically 

by the location of the State boundary. Although the two communities have grown 

side by side for decades knowing where the boundaries lie, it seems that some of 

the practical challenges faced by every small town is amplified in this particular 

area because of a unique mix of circumstances which distinguishes this area from 

countless other areas and cities all across the country which straddle State lines. 

Some of those practical challenges include geography. The area is relatively remote and, on the Utah side, is bordered by the Bonneville Salt Flats and other public lands, which severely limit the ability of the Utah community to grow in the future. There are also challenges with providing water resources for the two communities in the desert climate. In fact, the primary water source for both communities 

is limited and is located north of the cities on the Utah side of the Pilot Mountain 

range. Yet the two communities maintain two separate culinary water delivery systems. In just about every category of public services, there is an inefficient duplication of effort; two separate police departments, two separate fire departments, duplicate utility systems, separate public school systems, local court systems, and the list 

goes on and on. 

Further, there seems to be a perception that the Nevada side of the border has 

a more favorable climate for business and economic activity, and as a result, the 

Utah side has had long-standing difficulty in developing and maintaining comparably strong economic development. 

Finally, there are problems involving the Wendover Airport which, in effect, was 

a catalyst in brining forward the present legislation and effort to explore moving 

the state boundary. 

The Wendover Airport has its origins in the U.S. Army Airfield during World War 

II. For a number of years, the City of Wendover has owned and operated the airport 

facilities. When the airport was in need of serious repairs and upgrades, the local 

community, and the leaders in Tooele County, came forward and supported a massive redevelopment and construction of a new, state of the art 8,000 foot runway. 

The end of the new runway is located exactly on the Utah-Nevada border, causing 

some of the aircraft approaches and clear-zones to be located on the Nevada side 

of the border. Both communities use the facility; however, it can be fairly stated 

that the Utah side, because of where the airport is located, has had to bear the 

brunt of the costs for upgrading and maintaining the facility while the Nevada side 

has benefitted perhaps more than the Utah side. The Utah side has had no ability 

to control the zoning on the Nevada side of the border in order to protect the airspace and clear zones for the new runway, which created some difficulties and 

spawned divisive and costly litigation. I am grateful that some of these problems 

seem to have been worked out and that the two communities have begun to work 

together more closely on airport matters. However, the reality remains that there 

are, and will continue to be problems with the operations of the airport so long as 

the present circumstances exist. 

The continued viability of the airport is in the national interest. The U.S. Air 

Force and other military services use the airport as an emergency landing area because of its proximity to the Utah Test and Training Range. It has saved countless 

aircraft from being lost, and possibly pilot’s lives, because it has been built and 

maintained by Wendover, Utah. Yet, Wendover and Tooele County’s ability to continue maintaining the airport is limited because of its limited tax base. The airport’s 

future would be better secured through its merger into one unified political subdivision. 

For as long as I can remember, and through the changes in administration of local 

officials, it has been sort of a running joke that one way to correct a lot of these 

problems was just to redraw the State boundary to put Wendover, Utah, into Nevada. Early this year, Mayor Steve Perry and some of the council members approached me seriously about exploring the idea. I contacted my friend and colleague, 

Mr. Jim Gibbons, and discussed the matter with him and received his support for 

the drafting of H.R. 2054. 

8

The approach of the legislation is to empower the local communities with their 

future destiny. For state boundaries to change under the Constitution, Congress 

must grant its consent, which is what HR 2054 would do. It is a prospective ratification of an interstate agreement between the two affected states which would meet 

certain criteria specified in the text of the bill. 

First, under the bill, both states would have to ratify one agreement; an agreement that both sides would agree is acceptable. At any point, either state could walk 

away from the process and the boundary would not be moved. The wisdom of this 

approach is that whatever agreement is reached would inherently be acceptable to 

both sides. This approach removes Congress and the federal government from getting involved in the financial details of what is, essentially, a state and local matter. 

Second, this approach of granting prospective ratification serves to highlight the 

issue and to provide motivation on both sides for seriously exploring what might 

serve their respective best interests. I am pleased that it already seems to have had 

that effect of promoting the establishment of a working group by the respective 

mayors to explore the many details involved. 

Third, the legislation provides certain safeguards for the granting of Congressional consent. It limits the total amount of acres allowed to be subsumed into Nevada at 15,000 acres or less; roughly equivalent to the acreage contained within the 

existing municipal boundaries of Wendover, Utah. This protects against the possibility of a major revision of State boundaries and acreage. It also provides a time 

limit of 6 years for Congressional consent to be active. This will allow the Nevada 

State Legislature, which meets on a bi-cameral basis, at least 3 legislative cycles 

in which to review any compact arrived at. It provides enough time to seriously consider the issue, yet does not leave the matter hanging open indefinitely. 

Finally, the legislation would require that any agreement transfer the airport into 

Nevada in order to remedy one of the largest sources of recurring problems between 

the two communities, and would encourage the drafting of a compact which would 

minimize the likelihood of future residential development on the new, revised border 

of Utah. 

I understand that some of the gaming interests in the area are opposed to the 

idea and to this legislation. I believe that many of their economic concerns could 

be addressed through the compact process which could include local government 

agreements as to zoning in the new, annexed areas. 

Also, I understand that some are calling for the inclusion of an amendment which 

would make the approval of the boundary change conditional upon the passage of 

a planned local referendum. I do not oppose such an amendment, and I strongly 

support the idea that the local communities and population should determine their 

future destiny. By design, the local governments would have to agree to the compact 

in order for it to progress through their respective legislatures. The bottom line is 

that in order for the boundary change to work, if ever at all, it will have to be in 

the best interests of both communities and both states. 

In closing, it is difficult to contemplate the giving up of land and constituents 

from the First Congressional District and hand them over to my friend from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons. I do not entertain such an idea lightly. However, when asked 

by my local constituents as represented by Wendover City Mayor Steve Perry and 

the City Council, I have to take a serious look and try to represent what may be 

in their best interests in the Congress, which is what Mr. Gibbons and I have tried 

to do in the drafting of H.R. 2054. 

While some people, perhaps map publishers, may wince at the idea of creating 

a little ‘‘jog’’ in that nice, straight-line that currently divides Utah and Nevada, I 

would point out that, quite often, boundaries are artificial creations of man in trying 

to deal with geopolitical problems and realities. Sometimes, in the interest of 

bettering people’s lives, it may be necessary to revisit the initial dividing-up of land 

between political subdivisions, and I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this may 

be one of those occasions. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARR. I would like to recognize the Ranking Member Mr. 

Watt for a brief question. 

Mr. WATT. I just wanted to ask a quick facetious question. Can 

we do this quick enough to get those people in Wendover out of the 

State so that we can keep the congressional district in North Carolina? 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Watt, I think the problem we have got, there 

is not enough. 

9

Mr. WATT. You mean, it is not that many. 

Mr. HANSEN. No. 

Mr. WATT. I have got to vote against it then. 

Mr. BARR. We appreciate very much your appearance here today, 

as well as the work that you have done in assisting the Subcommittee and our staff over the last several months to prepare for 

this action today. 

We do have a vote. But, Chairman Bass, if you would care to 

make a very brief statement, we won’t keep you after the vote unless you certainly want to come back. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will complete it before the red light goes on. 

Your opening statement said it all. All the legislation proposes 

to do is to ratify an amendment in the interstate compact that 

would allow the school district to have Australian-type balloting, 

which means the same kind of balloting that they use in every 

other school district, which is you are able to vote on bonding 

issues for the whole day instead of having the vote at the end of 

the school district meeting when most of people have gone home. 

As you state in your opening statement, it requires an act of 

Congress to amend an interstate compact, and I hope that the Subcommittee will approve this bill and send it on to the full House. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bass follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thank you Mr. Chairman for affording me the opportunity to testify before your 

Subcommittee. I am here today asking for the Subcommittee’s approval of H.R. 

3180, legislation giving consent to an amendment to the New Hampshire-Vermont 

Interstate School Compact. 

The New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School compact was created by federal 

law in 1969 and currently consists of two school districts, Dresden and Rivendell 

along the New Hampshire and Vermont border. Any changes to the Compact require approval of the legislative bodies of New Hampshire and Vermont as well as 

the U.S. Congress. 

This bill, however, would specifically address a request from the citizens of the 

Dresden School District. The amendment would allows citizens of the Dresden 

School District, comprising of Hanover, New Hampshire, and Norwich, Vermont to 

use Australian Balloting when voting on bond initiatives to incur debt. The Compact 

currently requires the School District to pass their bonds at a vote taken at the end 

of their traditional Town Hall meeting. These meetings can often be long affairs 

with voting coming at the end. The Compact, however, is somewhat inconsistent in 

that it allows the District to use Australian Balloting or all-day voting when voting 

on its annual District meeting items. This legislation would simply allow the school 

district to use the same all-day voting when considering bond initiatives. 

The voters of the Dresden School District believe that moving to all-day voting 

for bond issuances votes will have two benefits over the current Town Meeting voting format:

1) All-day voting will be consistent with how the District currently votes to approve warrant articles;

2) All-day voting will allow for more voters to vote on bond issues.

This legislation is time sensitive to the Dresden School District, which is in the 

middle of a years-long proposal that will lead to a construction project to renovate 

and/or rebuild both its middle and high schools. The District is hoping to use AusVerDate Jan 17 2002 16:36 Jun 04, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\COMM\030602\78062.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
10

tralian Balloting in October of this year to approve the bond for this construction 

project. Therefore it is important that Congress act swiftly to approve this legislation. 

The Rivendell School, which would also be affected by this legislation, is not opposing this change. However, they are not currently planning to move to Australian 

balloting, but would have the option to do so. 

This legislation is non-controversial. The citizens of both Hanover and Norwich 

have passed warrant articles asking for this change and H.R. 3180 gives consent 

to the specific language that both the state legislatures of New Hampshire and Vermont have approved. Furthermore, my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, who 

represents Norwich, has cosponsored this bill. I ask for the Subcommittee’s consideration and prompt approval of this simple but necessary legislation. Again, thank you 

for your time.

Mr. BARR. Do any Members have any questions for Mr. Bass? 

With that, we appreciate, Mr. Bass, not only your being here 

today, but, as I told Chairman Hansen, your work with the Subcommittee and the Subcommittee’s staff in providing the background that we need for expeditious action on this. 

And we will stand in adjournment for a vote, and then we will 

reconvene for Committee business on these three pieces of legislation as soon as the vote is passed. 

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I assume my statement can be made 

a part of the record? 

Mr. BARR. Your statement and any additional supporting material that you would care to submit will be made a part of the 

record, and the same for Chairman Hansen. 

We stand in adjournment.

Æ