```

[House Report 107-469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-469

======================================================================

 
TO GIVE THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO AN AGREEMENT OR COMPACT BETWEEN UTAH 
  AND NEVADA REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARIES OF THOSE STATES, AND 
  FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

  May 16, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2054]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2054) to give the consent of Congress to an 
agreement or compact between Utah and Nevada regarding a change 
in the boundaries of those States, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Vote of the Committee............................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     4
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     6
Markup Transcript................................................     6
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. CONSENT TO AGREEMENT OR COMPACT.

    (a) Consent Given.--The consent of the Congress of the United 
States is given to Utah and Nevada to enter into an agreement or 
compact that meets the following requirements:
            (1) The agreement or compact is consented to by the 
        legislatures of Utah and Nevada and such consent is evidenced 
        through Acts enacted by the legislatures of Utah and Nevada not 
        later than December 31, 2006.
            (2) The agreement or compact is not in conflict with any 
        Federal law.
            (3) The agreement or compact does not change the boundary 
        of any other State.
            (4) The agreement or compact does not result in the 
        transfer to Nevada of more than a total of 10,000 acres of 
        lands that are located within Utah on the date of the enactment 
        of this Act.
            (5) The agreement or compact is entered into for the 
        primary purpose of changing the boundaries of Utah and Nevada 
        so that the lands located within the municipal boundaries of 
        the city of Wendover, Utah, on the date of the enactment of 
        this Act, including the municipal airport, shall, after the 
        implementation of the agreement or compact, be located within 
        the boundaries of Nevada. This paragraph shall not prohibit the 
        agreement or compact from including provisions that are 
        reasonably related to the following:
                    (A) A change in the boundaries of Utah and Nevada 
                for the purposes described in this paragraph.
                    (B) Including other Utah lands immediately 
                surrounding the municipal boundaries of Wendover, Utah, 
                as described in this paragraph, in a transfer to Nevada 
                if such inclusion would--
                            (i) facilitate the management of lands 
                        transferred under the agreement or compact or 
                        the placement of the boundaries of Utah or 
                        Nevada; or
                            (ii) minimize the likelihood of future 
                        residential development on remaining Utah 
                        lands.
                    (C) Any other provision in the agreement or compact 
                regarding a change in ownership of, management of, or 
                other responsibilities or obligations related to--
                            (i) providing State, county, or municipal 
                        services;
                            (ii) public utilities;
                            (iii) public schools; or
                            (iv) the municipal airport referred to in 
                        this paragraph.
            (6) The agreement or compact is consented to by a majority 
        of the registered qualified electors who cast a vote on the 
        agreement or compact held in each of the cities of West 
        Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah, on the date of the 
        regularly scheduled general election for Federal office in 
        2002. The question in the vote held in each of the cities of 
        West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah, under this paragraph 
        shall contain the same language to the extent allowed by local 
        law. Such language shall explain, with specificity sufficient 
        to inform voters, all components of the agreement or compact 
        regarding changes in ownership of, management of, or other 
        responsibilities, costs, or obligations related to--
                    (A) State, county, and municipal social and public 
                services;
                    (B) public utilities;
                    (C) land use;
                    (D) community economics;
                    (E) public schools; and
                    (F) the local municipal airport.
    (b) Effective Date of Agreement or Compact.--An agreement or 
compact entered into in accordance with subsection (a) shall become 
effective upon the fulfillment of the requirement of subsection (a)(1) 
without further consent or ratification on the part of the Congress of 
the United States.
    (c) United States Ownership and Jurisdiction Retained.--Nothing in 
this Act or in the agreement or compact consented to under this Act 
shall be construed to impair or in any manner affect the ownership or 
jurisdiction of the United States in and over any lands within the 
boundaries of Utah or Nevada.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2054, would give the consent of Congress to an 
agreement or compact between Utah and Nevada regarding a change 
in the boundaries of those States. The bill gives the prior 
approval of Congress to a compact which the States of Nevada 
and Utah may agree upon regarding the border shared by the two 
States. The area involved relates to the city and surrounding 
area of Wendover, Utah, which would be, under an agreement 
between the two States, part of Nevada. H.R. 2054 only allows 
for prior consent to the compact as long as a set of stated 
criteria is met, such as a requirement of a local vote in which 
each of the communities indicate approval of the merger by a 
majority affirmation demonstrated by each, as well as an 
expiration date for Utah and Nevada to have completed all 
necessary steps for the completion of the compact, with failure 
to do so resulting in the expiration of the prior consent of 
Congress.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    The cities of Wendover, Utah and West Wendover, Nevada sit 
astride the Utah-Nevada State boundary. While the two 
communities of Wendover, Utah and West Wendover, Nevada are 
divided only by a line painted across the street, they are 
vastly different. West Wendover is a thriving city with liberal 
alcohol laws, legalized gambling, and a vibrant tax base. The 
town's casinos attract more than 300,000 visitors a month, and 
its population has more than doubled in the past decade to 
about 5,000 permanent residents.\1\ Wendover, Utah, however, is 
quite different. In Wendover, gambling is illegal, and many of 
the 1,500 residents live in mobile homes and work at casinos 
located across the State line. Wendover's motels and businesses 
have a difficult time competing with their Nevada neighbors, 
and a steady erosion in Wendover's local tax base, coupled with 
costly duplication of government services in both Wendovers, 
makes the efficient delivery of quality public services 
difficult to provide.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Tom Gorman, 2 Town's Great Divide: Poor Utah City Wants to 
Unite With Its Richer Nevada Half. To Work, The State Line Will Have to 
Be Shifted a Bit, L.A. Times, May 28, 2001, at A12.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For some time the Wendover communities have been 
considering ways to bridge the economic divide between 
themselves. State and local officials have considered shifting 
the State boundary in order to incorporate Wendover into 
Nevada. This solution would involve moving the State line 
approximately three miles into Utah and, in the process, 
shifting approximately 10,000 square acres from Utah to Nevada. 
On September 7, 2001, the City Councils of Wendover and West 
Wendover agreed that their citizens should have a vote on 
whether the State line should be moved to allow the communities 
to unite.\3\ The two councils, meeting jointly on the Nevada 
side of the border, agreed to ask Congress to condition its 
consent to the proposed boundary change upon passage of local 
referenda. Introduced by Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah) and Rep. 
Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada) on June 5, 2001, H.R. 2054 would 
facilitate State efforts to redraw the Nevada-Utah State line 
by removing Federal obstacles to a boundary change that takes 
place in a manner consistent with conditions contained in the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Las Vegas Review Journal, Online Edition. http://www.lvrj.com/
lvrj--home/2001/Sep-08-Sat-2001/news/16950664. html [visited November 
9, 2001].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2054 gives congressional consent to a proposed border 
change if: (1) the compact is consented to by both State 
legislatures within a specified period after the date of the 
enactment of the legislation; (2) the compact does not conflict 
with Federal law; (3) the agreement does not change the 
boundary of any other State; (4) the amount of land transferred 
is not more than 10,000 acres; and (5) the primary purpose of 
changing the boundaries of Utah and Nevada is to ensure that 
lands located within the municipal boundaries of the City of 
Wendover-Utah, including the municipal airport, shall be 
located within the boundaries of Nevada. Further, H.R. 2054 
would require that Nevada and Utah enter into this agreement no 
later than December 31, 2006, and that the affirmation of 
Wendover, Utah and West Wendover, Nevada be demonstrated by a 
majority vote taking place on the issue of boundary movement. 
In that vote, all components and details of the proposed merger 
and boundary change shall be presented to the voters of the two 
communities.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held 
a hearing on March 6, 2002, in which Congressman James V. 
Hansen (R-Utah), author of H.R. 2054, testified in support of 
its passage.

                        Committee Consideration

    On March 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 2054, as amended, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On May 8, 2002, the Committee met in open 
session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2054 with 
amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes on H.R. 2054.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 2054 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 2054, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 14, 2002.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2054, a bill to 
give the consent of the Congress to an agreement or compact 
between Utah and Nevada regarding a change in the boundaries of 
those States, and for other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. 
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 2054--A bill to give the consent of the Congress to an agreement 
        or compact between Utah and Nevada regarding a change in the 
        boundaries of those States, and for other purposes.
    H.R. 2054 would give Congressional consent to a boundary 
change between Utah and Nevada that would enable the city of 
Wendover, Utah, to be located within the boundaries of Nevada. 
Enacting the bill would result in no cost to the Federal 
Government. Because enactment of H.R. 2054 would not affect 
direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J. 
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was 
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 10, clause 3 of the 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    Section 1: Consent to Agreement or Compact.
    This section grants the prior consent and approval of 
Congress for the States of Utah and Nevada to enter into a 
compact or agreement so long as that compact or agreement meets 
certain stated requirements. Those requirements include: (1) 
that the agreement or compact is agreed to, as evidenced 
through acts, by the State legislatures of Nevada and Utah no 
later than December 31, 2006; (2) there is no conflict within 
the agreement or compact to any Federal law; (3) the compact or 
agreement does not change the boundary of any other State; (4) 
the agreement or compact does not result in the transfer of 
more than 10,000 acres of land which is currently within the 
State of Utah; (5) that the primary purpose of this agreement 
or compact is that lands which are located currently within the 
municipal boundaries of Wendover, Utah, including the municipal 
airport, be located after the implementation of this agreement, 
within the boundary of Nevada; and (6) the agreement or compact 
is consented to by a majority of voters in each of the 
communities involved, West Wendover and Wendover, as 
demonstrated by a popular vote which is to be presented to each 
community in identical language so much as permitted by local 
law. This vote shall be on the issue of merger, with 
specificity presented in the language of the vote as to all 
components of the agreement, which shall include details on 
issues of land transfer, public services, public utilities, 
community economics, public schools, and the local municipal 
airport. This vote shall require two separate majorities in 
favor or merger to satisfy the requirements of this 
legislation, one each from Wendover and West Wendover.
    The effective date of enactment of H.R. 2054 shall occur at 
such time as the requirements of this legislation are met, 
without necessity of further consent or ratification on the 
part of Congress.

                           Markup Transcript

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. [Presiding.] The Committee will be 
in order.
    [Intervening business.]
    Next item on the agenda is H.R. 2054. The Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, for a 
motion.
    Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law reports favorably the bill H.R. 2054 with a 
single amendment in the nature of a substitute and moves its 
favorable recommendation to the full House.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And the 
Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute, which the 
Members have before them, will be considered as read and be 
considered as the original text for purposes of amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair yields himself 5 minutes 
for purposes of a statement.
    When Charles Dickens began a ``A Tale of Two Cities'' by 
saying, ``It was the best of times, it was the worst of 
times,'' it was almost as if he was writing about the towns of 
West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah.
    This bill, introduced by Representative Hansen of Utah and 
co-sponsored by Representative Gibbons of Nevada, addresses the 
question of whether the economic and developmental struggles 
and inequities between the towns of Wendover and West Wendover 
should continue. It will help the people of both Wendovers to 
determine their fate, however it may best suit them.
    In November, I had the opportunity to conduct a field 
briefing and a town meeting in Wendover with Representatives 
Hansen and Gibbons and learned a great deal about the unique 
and storied history of this part of the world. Since its 
establishment in 1907, the city has been transformed from a 
sleepy railroad supply station to a vibrant metropolitan 
cityscape. During the 1940's, Wendover's air force base trained 
the B-29 bomber crews that hastened the conclusion of the 
Second World War.
    The Wendovers of today are quite different. On the Utah 
side, a once populated center of 20,000 residents and military 
personnel training at the Wendover Airport, including the crew 
of the Enola Gay, has now turned into a collection of 1,500 
residents who live in an area which is commercially oppressed 
by the more pious liquor and gaming laws of Utah.
    Literally across the street, and there is a line on the 
street, is West Wendover, a town which hums with the economic 
bustle of an energized community. West Wendover possess 
residential areas of new construction, casinos, and hotels, and 
an effective recreational and public works department, and an 
overall sense of growth and life.
    When I was in Wendover, the one message I heard over and 
over again by both those who supported such a merger and those 
opposed to it--that message was, ``Let the people of Wendover 
be heard.''
    Mr. Barr and the Subcommittee have already made sure that 
this will happen by amending the legislation and making any 
congressional pre-consent dependant upon an affirmation by 
referendum in each separate community on the issue of 
unification. The perceived disparities between the two 
Wendovers has led some to call for the annexation of Wendover 
to Nevada. The bill before us today gives the prior consent of 
Congress for the people of Wendover to unite as one under the 
laws and jurisdiction of Nevada.
    Toward this end, the two representatives have introduced 
this bill, a compact that will facilitate this process by 
providing the consent of Congress to such a boundary change.
    I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia, so that he may say something about the legislation.
    Mr. Barr. I thank the Chairman for his lively and very 
insightful description of the situation currently faced by the 
residents of Wendover, Utah, and West Wendover, Nevada.
    The economic disparities between the residents of both 
Wendovers are well-established. At the very least, these stark 
differences provide us with a cogent reminder that State and 
local laws have a profound effect on the social and economic 
development of cities.
    During our Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2054, I was pleased 
to invite House Resources Chairman Jim Hansen to provide 
additional insight into the need for this legislation. As 
Chairman Hansen stressed in his testimony, H.R. 2054 takes no 
position on substantive details best resolved by the State and 
local governments and citizens of both States.
    Rather, this bill places limits on the total acreage of 
land that might be shifted and establishes a time frame within 
which both States can assent to the measure. As a result, the 
purpose of H.R. 2054 is to facilitate and not dictate final 
resolution of this issue.
    At the hearing, Chairman Hansen also told us his 
constituents have been asking a recurring question ever since 
he was elected to Congress in 1980: ``What are we going to do 
about Wendover?''
    Today, this Judiciary Committee has an opportunity to help 
the residents of Utah and Nevada resolve this question, and I 
urge my colleagues' support of this measure.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Five minutes.
    Mr. Watt. I just wanted to say briefly that we had a 
hearing and markup on this legislation in the Subcommittee and 
that I think this a reasonable resolution of a problem that has 
been going on for a long time, or at least it sets up a 
framework to get to a resolution for a problem that's been 
going on for a long time.
    Kind of as a tangential matter, the unfortunate thing is 
that this won't happen before the United States Supreme Court 
rules on the dispute about congressional districts between Utah 
and the State of North Carolina. Utah claims that they should 
have a congressional seat that was given to North Carolina. 
This 1,500 people going into Nevada out of Utah would clearly 
result in that seat going to North Carolina. But it won't be 
resolved quick enough to do that. So I'm disappointed about 
that, but I still support the legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Watt. I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members may 
place opening statements in the record at this point.
    Are there any amendments?
    And the Chair has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will 
report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2054, offered by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner. Page and line numbers refer to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the Chair recognizes himself 
for a brief 5 minutes.
    The amendment simply extends the amount of time that the 
States would have in order to comply with the requirements of 
this legislation. The process for approval of a boundary change 
in Nevada is a bit more complicated, because it requires an 
amendment to the State Constitution and, thus, taking two 
legislative sessions and a general election to complete. Thus, 
the amendment would allow the Nevada Legislature to meet in 
2003 and 2005, and would also allow for the general election of 
2006, so that the process observed in Nevada may be allowed to 
run its course.
    In addition, the amendment makes the necessary semantic 
changes to conform with Nevada State law.
    And I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment and 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Frank. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate because among 
the things you are striking is very bad grammar, the phrase 
``in a referenda,'' so I congratulate you for striking that. 
[Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair, with great humility, 
accepts the congratulations. [Laughter.]
    The question is on the amendment that the Chair has 
offered.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment to the amendment is agreed to.
    The question now occurs on the Subcommittee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended 
is agreed to.
    The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum.
    The question now occurs on the motion to report the bill 
H.R. 2054 favorably as amended.
    All in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
motion to report favorably is adopted.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. 
And all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House 
rules, in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, 
or minority views.

                                  

```