[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3395-H3399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  GIVING CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO AGREEMENT OR COMPACT BETWEEN UTAH AND 
                 NEVADA REGARDING CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
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, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2054

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     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

[[Page H3396]]

     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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2054, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2054 gives congressional consent for the States of 
Utah and Nevada to enact a compact modifying the boundary between the 
two States.
  Last November, along with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and 
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), I had the opportunity to visit 
the towns of Wendover and West Wendover. Though a line drawn down the 
main street separates the two towns and States, they continue to share 
a common culture. Economically, however, they stand in stark contrast 
to one another.
  Wendover, Utah, was established in 1907 and grew from a sleepy 
railroad supply station to a bustling community during the 1940s, when 
it acted as an Air Force training base for B-29 bomber crews, including 
the crew of the Enola Gay. Once having a population of nearly 20,000, 
today Wendover's population has declined to only 1,500 residents, most 
of them living in adverse economic conditions and dilapidated housing.
  On the other side of the State line, literally a stone's throw away, 
conditions are vastly different. West Wendover, Nevada's beginning 
stems from a local Wendover resident realizing by opening a gas station 
on the town's western edge, he could legally operate gaming devices on 
his property. Many years later his recipe for success has been copied 
by many, resulting in a prosperous town which has a vibrant community 
life as well as a profitable gaming industry.
  For the same reasons West Wendover has thrived, namely the ability to 
have legalized gaming and a more attractive Tax Code for its residents, 
Wendover has stalled. Further growth and development of the Utah 
portion will be forever hindered by those finding the economic climate 
of Nevada to be more advantageous for living and conducting business. 
Passing H.R. 2054 is the first step to fixing the Wendover problem.
  Allowing these two communities to unite will pave the way for an 
economic jumpstart for Wendover and will result in additional mutual 
benefits to both towns. For example, administrative services that are 
currently performed on both sides of the border on a separate basis 
could be consolidated, resulting in more efficient government and 
distribution of services, ultimately resulting in savings to both 
Wendovers.
  By simply allowing the border of a State to be slightly shifted, the 
people of these communities can work toward unification, politically 
and economically. During the field briefing we conducted, residents of 
both Wendover and West Wendover were unified behind one message which 
was heard time and time again. That message was: ``Let us be heard.''
  Through an amendment adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary, we 
have done that and made any congressional approval of this measure 
contingent upon the passage of a local referendum on the issue of 
merging the two towns. H.R. 2054 will truly allow the residents of the 
communities to be heard by allowing them to determine the outcome of 
their potential union.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2054, to provide the consent 
of Congress to a proposed change in the Utah-Nevada State boundary.
  H.R. 2054 was introduced by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) on 
behalf of himself and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). The bill 
provides for congressional consent for the States of Utah and Nevada to 
enter into a compact to change the existing boundaries of those States 
such that the city of West Wendover, Utah, be within the State of 
Nevada.
  The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and the full 
Committee on the Judiciary have resolved some issues related to this 
bill in a way that makes the bill noncontroversial. The bill allows 
communities within the States of Utah and Nevada to resolve a long-
standing issue of local interest and importance collectively by 
referendum and through their elected representatives.
  I suspect if this were a law school issue in a law school class, we 
could drag this out for a week or two talking about issues of 
Federalism and various and sundry matters. But in the final analysis, 
all politics is local, and all of the interested parties will have the 
opportunity to resolve whatever concerns they have by referendum, 
debate them. And while this is a pretty substantial change, when you 
talk about changing State boundaries, it is one that we think is 
justified and certainly economically in the interests of the local 
people, and we support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the distinguished gentleman from an expanding district in Nevada 
(Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Committee 
on the Judiciary and especially the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) for taking a good hard look at this legislation that was 
proposed by my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and 
myself.
  When we first brought this legislation to the attention of the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I am sure, Mr. Speaker, he had his 
doubts about what the Representative from Utah and the Representative 
from Nevada had in mind, or what these two Westerners were even up to. 
But he took his time to study this issue, learn about the two 
communities, and the Committee on the Judiciary chairman even paid us a 
visit to the two communities of West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, 
Utah.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), 
we want to thank him for taking a

[[Page H3397]]

thoughtful look at this bill and hearing directly from those who will 
be most affected by any potential annexation, our constituents in both 
Nevada and Utah.
  Mr. Speaker, so that each of my colleagues can get a better 
understanding of this legislation, let me provide a brief explanation 
to expand on what I believe will be the comments of the gentleman from 
Utah (Chairman Hansen) later on.
  First arriving in Washington, D.C., during the 105th Congress, both 
the communities of Wendover, Nevada, and West Wendover, Utah, have 
approached me on the idea of forming a single Wendover. As the 
gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) will articulate, because of the 
unique circumstance, these two communities are already virtually a 
single community, separated by an invisible line through their 
community, which happens to divide the State of Utah and the State of 
Nevada. But where they appear to be virtually one, as anybody who has 
ever driven I-80 west from Salt Lake City could attest to, they are not 
a single community.

                              {time}  1600

  As a matter of fact, these two small communities live with an onerous 
duplication of services, including fire, police, court systems, as well 
as separate utility and school systems. There are two Wendovers. Each 
serve as one of the friendliest places out West, but they represent 
perhaps the least efficient two communities in the West. Indeed, these 
two communities have been exploring the idea of becoming one Wendover 
for several years and, together with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen), we want to give them that opportunity.
  To clear up the confusion that often accompanies this legislation, 
passage of H.R. 2054 will not move the State boundary. What it will do 
is give the consent of this body that the two communities, through the 
State governments in Nevada and Utah, can begin negotiation of an 
annexation agreement process. The two State legislatures would have to 
ratify one agreement, an agreement which would then, and only then, 
provide for such annexation and joining of these two communities, as 
should be agreed to in order to take place.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not a mandate on the communities. 
This November, both West Wendover, Nevada and Wendover, Utah will vote 
on the referendum to determine how they wish to proceed on this issue, 
and this is exactly how the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I 
envision the process of carrying this out. Let the local communities 
decide their fate and give Congress the ability to provide our consent 
by supporting H.R. 2054.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I do support the 
legislation and I want to commend my colleagues for addressing this 
issue today. I was out in Nevada just a week ago, and I was actually on 
I80. I am not sure I know why a town in Utah would necessarily want to 
join Nevada; instead, maybe it should be Nevada joining Utah or vice 
versa. In any case, I understand the importance of the legislation, and 
both are beautiful States.
  However, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am taking to the floor right now 
is to draw attention to the fact that we have a number of suspension 
bills today, including this one, which I support. However, many of us 
on the Democratic side of the aisle are very concerned over the fact 
that we are not bringing up what we consider the most important issue 
to face this Congress, and that is the need for a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit. I have taken to the floor many nights during Special 
Orders, and today during morning hour, and it disturbs me a great deal 
to know that the Republican leadership seems to have come to some sort 
of paralysis, if you will, on the issue of prescription drugs.
  We all know that our seniors and our constituents are crying out for 
Congress to address this issue, and yet the Republican leadership, for 
over 2 months now, has been talking about how they are going to bring 
up a prescription drug bill. They said they were going to bring it up 
before the Memorial Day recess, and they did not. They said they were 
going to bring it up the week following the Memorial Day recess, and 
they have not. Today I read Congress Daily, and it says GOP Drug Plan 
to Remain Under Wraps Another Week. There was talk about unveiling a 
bill this week, and now it looks like it will not be until the 
following week. But they promise us that they still plan to pass a bill 
before the July 4 recess.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it anymore. I have heard it so many 
times that we are going to address the issue of prescription drugs, and 
the Republican leadership simply has not brought up the bill. They have 
not brought it up in committee and they have not brought it up on the 
floor.
  Most disturbing of all, we hear that the proposal that they are 
thinking about is really nothing more than throwing some money, like a 
voucher, if you will, to private insurance companies, rather than 
providing a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit. We have a very good 
government program called Medicare where seniors get their 
hospitalization, seniors get their doctor bills paid for. All we have 
to do, and this is what the Democrats have been saying, all we have to 
do is expand Medicare to provide for a prescription drug benefit 
guaranteed under Medicare. That is what the Democrats have been asking 
for.
  The Republicans try to give the impression that they are doing that, 
but when we look at what they are actually promoting, it is nothing 
more than giving some money to private insurance companies in the hope 
that somehow they will cover prescription drugs.
  The problem is that not only the Republicans are not addressing this 
issue and not bringing it up, but they are talking about privatizing 
Medicare. They are talking about perhaps trying to cover a few people 
maybe that are very low income who do not have prescription drugs now 
and maybe covering, maybe, at the most, maybe 1 million of the 30 
million or so seniors who do not have any kind of prescription drug 
benefit. It is not fair. It is not fair. The comment was made by 
President Bush, by the Republican leadership, that we were going to 
have a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that all seniors were 
going to be able to take advantage of, and it is simply not what we are 
getting.
  The other thing is that the Republicans refuse to talk about the cost 
issue. The biggest concerns that we hear from our constituents is that 
we are not addressing the cost of prescription drugs. The prices keep 
going up. There is nothing that the Republicans have proposed that 
would actually bring prices down and ease the burden, if you will, on 
senior citizens or even anyone else in the country. Democrats have been 
saying that we need to address that. Democrats are saying we would like 
to have something very much like part B now that pays for doctor bills, 
a very low deductible, a low copayment, 80 percent of the cost paid for 
by the Federal Government and giving the power to the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to mandate to him that he has to bring costs 
down by negotiating prices for all of the seniors, 30 million to 40 
million seniors. This is what needs to be done and it needs to be done 
now.
  I do not want to denigrate in any way this legislation.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The gentleman 
will state his point of order.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's discussion is not 
germane to the subject of H.R. 2054.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman make a point of order 
that the comments are not relevant under clause I of rule XVII?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is correct. The debate is not relevant to the 
bill that is under discussion.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could be heard on the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
is recognized on the point of order.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, my intention is not to 
denigrate this bill. I believe that this is a

[[Page H3398]]

very important bill. I understand the comments that were made by my 
colleague from Nevada earlier about why it is important for these two 
towns to get together and have the opportunity to join together and 
perhaps both be part of the great State of Nevada.
  My only point is that as much as that is an important bill, and I 
support it, we need to address the issue of prescription drugs as well. 
I am going to say that it is very upsetting to me and those of us on 
the Democratic side of the aisle that we continue to see these 
suspensions come up, which are really not controversial, but the 
Republican leadership refuses to bring up a prescription drug bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  As stated on p. 706 of the House Rules and Manual, ``On a motion to 
suspend the rules, debate is confined to the object of the motion and 
may not range to the merits of a bill not scheduled for such 
consideration.''
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from the shrinking district from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary for yielding me this time. I am the other side of Wendover. I 
am the Bangladesh side and Mr. Gibbons is the Paris, France side. But I 
have represented that poor side for almost 21 years now or more, and it 
is Tooele County, and it has been a privilege for me to represent the 
good people out there who are very fine citizens and very fine 
Americans.
  The greater Wendover community is divided socially, economically, and 
politically by the location of the Utah-Nevada 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 by this particular area because 
of the unique mix of circumstances. The area is very 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. In just about every category of public services, there is 
an inefficient duplication: Two separate police departments, two 
separate fire departments, duplicate utility systems, separate public 
school systems, separate local court systems, and the list goes on and 
on.
  Finally, there are several recurring problems involving support for 
the Wendover Airport on the Utah side. For as long as I can remember, 
it has been a running joke that one way to correct a lot of these 
problems is just to redraw the State boundary to put Wendover, Utah 
into Nevada. Last year, Wendover, Utah Mayor Steve Perry and some of 
the council members approached Congress about exploring this very 
unique idea.
  The approach of this 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 H.R. 2054 
would do. It is a prospective ratification of an interstate agreement 
between the two affected States which would meet certain criterias 
specified in the text of this bill.
  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 and 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.
  While some people, perhaps many map publishers, may wince at the idea 
of creating a little ``jog'' in this 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 political 
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. This may indeed be one of those times, 
and this bill supports the rights of the local people affected to make 
these important decisions.
  I would really like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for the 
hard work on this legislation and for him taking the time to go to 
Wendover and see firsthand the situation. I would also like to thank my 
chief cosponsor, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who 
represents the Nevada side of the border, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his cooperation; the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for their 
efforts as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this will take care of a problem for a little 
city. It seems that we always worry about the big cities and never 
about the little ones, and maybe this will give us a chance to show a 
very small community that we do care about them.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are here discussing H.R. 2054, a 
bill that relates to the compact between Utah and Nevada regarding a 
change in the boundaries. This is a good bill. It is important to the 
people that live in both States and in the cities of West Wendover and 
Wendover, but this Congress should also be focusing on the high cost of 
prescription drugs and the millions of seniors who need help paying for 
them.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the same point of 
order I made with the previous speaker: The debate does not relate to 
H.R. 2054. The rules are quite plain that in motions to suspend the 
rules it must.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized on 
the point of order.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is equally important to the 
people in Wendover and West Wendover as we are improving their economy 
to also be discussing the very serious situation of a prescription 
medication benefit in Medicare.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  As stated earlier, in the House Rules and manual on page 706, ``On a 
motion to suspend the rules, debate is confined to the object of the 
motion and may not range to the merits of a bill not scheduled for such 
consideration.''
  As such, the point of order is sustained.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, while it makes no sense that Wendover and 
West Wendover should be separated, it also makes no sense in this 
country not to provide a prescription medication benefit within 
Medicare.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to rise in strong support of this legislation. 
I understand the inherent interest of West Wendover and Wendover and 
how important it is for them to be connected. I applaud the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen), as he always does in his first rate and capable 
manner of bringing forward the interests of his constituents here to 
the floor of Congress.
  This is a difficult situation, but not unlike many situations that we 
face in this Nation. In the case of prescription drug relief, for 
example, people in our country feel like they are refugees from their 
own health care system.

                              {time}  1615


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
gentleman's debate is not confined to or relating to H.R. 2054, once 
again.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The gentleman 
will

[[Page H3399]]

confine his remarks to the pending bill before this House.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my point was as much as, just 
as people in between the lines, the current lines that exist in Utah 
and Nevada and between East Wendover and Wendover, find a difficulty 
with what they are presented with, this is analogous to what people are 
up against in this country. Many seniors in my district have to travel 
from Connecticut to Canada to seek prescription drug relief.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I must once again reiterate my point 
of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will insist that the gentleman 
from Connecticut keep his comments on the bill before the House today. 
As the Chair has ruled previously, the gentleman will confine his 
comments to the bill that is presently before the House.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I again would just point out 
that East Wendover is a desolate mining town of only about 1,500 
residents and is largely in debt. Several public hearings have been 
held by the city councils on the east and west to determine whether 
East Wendover should be annexed to West Wendover.
  Opposition to the annexation has emerged primarily from residents and 
business interests in West Wendover concerned with the economic impact 
of acquiring East Wendover's debt.
  Supporters argue that the acquisition of East Wendover's airport, 
which once housed the Enola Gay, would attract more tourists to the 
city's casinos. Although there has been no vocal opposition to the 
annexation based on disagreement with Nevada's more liberal laws, most 
published reports note the large presence of a Mormon population in 
Utah.
  And again these are the problems that the citizens face here. Again, 
I would like to commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for the 
outstanding job that he has done representing his constituents. I only 
hope that other constituents across this country who struggle with 
similar kinds of issues, though they are not specific to these lines, 
but when we cross boundary lines for prescription drugs and turn people 
that otherwise would be able to receive them----
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. It complicates the problem. I thank the 
Chair for his indulgence and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a controversial bill, and despite the fact 
that a number of my colleagues feel strongly that the residents of 
Wendover and West Wendover should be entitled to prescription drug 
benefits, a point, by the way, which I agree with, the bill itself is 
not controversial; and I therefore strongly encourage my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the bill and support the bill.
  I commend the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for bringing it forward. It is nice to know that 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) believes in gerrymandering. I am 
just sorry that he did not bring this early enough to get these people 
out of Utah soon enough that we would not have to have fought with Utah 
about whether these residents were there for this census, and we would 
not be all the way up in the United States Supreme Court arguing with 
Utah about whether they deserve a new congressional district or North 
Carolina deserves a new congressional district.
  But that is kind of far afield, too. They did not get that done in 
time to resolve that dispute, but it is still a good bill. I encourage 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Just to get back on track, Mr. Speaker, let me say that what H.R. 
2054 does is that it says that at the general election in November of 
this year, the residents of Wendover, Utah, and West Wendover, Nevada, 
will vote on a plan of merger, a marriage contract, if you will. If the 
voters in both communities support this procedure, then the next step 
is to have the Utah and Nevada legislatures consider whether or not the 
State lines should be adjusted so that Wendover, Utah, would be put 
into the State of Nevada.
  Nevada has got a provision in its State constitution that delineates 
the boundaries of the State. Should both States approve it, there would 
have to be an amendment proposed by the two sections of the State 
legislature and approved by the voters of the State of Nevada in the 
general election of 2006.
  Should that all happen, then the State boundary would be adjusted, 
because the consent of Congress would be given in advance under these 
procedures through the enactment of H.R. 2054. And should that happen, 
this will be the first time since 1863 that a State boundary was 
changed for a reason other than the fact that the river constituting 
the boundary between two States has changed course.
  In 1863, during the Civil War, as we all know, the Congress admitted 
West Virginia as a State, carving the loyalist counties of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia out of that Commonwealth and establishing them 
as a separate State. So what we are doing here is setting in motion 
something that might not have happened in our country for 140 years.
  So even though this bill is noncontroversial, it is somewhat 
precedent-setting, and it is precedent-setting in that in fact the 
Congress is giving the say to the people of these two communities on 
whether or not they want the State line adjusted. If either of the 
communities says, no way, we do not want to have that, then this whole 
issue is moot and everybody who wants to talk about this issue will 
forever hold their peace.
  With that, I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2054, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________