PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · May 16, 2002
Gives the consent of Congress to Utah and Nevada entering into an agreement or compact to change such States' boundaries so that the lands located within the city of Wendover, Utah, including the municipal airport, will be located within Nevada, if such agreement: (1) is consented to by the State's legislatures as evidenced through Acts enacted by December 31, 2006; (2) is not in conflict with any Federal law; (3) does not change any other State's boundary; (4) does not result in the transfer to Nevada of more than a total of 10,000 acres of lands that are located within Utah; and (5) is consented to by a majority of the registered qualified electors who cast a vote on the agreement 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.
People & committees
Rep. Hansen, James V. [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3395-3396)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3395-3396)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2054.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3395-3399)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 280.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-469.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-469.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2054 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2054 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2054 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2054 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.