[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8416-H8420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1431) to reauthorize and amend the Coastal Barrier Resources 
Act, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1431

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Coastal Barrier Resources 
     Reauthorization Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM.

       (a) Voluntary Additions.--Section 4 of the Coastal Barrier 
     Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) Voluntary Additions to System.--The Secretary may add 
     any parcel of real property to the System, if--
       ``(1) the owner of the parcel requests that the Secretary 
     add the parcel to the System; and
       ``(2) the parcel is a depositional geologic feature 
     described in section 3(1)(A).''.
       (b) Technical Amendments Relating to Additions of Excess 
     Property.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4(d) of the Coastal Barrier 
     Improvement Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3503 note)--
       (A) is redesignated and moved so as to appear as subsection 
     (e) of section 4 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3503); and
       (B) is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``one hundred and eighty'' 
     and inserting ``180'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2) by striking ``subsection (d)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (iii) by striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 4(f) of the Coastal 
     Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3503 note) is 
     repealed.
       (c) Notice Regarding Additions to System.--Section 4 of the 
     Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Notice Regarding Additions to System.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) publish in the Federal Register a notice of any 
     addition of property to the System under this section, 
     including notice of the availability of a map showing the 
     location of the property;
       ``(2) provide a copy of that map to the State and local 
     government in which the property is located and the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives; and
       ``(3) revise the maps referred to in subsection (a) to 
     reflect the addition of the property to the System.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 4 of 
     the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``, which shall consist of'' and all that 
     follows through the end of that subsection and inserting the 
     following: ``, that--
       ``(1) shall consist of those undeveloped coastal barriers 
     and other areas located on the coasts of the United States 
     that are identified and generally depicted on the set of maps 
     on file with the Secretary entitled `Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System', dated October 24, 1990, as such maps may 
     be modified, revised, corrected, or replaced under subsection 
     (c), (d), or (e) of this section, or any other provision of 
     law enacted on or after November 16, 1990, that specifically 
     authorizes the modification, revision, correction, or 
     replacement; and
       ``(2) includes areas added to the System in accordance with 
     subsections (d) or (e).''.

     SEC. 3. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Coastal Barrier Resources Act.--The Coastal Barrier 
     Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3(3) (16 U.S.C. 3502(3)), in the matter 
     following subparagraph (D), by striking ``Effective October 
     1, 1983, such'' and inserting ``Such''; and
       (2) by repealing section 10 (16 U.S.C. 3509).
       (b) Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990.--Section 8 of 
     the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3503 
     note) is repealed.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 12 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3510) is redesignated as section 10 and amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     to carry out this Act $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.''.

     SEC. 5. DIGITAL MAPPING PILOT PROJECT.

       (a) Requirement to Undertake Project.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, shall undertake a pilot project to 
     determine the feasibility and cost of creating digital 
     versions of the Coastal Barrier Resources System maps 
     referred to in section 4(a)(1) of the Coastal Barrier 
     Resources Act, as amended by this Act. The pilot project 
     shall include the creation of digital maps for at least 5 
     units of the System.
       (2) Use of existing data.--(A) To the extent practicable, 
     in completing the pilot project under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall use existing digital spatial data including 
     digital orthophotos; shoreline, elevation, and bathymetric 
     data; and electronic navigational charts in the possession of 
     other Federal agencies, including the United States 
     Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       (B) The head of any Federal agency that possesses digital 
     spatial data referred to in subparagraph (A) shall promptly 
     provide that data to the Secretary at no cost upon request by 
     the Secretary.
       (3) Obtaining additional data.--If the Secretary determines 
     that data necessary to complete the pilot project under this 
     subsection does not exist, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Director of the United States Geological 
     Survey under which the Director shall obtain, in cooperation 
     with other Federal agencies, as appropriate, and provide to 
     the Secretary any digital spatial data required to carry out 
     this subsection.
       (4) Data standards.--All digital spatial data used or 
     created to carry out this subsection shall comply with the 
     National Spatial Data Infrastructure established by Executive 
     Order 12906 and any other standards established by the 
     Federal Geographic Data Committee established by the Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular A-16.
       (5) Digital maps not controlling.--Any determination of 
     whether a location is inside or outside of the System shall 
     be made without regard to the digital maps prepared under 
     this subsection.
       (6) Report.--(A) Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives that describes the results of the pilot 
     project and the feasibility, data needs, and costs of 
     completing digital maps for the entire System.
       (B) The report shall include a description of--
       (i) the cooperative agreements entered into by the 
     Secretary with other Federal agencies to complete the pilot 
     project and cooperative agreements needed to complete digital 
     mapping of the entire System;
       (ii) the availability of existing data to complete digital 
     mapping of the entire System;
       (iii) the need for additional data to complete digital 
     mapping of the entire System; and
       (iv) the funding needed to complete digital mapping of the 
     entire System.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior $500,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out 
     the pilot project required under this section.

     SEC. 6. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS RELATING TO UNIT P19-P.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, 
     before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, make such corrections to the map 
     described in subsection (b) as are necessary to ensure that 
     depictions of areas on that map are consistent with the 
     depictions of areas appearing on the map relating to unit 
     P19-P entitled ``Amendment to the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     System'' and dated September 16, 1998.
       (b) Map Described.--The map described in this subsection is 
     the map that--
       (1) is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier 
     Resources System'', dated November 2, 1994; and

[[Page H8417]]

       (2) relates to unit P19-P of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     System.

     SEC. 7. REPLACEMENT OF MAPS RELATING TO UNITS NC-03P AND L03.

       (a) In General.--The 7 maps included in the set of maps 
     entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and referred to 
     in section 4(a)(1) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as 
     amended by this Act, relating to the portions of Coastal 
     Barrier Resources System units NC-03P and L03 located in Dare 
     County, North Carolina, are hereby replaced by other maps 
     relating to that unit that are entitled ``DARE COUNTY, NORTH 
     CAROLINA, Coastal Barrier Resources System, Cape Hatteras 
     Unit NC-03P'' or ``DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Coastal 
     Barrier Resources System, Cape Hatteras Unit NC-03P, Hatteras 
     Island Unit L03'' and dated July 1, 1999.
       (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep 
     the maps referred to in subsection (a) on file and available 
     for inspection in accordance with the provisions of section 
     4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3503(b)).

     SEC. 8. CORRECTIONS TO MAP RELATING TO UNIT DE-03P.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make such corrections to the map described in subsection (b) 
     as are necessary to move on that map the boundary of the 
     otherwise protected area (as defined in section 12 of the 
     Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3503 note; 
     Public Law 101-591)) to the Cape Henlopen State Park boundary 
     to the extent necessary--
       (1) to exclude from the otherwise protected area the 
     adjacent property leased, as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act, by the Barcroft Company and Cape Shores Associates 
     (which are privately held corporations under the law of the 
     State of Delaware); and
       (2) to include in the otherwise protected area the 
     northwestern corner of Cape Henlopen State Park seaward of 
     the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal.
       (b) Map Described.--The map described in this subsection is 
     the map that is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal 
     Barrier Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990, as 
     revised October 15, 1992, and that relates to the unit of the 
     Coastal Barrier Resources System entitled ``Cape Henlopen 
     Unit DE-03P''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, Congress approved the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act in 1982 to protect certain coastal areas by establishing 
a system of barrier units that are precluded from receiving Federal 
development assistance.
  I introduced H.R. 1431 to reauthorize and improve the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act. The system is administered by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service. Maps depicting the various units are adopted by Congress and 
any changes to the boundary systems units require legislative action.
  The system was greatly expanded in the Coastal Barrier Improvement 
Act of 1990 and now includes 585 system units and 274 otherwise 
protected areas, covering nearly 1.3 million acres and 1,200 shoreline 
miles around the Great Lakes, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  The Coastal Barrier Resources System is unique because it does not 
regulate or restrict the use of private lands in these coastal barrier 
areas. Instead, lands within the system are simply not eligible to 
receive Federal development assistance, including Federal flood 
insurance. H.R. 1431 would reauthorize the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System for 5 years, and it is supported by the administration. I am 
aware there is one minor outstanding issue regarding how to depict the 
boundary of the unit known as L03, and I would like to assure my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I remain committed to 
making these maps as accurate as possible. This minor discrepancy, 
however, should not hold up the passage of this legislation today; and 
we will continue to work with the minority to resolve this one issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that H.R. 1431 addresses the needs of the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System; and I strongly urge passage of this 
important environmental legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey Mr. (Saxton) again, the chairman of Subcommittee on 
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for yielding. Let me say 
from the start, Mr. Speaker, that I very much appreciate the 
cooperation of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and his staff 
for working with the minority in shaping this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the minor changes that have been made in 
the bill since it was reported by the Committee on Resources. Certainly 
the bill falls short of what I think could be done to strengthen and 
protect the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Nonetheless, I believe we 
have effectively eliminated the most problematic provisions to arrive 
at a fair consensus, and I urge Members of this body to support the 
bill.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation would reauthorize the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act.
  When Congress passed the Coastal Barriers Act in 1982, it declared 
that the purpose of the act was to, and I quote, ``minimize loss of 
life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and the damage to fish, 
wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal barriers 
by restricting future Federal expenditures and financial assistance 
which have the effect of encouraging development of coastal barriers.''
  Mr. Speaker, this innovative policy has made good sense since 1982, 
and it continues to make good sense even today. Hurricane Floyd, as we 
have recently seen, again demonstrates the wisdom and benefits of 
discouraging development in some of the most dangerous, hazard-prone 
coastal areas of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, most importantly, this legislation will begin the long 
overdue process of modernizing Coastal Barrier Resource System maps. 
Section 5 of this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct a pilot study to determine the feasibility and costs of 
creating a digitized series of Coastal Barrier maps. Current maps were 
prepared in the 1980s by using primarily color infrared aerial 
photography and U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle sheets. Hand-rendered 
delineations of coastal barriers were drawn upon these sheets in order 
to produce the inventory of coastal barrier maps.
  However, Mr. Speaker, major technological advancements such as the 
new digital spatial data, global positioning systems, computerized 
geographic information systems, and the new cartographic and survey 
methods make far greater detail and accuracy now possible. It is 
essential for the Fish and Wildlife Service to investigate how these 
new information systems and mapping technologies might enhance the 
accuracy, usability and transferability of existing coastal barrier 
maps. We will be looking for the Fish and Wildlife Service to expedite 
completion of this pilot study as soon as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I am, however, disappointed that we were not able to 
consider more creative ways to increase the amount of undeveloped 
coastal barriers in the system, and I suspect that the Congress will 
have to revisit this matter at a later time. This legislation does 
authorize the voluntary donation of private property for inclusion in 
the system. However, it remains doubtful that any significant tracts of 
additional private land will be forthcoming in the absence of any new 
inducements to encourage donations. Nevertheless, we encourage the Fish 
and Wildlife Service to pursue aggressively opportunities for donations 
should they become available.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also compelled to express my sense of concern with 
the inability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to complete and submit 
to the Congress a study of undeveloped coastal barriers along the 
Pacific coast. The Secretary of the Interior was directed in 1990 under 
section 6 of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act to prepare and submit 
a study ``which examines the need for protecting undeveloped coastal 
barriers along the Pacific Coast south of 49 degrees north latitude 
through inclusion in the System.''

[[Page H8418]]

  The Secretary of the Interior was also directed to ``prepare maps 
identifying the boundaries of those undeveloped coastal barriers of the 
United States bordering the Pacific Ocean south of 49 degrees north 
latitude.'' All deliverables were to be provided to the Congress not 
later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the 1990 law.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to 
provide Congress with either a final report, or the maps. This 8-year 
delay is plainly unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. I am greatly concerned that 
the pace and growth of the new developments along the Pacific Coast may 
have significantly reduced the number of coastal areas that meet the 
section 31 definition of ``undeveloped coastal barrier.'' I urge the 
Fish and Wildlife Service to complete this directive as soon as 
possible.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not restate the 
minority's long-standing concern with the majority's decision to 
include three other separate technical correction bills as section 6, 
7, and 8 in this reauthorization bill. These provisions would change 
existing boundaries for three different otherwise protected areas in 
Florida, North Carolina, and Delaware.
  Bills of this type are complicated, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, they are 
not technical corrections in the traditional sense. All of the proposed 
boundary changes tacked on to this bill deserve close inspection prior 
to congressional approval. I do appreciate the patience and willingness 
of the chairman to work with me and the staff on our side to ensure 
that these proposed changes are given appropriate scrutiny. Yet, even 
today, we are still awaiting additional information from the Fish and 
Wildlife Service concerning the boundaries of a coastal barrier unit 
adjacent to the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the chairman that we will 
continue to work in good faith to resolve issues concerning this final 
boundary. Consequently, we have agreed to move forward with this 
reauthorization bill at this time. However, should this boundary issue 
not be resolved to our satisfaction, we do reserve our right to 
reconsider support of this legislation in conference should the Senate 
successfully pass a companion bill. I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that we 
will find an amicable agreement in this case, but it will remain our 
preference that all boundary changes be addressed in separate 
legislation to avoid such circumstances in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
will not take long, but just for the Record, I would like to say two 
things. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from American Samoa 
(Mr. Faleomavaega) for his fine and great cooperation in working out 
what some have seen as difficulties to this bill, and I think that with 
the one exception that I noted in my opening statement, those difficult 
issues have been worked out.
  I would just like to say secondly for the Record that wanting to make 
sure that we do this on as bipartisan a basis as possible, we 
endeavored to obtain the support of the United States Department of the 
Interior and were successful in doing that. Just for the record, I have 
a letter here from the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and 
Parks, Donald Barry, and he was kind enough to answer questions that we 
posed to him in our letter to him.
  For example, for the Record we asked, where this map makes changes to 
the boundaries of the existing OPA, do those changes conform to the 
boundary of P-19P, to the boundary of the Cayo Costa State Park. This 
is an important question, because the underlying law required that 
wherever possible, these boundaries conform to State park boundaries; 
and his answer is, yes, the new boundary, that is the change in the 
boundary that is included in this bill, follows the boundary of the 
Cayo Costa State Park. We asked him, does the Department support the 
changes made by the map? And the answer is yes, the Department supports 
the changes to P-19P.
  So I will not take the time to go through the other areas of 
agreement, but the Secretary has indicated broad agreement. Finally, he 
noted in answer to a question, How many acres are removed from the 
coastal barrier system, how many are added, what is the net acreage 
change that results from these boundary changes through the amendments, 
and his answer, and I will read it in its entirety, ``The changes to 
the three OPAs, North Captiva, Cape Hatteras, and Cape Henlopen, will 
remove 272 acres from the coastal barrier resources system. The number 
of acres added, 3,390, and the net change as a result of these 
amendments is in addition to 3,118 acres to the system.''
  So I wanted to make sure that was on the record, Mr. Speaker, because 
I would not want any misunderstanding in this room or among Members of 
the public that we are removing or in some way denigrating or taking 
actions that would denigrate the system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I identify with many of the comments the gentleman made in his 
initial comments. However, I have some reluctance in having us come 
forward with this proposal today. The backdrop of the hurricane that is 
taking place, the devastation that is going up and down the East Coast, 
and we are taking a critical piece of legislation, the coastal barrier 
resources system, where we should be looking at ways to strengthen the 
legislation. We should be looking at areas to add land that are 
protected, and instead, we revisiting it again on a piecemeal basis, 
adding additional land, in some cases in dispute. I am sorry, it may be 
that it is flooded and we cannot find where it is. I find a great deal 
of irony that we would be having this today, not even being able to 
know what it is precisely that we are talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of environmental legislation that came 
forward in the Reagan administration. It was focused on making sure 
that the federal taxpayer was not subsidizing inappropriate 
development. I am one that feels that it is entirely appropriate for 
government on the State, federal, and local level to perhaps exercise a 
little more discretion about where we do permit and encourage 
development. But at a minimum, the federal taxpayer ought not to be in 
a position of subsidizing development that is environmentally not 
sound.
  We are whittling away, bit by bit, pulling land out of this. We do 
not have clear and convincing criteria to guide what is going on. It 
seems to me that this is again wildly inappropriate, given the backdrop 
of what is going on to serve as a reason for why we should insist that 
this be done properly. We ought not to have a series of confusing 
directives from the Fish and Wildlife Service, something that is 
submitted to potential political manipulated. We should be 
strengthening this system today, adding integrity to the decisionmaking 
process, by having Congress codify the development criteria into law, 
once and for all. And we ought to be very clear that we know exactly 
what we are voting on, especially when this is coming forward on a 
suspension calendar.
  With all due respect, I do not feel comfortable moving forward like 
this. I feel very strongly that it is time to be evaluating the West 
Coast lands for inclusion. It has been trapped in limbo now for years. 
We should be as a Congress moving forward with the administration to 
make sure that we are not having inappropriate federal subsidies for 
development on the West Coast lands, along with other remaining 
undeveloped coastal barriers among the East, the Gulf and the Great 
Lakes region.
  Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating for me when I think Congress has a 
role to be a good partner with the private sector, with State and local 
governments, to make sure that we are promoting sound environmental 
developments and livable communities. I am frustrated that the Federal 
Government is aiding and abetting some of the disaster that we are 
seeing right now in the Carolinas because we have not had a thoughtful 
approach frankly to our flood insurance; and we give money to people 
who are repeatedly flooded out of areas and they move back in. This is 
another example of where we are not taking advantage of a comprehensive 
approach.

[[Page H8419]]

  With all due respect, I would urge that this legislation not move 
forward today, that we come forward with a comprehensive approach to 
the system, that we deal with the West Coast that is in limbo, and for 
heaven's sakes, we do not come forward with areas to withdraw 
additional land when we do not know what we are talking about and we 
are hoping that something is going to be taken care of in a never, 
never land in a conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of the proposal before us 
today.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise with concerns on this bill. It is obviously a very smart idea. 
Congress decided to set aside resources along the coastal areas, the 
barriers and said look, it does not make any sense for us to put a lot 
of federal aid in there like flood insurance for the private developers 
to go in and develop and then come back and ask that the risk for 
development in these highly sensitive areas should be borne by the 
general taxpayer.

                              {time}  1530

  So we set aside these resources, and we asked the Department of the 
Interior to draw the maps for us, and those maps yet have not been 
completed. At the same time, people who have developed, because one can 
develop in the barrier areas privately, but with that private 
development they also have private risk, not federally-supported risk. 
So people are coming in and saying, we are developed now. Now we want 
to back out of the barrier area because we want this Federal flood 
insurance and coastal protection kinds of issues, where Federal money 
comes in.
  We ought to stick to our guns of the original intention, that there 
are sensitive areas on the coast of the United States of America, 
including Alaska, that should not be developed. We ought not to give 
resources to encourage development along those zones. The Act does not 
buy the land, it says people can put their land in voluntarily.
  The problem is, when we get to dealing with it, really they have been 
short on anything on the Pacific coast, where the majority of the 
population lives. So in 1990, the Secretary of the Interior directed 
Congress to map the boundaries of undeveloped coastal areas along the 
Pacific coast south of 49 degrees latitude, and to examine the need for 
protecting these areas. Yet, 9 years later we do not even have the 
final maps.
  So this bill is well-intentioned and has been brought to the floor 
for good reasons, but it certainly raises a lot of concerns that 
Members are hearing from us today. I just commend the chairman of the 
committee because he is in a tough position. I appreciate the politics 
that he has had and that he has been able to bring these coastal zone 
bills to the floor. I hope the rest of them can come, as well.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say basically, in response to my good friends, 
the gentlemen from Oregon and California, with regard to their concerns 
on this legislation, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Saxton), our chairman, that we have worked very, very closely in 
trying to alleviate some of the problems and concerns that the Members 
have addressed earlier.
  I think the situation for us to bear in mind is that we have to start 
somewhere. The fact is that 10 years ago, the technology and getting 
the proper mappings, maybe it needs putting a little stronger wording 
in the language of the legislation to get the Fish and Wildlife Service 
to be responsive to the concerns that we have here in the Congress.
  I think as a whole the legislation should move forward. I think at 
the proper time in conference if the concerns are still not addressed, 
certainly the chairman is very sensitive to this issue, and I, for one, 
would certainly like to see that legislation pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just try to answer some questions that were 
raised, or at least respond to them.
  Subsequent to the original legislation which passed in 1982, the 
Department of the Interior was charged with the responsibility that can 
generally be described as mapping, and to set aside areas to be 
included in the system.
  As one might expect, because the people who were doing the mapping 
were human beings, there was perhaps less precision with the original 
mapping than there might have been.
  Frankly, all this bill does as far as this part of the activity is 
concerned, or as far as this part of the language in the bill is 
concerned, is to try to correct some mistakes that were made subsequent 
to the 1982 bill, during the mapping process. In making those 
corrections, we were actually adding over 3,000 acres to the system, 
not removing. We are adding over 3,000 acres to the system, while 
removing only approximately 270 that were included as an error.
  So I share with my friends the desire to strengthen the system, but a 
system that has incorrect lines in it, incorrect areas included and 
areas that have not been included that should have been included, is 
not a system with a lot of integrity. So I thank the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for understanding this, and for 
agreeing to and having demonstrated the ability to work with me and our 
staffs together and with the Department of the Interior to make these 
corrections. So again, I want to emphasize how important I think this 
is.
  Mr. Speaker, some of us spend a lot of time around the water, some of 
us spend a lot of time on the water. Some of us have for years and 
years been distressed by the high rate of development in coastal areas.
  We are currently attempting to reauthorize the Coastal Zone 
Management Act, and that act is intended to, among other things, 
protect, enhance coastal areas, and in almost every instance, by 
slowing down growth.
  I can remember 35 years ago sailing, and all Members who are here 
know that Barnegat Bay is in my district, I can remember many years ago 
beginning at the top of Barnegat Bay, the north end, and sailing south, 
and looking to my right and left and seeing a few houses dotting the 
skyline here and there, but by and large a lot of greenery. That was 35 
years ago. I would love to take Members on the same trip today and let 
them look to the right and left and see the houses and the commercial 
establishments and the restaurants.
  Certainly this bill and the provisions in it and the history of it 
have been a very important part of protecting those open space areas, 
wetlands, and other types of habitat that are so important to coastal 
areas. So while we are trying to carry out our very important 
objectives, while we are trying to put in place Federal, State and 
local policy that makes sense in terms of protecting the environmental 
integrity of these areas, where inconsistencies and mistakes are found, 
they need to be corrected. Those corrections are what have caused the 
concern on the part of some of the previous speakers.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I do want to commend my good friends, the gentlemen from Oregon and 
from California, for giving their expressions of concern to the 
legislation, especially coming from Pacific coastal States like Oregon 
and California.
  But I want to assure my good friends that the ranking member of our 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), is very 
conscious and very understanding of the situation, and Members will 
note also that the committee report points out those very concerns that 
we have.
  But at the same time, I want to say to my friends from Oregon and 
California that our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) nevertheless would like to see this legislation move forward, 
and that at an appropriate time, if things still are not being able to 
be worked out, both with the majority as well as with the 
administration, then of course we will not have the legislation.

[[Page H8420]]

  But I think the most difficult situation for us to consider now is 
that we have to start somewhere. If, rather, the option is that we kill 
this bill, then we might not have any legislation at all. I think that 
would be a terrible situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully ask my colleagues to 
support this bill, given the reservations expressed in the committee 
report. It does have the support of the ranking member, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller), and other members of this committee. I 
would like to urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1431 reauthorizes the Coastal 
Barrier Resources Act for five years and corrects mapping errors in 
three units of the System.
  The Coastal Barrier Resources System prohibits Federal development 
assistance on undeveloped coastal barriers and it is a sound natural 
resource management policy. The Act does not prohibit private 
development on private lands. However, it requires the landowner, not 
the Federal Government, to shoulder the burden of cost and assume the 
risks when developing dynamic barrier islands.
  Regrettably, the Federal Government has been known to make mistakes 
from time to time. This is the case with the System units that are 
addressed in H.R. 1431. Three otherwise protected areas--one in 
Florida, one in Delaware, and one in North Carolina--were mapped 
incorrectly when these units were created in 1990. At the time these 
otherwise protected areas were delineated, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service incorrectly included private lands that were not held for 
conservation purposes into the otherwise protected areas, in direct 
contradiction to the intent of the Act. This mistake effectively cut 
off Federal flood insurance for many existing homes. Similarly, the 
1990 maps did not include all of the public lands that should have been 
included in the otherwise protected areas. H.R. 1431 makes changes to 
the maps to reflect the true boundaries of the underlying conservation 
areas, and it results in a net addition of more than 2,000 acres for 
the System.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will correct 
mapping errors that have adversely affected several private landowners 
for nearly a decade.
  H.R. 1431 is a good bill and I urge an aye vote.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1431, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________