[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18166-18167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CLARIFYING BOUNDARIES OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COAST BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 3056) to clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee 
Coast Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25 on Otherwise 
Protected Area P25P, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3056

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

     SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 
                   BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP.

       (a) In General.--Of the 2 maps subtitled ``P25/P25P'' that 
     relate to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
     unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar 
     Keys Unit P25/P25P and are included in the set of maps 
     entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' referred to in 
     section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3503(a)), the map depicting the northernmost area of that 
     unit is hereby replaced by another map relating to that unit 
     entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
     Cedar Keys Unit P25/P25P'' and dated February 9, 2004.
       (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep 
     the replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and 
     available for inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of 
     the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich) and the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. 
Bordallo) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).


                             General Leave

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
speak in favor of H.R. 3056.
  In 1992, Congress made changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System that have effectively protected environmentally sensitive 
communities and have deterred residents from building or buying lands 
that are prone to natural disasters, such as flooding and erosion. 
Under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, also known as COBRA, residents 
may build within the system but if they do, they will not qualify for 
Federal assistance. In order to qualify for Federal assistance, the 
most important being Federal flood insurance, residents must live in an 
excluded area.
  The maps used to depict the Coastal Barrier Resources System were 
created over 10 years ago using the technology that was available at 
that time. Basically they were paper maps with longitude and latitude 
markings and hand-drawn boundaries and land masses. Today we have 
digital technology available to more accurately depict where Congress 
intended the COBRA boundaries to actually lie. Unfortunately, this new 
technology has found a number of incorrect determinations. Areas that 
were meant to be excluded from the system were inadvertently included 
in the act.
  Three such cases exist in my district in Cedar Key. Prior to 
purchasing their properties, all three families were told by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service that the areas were in the ``excluded area.'' 
The families purchased their properties, paid the premiums for the 
flood insurance required by the mortgage lender, but then last year 
they were told by the Fish and Wildlife Service that an error had been 
made and that in fact they were within the Coastal Barrier Resource 
System. Thus, they do not qualify for Federal flood insurance.
  Can any of us imagine the anguish and heartache that they are feeling 
today? They paid premiums for flood insurance for years, only to be hit 
by back-to-back hurricanes Charley and Frances, and possibly the 
impending Ivan, and then they are told that because of an incorrect 
determination they have no coverage. We still do not know how many 
billions of dollars these disasters are going to cost the residents of 
the State of Florida. The assistance residents may receive from FEMA 
will only cover a fraction of the cost of damages in my area of Cedar 
Key. Moreover, flood insurance is virtually unavailable in the private 
market and can cost six times that of a federally insured flood policy. 
What is even worse is one of these families was in the process of 
selling their home last year and upon receiving the new determination 
from Fish and Wildlife, their home depreciated actually on the real 
estate market by over 50 percent.
  My bill clarifies the boundaries of Unit P25 and the Otherwise 
Protected Area P25P of the Coastal Barrier Resources System where my 
constituents live. This bill uses digital technology to redraw the 
boundaries to better reflect the intent of Congress in 1992 and it 
excludes those families from the system. H.R. 3056 does not seek to add 
any areas to the excluded portion of the system. It merely clarifies 
the mistakes the outdated technology made in these instances. I believe 
it is imperative that our citizens receive the assistance that they are 
entitled to receive. It is imperative that Congress correct the flaws 
in this good law to ensure that more residents in the area are not 
adversely affected.
  I would certainly like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo), the chairman, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), 
the subcommittee chairman, for all their assistance with this bill. I 
urge the Members' favorable support of the bill.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 18167]]


  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the brief summary of the bill provided by 
the previous speaker. As noted, H.R. 3056 is noncontroversial 
legislation to correct a legitimate mapping error for a John H. Chafee 
Coastal Barrier Resource System unit in the State of Florida.

                              {time}  1645

  Recent hurricanes in Florida have dramatically shown that building on 
low-lying coastal barriers is inherently risky and costly both in lives 
and property. I might add, Madam Speaker, that if anyone is familiar 
with coastal areas and storms and the damage that occurs after such a 
storm, it would be a resident from Guam, where we have had three major 
typhoons in a year and a half.
  Upholding the integrity of the Coastal Barrier Resources System is 
essential if we hope to protect the Federal taxpayer from the folly of 
subsidizing future foolhardy private development along these 
undeveloped high-risk areas.
  I commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), chairman of 
the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the subcommittee's ranking 
Democrat member, for their diligent evaluation to ensure that the new 
maps adopted through the legislation are accurate and consistent 
entirely with the purposes of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. I urge 
Members to support this noncontroversial legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Blackburn). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3056, 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.

                          ____________________