[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17836-17838]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM BOUNDARY REVISION

  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 138) to revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee 
Coastal Barrier Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 138

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

[[Page 17837]]



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

       (a) In General.--The map subtitled ``GA-06P'', relating to 
     the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System unit 
     designated as Coastal Barrier Resources System Jekyll Island 
     Unit GA-06P, that is included in the set of maps entitled 
     ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and 
     referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), is hereby replaced by another map 
     relating to the unit entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal 
     Barrier Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P'' and 
     dated July 10, 2006.
       (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 the provisions of 
     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 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 138 introduced by 
Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia. This legislation involves Jekyll 
Island, Georgia. This island is owned by the State, managed by the 
Jekyll Island Authority, and it was largely developed long before its 
inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System in 1990. Unlike other 
Otherwise Protected Areas, the property was never held for conservation 
or recreation purposes. The Jekyll Island Authority has limited 
development on the island to 35 percent of the land area and currently 
33 percent is developed.
  Based on the legislative history, it is unclear why these lands were 
ever included in the system, since it does not meet any of the 
fundamental requirements for inclusion.
  Under the terms of this legislation, the 35 percent planned area for 
development would be removed from the system which represents about 
1,300 acres. In return, the State of Georgia has agreed to add 1,157 of 
fastlands and wetlands and other water to the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority has already explained this legislation. I 
would only add that it is our understanding that the State is required, 
under its master plan for Jekyll Island, to limit development to 
preserve as open space no less than 40 percent of the island.
  In light of stringent planning requirements, the corrections provided 
in the new maps adopted by this legislation should help the State 
realize its goals under the master plan without compromising the 
integrity of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
  We on this side of the aisle do not object to the consideration of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
want to thank both the majority Member and the minority Member for 
letting me talk a little bit about Jekyll Island.
  During the course of the bill, we were having an immigrations hearing 
in Cannon, and I came over here as quickly as I could; but I wanted to 
talk somewhat about the bill, which I understand the Resources 
Committee has accepted, and I certainly appreciate that.
  A lot of people have done a lot of hard work on it, but I just wanted 
to say that the importance of this legislation, which is agreed to, 
goes back to the history of Jekyll Island, which is a barrier island 
off the coast of Georgia.
  In 1947, Jekyll was purchased by the State of Georgia. In 1950, the 
State legislature enacted a law that said 65 percent of the island 
would stay in its preserved and natural state and only 35 percent of it 
would be developed. The 35 percent of it was developed in the 1960s and 
1970s, long before the CBRA law about flood insurance and the Coastal 
Barrier Resource Act.
  The State has maintained that 35/65 percent split; and all the 35 
percent is, in fact, built out. Yet, somewhere along the line, it got 
included in the CBRA law, which made it the case that residents could 
no longer get flood care, which was not the point of the law at all.
  We found out about this in 2003, when Walter Alexander, a resident of 
Jekyll Island, had his duplex burned down. He was cleaning up the land 
and preparing to rebuild his structure when he found out he could not 
get Federal flood insurance, and that was because of a quirk that 
happened in 1990. And we have been working on this since 2003 trying to 
get this exemption from the flood insurance law so that the people on 
Jekyll Island could in fact go back to getting flood care the way they 
had it.
  So this has been something we have been working on for a long time. A 
lot of people had been involved in it, and I certainly want to thank 
Chairman Pombo and Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest, and Edith Thompson, 
who is on the staff; and Harry Burroughs, who is the staff director for 
Mr. Gilchrest; and folks like Bill Donahue and Laura Bonds, who are 
with the Jekyll Island Authority back home. Also, Pat Wilson, with the 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and Commissioner Noel Holcomb, 
Becky Kelly and Susan Shipman; and the Fish and Wildlife folks and the 
residents and businesses on Jekyll Island.
  We have all worked on this in a collaborative effort. There has not 
been any opposition on this. Democrats, Republicans, and 
environmentalists. I would say developers, but developers have not been 
at the table since all this has already been developed for now about 30 
or 40 years.
  But I just wanted to say this is a very good day for the folks on 
Jekyll Island, and I thank both of you for allowing me to speak up 
about this issue.
  Before I get into specifics of my bill I want to thank everyone who 
has helped in the lengthy process to bring this bill to the floor.
  Thank you to Chairmen Pombo and Gilchrest and their staff, 
specifically Edith Thompson (Gilchrest) and Harry Burroughs (Staff 
Director for Gilchrest subcommittee but Pombo person). Also Merritt 
Meyers and Rob Asbell from our office.
  Thank you to the Jekyll Island Authority--the relentless work of Bill 
Donahue and Laura Bonds, the Governor's office with assistance from Pat 
Wilson, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Commissioner Noel 
Holcomb, Becky Kelly and Susan Shipman), the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and the residents and businesses on Jekyll Island.
  History: 1947--Jekyll Island purchased by the State from the Jekyll 
Island Club; 1950--Georgia General Assembly enacted a law that assured 
65 percent of the Island would be preserved and protected in its 
natural state and managed for future generations to enjoy while 35 
percent be developed to render the Island as self-supporting.
  The 35 percent of the island that could be developed largely was 
during the 1960s and early 1970s--long before the original CBRA.
  The State, working through state laws has moved to aggressively 
create a balance among development, public access and education and 
conservation long before Jekyll Island was included in the CBRS and 
that balance is now in jeopardy as redevelopment is critical to the 
viability of the Island.
  If anything, Jekyll Island should be the model for the rest of the 
U.S. to use for the coexistence of development and conservation and 
quite honestly the dependence of one on the other.
  I was contacted by Jekyll Island resident, Walter Alexander in 2003 
because his duplex burned down. As Mr. Alexander began cleaning up the 
land and planning for replacing the structure he found out that he 
could not obtain Federal Flood Insurance, the insurance he must have in 
order to get a mortgage--and private flood insurance was prohibitively 
expensive for him.
  He contacted the Jekyll Island Authority and together they began 
researching and found out that Jekyll Island in its entirety was 
included as an Otherwise Protected Area within the CBRS in 1990. The 
situation became even more urgent when he saw that in his original 
lease if he did not rebuild within 2 years he could lose the land.

[[Page 17838]]

  Almost immediately after the fire Mr. Alexander started receiving 
offers to purchase the lot lease from wealthy individuals that could 
build the house without having to take out a mortgage. He turned down 
these offers because he wanted to stay close to his family who all 
lived on the Island.
  Mr. Alexander is a nurse, and does not have a salary that allows him 
to rebuild without a mortgage--he was finally forced to take drastic 
action and borrow money against the equity in his parent's home so he 
could begin construction--this greatly reduces their family security 
during retirement. He is using this money to rebuild a duplex that not 
only meets, but exceeds FEMA regulations for flooding.
  This is but one example of what denying insurance for rebuilding a 
community developed in the 1960s does--this is not what CBRS original 
intent was.
  Arguments: (1) Jekyll Island should not have been included in 1990 on 
the CBRS maps as an OPA because it was ``developed'' long before it was 
included in the system; (2) prior to the inclusion, the Governor and 
the Department of Natural Resources of Georgia objected to the 
inclusion of Jekyll Island in the System; (3) the inclusion of Jekyll 
Island runs counter to congressional intent as OPA's were to include 
only Undeveloped lands held for conservation; and (4) the inclusion of 
Jekyll Island runs counter to State intent as 35 percent of the island 
by Georgia law must be developed, and is necessary to be developed to 
render the Island self-supporting.
  Need for Change: I strongly believe that if the 35 percent of the 
island that is developed is not removed from the CBRS the long term 
integrity of the system will be harmed.
  If the original intent of the Act was to preserve undeveloped coastal 
barrier islands then I think leaving Jekyll Island in, in its entirety 
would set a bad precedence for the CBRS.
  This legislation removes land from the Coastal Barrier Resources 
System, specifically from a unit that should not have been created in 
the first place since it was neither undeveloped nor held for 
conservation purposes.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service supports my bill and the new map 
associated with it that removes 35 percent of Jekyll Island from CBRA.
  Leaving the 35 percent of Jekyll which has long been developed in the 
CBRS would ultimately do two things: (1) the Island would turn into a 
run down shanty town with deteriorating houses and businesses. It would 
lose its allure to tourists across the world and would ultimately 
become a burden to the State since it would no longer be self-
sustaining or (2) it would again become a playground for only the rich 
and famous who could afford the costly Lloyds of London flood insurance 
required to build, maintain, repair and update all structures on the 
island--and that is not fair to the hardworking tax-paying people who 
currently call Jekyll Island home or inexpensive vacation spot.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional 
speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 138, 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.

                          ____________________