Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-648




  June 6, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4435]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 4435) to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating 
to Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 4435 is to clarify certain boundaries 
on the map relating to Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources System.


    Coastal barriers are landscape features that protect 
sensitive areas from the full force of wind, wave and tidal 
energy. The Coastal Barrier Resources System consists of 
undeveloped coastal barrier units delineated on maps adopted by 
Congress. The System was created by the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA, Public Law 97-348) and greatly 
expanded by the CBRA amendments adopted in the Coastal Barrier 
Improvement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-591). The 1990 
amendments added, among other areas, ``otherwise protected 
areas'' to the System. These are areas which are already 
protected under federal, State or local law, or held for 
conservation purposes. Land included in the System is not 
acquired by the government, and CBRA does not prevent or 
regulate development on private lands. CBRA does prohibit the 
use of federal development assistance, including federal flood 
insurance, on property included in the System. Since 1990, 
Congress has enacted legislation on several occasions to amend 
the boundaries of System units. See Public Law 106-128; Public 
Law 106-116; Public Law 105-277 (Section 101(e)); Public Law 
104-333 (Section 220); Public Law 104-265 (Section 201); Public 
Law 104-148; Public Law 103-461; Public Law 102-440 (Section 
303); and Public Law 101-591 (Section 4).
    Coastal barrier unit NC-01P was included in the System as 
an ``otherwise protected area'' in 1990. The underlying 
conservation area that was supposed to constitute the otherwise 
protected area was a wildlife sanctuary owned by the National 
Audubon Society. Unfortunately, a significant amount of 
privately and publicly owned developed property was 
inadvertently, and incorrectly, included within the boundary of 
the otherwise protected area. In 1992, Congress directed the 
Secretary of the Interior to redraw the boundary of the unit to 
consist of the area ``owned by the National Audubon Society, 
along with the associated aquatic habitat of Pine Island Bay 
and Goat Island Bay.'' At the request of the Audubon Society, 
the otherwise protected area designation was dropped and the 
unit became NC-01. A new map was prepared. That map, however, 
also failed to accurately portray the boundary of the wildlife 
sanctuary, and again included privately owned developed 
property. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the 
System, recently discovered this error, and supports the 
proposed correction. The correction embodied in H.R. 4435 
removes the incorrectly labeled private property, and adds 
associated aquatic habitat that was left out of the unit in 
1992. This change leads to a net increase of 2,326 acres in the 

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 4435 was introduced on May 11, 2000, by Congressman 
Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On 
May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing which discussed 
boundary corrections to NC-01. The Administration testified in 
support of the corrections. On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee 
met to mark up the bill. There were no amendments and the bill 
was ordered favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice 
vote. On May 24, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met to 
consider the bill. There were no amendments and the bill was 
ordered favorably reported by voice vote to the House of 


    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.


    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.


    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax 
expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
enactment of this bill would increase offsetting collections 
from flood insurance premiums by less than $50,000 per year. 
These collections would be partially offset by spending for 
administrative and underwriting expenses.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of 
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, June 5, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4435, a bill to 
clarify boundaries on the map relating to Unit NC01 of the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

H.R. 4435--A bill to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating to 
        Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4435 would result in no 
significant cost to the federal government. Because the bill 
could affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would 
apply, but we expect that net charges in direct spending would 
be negligible. H.R. 4435 contains no intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
    H.R. 4435 would correct a map of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources System in North Carolina. The proposed correction 
would revise the boundaries of Unit NC01 to include 2,330 acres 
of aquatic habitat and exclude about 4 acres of developed land. 
This change would enable local property owners occupying the 
excluded acreage to obtain federal flood insurance. Once 
insurance policies have been written on the affected 
properties, offsetting collections from premiums paid into the 
national flood insurance fund would increase by less than 
$50,000 per year. Collections would be partially offset by new 
mandatory spending for underwriting and administrative 
expenses. The federal government might also incur additional 
costs for losses associated with any future floods that might 
affect this land, but CBO has no basis for predicting such 
floods or their resulting costs.
    The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was 
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                    compliance with public law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                preemption of state, local or tribal law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        changes in existing law

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing