To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Sachuest Point Unit RI-04P, Easton Beach Unit RI-05P, Almy Pond Unit RI-06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI-07 in Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3572, which includes a provision I introduced as H.R. 277, to revise the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System units in Rhode Island. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for working with me to bring this important fix to the floor today.

I want to extend a personal thank you to Chairman Hastings for his ongoing cooperation in helping to advance legislation to make the Blackstone River Valley, the birthplace of America's industrial revolution, a national park.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the culmination of several years of evaluation, research, study, public input, and review regarding the existing map of the Coastal Barrier Resources System in my State.

All four units in Rhode Island that would be replaced with a modernized, revised map under this legislation were included within the CBRS, according to the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. It has been discovered that various private lands were inappropriately included in otherwise protected areas within the CBRS and that there were other technical inaccuracies.

The proposed revisions in my bill were approved by local cities and towns and other stakeholders, including the Norman Bird Sanctuary and the Audubon Society, who would be impacted; furthermore, including identified wetland and upland areas of both Almy Pond and Lily Pond is essential for protecting local habitat.

Importantly, the revisions would also remove eight privately-owned structures that were inappropriately included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

The changes in this bill will positively impact my district and my constituents, particularly the ones whose private property was inadvertently included in the original map. The passage of this legislation will also benefit the surrounding communities that have long anticipated a more coherent, comprehensive system that protects critical aquatic habitat and coastal lands while protecting access to areas used for recreational purposes.

I want to highlight the case of one constituent in particular. Philip Howell cannot obtain Federal flood insurance for his property that was incorrectly included in the CBRA map. As a result, his coastal property has gone without flood insurance during serious weather events like Superstorm Sandy.

An inability to purchase flood insurance has also caused Mr. Howell to take on serious financial risks related to damages that he would potentially be unable to cover out of his own pocket; moreover, without flood insurance coverage, he has found it difficult to purchase regular homeowner's insurance from competing brokers at affordable rates.

While Mr. Howell and most of my constituents support the intent of the Coastal Barrier Resources System to protect neighboring habitat and recreation, they also have been overly burdened by innocent mapping mistakes that were made more than two decades ago.

As such, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3572 to ensure that coastal barrier mapping irregularities are rectified and the system works as it was intended.

I, again, thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio for their assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3572) to revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units in North Carolina, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and, 8 years later, significantly expanded the number of acres contained within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

The fundamental goal of this law was to discourage development along fragile and shifting coastal barriers by prohibiting participation within the National Flood Insurance Program and to deny certain Federal development subsidies.

To qualify for inclusion within the system, coastal land had to be undeveloped or conserved as part of a national wildlife refuge, Federal or State park, a national seashore, a military installation, or conservation land owned by private organizations.

Inclusion in the system is through maps which historically were hand- drawn by individuals who used Magic Markers to distinguish property lines--really, Magic Markers. As you might expect, mistakes were made, and Congress has corrected those errors by providing legislative relief to homeowners whose property was mistakenly incorporated within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

What we have before us today is a bill that corrects mistakes in certain coastal barrier units in Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. This affects both Republican and Democrat districts.

In total, the legislation affects maps in 10 of the 857 units of the system. Upon enactment, 156 acres of the 3.1 million acres would be removed from the system; however, because digital technology is now being used, 4,737 new qualifying acres will be added to the system for a net gain of 4,580 acres.

Each of these changes have been exhaustively reviewed. There is no dispute that these lands were mistakenly included within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, there are no objections to correcting these mistakes, and the Congressional Budget Office has in each case stipulated that ``enacting the bill would not affect revenues.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bipartisan noncontroversial collection of changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and I compliment the sponsors for their work on the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, requires the identification of hazardous areas on the Atlantic and gulf coasts and makes Federal subsidies off-limits to people who choose to develop those lands. Particularly in this time of rising sea levels and increased storm surge brought on by global warming, CBRA is critical to helping protect American taxpayers and sensitive coastal ecosystems.

H.R. 3572 would adjust the boundaries of several Coastal Barrier Resources System units in North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Florida. I am particularly pleased that long overdue remedies for the constituents of my friends, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), are included in this package.

These changes have been carefully mapped by the Fish and Wildlife Service and reflect improvements in technology that have allowed us to show with great accuracy which parcels of land do and do not constitute ``coastal barrier resources'' under the law.

As a result, numerous properties that were originally included by mistake will be removed, and other properties that have been identified as at-risk will be included. These changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System are protective of private property rights, the environment, and the taxpayers. I support passage of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.