Mark DeSaulnier

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on the bipartisan Metropolitan Planning Enhancement Act that rebuilds public trust by promoting evidence-based decisionmaking in the transportation investment process. This commonsense amendment helps States and metropolitan planning organizations offer the highest return for taxpayers and commuters through increased transparency and improved accountability. Americans of all types are suspicious of government right now. In the context of transportation funding, many Americans believe that highway and bridge project decisions are based on politics and insider connections rather than statewide and regional transportation goals. In many areas of the country, local commuters have little idea how State Departments of Transportation and MPOs make their project decisions or why they choose one project over another; yet, every year, lawmakers ask taxpayers to spend more and more of their hard-earned dollars on infrastructure projects with minimal transparency and accountability. This amendment requires State and regional transportation plans to include project descriptions and to score projects based on criteria developed by the State or the region, not the Federal Government. Requiring that projects be assessed with objective criteria ensures that limited transportation resources are invested in projects that provide the highest return on investment to commuters. Furthermore, requiring transportation decisionmakers to communicate how projects are chosen enhances the public's understanding of and confidence in the project selection process. Many States and MPOs are incorporating project priority criteria today: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, Washington State, Minnesota, Massachusetts, amongst others. There is plenty of early evidence that this has increased confidence within the commuting public. Effective and efficient transportation systems are critical to our growing and prosperous U.S. economy. We cannot allow diminishing resources to be directed toward bad investments. This amendment ensures that the public has more complete information to judge the merits of projects for themselves. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate about America's crumbling infrastructure is about how we are going to find the necessary money to match the need. As responsible legislators, we should ask ourselves how we can most efficiently invest the resources we already have. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, good governance amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the chairman, I want to thank him for his consideration. I do believe, having seen this in the San Francisco Bay Area, that the incentive and the requirement to do more will actually help with the transparency, as I have stated earlier. I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman. I also want to thank him for his coaching and helping me through a prospective working mistake. With all due respect--and, of course, the chairman is much more knowledgeable than I am--it is the intention at least of the author that this would be in addition to. I would respectfully ask for an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment establishes an independent peer review group to assess the quality assurance, cost containment, and risk management and, in addition, creates a stricter cost management plan for Federal transportation projects that cost over $2.5 billion. So it is only Federal projects over $2.5 billion. It doesn't apply to anything below $2.5 billion. As we all know, large infrastructure projects are vital to our country's development and its economic growth. Unfortunately, 9 out of every 10 megaprojects experience cost overruns and suffer significant delays. This is according to an extensive research project out of Cambridge University in England. Current law already requires financial reporting for projects costing more than $500 million, but no additional oversight, such as what we have in this bill, exists for the largest and most complex megaprojects. Projects like the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, the I-265 bridge between Kentucky and Indiana, the Big Dig in Boston, the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, and Denver International Airport--all of these projects would have benefited greatly from a comprehensive risk management plan and an independent peer review group, according to the experts. Mr. Chairman, the public deserves a system that manages costs, foresees risks, and holds decisionmakers accountable. In my prior life as a member of the California State Legislature and the State senate, we had a bipartisan investigation and public hearings as to what went wrong and what lessons could be learned from our overruns on the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge replacement that was replaced, a project that was $5 billion overbudget and 10 years late. The project started, unfortunately, in 1989 because of the Loma Prieta earthquake. The idea in this bipartisan review was just to learn what we could from our experience and not to cast any judgments. Amongst the most significant things we were told were the implementation of a rigorous, with the least conflict of interest possible, peer review group and a more rigorous cost assessment and cost review process. Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes that independent peer review group consisting of at least five individuals, without conflicts of interest, tasked with giving expert advice on scientific, technical, and management aspects of the megaproject. The amendment saves taxpayer dollars and reduces project timelines by requiring a comprehensive risk management plan that includes a description of identified risks associated with the project, proposed mechanisms to manage such risks, and updated cost estimates, among others. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, this commonsense amendment directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to study ways to improve data collection on highway safety hardware devices. Today, these devices, which include guardrails, barriers, terminals, and railings, are critical to the safety of our roadways yet are often taken for granted. In November of last year, Darryl Blackmon, a 24-year-old San Francisco Bay Area resident, a beloved family member who supported his mom, amongst other family members, community volunteer, and football star at Kansas State University, was killed in a collision with a guardrail that 40 States and the District of Columbia have stopped installing due to safety concerns. In response to tragedies like Darryl Blackmon's death and thanks to a whistleblower who highlighted the fraudulent actions taken by this particular guardrail manufacturer, earlier this year, a Federal judge handed down a $663 million judgment against the manufacturer for failing to disclose information to Federal and State regulators about modifications made to their guardrail specifications after they were approved by the Federal Highway Administration. Despite Federal tests dating back to 2005, suggesting these guardrails are safe, just last month, Virginia's attorney general said that the guardrails tested by the Virginia Department of Transportation ``failed miserably.'' According to media reports, more than 200,000 of these particular guardrails may still be in service on our Nation's highways. Unfortunately, there is no existing mechanism to accurately verify this number or locate all the guardrails. That is why this amendment is critically important. Without a practical mechanism for identifying defective guardrails, many States are still assessing their ability to remove defective products from our roadways and incurring additional liability. Unfortunately, these events have highlighted the need to reform our current system of identifying and inventorying our highway hardware. This amendment makes progress towards reassessing FHWA's hardware review process to enhance accountability, promote transparency, and improve responsiveness to future safety concerns. It is critical to the safety of the traveling public that products installed on our roadways and using Federal dollars are properly evaluated and accounted for when safety concerns arise. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this bipartisan effort, and I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today also in support of the Higher Education Extension Act. The Perkins Loan Program provides low-interest loans to economically disadvantaged students to help finance their postsecondary educations. The Perkins Loan Program assisted nearly 540,000 American students nationwide in the 2013-2014 academic year by providing $1.2 billion in loans. More than 1,500 colleges and universities across the United States participate in this popular program. While the Perkins Loan Program is sometimes viewed as benefiting students predominately in the Northeast, California is the second largest recipient. In California, more than 46,000 students received these loans last year. These loans resulted in more than $105 million in the last year to California students. Students from across the country who attend California schools, like Saint Mary's College in my district, are able to receive a top-notch education through assistance programs like the Perkins Loan Program. Increasing access and improving affordability translates to increased opportunities for students and improves the Nation's economy by ensuring that today's students are tomorrow's highly trained workforce. This bill is a necessary step to ensuring that our students continue to receive the assistance they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support of H.R. 1289, the John Muir National Historic Site Expansion Act. This bipartisan legislation will expand the Martinez, California historic site in my district that celebrates the life and legacy of John Muir. Muir was a lifelong conservationist, leading advocate of the National Park Service and a co-founder of the Sierra Club. He worked to establish and protect national parks including Yosemite, Sequoia, the Grand Canyon and Mt. Rainier. The John Muir National Historic Site, which includes the home where he lived, covers 330 acres of Contra Costa County where Muir championed the revolutionary idea that wild spaces should be set aside for all to enjoy. This bill would add 44 acres of donated land from a non-profit trust, improving access to the park and its scenic trails, including those on Mount Wanda, named for Muir's eldest daughter. The trail systems are accessible for hikers, bikers and equestrians, including critical connections to the 550-mile Bay Area Ridge Trail and to nearby protected lands along the Franklin Ridge corridor. As John Muir said, ``everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in . . . where nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my predecessor Congressman George Miller who has been a champion of this bill. I appreciate Natural Resource Committee Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, Subcommittee Chairman McClintock, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Tsongas for their leadership in bringing H.R. 1289 to the floor today. I am grateful for the support of 31 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who cosponsored this bill and to Senators Boxer and Feinstein for sponsoring this legislation in the U.S. Senate. I would also like to thank the John Muir Land Trust for its hard work and dedication preserving and protecting this valuable parkland and shoreline in Contra Costa County for future generations. As our Nation prepares to celebrate the Centennial of the National Park Service, this legislation will help preserve the trails and lands that surround the longtime home of the man known as the Father of the National Park Service. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan legislation--The John Muir National Historic Site Expansion Act.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her kind comments. What a pleasure it is to be here on the House floor to continue to honor and respect a great American and a great Californian, his adopted State. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1289, the John Muir National Historic Site Expansion Act. This bipartisan legislation will expand the Martinez, California, historic site in my district as it celebrates the life and legacy of John Muir. Muir was a lifelong conservationist and leading advocate of the National Park Service and a cofounder of the Sierra Club. He worked to establish and protect national parks, including Yosemite, Sequoia, the Grand Canyon, and Mt. Rainier. The John Muir National Historic Site, which includes the home where he lived, covers 330 acres in Contra Costa County, where Muir championed the revolutionary idea that wild spaces should be set aside for all Americans to enjoy. This bill would add 44 acres of donated land from a nonprofit trust, improving access to the park and its scenic trails, including those on Mount Wanda, named after Muir's eldest daughter. The trail systems are accessible for hikers and bikers, including critical connections to the 550-mile Bay Area Ridge Trail. As Muir once said: Every American needs beauty as well as bread, places to live in . . . where nature may heal and cheer and give enough strength to body and soul alike. Mr. Speaker, I thank my predecessor, Congressman George Miller, who has been a champion of this bill and who introduced it in an earlier session. I would also like to thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, as well as Subcommittee Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Tsongas, for their leadership in bringing H.R. 1289 to the floor today. I am also grateful for the support of 31 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who cosponsored the bill as well as Senators Boxer and Feinstein for sponsoring this legislation in the Senate. I would also like to thank the John Muir Land Trust for its hard work and dedication to preserving and protecting this valuable parkland and shoreline in the Bay Area for future generations. As our Nation prepares to celebrate the centennial of the National Park Service, this legislation will help preserve the trails and lands that surround the long-time home of the man known as the father of the National Park Service. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan legislation, the John Muir National Historic Site Expansion Act.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished ranking member of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak as a freshman Member of this body who has been able to learn a great deal about this difficult, difficult area of the world--a place where America has invested too many lives and too much money--and to talk about my journey in coming to the decision to vote with the President and feeling like he deserves a congratulatory note for this accomplishment in a very difficult and complex piece of diplomacy, perhaps equal to the difficulty and the complexity of this area of the world which has had so much turmoil and history. I have spent the last 60 days taking every opportunity to listen to constituents and experts. I, with a small group of my freshman colleagues, have been personally briefed at the White House by President Obama. I traveled to Israel for the first time and met with high-level Israeli officials for almost 2 hours, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I learned about the 3,000 years of history and animosity amongst groups and also of the very close proximity in which those groups have lived for thousands of years and shared their difficult history. I met with leaders of our international coalition, and I continue to be a staunch supporter of the U.S.-Israeli relationship as, I believe, most of my colleagues on both sides are. I held six townhalls--a certain measure of masochism, perhaps, by a freshman Member--that took hours, meeting with both pro and opponents in my district, in the San Francisco Bay Area. We received over 1,000 phone calls, emails, and constituent questions on this issue, and more than 70 percent of them were in favor of the proposal. Ultimately, at the heart of my decision in supporting a deal is the possibility that this deal promotes the long-term investment in peace on this difficult part of our planet. In addition, it creates security and stability, ultimately, for the United States. I believe that this accord is our best option for achieving both of those goals. As recently as yesterday, I was able to listen to advisers and leaders who represent our coalition partners. The sanctions regime, due in large part to the European Union's participation, deflated Iran's economy and forced them to the negotiating table. In 2012, Iran's economy shrank for the first time in two decades by almost 2 percent. This is the final proposal, I believe, if the U.S. were to withdraw. Our coalition partners that helped negotiate this deal and create the ability and the leverage to negotiate will not come back to the table. Our authority and standing in the world community will be severely diminished. There are some who say that Iran cannot be trusted, and I think we all agree on that. The future of this rollout is not black-and-white, and it has many unknowns and hypotheticals on both the supporters' and the opponents' sides. We do not know if Iran will cheat, but we do know that oversight and compliance is strong and consequential, and consequences for cheating will be enforced by the international community. In my view, it is in the national security interests of the United States of America to support this agreement. It is an opportunity to let diplomacy work and to put it in action.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my neighbor and good friend from Sacramento in honoring three brave Americans who foiled an attempted attack on passengers in a train traveling from Amsterdam to Paris on August 22, 2015. Anthony Sadler, Spencer Stone, and Alek Skarlatos were the three brave Americans who stopped this attack. Anthony Sadler is a native of Pittsburg, California, which, happily, is in my congressional district. These courageous men charged the attacker, who was armed with an AK-47 and dozens of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill everyone on that train. Thanks to Anthony and his friends, no one was killed and injuries were minimized. Each were awarded France's highest civilian honor, the Legion d'Honneur. As we reflect on 9/11, 14 years ago this week, the heroic efforts of these young men underscore our Nation's resolve to confront violent extremism. I am thankful they returned home to their families and to America.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2898, the so-called ``Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015''. I represent a portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the largest estuary west of the Mississippi and the source of roughly half of California's fresh water. Nearly 25 million Californians rely upon the Delta in one form or another for their drinking water supply. Additionally, many species depend on the habitats in and around the 700,000-acre estuary for survival. Species in the Delta include birds and waterfowl like sand hill cranes, and fish like Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead and green sturgeon. Many of these species are unique to the Delta and found nowhere else on earth. H.R. 2898 would dramatically weaken protections for these ecosystems and for salmon, migratory birds, and other fish and wildlife in California's Bay-Delta estuary, as well as the thousands of fishing jobs in California and Oregon that depend on the health of these species. California's ongoing drought--not federal environmental laws--is the primary reason for low water supplies across the state. California's drought is real, and we need real solutions. However, H.R. 2898 does nothing to solve California's severe water shortage or address drought across the West. Instead, this bill preempts state laws, reduces management flexibility, eliminates protections for salmon and other endangered species, and rolls back our nation's fundamental environmental laws. H.R. 2898 is not a temporary response to drought. It permanently amends and overrides the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws. The bill would also limit National Environmental Policy Act review for water projects, reducing transparency and eliminating the opportunity for local communities to provide input in the planning process. Moreover, several provisions of the bill would preempt state law, including section 313, which would override state laws, federal laws, a court order, and a binding settlement agreement to restore the San Joaquin River. This measure would undermine the State of California's groundbreaking work to address the drought through the equitable implementation of water conservation programs, infrastructure improvements, and innovative water recycling initiatives. Water shortages are a result of four dry years, not the landmark environmental protections that this bill seeks to undermine. This bill will not make it rain. Permanently repealing proper environmental review will not solve the drought. Ultimately, this bill would not fix our biggest problem--the lack of water--and would instead set a dangerous precedent of federal overreach for our state, and a repeal of America's longstanding and effective environmental protections. As a Californian and a Delta member, I strongly oppose H.R. 2898, due to the negative impact that this bill would have on my constituents and the environment.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus, to talk today to the American people about the tragedy of Port Chicago, California, and the injustice that marked the lives of 50 African American sailors in 1944 and continues to mark every American today. On my right is an overview of where the facility is. It is still an existing Naval facility--or a Department of Defense facility--an important deepwater port that allows for munitions to go to strategic assets in the Pacific. This is the map of the bay area. You can see it is in the Sacramento delta, as the delta comes into the San Francisco Bay. The photograph is an aerial photograph, obviously, of how the facility looked in 1944. You can see where the trains came in and put the boxcars into sidings that had concrete on either side to protect people from explosions, and then you can see where the ships docked. In this photograph, there is one ship docked. On the night that we will talk about, there were two ships loaded. In continuously operated shifts, those ships were loaded, as witnesses would say, in a manner that sacrificed safety in order for expedience. The fateful, moonless night on Monday, July 17, 1944, was clear and cool. A slight breeze was blowing from the southwest. Two cargo ships were tied up at the pier, Port Chicago pier. Under floodlights, work was proceeding at full speed, all hours. Shortly after 10:18 p.m., disaster struck. This is how the day of the explosion is described by Dr. Robert Allen in his book, titled ``The Port Chicago Mutiny.'' The deadliest homefront disaster of World War II occurred at Port Chicago Naval Magazine, a major ammunitions facility in my district in northern California. The shipyard site was 2 miles from a little community of Port Chicago, population 1,500. In those days, the greater area was largely wheat fields and had a very small population of under 50,000. The area currently has a population of over 600,000. Indicative of the discriminatory practices at the time, all of the enlisted men loading ammunition at the site were African American, whereas all of their officers were Caucasian. The explosion killed or wounded 710 people, 435 of whom were African American. They had no formal training in safe methods of ammunition or explosives handling given to any of the enlisted men. The Navy failed to adequately provide these enlisted men with the tools necessary to be able to operate under safe working conditions, even after the tragedy struck. When the surviving 258 African American sailors who, understandably, refused to return to work in these deplorable conditions following the explosion, 50 were charged with mutiny and convicted. During this time, we seek to bring attention to the systemic racial discrimination suffered by these sailors while on duty, in order to bring perspective to the ongoing discrimination against people of color as we enter into the weekend which will note the 71st anniversary of this tragedy. Prior to the explosion, many officers at Port Chicago had no previous training either or experience in ship-loading, handling ammunition, or commanding enlisted men. Many of them were reservists. They were called to Active Duty from civilian life and given little or no training. They had to, as they said, learn by doing. Black enlisted men were also untrained. While they were very aware of the inherent danger of their jobs, these African Americans coped by discounting the risks, much by humor. Weeks before the explosion, the longshoremen's union of San Francisco warned the Navy that there would be disaster at Port Chicago if the Navy continued to use untrained seamen to load ammunition. The longshoremen's union was doing similar work in either ports on the West Coast and knew how to load these dangerous materials safely and did not sacrifice safety for speed. The union offered to send experienced longshoremen to train Navy recruits in the safe handling of ammunition, but this offer was ignored by the Navy. Existing policy required the Coast Guard to provide a detail to ensure that safe handling procedures were followed. Navy commanders believed that this was unnecessary and would create confusion and disrupt loading. When the Coast Guard tried to oversee operations, it rejected the Navy's common practice, including the practice of moving bombs by rolling and dropping them into place in the ship's hold. Alternative methods offered by the Coast Guard were considered ``ridiculous'' by the Navy and ignored. In addition, sailors were encouraged to compete against each other to load as much ammunition as possible into the ship, and officers placed nightly bets among themselves as to which division would load more and then pursued their individual enlisted men to make sure that they would win bets as small as $5. During the environment of this whole period, 8-day work periods were what were allowed by the Navy. You would have 6 days of loading ammunition, with a sleep break, and with meals and short rest periods; then after the sixth day, you would have what was called a duty day, which you would do duty around the facility. You had 1 day of liberty. Now, this, at that time, was a very remote facility and was a long way from Oakland, the nearest major city; but many of the enlisted men made that trip anyway and went back to work very exhausted. Aside from the petty officers, all the officers at Port Chicago were white. Commanding officers believed Black enlisted men were a major problem rather than an asset. Captain Nelson Goss, the commanding officer of Mare Island, of which Port Chicago was a subcommand, said the Black recruits ``arrived with a chip on their shoulder, if not, indeed, one on each shoulder.'' In actuality, these recruits joined the military to defend their country and to fight, if necessary, and put themselves in harm's way overseas. Captain Goss also complained that they were poor workers, capable of only 60 percent of the work compared to White workers. In turn, Black men resented, obviously, that only they were assigned to essential labor battalions charged with doing dangerous work. They were distressed that they could not receive the rating and promotions that they thought they deserved. For men working under these precarious conditions, the situation amounted to a new form of slavery. A worker described Port Chicago as a ``slave outfit,'' adding that, ``We were considered a cheap labor force from the beginning.'' They believed their lives were worth less. They were treated as if their lives were worth less, just as their work and abilities were valued less. A group of men drafted a letter in 1943 setting their grievances and pointing out that the morale among the enlisted men at Port Chicago had dropped to an ``alarming depth.'' On the evening of 17th, two ships--as I said, the E.A. Bryan and the Quinault Victory--the Quinault Victory was a brand-new ship that was about to embark on its maiden voyage--were both in port being loaded. The E.A. Bryan was almost fully loaded as they entered into the graveyard shift. In the enlisted men's barracks a short distance away, it was quiet. Many men were in their bunks when suddenly an unbelievable explosion occurred shortly after 10:18 p.m. Survivors in Oakland and San Francisco still remember the explosion from 20 and 35 miles away. People in the nearby rural communities continue to remember this explosion the way survivors of the earthquake in San Francisco did for many years after. The E.A. Bryan was loaded that night with 4,600 tons of ammunition and high explosives. Bombs weighing 650 pounds each and with their activating mechanisms, or fuses, fully installed were being loaded one at a time. The dock and the ship had disappeared after the explosion. The E.A. Bryan was eviscerated. Very few pieces were found of this large ship. The Quinault Victory was lifted clear out of the water in an instant by the blast, turned over, and broken into pieces, with very little of it remaining. The 1,200-foot-long wooden pier simply disappeared. This is the day after the explosion, and this is what was left of the pier. During the evening, the accounts talk about people in the barracks being completely in black because all the electricity went out. Not knowing what had happened, not knowing what had happened to their colleagues down at the pier, many of them thought they were under attack by the Japanese. I have one account from Jack Critten, who was a guard on duty that night. ``The barracks had a lot of windows, lower and upper deck, whole side was windows.'' This is a distance away from this site. ``And they were blown to pieces. Some guys lost their sight; others were badly cut. Finally, they got the emergency lights together. Then some guys came by in a truck. And we went down to the dock, but when we got there, we didn't see no dock, no ship, no nothing,'' just darkness. Everyone onboard the two ships and the fire barge were killed instantly: 320 men, 202 of whom were African American. Another 390 military personnel and civilians were injured, including 233 Black enlisted men. This single stunning disaster accounted for more than 15 percent of all Black naval casualties during World War II. Property damage, military and civilian, was estimated at that time at more than $12 million. Again, Mr. Critten recounted, ``You'd see a shoe with a foot in it, and then you would remember how you'd joked about who was gonna be the first one out of the hold if something went wrong. You'd see a head floating across the water--just the head--or an arm, bodies. Just awful.'' Four Port Chicago seamen and one Black enlisted man were awarded medals for their heroic conduct in fighting the ammunition boxcar fire and subsequent fires that broke out that evening after the explosion. A proposal was presented in Congress to grant families up to $5,000 in compensation for the loss of their loved ones. However, when Mississippi Representative John Rankin objected to the plan because most of the beneficiaries would be Black, Congress reduced the maximum allowable grant to $3,000. Four days after the explosion, a Naval Court of Inquiry convened on Mare Island to inquire into the circumstances of the explosion. Captain Nelson Goss admitted that a port director had previously warned him that, ``Conditions are bad up there. You've got to do something about it. If you aren't careful, something's going to happen, and you'll be held responsible for it.'' The judge advocate of the inquiry concluded by addressing the question of the role of Black enlisted personnel in his official inquiry: ``The consensus of opinion of the witness--and practically admitted by the interested parties--is that the colored enlisted personnel are neither temperamentally or intellectually capable of handling high explosives.'' In short, they blamed the victims because they were African American. During the weeks after and the days after, the men obviously were in a state of shock, troubled by the vivid memory of the horrible explosion in which so many of their friends had died and so many of them had believed would come to bear and then, unfortunately, saw the tragedy worse than they could imagine. ``Everybody was scared,'' one survivor recalled. ``If someone dropped a box or slammed a door, people began jumping around like crazy.'' Many of the Black survivors expected to be granted survivor's leave, as was the custom at the time in the Navy, to visit their families before being reassigned to regular duty. They waited and waited to get these 30 days off to go visit friends and to start to process what they had seen before they would come back to regular duty, which they were happy to do. Such leaves were not granted. Even men who had been hospitalized were not granted leaves. All men were to be sent back to work loading ammunition under the same officers before. However, White officers were allowed to go home for 30-day leaves, all of them. You can see why, under these circumstances and given the tragedy, many of the enlisted African American survivors at Port Chicago were upset in the 3 weeks after the explosion. They continued to be treated as they were treated before the explosion in spite of their warnings, the warnings of the professionals in the longshoremen union, and the United States Coast Guard. So some weeks later the men were sent back to Mare Island, a short distance away from where Port Chicago is, across the strait, where munition ships were again being loaded for the war effort, an important job. As the men marched to go back to work 3 weeks after the incident, they still did not know where they were going as they marched. But they did know that, at a certain juncture in the road, they could be ordered to turn right, which would take them to the parade ground, or they could be ordered to turn left, which would take them to a ferry that crossed the river to the ammunition loading dock, where they would inevitably resume doing the same work they had done before. There was a young enlisted man from New Jersey who had natural leadership qualities, who we will hear about shortly, enlisted man Small. He actually directed the cadence as they walked back. And he described what happened next as he delivered the cadence and he marched his division back towards the pier: ``I was marching on the left-hand side of the ranks. When the lieutenant gave the command `column left,' everybody stopped dead, boom, just like that. He said, `Forward march, column left.' Nobody moved.'' An officer asked Small, ``Small, are you going to go back to work?'' He answered, ``No, sir.'' The officer asked why. And he said, ``I am afraid.'' Seen as a leader among the men, others refused to work when he refused to go back. Someone over in the ranks said, ``If Small don't go, we're not going either.'' Mr. Speaker, 328 followed enlisted member Small and refused to return to work at that moment. 258 were imprisoned as a result. And shortly thereafter 50 were charged with conspiring to make mutiny. The trial commenced on Treasure Island shortly thereafter. If these 50 were convicted of the charge, the men faced prison terms of 15 years or death. Mutiny was defined by the defense as ``unlawful opposition or resistance to or defiance of superior military authority with a deliberate purpose to usurp, subvert, or override the same.'' Mutiny was defined by the prosecution as ``collective insubordination. Collective disobedience of lawful orders of a superior. A conspiracy to disobey lawful orders of a superior is mutiny'' as opposed to what we described. One sailor stated that, ``We didn't know you could define disobeying orders as being mutiny. We thought mutiny could only happen on a ship.'' A refusal to work is a passive act of resistance, without intent to seize power. A mutiny, on the other hand, is an active revolt with the intent of taking charge. At this point, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), the gentleman from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Richmond. I yield, Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Representative Watson Coleman, my friend.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his eloquence and to the point of what we asked for today. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my neighbor, my colleague, and my partner in this effort.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. Thank you for all of your support. I do want to thank and recognize my predecessor, Congressman Miller and his staff, particularly his former chief of staff, John Lawrence, who put so much effort into this and still has been helpful. I just want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a few brief comments and a quote from Thurgood Marshall and then a brief quote from Mr. Small. Thurgood Marshall was then chief counsel of the NAACP, and he came West to observe the case. During the trial, Marshall declared: This is not an individual case. This is not 50 men on trial for mutiny. This is the Navy on trial for its whole vicious policy towards Blacks. Black Americans are not afraid of anything anymore than anyone else is. Blacks in the Navy don't mind loading ammunition. They just want to know why they are the only ones doing the loading. They wanted to know why they are segregated, why they don't get promoted. The future Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Marshall, continued. He said: I want to know why the Navy disregarded official warnings by the San Francisco waterfront unions--before the Port Chicago disaster--that an explosion was inevitable if they persisted in using untrained seamen in the loading of ammunition. I want to know why the Navy disregarded an offer by these same unions to send experienced men to train Navy personnel in the safe handling of explosives. I want to know why commissioned officers at Port Chicago were allowed to race their men. I want to know why bets ranging from $5 up were made between division officers as to whose crew would load more ammunition. Still, these men were convicted, whereupon Mr. Marshall responded after the trial by saying these men were tried and convicted of mutiny ``solely because of their race and color.'' He continued: The accused were made scapegoats in a situation brought about by a combination of circumstances. He concluded by saying: Justice can only be done in this case by a complete reversal of the findings. That is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, the events at Port Chicago and their aftermath played a role in the eventual desegregation of the Armed Forces in 1948. That was a good thing. The rebellion by the Port Chicago 50, like the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the ongoing conversation today on violence against Americans of color, are a part of a continued struggle against social injustice. Joseph Small described the events, just before his death, in an interview by the author of a book on the incident. Mr. Small said: So my only way of changing what was an impossible situation was not to work. It wasn't a planned thing; it was brought on by circumstances, working conditions--it was inevitable, just the same way the explosion was inevitable. Something would have happened to set off that explosion because of the way they were handling the ammunition; it had to happen. What else can I say? It has been more than 40 years ago, but that is more vivid in my memory than the actual court- martial--the conditions under which we were working, because they were so appalling. That is apropos for many instances that we see today in our society. Mr. Speaker, as the Nation seeks to heal the deep racial wound that continues to permeate into violent acts of our fellow citizens of color, we must seek to rectify injustices like these in order to continue to forge a better future--as Dr. King said so well: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' America would do well to remember Port Chicago; indeed, America must remember Port Chicago. For Marshall's words are more poignant today than ever before when he said, during the trial: ``What's at stake here is more than the rights of my clients. It's the moral commitment stated in our Nation's creed.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to vote on Friday, July 10 as I was attending the memorial services of a dear friend in my congressional district. Had I been present, I would have cast my vote in support of H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act, even though I am disappointed that the Republican Majority included last minute and unnecessary policy riders. I am cosponsor of the underlying bill which would encourage biomedical innovation and the development of new treatments and cures (Roll Call #433). I would have also cast my vote in support of the amendment introduced by Representatives Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, and Yvette Clarke to H.R. 6, the 21st Century Cures Act. This amendment would remove harmful policy riders that aim to undermine women's access to reproductive health services from this otherwise noncontroversial, bipartisan effort. As a longtime supporter of a woman's right to access comprehensive reproductive healthcare, I oppose the inclusion of these unnecessary policy riders in this important bill (Roll Call #432). I would have cast my vote in opposition to the Brat/McClintock/ Garrett/Stutzman/Perry Amendment to H.R. 6, which would have turned the NIH and Cures Innovation Fund into a discretionary spending program, leading to immense uncertainty which would undercut the Fund's effectiveness and NIH's ability to maximize its work (Roll Call #431).

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to vote on Friday, July 10 as I was attending the memorial services of a dear friend in my congressional district. Had I been present, I would have cast the following votes: rollcall No. 431: ``no;'' rollcall No. 432: ``aye;'' rollcall No. 433: ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. DeSAULNIER

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2013, women who worked full time earned, on average, only 78 cents for every dollar a man earned. The figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earned only approximately 64 cents and Latinas only 56 cents for each dollar earned by a White male. This is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable in the United States of America. The average woman would have lost $420,000 throughout her working lifetime as a result of this pay gap. In my district, women make up 51 percent of the population, yet there is still a 76.4 percent wage gap in their annual median earnings. That is why I am a sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would work to close the gender wage gap by requiring employers to demonstrate that wage differentials are based on factors other than sex, and strengthening penalties for equal pay violations. Families increasingly rely on women's wages to make ends meet. Equal pay is not simply a women's issue; it is a family issue.