Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment May Be Stripped By Senior Dem, Sources Say

First Posted: 10-22-09 10:40 AM   |   Updated: 10-22-09 12:35 PM

What's Your Reaction?
Congress Army

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.

Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.

Inouye's office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up. The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.

"The defense contractors have been storming his office," said a source with knowledge of the situation. "Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR's (or other contractors') own terms -- with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely."

A Democratic aide on the Hill, also with knowledge of the situation, confirmed the account, as did a source who works on defense contracting matters outside of Congress. "The contractors are putting on a full-court press on this amendment... they are all doing it," said the latter source.

A spokesman for the Senate Committee on Appropriations said that "the committee does not comment on ongoing conference negotiations." But another source with knowledge of the situation stressed that it was premature to say that any decision has been made. Indeed, even the Hill source said that the situation is fluid and could change before the bill is sent out of committee -- likely in the next few days.

The decision on what to do with Franken's amendment is being made in conference committee with the House of Representatives, which severely limits the number of lawmakers who can weigh in on the matter.

The second-longest-serving member of the United States Senate, Inouye is a veteran of WWII. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he has received $294,900 in donations from the defense and aerospace industries over the course of his career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Franken's amendment passed the Senate on October 21, 2009 by a voting margin of 68 to 30. The 30 Republicans who opposed the provision were widely pilloried in the press. But they were actually joined in some of their concerns by the Obama administration's Department of Defense, which worried that "enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract."

The White House, for its part, told HuffPost it supports the intent of the amendment and it is "working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable," said spokesman Tommy Vietor.


Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirel...
An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirel...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
1,390
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »   (35 pages total)
Show: 
minus this   02:18 AM on 3/10/2010
I seriously wonder how much money actually governs the decisions politicians make. sickening, actually
this is why i generally hate politics.

http://www.jtvcashadvance.com
kamagra   03:21 PM on 1/31/2010
we definitely need some fresh faces in the legislation
http://www.buykamagra.com/
photo
Catfish1968   08:05 PM on 10/24/2009
Despite this article, Inouye voted for the resolution. This is untrue.
photo
peacekitten   08:43 AM on 10/25/2009
link please?
lvogt   11:53 PM on 10/23/2009
I am merely suggesting the young woman deserves justice in a manor that deters future perpetrators. KBR is not part of the military or the government and Congress recently defunded ACORN because some employees appeared to describe how to rent an apartment for someone pretending to be a hooker. Surely a group of employees that actually rape and kidnap someone should have at least as drastic a result for their employer.
photo
Visvesvaran Subramanian   07:39 PM on 10/23/2009
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

"Al Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object."

Seriously, aforementioned 30 Republicans? Really?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mdbmama   07:15 PM on 10/23/2009
I talked to his office. The woman I spoke with said they had no idea where this story is coming from. She said the Senator voted for this amendment and "strongly supports the Senate's position." And that is all I know.
photo
Catfish1968   08:04 PM on 10/24/2009
that's what I heard. I was told that Huff Po didn't even contact his office.
photo
DG3   06:53 PM on 10/23/2009
Inouye should InNoWay get reelected.
photo
aaawyeah   05:55 PM on 10/23/2009
just got off the phone with Inouye's Honolulu office to make sure the Senator heard my point-of-view. i'm half Hawaiian from a massive Hawaiian family and though i now live in California, most of my family is on the Big Island of Hawaii. the woman I spoke to at the Honolulu office said that the rumors are unfounded and that the Senator is NOT working to strip the amendment. i made sure they knew that if it he does strip it, he's going to have a sh** storm of trouble getting votes from one particular massive Hawaiian family.

let's keep the pressure up! it's won't be easy though - Hawaiian politicians are very cozy with the military contractor lobbies. that's just the way it is. at least until we can get some better Dems in the mix. o_0
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kealadi   09:06 PM on 10/23/2009
I hope you're right! We do need to keep up pressure against all these lobbyists at any rate. They all seem to be getting out of hand and something needs to be done about it. The country needs to get back in the hands of the people and not all these lobbyists! And we need to make sure we are properly informed, not with rumors but with facts. Thank you for sharing what you learned when you called the Honolulu office. I was originally from Minnesota and now live on the Big Island. I am now reading a book by Al Franken, who I would have voted for if I was still in MN. He makes a lot of sense and appears to have done his homework thoroughly, which to me makes him believable. I was hoping Inouye would be strong enough to resist all the military contractor lobbies. As a voter, I'll be watching him closely!
sarnold15   01:28 AM on 10/24/2009
Well done!

Thank you.
photo
joeyfoto   05:53 PM on 10/23/2009
if the Democratic Party stands for ANYTHING, Senator Inouye will not remove or alter the Franken Amendment. If he does, it should cost him his chairmanship before it costs him reelection. It is too grandiose to say that we are taking our country back from the military-terrorism industrial complex, but we are strong enough to resist being insulted then having our faces rubbed in it. The fact that this amendment was ever needed is an outrage. The idea that there is open political resistance to this basic human rights provision is intolerable.

Has anyone else, beside me, lost patience with the low level of governance that we get for all of our moderate expectations?
photo
lafayette2009   05:41 PM on 10/23/2009
Yet another strong reason to STOP the freakin' lobbyists.

They are running this country.
photo
aaawyeah   05:57 PM on 10/23/2009
word. the lobbying industry is IMHO far and away the biggest obstacle between us and fair, responsible governance.
photo
lafayette2009   06:22 PM on 10/23/2009
I should replace one letter in running and make it ruining.

The are doing both - running and ruining.

I agree with what you said 100%.
TJC   04:11 PM on 10/23/2009
Can't believe we are even debating the right to prosecute rape under any circumstances, especially govt contractors.
berrycooda   04:06 PM on 10/23/2009
Once again...

Vote...without thinking beyond the first line.

There are always "what if's" and "how about in the future's"
to think about before voting ... yes...yes...yes...

That is when things end up being tied up in the courts because there
are too many restrictions in some bills and too many loop holes in others. Congress needs to think of after effects before putting some of these bills through.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
expired   02:48 PM on 10/23/2009
Listen ppl, short of a rebellion, these cons will continue to do and say whatever they want because they know nothing will happen as a result.
rtlr1004   02:45 PM on 10/23/2009
He had best not strip it. The treatment of the young woman who was raped by Haliburton employees was criminal. ANY Congressperson who opposes the amendment should be removed from office. How in the world could ANY politician vote against this???? WE are talking rape and imprisonment. It is criminal and those who allowed it and participated in it should be PROSECUTED.
berrycooda   04:08 PM on 10/23/2009
Read the whole story....They are talking about prosecuting companies for what employees do.
If they would think about what they are voting on in the first place, this could be avoided.
Punish the person who does the crime, not his employer...
photo
Visvesvaran Subramanian   07:32 PM on 10/23/2009
I'm pretty sure they're attempting to prevent the company from forcing employees to waive their right to sue the company (or their attackers) in the case that they are raped.
photo
DueTruthinesss   08:38 PM on 10/23/2009
She is punishing the employer for letting things reach a state where the rape could occur in the first place. KBR and other contracter's have been repeatedly reprimanded for their poor enforcement of rules regarding code of conduct. Reprimands these companies have repeatedly ignored with impunity. She cannot sue the actual rapists in a court of law, therefore she is going after the enabler's in a civil court and I hope she cleans them out!
sarnold15   01:34 AM on 10/24/2009
We should use the voice we have as citizens and voters to help guide our government in how our money is spent. The lobbyists tend to get their way because they use their voice and their money to influence our government in the interest of profit over morality.

It's up to us to keep the contractors honest. Vote out any elected official who opposes Sen. Franken's amendment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jaxy   03:31 AM on 10/24/2009
May I remind you that in the Jamie Leigh Jones case, the bad acts of the individual employees were ratified by the subsequent acts of the employer?

Remember that when KBR became aware of the drugging and rape allegations, it did not fire the employees, and did not place them on leave. What KBR did do was to have Ms. Jones confined to a shipping container, isolated and placed under armed guard. She was denied food, water and access to medical assistance.

If there were ever a case where the legal doctrine of "Respondeat Superior" (Vicarious Liability) would apply, this is it. Do refamiliarize yourself with the facts of this matter.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
meyek   09:07 AM on 10/25/2009
isolated incidents by individual employees SHOULD be prosecuted at the individual level, but when groups of employees who engage in these acts aren't appropriately disciplined by their employer, ie termination or extradition for purposes of prosecution, such employers are accessories to these acts.

likewise any employer who mandates intracorporate arbitration for criminal acts should be disallowed from government contracts.

i don't understand how anyone of any political stripe can miss these distinctions.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
kellygrrrl   02:09 PM on 10/23/2009
What the ... with Dems like I-know-you, who needs thugs?
photo
Catfish1968   08:05 PM on 10/24/2009
he voted for the resolution.

Twitter Edition