EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

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

First Posted: 3/18/10 Updated: 5/25/11

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!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

 
  • Comments
  • 1,390
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (35 total)
02:18 AM on 03/10/2010
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
03:21 PM on 01/31/2010
we definitely need some fresh faces in the legislatio­n
http://www­.buykamagr­a.com/
photo
Catfish1968
I live in a river of mud
08:05 PM on 10/24/2009
Despite this article, Inouye voted for the resolution­. This is untrue.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
peacekitten
primum non nocere.
08:43 AM on 10/25/2009
link please?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
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.
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
had enough of the hatred from the right!!
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
I live in a river of mud
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
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DG3
06:53 PM on 10/23/2009
Inouye should InNoWay get reelected.
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
Seeker of Truth
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!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sarnold15
01:28 AM on 10/24/2009
Well done!

Thank you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
joeyfoto
“Écraser l'infamie!”
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
Revolutionary Leader
05:41 PM on 10/23/2009
Yet another strong reason to STOP the freakin' lobbyists.

They are running this country.
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
Revolutionary Leader
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%.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..­.
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.
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!
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
I live in a river of mud
08:05 PM on 10/24/2009
he voted for the resolution­.