Franken Amendment

[OzMel]

OK, so I don't often start topics. Rarely, if at all. And I'm not real sure of the whole process of amendments etc. But I read this this morning and many times since then, from different sources, because I cannot get my head around the fact that 30 people voted AGAINST this. What, exactly am I missing here? And yes, I'm assuming I must be missing something. It seems like such a simple safeguard to prevent anything like this happening again, and to ensure that there is no endorsement of such practices.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law ... And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. ... The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.Easy call, right? Well, not if you're a Republican, eager to protect a right of corporations to rape its employees.

Of the 40 Republicans in the Senate, only 10 voted for the Franken amendment, including all four women in the Senate GOP. Of the six Republican males who voted for the amendment, all of them represented states outside the deep South -- Bennett (UT), Hatch (UT), Grassley (IA), LeMieux (FL), Lugar (IN), and Voinovich (OH). The other 30 men, including luminaries like David Vitter, John Ensign, and John McCain, didn't think the amendment warranted passage.

As predictably regressive as the modern GOP has become, it's shocking to see that they still have the ability to shock.

The complete article is here Daily Kos: State of the Nation Of course

[LandJ]

I have no idea in THIS particular case, but I can tell you this.....many (if not most) of these things have other crap attached to them when they come up for a vote. So while those voting may agree with this particular item, they might disagree with the fact that senator so and so has stuck on some dumb thing about a total 'nother topic.

Then what happens is the amendment gets voted down and when someone comes up for re-election his opponents can scream he voted this down so he's against the rights of victims. Which in fact isn't the case at all. It happens on both sides of the aisle all the time.

Did I make sense? It's late here and I'm getting ready to go to bed.

[Maddy00]

There is a lot of history and politics surrounding KBR and Haliburton. Some who voted against felt it was singling out that company. Others saw it as more regulation of private companies.

You've posted an obviously very biased article on the subject. Look around if you're truly interested and you'll find some more balanced views and explanations of why some didn't support it.

[OzMel]

Oh, I know my article was biased but I also looked for the reasoning elsewhere and this was the closest I came..

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court.”

Think Progress Franken Wins Bipartisan Support For Legislation Reining In KBR?s Treatment Of Rape

I cannot find any other reasoning. And protecting a company who does this seems abhorrent. Was just wondering if there was anything I was missing and if that's all there is to it, have no other words.

[OzMel]

OK, I do. Continuing to search for any kind of reasoning, I came across this...

Until 2007, KBR was a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company run by Dick Cheney until he resigned as CEO to become vice-president of the United States. It was that connection to partisan politics that evidently led a majority of Senate Republicans to vote against the measure.

which seems to answer some of the question of WHY some voted against the amendment. Probably no big news to anyone else but I wasn't aware of how 'boys club' it all was. It would be easy to package it as a vote against 'regulation of private companies' though.

GOP votes against measure to help victims of rape at govt. contractors | Raw Story

Surely this isn't just 'no big deal'. Surely?

[BC-tinatinva]

Based on my research, the dissent here is in that this is the wrong place for the amendment. This only talks about DOD contracts. The general feel I get from what I've read is that it should be legislation that covers ALL gov't contracts - not just defense.

[OzMel]

Seems like a whole lot of deflection to me.
My research refutes that reasoning. It goes from this..

..Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton..

to this

Franken’s amendment, which passed 68-30, received the support of 10 Republican senators. However, most Republicans opposed the amendment because it went against the wishes of the Defense Department, and argued it gave Congress too much influence in altering defense contracts.

to this..

“This misleading, partisan attack makes clear yet again just how out of touch Democrats in Washington are with the serious issues facing average Americans," said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh.

"Our country is facing rising unemployment, a record federal debt and and more government spending than at any point in history. Yet, the Democrats are talking about Halliburton."

Tough vote for Vitter, Burr? - The Scorecard - POLITICO.com

I just haven't seen it excused by the reasoning you gave.

Regardless, by voting against the amendment, I see a tacit approval of the brutal treatment of Jamie Leigh Jones.

[LandJ]

Originally Posted by OzMel

Regardless, by voting against the amendment, I see a tacit approval of the brutal treatment of Jamie Leigh Jones.

But you can't really, really believe this is true, can you? Do you REALLY believe they honestly "approve" of the treatment? Come on...

[OzMel]

I do though. i believe there is definitely a tacit approval, whatever excuse they wish to apply. What I should probably have said was a tacit approval of this denial of recourse. But, to me, it's the same. By giving no recourse and ensuring such brutal treatment cannot be tried, I see it as it just not being a serious enough issue in some minds. One vote to ensure it can NEVER happen again. How on earth can their actions NOT condone the behaviour?


The amendment

...is designed to withhold defense contracts from companies like Halliburton if they prohibit their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.

Senate Passes Al Franken Amendment

Best to not give women (anyone for that matter) recourse?

No brainer imo.

It others are ok with it, fine. Each to their own.

[rae]

My two cents:

It's good for you to move beyond the liberal sites like Kos, TProgress, and RawSt, when you really want to see an objective and fair analysis. I'm glad you at least read a blog on Politico that contained some objectivity.

If you read beyond your clip and paste at Politico, you will find much of the heart of the GOP, and that is the defense of our country. If the DoD is against this bill because they feel it gives Congress too much control in altering Defense Dept. contracts, you can be sure there are a lot of GOP partisans who listen to them. That has a lot more to do with not binding the hands of the men and women who keep America safe than the case of Jones.

The US Chamber of Commerce also opposed it, as Congress would be able to alter contracts with Boeing, IBM, etc. That's handing Congress a lot of power in the business world. Again, the right side of the aisle isn't big on big government, and allowing Congress to insert itself into business contracts is unsettling at best.

Personally, I think that there needs to be some common sense approach to this. It's an outrage that any woman wouldn't be able to walk into any police station and report violence against her, regardless of any piece of paper she signed. Will this bill cover it?

You believe that the Republicans in Congress approve of this rape? Okay, now we know where you stand.