| When Al Franken got an anti-rape amendment passed earlier this year over the "no" votes of 30 Republican Senators, the outcry in support of that amendment was immediate and very loud. The amendment would force defense contractors to choose between allowing employees to litigate in cases of sexual assault and giving up on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts.
That amendment survived several objections, and is headed into law. The legislation was intended to address and prevent a reoccurrence of the assault and rape that Jamie Leigh Jones, a defense contractor for the company KBR, alleged was committed by her fellow employees. But the amendment became a subject of debate after the Department of Defense, Republicans in the Senate, and even the committee chairman, Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) raised concerns that it would leave contractors over exposed to lawsuits.
The final product, in the end, proved remarkably strong. According to a Franken aide, the substance of the language "is unchanged." Under the amendment the government would not be able to do business with companies that deny court hearings for victims of either assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent hiring practice. The controversial Title VII provision, which would allow victims of assault to sue the employers of the alleged perpetrator and not just the perpetrator himself or herself, remains in the bill. Meanwhile, the threshold at which companies will be subjected to the legislation is set at those who have contracts totaling $1 million or more.
...
The Franken amendment includes a national security waiver, meaning that the Department of Defense could circumvent the law if it is deemed dangerous to U.S. safety. But, for that to happen, the Secretary of Defense would have to "personally explain why the waiver was used to Congress and at that point make it public," the Franken aide explained. Excellent work by our junior Senator -- and a nifty piece of political jujitsu thanks to the Party of No's commitment to opposing everything with a D after its name in spite of its contents. |
