On Oct. 6, the Senate passed an amendment that would guarantee rape victims employed by defense contractors a chance to take their case to court. The 30 Republicans who voted against it have been vilified. (See, for example, RepublicansForRape.org.) But the Department of Defense — and, by extension, the White House — also opposed the amendment. Why?
Some background: The amendment, introduced by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), would prohibit the Pentagon from using contractors whose employment contracts force employees to arbitrate disputes rather than take them to court. The amendment applies to certain employee allegations, including rape, sexual assault and discrimination.
The Department of Defense sent a letter to the Senate urging lawmakers to vote no on the amendment, according to the Huffington Post.
The department argued that it and its subcontractors “may not be in a position to know about such things,” i.e., whether contractors employ the mandatory arbitration clauses. “Enforcement would be problematic,” the note read, because contractors may not be privy to what’s in their subcontractors’ contracts.
The department suggests that “it may be more effective” to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction.
The White House does say it supports “the intent of the amendment,” spokesman Tommy Vietor told TPM.
Vietor also said the White House is working with legislators to rework the amendment “to make sure it is enforceable.”
The Senate legislation, part of a defense appropriations bill, must still be merged with a House bill before it can be signed.
Franken’s amendment stems from the story of Jamie Leigh Jones who alleges that, as a 19-year-old employee of Halliburton subsidiary KBR, she was drugged, gang-raped and locked in a storage container by several of her co-workers. When she returned to the States, she found she couldn’t bring the charges to court because of the contract she had signed with KBR.
Speaking on the Senate floor against the amendment, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) argued that it was a political move aimed at Halliburton.
