The anti-rape amendment introduced by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) may be stripped from the defense appropriations bill by Appropriations chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the Huffington Post reports.
Multiple sources told reporter Sam Stein that the provision -- which would prohibit the Pentagon from hiring contractors whose employment contracts prevent employees from taking work-related allegations of rape and discrimination to court -- is being targeted by defense contractors. Their lobbyists have reportedly flooded Inouye's office, worried they may lose contracts or open themselves up to lawsuits.
One source said it "looks increasingly likely" that Inouye will remove the amendment.
Stein points out that Inouye has received $294,900 from the defense industry over the course of his career. His top two contributors are defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and he also receives money from General Dynamics and Boeing.
As TPM reported earlier this week, the Department of Defense, along with the White House, opposes the amendment.
"We support the intent of the amendment, and we're working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable," said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.
This week, when White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the administration's position, he referred questions to the Pentagon.
The Pentagon did not return several of TPM's requests for comment. In a letter to the Senate, however, the department said "it may be more effective" to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction.
Franken's office declined to comment.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Why oh why
October 23, 2009 5:02 PM
Just when you think Democrats can't sink lower...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
October 23, 2009 5:02 PM
This country is broken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
October 23, 2009 5:12 PM
It's a simple matter of knowing right from wrong here. There's no gray area on this one at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 23, 2009 5:14 PM
So Democrats are pro-gang rape as well...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrShamus
October 23, 2009 5:19 PM
I guess the "Breck Girl" was right. There are two Americas: the United States Government vs the people who live here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
October 24, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to MrShamus
Or, to paraphrase President Eisenhower, you could also say the "American military/corporate/congressional complex" vs. the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
October 23, 2009 5:25 PM
Lobbyists. Jeezus H.
Forget enforcement, how bout we just ban military contracting pyramid schemes permanently?
It also provided cover for the Blackwater atrocities.
Killing multi-layer pyramid schemes for military industrial complex contracting would be akin to pulling the anti-trust exemption from health insurance providers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wake up
October 23, 2009 5:51 PM
"In a letter to the Senate, however, the department said 'it may be more effective' to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction."
I must be missing what's objectionable about this response by the White House. If the intent of Franken's amendment can be broadened to include any business, including defense contractors, that seems like a plus. Assuming it will be done, and will be done quickly. Or is this known to be a dodge of some sort?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 23, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to wake up
The trip wire may be the "within US Jurisdiction" clause. If it were Bush, he'd just have the contracts written in Guantanamo. Or, alternatively, the contracts can be written between Xe and the client state. Nice way to wash one's hands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Acharn
October 24, 2009 2:35 AM in reply to wake up
Of course it's a dodge. If they said, "Well, just let us pass this bill without a robust public option, and 'real soon now' we'll pass a new law that gives us a robust public option," would you buy it? The tactic of delay is one way to kill any initiative. That's why the extreme right-wing Democrats want "more time" so the lobbyists can comment on the various proposed bills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Slideguy
October 24, 2009 10:45 AM in reply to wake up
This is called "kicking the can down the road". There will be no such bill, or if there is, it will have no teeth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
October 26, 2009 12:24 AM in reply to wake up
show me the money!!!!
actually, show me the new bill (with the provision expanded to every employer in US jurisdiction) passed, signed and I'll applaud the greater sense of justice.
However - having the DOD contractors in the sights on this issue, and let them off because it might open them up to lawsuits - well, yeah, that's the issue!!!!!
Fix rampant sexist and rape encouraging practices among your people, and we won't have a problem, now will we!!!!! Mkay?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
October 23, 2009 5:55 PM
So, Senator Inouye is going to stand up in front of god & country & say that he backs the rapists & their employers & wouldn't want them to be able to be sued for their criminal actions? What in the hell is he thinking & why is he in charge of anything?
Al Franken needs to fight back & expose this sell-out until he wakes up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
October 23, 2009 6:12 PM
With Dems like that, who needs Republicans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
October 24, 2009 9:24 AM in reply to jeffgee
it would appear the democrats became so indoctrinated during the bush years to roll over, sell their soul and agree with whatever the wealthy and powerful corporations and their lobbyists want.
there appears, from health care reform with the choice of a strong public option to bring honesty and competition into health care to defense spending to energy; the democrats, now back in power, are too afraid to take a stand, say this is what is right, come hell or high water or loss to my campaign coffers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
October 24, 2009 4:23 PM in reply to sbv
"Indoctrinated during the bush years" my ass! Try "indoctrinated during the Reagan years."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mo lib
October 23, 2009 6:14 PM
If Inouye thinks his move will serve to weaken Franken's progressive resolve he will be sadly mistaken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
October 23, 2009 6:47 PM
Shorter - Screw who you want, just don't tell us about it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 23, 2009 7:28 PM
A blogger seemingly went directly to the horses mouth -
http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/4306/will-sen-inouye-weaken-or-remove-frankens-antirape-amendment
Huh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
October 23, 2009 7:38 PM
Before everyone's head explodes, a couple of things:
1) Several of the HuffPo posters have reported contacting Inouye's office (and informing the staffers of their displeasure if it's removed), and being told that Inouye strongly supports it. That doesn't necessarily mean much, since the staffers aren't privy to what's going on in smoke-filled rooms, but it's a bit.
2) More importantly, it's very hard to see how even someone as crooked as Inouye is going to be able to justify this. It passed overwhelmingly with the support of every Democrat, including Inouye himself. Enough of these leaks from "multiple sources close to the discussions" have turned out to be total BS that I don't give them much creedence anymore. It's like reading British newspapers around here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 23, 2009 7:39 PM
I called his office yesterday and spoke to someone named Diane. She told me that they were checking with their press department to find out where the story came from. She also told me that Sen. Inouye has always been a strong supporter of the amendment (or the intent of the amendment). There is so much disinformation being propogated right now (has the votes, doesn't have the votes, trigger, opt-out, robust, etc...)that going to the horse's mouth is the only way to know anything until it actually happens. I conjecture that all these "un-named" sources are coming from the right ...?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
October 23, 2009 7:50 PM in reply to RhodaA
Follow-Up:
WARNING: There is something smelly going on in the blogosphere right now. If any story is reported by un-named or "multiple sources", don't believe or disbelieve it. Just follow it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Democracy Boy
October 23, 2009 10:42 PM
My God, man! If we can't assume anonymously sourced articles on random blogs are 100% accurate, WHAT IN GOD'S NAME CAN WE BELIEVE IN ANYMORE!
SFX: Sound of uncontrollable wailing and (sarcastic) weeping
(Ahem.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Steel
October 24, 2009 7:29 AM in reply to Democracy Boy
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Smithhammer
October 23, 2009 10:55 PM
This subversion of justice, and so many others, will only begin to change when companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin (and all the rest of them) are forbidden from contributing to campaigns. They own our politicians and our political process, and yet the only people with the power to change it are those that are benefiting from it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobartcat
October 23, 2009 11:38 PM
Franken rocks. I only hope that Minnesota knows what a service they've done for the US - and continues to honor us with Franken in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justicia
October 24, 2009 10:03 AM
Where is NOW?!! Haven't heard a peep from the National Organization of Women. They should be storming Congress to demand passage of Franken's bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
October 24, 2009 11:43 AM
I've been a C-SPAN junkie for years, I like to watch the debate and votes. If you looked at Inouyi's voting record over the years you might be surprised at how often he favors Corporate America. His pro oil company votes are just one example.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sharonsj
October 25, 2009 10:17 AM
And where are the Hawaiian newspapers during this controversy? If they aren't covering the conversation (blogged or not), it's just another example of the mainstream media screwing us over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dewey
October 25, 2009 9:04 PM
What do you expect from a man that considers Ted Stevens a dear friend as well as stole the gold ring off of a dead Japanese soldiers finger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Markowitz
October 26, 2009 1:01 AM
People should understand that what may be going on here is not as outrageous as it sounds. The Franken amendment, which I support by the way, goes beyond getting a trial for rape victims to actually outlawing arbitration clauses in employment contracts for defense contractors. These arbitration clauses would include not only claims of rape like the one that has gotten so much publicity, but claims of discrimination as well. Traditionally, however, the Congress and the courts have been very supportive of arbitration of discrimination claims, so the Franken amendment would represent a very large change that could be disruptive and difficult to enforce. As I said, I happen to support the Franken amendment, but that is because I find pre-dispute arbitration clauses in general difficult to justify. But people should understand that contractually requiring employees to take discrimination claims to arbitration instead of court is not the same as condoning rape or any of the other alarmist talk that it going around.
http://www.jcmarkowitz.com/2009/10/hard-cases-create-hard-times-for.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?