CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Oct. 23, 2009 – 12:12 a.m.
One ‘No’ Too Many?
By Tracie Powell, CQ Guest Columnist
The “party of no” just might have gone one vote too far this time.
By now many, if not most, Americans have heard about the 30 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment that would have prohibited government contracts with companies that use mandatory arbitration clauses to deny assault victims the right to have their cases heard in court.
But get this: Reports emerged Thursday that the proposal, introduced by Sen. Al Franken , D-Minn., may be stripped away by a fellow Democrat, not a Republican.
The third longest-serving senator in history, Democrat Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, is reportedly considering altering or removing the provision that is part of the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill. A spokesman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Inouye, said in an e-mail that the committee does not comment on ongoing conference negotiations and emphasized that the White House supports the intent of Franken’s amendment.
Never let it be said that the Democratic Party is monolithic, or unified for that matter.
Still, it is Republicans who are currently being tagged as “pro-rape ” and credited with trying to derail an amendment that helps victims get justice.
Whose bright idea was it to unify against something like this? Surely opponents are already dreaming up campaign ads for the next election cycle.
For those who haven’t heard about this latest largely party-line vote, here’s a bit of background:
Nineteen-year-old Jamie Leigh Jones went to Iraq to work for defense contractor KBR. On her fourth day on the job Jones says she was gang-raped by seven of her colleagues and held captive inside a shipping container by two KBR guards. Four years later Jones, who claims KBR tried to cover up the sexual assault, is still trying to have her day in court; meanwhile more Iraqi rape allegations have emerged against KBR employees, including this one.
Jones’ story inspired Franken to introduce his amendment. Nine Republicans — including four women — voted with Democrats to adopt it, 68-30 (all no votes came from Republicans).
It should be noted that the Defense Department also opposed Franken’s amendment, and suggested instead that it might be more effective to pass a law that would eliminate these types of arbitration clauses in all business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction.
Makes sense, but that’s not what at least one Republican senator argued.
Jeff Sessions , R-Ala., called the amendment an “attack against Halliburton,” which used to own KBR.
“The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That’s just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate,” Sessions said in his opposition to the amendment. “Instead of eliminating arbitration we should probably be looking for ways to utilize mediation and arbitration more in these kinds of disputes.”
“These kinds of disputes . . . ?” We’re talking about rape, senator.
Sessions’ comment illustrates the widening disconnect between average Americans and politicians, particularly Republicans.
It would appear to be common sense for members of Congress to overwhelmingly support legislation that helps rape victims, not add salt to their emotional wounds. But the words “common sense” do not describe what has been taking place inside the GOP lately.
Until adoption of Franken’s amendment, Jones’ case had been getting little ink, and only the foreign press seemed to pay attention to the story. Now it is being blasted all over cable shows and blogs. It has even given rise to a new Web site called Republicans for Rape.
The Web site is certainly not something Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele would want his party associated with, no matter how much he’s been all over the map this year on any number of similar missteps by his members. (Steele was deathly silent when a prominent South Carolina GOP activist joked that first lady Michelle Obama descended from a gorilla and gave tacit approval of Rep. Joe Wilson , R-S.C., yelling “You Lie” at the president during his September address to a joint session of Congress — yet condemned two South Carolina party chairmen for perpetuating a stereotype about Jews just this week.
The “Republicans for Rape” Web site is probably the last thing a national GOP chairman wanted to see this week; it couldn’t have come at a worse time.
The attention not only came on the heels of the slight to Jewish people, but it comes on the eve of two critical gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey and it also coincides with the release of two national polls showing the number of people who self-identify with the Republican Party hovers around historic lows of 20 percent.
Even John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, recently acknowledged what the rest of us already knew: the GOP is no longer a national party.
Newsflash: Republicans, formerly known as the “tough on crime guys” aren’t going to regain national status by voting against legislation that further hurts crime victims.
The party has truly lost its way, and this ‘No’ vote against Franken’s amendment might just be one ‘No’ too many.
Tracie Powell is a former American Political Science Association congressional fellow and writes regularly on politics and policy.
Comments
This is something that I do not understand. So possibly I am uninformed, or dust is being thrown up to confuse me and other voters. It is a grave weakness of the Democratic party that they are unable to unite behind a cause; I suppose a strength as well, but it does not seem like it at this moment.
Great article, Tracy. You wouldn't have thought they'd find a way to vote against Franken's bill. Just as incredulous is their vote this week against against the defense policy bill because of the Byrd-Shepard Hate Crimes Act included. That's another we-aren't-so-tough-on-crime vote for them. Those numbers (20%) aren't looking too good for Republicans, but to hear them talk, they are still the voice of America. I'd like to see landslide defeats for them again in 2010, which isn't to say I'm all that happy with the Dems lately. Someone in Washington really needs to get a backbone and do what's right on quite a few issues. It's not like they don't have enough on their plate to make at least a few right decisions!
The basic problem here is the definition of arbitration. There is no question it saves time and money for all involved in small disputes. Sort of the same thinking behind small claims court, it doesn't have the same procedures as the main court, it is faster and cheaper, and most importantly, it has an upper limit . In cases where say, she felt uncomfortable with her work environment, and left, that probably would be suitable for arbitration. In a case where a rape occured and the company covered it up, including unlawful imprisonment, it isn't. It also isn't a civil case, but we will leave that for another day. So there are two problems with binding arbitration at the moment: (1) The company is trying to arbitrate cases that clearly should be in court, and (2) companies pay for the arbitrators, and therefor tend to get decisions in their favor (and the employee getting $50 for a grievance is a decision in the companies favor, no matter which way it is counted in the statistics. Clearly, if companies are going to be allowed to mandate arbitration, these two issues need to be cleared up first. Regrettably, it would be a lot tougher legislation to get through than simply banning the practice altogether. So there really is a political motive behind Frankin's amendment. It would be more honest just to name Halburton by name and get them off the gravy train. And I would second that one. Along with directing the Justice department to start a long overdue investigation into this matter. It absolutely boggles my mind that issue has not been addressed yet. And the cost benefits to all parties with impartial arbitration over suitable matters really are indisputable. Regrettably our congress does not have the moral backbone to address the issue properly. In which case we are better off without it except when both parties are equal in the process (major league sports for example)
This is an insightful column which addresses a multitude of problems. Of all of the nonsense being spouted by politicians, the comments by Sessions about not rewriting contracts is the most nonsensical. This amendment doesn't rewrite contracts but establishes a new criterion for doing business with the government. It is and always has been legal and ethical for the government to establish such criteria. It is alarming, indeed, that Sessions is worried about discrimination against a company that tries to sweep crimes committed by its employees under the rug but not at all concerned about discrimination against the victims of those crimes. As for Inouye, there are no words.
Thank God we have Democrat Daniel Inouye of Hawaii to step up just in time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! Halliburton's multi trillion dollar no bid fraudulent contracts must be saved at any cost. There is a reason why dick Cheney had his new house built within burrowing distance of CIA Headquarters in Virginia.
Inouye is probably doing this for the same reasons Max Baccus gutted healthcare. He's on the payroll of the side that would lose out. As far as Sessions comment, it typifies the problem of the GOP (or perhaps the flawed stratergy) - there are many arguments that could be made about why this amendment might result in unintended consequences or why it's dangerous to legislate based on one heinous act that might be an anomaly (ACORN bill, anyone?) But where is he alternative? How about PROSECUTIONS for these kind of crimes esp in the absence of legal accountability in Bush's Iraq. I think it's ridiculous to expect market forces to influence Haliburton or KBR to remove these waivers when people need jobs. Especially in an environment where jobs are scarce and our economic soul has been outsourced along with our manufacturing and now even some of our service industries. If the GOP doesn't like infringing on civil court waivers - fine. They then need to increase (or in this case - simply allow) activity of criminal prosecution. Or is stopping American rapists also dangerous for the war on terror?
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: