I am writing to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving and to share some important news.

Last week we closed The Washington Independent and significantly reduced capacity at The New Mexico Independent due to lack of financial support for these programs. These were not easy decisions to make.  They are the consequence of operating in the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.

As word of these closures spread, we were deeply touched by the outpouring of support that came from across the web.   “It’s sad to see the Washington Independent shutting down,” wrote Ezra Klein of The Washington Post. The Washington Independent “achieved excellent journalistic results, winning awards for its reporting and praise from many newspaper reporters and editors,” Roy Greenslade of The Guardian said.  The Washington Independent “has been a must-read for those of us who appreciate our online news presented by incredibly intelligent reporters who possess a keen understanding of policy and why things matter,” explained Aaron Morrissey of DCist. Steve Benen of Washington Monthly declared, “I’m really sorry to see the Washington Independent close its virtual doors. It did some amazing work over the last three years, served as a launching pad for some terrific journalists, and it’ll be missed.”

The decision to reduce staff at The New Mexico Independent was equally difficult, and New Mexicans lamented the news. Democracy for New Mexico wrote, “This is very bad news for New Mexico’s citizens, as well as independent media coverage of government and politics… Now, more than ever, our citizens are in dire need of top-notch reporting, commentary and analysis to counter the right-wing echo chamber and the increasingly corporate-controlled mainstream media.” Tracy Dingman of Abq Journal Watch explained, “Now, more than ever, all New Mexicans need more eyes watching the legislature, not fewer. Think about it. The merits of keeping a close eye on the people we’ve elected to serve us are really not debatable. How else are regular people who work jobs and raise families and live all over the state supposed to keep tabs on what’s going on in state government? … So that’s why I’m telling everybody I know that even if you never read one story or visited one liveblog at the New Mexico Independent, you’re going to miss it. A lot.”

Closing The Washington Independent and reducing capacity at The New Mexico Independent are difficult milestones in an otherwise remarkable year for The American Independent News Network.  While our revenues have fallen by 50% since our heyday (from $4 million a year to $2 million), and our staff has been reduced by a similar amount, this year we recorded:

• The most impact ever — as of today, 56 confirmed “impact stories” for 2010.  To put this in perspective, in 2009 we tallied 48 impact stories with twice the reporting capacity.  The positive impact of these stories on our national life is hard to overstate.  You can read our definition of impact, here.  And see the stories summarized by each quarter: here, here, and here.
• And even though we have half as many reporters, our network traffic is down by about 15% for 2010.  Put another way, averaging 2009 and 2010 traffic by each full time reporter, our audience has grown by 77% this year.  A stunning achievement.

With each passing month, our organization continues to improve: the way our team works together, the partnerships we develop, and the interactions with our readers.  We have been able to accomplish so much, and with so much less.  So in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I want to say,

• I am thankful to all of our current and former employees and contributors, who made our accomplishments possible.
• To our ongoing supporters for standing by us at a time when our needs are more pressing and resources scarce.
• I am also grateful to our readers, both for their attention and also their encouragement.

Those of us who remain at AINN are deeply inspired by our mission and the encouragement of our readers.  We will work towards rebuilding the legacy of our national coverage through The American Independent and aim to return to full capacity in New Mexico.

Below, you will find some of the kind words that we received.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

Best,
David S. Bennahum

“[The Washington Independent] achieved excellent journalistic results, winning awards for its reporting and praise from many newspaper reporters and editors.” – Roy Greenslade, The Guardian

“Launched with the noble goal of providing substantive reporting on a number of very underserved issues, the Windy garnered recognition and launched careers… In areas such as immigration and national security policy, for instance, the Washington Independent did stand-out work…” – Jason Linkins, Huffington Post

“Even if the Independent wasn’t an entirely conventional news site, it made tremendous contributions to Washington journalism. It’s too bad donors didn’t turn out to be interested in that project. I can only hope that other publications recognize the tremendous value of the Independent’s remaining staff, and bring that same innovative, developmental spirit into their newsrooms, and do it quickly.” –Alyssa Rosenberg, Washingtonian

“Almost all independent news organizations and blogs are feeling the pinch — and it couldn’t come at a worse time. Now, more than ever, our citizens are in dire need of top-notch reporting, commentary and analysis to counter the right-wing echo chamber and the increasingly corporate-controlled mainstream media… [The New Mexico Independent’s] extensive and live legislative coverage was unprecedented in the state, and pivotal in the never-ending battle for more transparency, accessibility and accountability in government… Congratulations on a job well done during the two and a half years you served the citizenry of New Mexico. NMI, we hardly knew ye. You will be missed.”  – Democracy for New Mexico

“And anyone who understands how important real journalism and reportage is to an informed citizenry — and in turn, to democracy — should be devastated as well about Wednesday’s shutdown of the [New Mexico Independent] that pioneered in this state the integration of quick blogging and in-depth enterprise news reporting with real-time live-blogging and webcasting, notably from the [state legislature]… The New Mexico Independent worked against bias, and tried to cover issues largely ignored by Albuquerque’s only other daily news organization, the Journal. I mourn NMI’s loss as I did that of the Albuquerque Tribune. . .To my former colleagues at NMI, may you find rewarding outlets for your talent and ambitions.” – Denise Tessier, Clearly New Mexico

@KUNMnews (89.9 KUNM News): “KUNM News thanks the New Mexico Independent journalists for 2.5 years of solid reporting; today brings another loss for independent media.”

And our readers comment on our farewell announcement…

“I found this TWI news site and I was pleased to highlight many of the stories at my blog. But like so many others in America, I never supported what gave me value and now, sadly, that value is gone…I won’t forget this lesson again easily. To the best of my ability, I will financially support the things I find of value so that they will be around a long time. I hope you will do the same.”

“TWI provided such necessary coverage and analysis. Where am I going to go? We have to figure out a way to finance these endeavors because we need good investigations and coverage.”

“No way! I just found you, a beacon in the night…and now your light has burned out. Bummer…I wish you all well…”

“I’m sorry to see you guys go. If it’s any consolation, TWI was an incubator for some honest and honorable young journalistic talent, and I suspect those of you who are left will be quickly picked up by other outlets for that very reason. It’s to your credit – and perhaps a basis for TWI’s doom – that you folks didn’t whore yourselves out for bigger bucks. Best wishes and regards.”

“In a time of liberal ascendancy, in a time when Blackwater/Xe is thriving off government contracts and liberal media outlets such as Air America and this one go belly up because there is no valid support structure (ads, grants, links, etc) from the liberal establishment, I still doff my conservative cap to you.”

“One more independent voice stilled. The public forum will be a poorer place. Thank you for three years of outstanding journalism, and good luck to you all.”

“Dang! I loved the Independent. Why doesn’t anyone fund the independent and left of center news? I don’t get it – the out and out liars of FOX, NY Post, etc. make tons of money and the rest of us are left with our blogs.”

“Terrible news–I started each day reading your articles. Trip, your emphasis on prison and corrections in general will be missed.”

“[TWI] was a truly fine publication without bias — I read it often and will miss it.”

“I was shaken to hear this on the radio. Thank you for all you have done. May you, like the phoenix, rise again soon.”

The lame-duck session could be the last chance for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pass a number of bills. (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

The midterm hangover having finally worn off, the 111th Congress returns today to kick off the lame-duck session, its last hurrah before its successor takes over. And the 112th Congress will look radically different, with Republicans in control of the House and the Democratic majority in the Senate significantly reduced. These next few weeks, then, could be the last chance for major Democratic initiatives. But the hurdles are high, and Republicans see no reason to grant Democrats any victories after the populace voiced its discontent with the policies of the past two years.

[Congress1] The battle lines are drawn; here are the fields on which they’ll be fought:

Bush tax cuts:

The biggest question before the Senate — and the one that will likely receive the most attention — is the expiration of the 2001 tax cuts signed into law by President Bush. Facing Democratic resistance in the Senate at the time, Republicans set up the cuts to sunset after ten years. Now that they’re set to expire, however, GOP lawmakers have lined up shoulder to shoulder to make them permanent.

President Obama, on the other hand, ran for office on a pledge to extend the existing tax rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, while letting the tax cuts for those making over that number expire. But as the economy continued to falter and Democratic re-election prospects began looking bleak, Democrats in Congress put off addressing issues related to the tax code until after the midterm elections. Now that Republicans have made big gains in both chambers of Congress, Democrats find their confidence further weakened.

Following the midterms, the White House has signalled that Democrats might be willing to compromise on the idea of a permanent extension of tax cuts for middle-class families and a temporary extension of cuts for the two percent of Americans families making more than $250,000, but it won’t stomach the approximately $700 billion in additional debt that would be required to extend those cuts permanently. Republicans, on the other hand, haven’t deviated from their position that the tax cuts for all Americans be kept together as a package deal.

If neither side blinks, taxes are set to rise for all Americans effective January 1. Neither party wants to be seen as responsible for a tax hike during difficult economic times, but Democrats have appeared far more worried at the prospect of getting blamed should negotiations break down. Polls favor the Democrats’ position that the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be allowed to expire, but without the votes of at least two Republicans in the Senate, the proposal is likely to fail. Barring momentum in Congress for the creation of a new tax bracket — for people making half a million dollars or a million dollars per year — in order to better rhetorically define the class of folks for whom Republicans are advocating tax relief, the easiest and most likely outcome will be a bill that temporarily extends all the tax cuts, simply kicking the decision of what to do to some point farther down the road.

Unemployment insurance benefits

As Congress frets over whether the marginal tax rate for incomes over $200,000 should be raised three percentage points, the Senate is also on the verge of allowing federal unemployment benefits to lapse — again. Extending the benefits before they expire on November 30 might seem like a no-brainer: It would prevent somewhere between 1.2 and 2 million unemployed Americans from having their subsistence checks cut off just in time for Christmas and would reduce the risk of a drop in consumer spending and economic growth as high as 0.4 percentage points from December to February.

Republicans might have trouble arguing that deficit reduction trumps other priorities, including unemployment benefits, when the only major initiative the GOP is pushing — extending the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2 percent of wage earners — would increase the deficit by $700 billion over ten years. That said, Republicans in the Senate, along with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), are likely to vote against any extension of unemployment insurance benefits unless Democrats can come up with ways to offset their cost.

The last time unemployment benefits were set to lapse, back in early June, the Senate was unable to muster enough votes to renew an extension for 51 days. With Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joining Democrats to vote for cloture, and Nelson joining with Republicans to vote against debate, Democrats had no choice but to wait for Sen. Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) to be sworn in as a replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D- W.Va.) in order to garner a 60th vote.

This time, assuming all the senators maintain their positions in the debate, the hurdle will be that much higher for Democrats after Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) takes the seat of Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) on Nov. 29. With one fewer assured vote, Democrats would either have to come up with a package of equivalent spending cuts that satisfies Republicans’ demands or persuade one more Republican to join their cause. Neither scenario appears particularly likely, however, which is why many unemployed Americans are bracing for the worst come Nov. 30.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

A long-awaited Pentagon study on ending the practice of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 17-year-old law that requires military service members to keep their sexual orientation secret, isn’t due to President Obama until December 1, but early media reports indicate that it will buttress gay rights advocates’ arguments to repeal the law. More than 70 percent of the respondents in the Pentagon survey indicated that repeal would have either positive, mixed or nonexistent effects, leading the authors to conclude that the military can lift its ban on gay and lesbian Americans serving openly in uniform while incurring minimal risk in its current war efforts.

If the study brings good news to those hoping to repeal the law, however, the current situation in the Senate should not. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attempted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the midterm elections, tacking the provision onto a defense reauthorization bill that failed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate. The bill was weighed down by many add-ons — including the DREAM Act, which seeks to extend a path to citizenship to some undocumented immigrants who attend college or serve in the military — giving too many senators excuses to vote against it, but advocates remained hopeful that repeal could pass along with the defense bill when Congress resumed for its lame-duck session.

Now Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, is said to be negotiating with Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, to remove the DADT repeal provision from the defense bill. McCain had previously voiced openness to authorizing a repeal of the law following the Pentagon’s review, but since that time his views have hardened. During his re-election battle earlier this year, McCain faced a primary challenger from the right and promised during his campaign to preserve the law.

In the absence of support from McCain, advocacy groups have identified 10 senators who have indicated in the past that they’d like to see the Pentagon’s study before deciding on whether to lift the military’s policy. The list includes Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Oympia Snowe (R-Maine), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jim Webb (D-Va.). Once the results of the study are known, gay rights groups hope these senators will take them to heart and vote for repeal. If they follow McCain’s lead and renege on their previous openness to getting rid of the law, however, it may be a long time before Congress can muster sufficient votes to repeal the policy.

Campaign finance reform

Following an election season that saw record amounts of cash — including a fair chunk from undisclosed sources — spent on political advertising by outside groups, campaign finance reform advocates are still hoping that Democrats in Congress might take advantage of their remaining time in charge of both chambers to pass legislation to shore up the loophole-ridden landscape of campaign finance law. The most popular effort, by far, during the last year has been a bill called the DISCLOSE Act, which would require all groups spending money on electioneering activities in future elections to disclose their major donors.

While premised on a fairly bipartisan concept of full disclosure, the bill soon ran into trouble in the Senate over additional components that had been added on to it. Measures to prohibit campaign spending by companies holding government contracts or those exceeding a certain threshold of foreign ownership were read by Senate Republicans as an attempt to privilege union speech over that of corporations. Traditional campaign finance reform advocates like Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) held onto such objections and voted against cloture for the bill when Democrats declined to take them out.

Now Democrats in the Senate are contemplating one last attempt to pass a stripped-down version of the DISCLOSE Act — one that sticks strictly to the principle of transparency that Republicans once advocated as their gold standard for effective campaign finance legislation. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a staunch opponent of nearly all campaign finance legislation, might prove an even bigger obstacle to the bill’s passage than any single aspect of the legislation. While Snowe or Collins, or even Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) or Senator-elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), might prove receptive to the measure in principle, it appears highly unlikely that any of them are willing to buck their party leadership for the cause.

Energy/environment

Even if the lame-duck session likely represents the best opportunity for Democrats to pass key pieces of energy legislation before a more Republican Congress comes to town, it seems unlikely that anything significant will move.

The House, for its part, has already passed a cap-and-trade bill and an oil spill response bill, and all eyes are now on the Senate. But it looks like major energy action in the chamber will have to wait until next year, if it happens at all.

One clean energy advocate with close ties to Congress downplayed the likelihood that energy legislation will pass during the lame duck. “Little will happen, probably,” he said.

The only energy-related bill that is likely to see the light of day during the lame-duck session is a proposal to encourage the production of electric and natural gas vehicles. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a cloture vote for Wednesday on the bill, the Promoting Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles Act of 2010. The bill has bipartisan support.

Asked about the prospects for energy legislation during the lame duck in the Senate, Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid, said, “We filed cloture on a motion to proceed to a natural gas bill before we left. Other than that, we have many items that are possible for consideration during the lame duck.” Lachapelle did not elaborate on the pieces of legislation to which she was referring.

Backers of a renewable energy standard, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, are keeping their fingers crossed that such a proposal can move in the lame-duck session. “We’re optimistic about the lame duck,” said one RES proponent who was not authorized to talk on the record.

Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) spoke on the phone Tuesday about the possibility of moving an RES during the lame duck. Bingaman’s spokesman, Bill Wicker, would not discuss the call. “This was a private conversation between two Members, so I have to respect that,” he said in an email. “But we all should know more about the lame duck before much longer.”

But a senior Senate aide with knowledge of the conversation downplayed the possibility that an RES would be brought up for a vote during the lame-duck session. “They had a good conversation and agreed it will be challenging to get 60 votes for expedited consideration of an RES during the limited time left in the session,” the aide said of discussion between Reid and Bingaman. Indeed, RES supporters would need to secure the support of two to four Republicans in addition to the four who already support the bill in order to get 60 votes.

An oil spill response bill and various pieces of legislation to promote energy efficiency and home weatherization are all pending in the Senate. But it looks like consideration of those bills will have to wait until next year.

DREAM Act

Reid and Pelosi have vowed to push for a lame-duck vote on the DREAM Act, a bill that would allow some undocumented young people who came to the United States as children to gain legal status for attending college or serving in the military.

In the House, the vote could come as early as this week, Democrat sources told Politico. Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) were reportedly tasked by Pelosi with determining whether the caucus would be able to pass the bill.

If the act does not pass in the lame-duck session, it has very little chance of passage before 2013. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who is expected to head the House subcommittee on immigration, refers to the DREAM Act as “amnesty” and promised he would use his authority in the GOP-led House to block the act. GOP gains in the Senate also lessen the likelihood of passing the bill next session.

Reid recently said he would need support from “a handful of Republicans” to pass the bill during the lame duck, echoing estimates by bill sponsor Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that at least five Republicans would need to support the bill for it to pass. A spokesman for Reid confirmed last week that he plans to bring up the DREAM Act for a vote during the lame-duck session, although it is still unclear whether it would be as a standalone measure or as an attachment to another bill.

The problem is that Reid doesn’t have much time — or sure support for the DREAM Act from his caucus. The act last came up for a vote in 2007, and seven of the eight Democrats who voted against it then are still in the Senate. While a few might support the bill this time around, five told The Hill in September they are still undecided on the DREAM Act.

Complicating matters, Mark Kirk’s assumption of Roland Burris’ seat in the Senate turns a sure “yes” vote into a likely “no.” Kirk has been lobbied heavily by DREAM Act supporters, but said before the election that he would vote against the act unless border security measures were pushed first. “It’s not time for the DREAM Act right now,” he told reporters in October. “If the DREAM Act came up for a vote right now, I would vote ‘no.’”

All current Republican senators voted in September to filibuster the defense authorization bill after Reid announced plans to attach the DREAM Act. But given the additional controversy over that bill — it included a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and would have allowed for only limited changes from Republicans — it’s tough to extrapolate much from it about how senators would vote on the DREAM Act as a standalone bill.

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) said he would support the bill if it were brought to the floor on its own, even though he opposed it as part of the defense authorization bill. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored the bill, would also almost certainly vote for it if it comes up in the lame-duck session.

Several other Republicans voted for the DREAM Act in 2007, but their support this year remains uncertain because of rightward shifts on immigration policy and the possibility of the bill again being attached to other legislation. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was an original sponsor of the bill when it was first introduced in 2001 and voted for it in 2007. This year, he said the government should secure the borders before it focuses on the DREAM Act.

Written by Jesse Zwick, Andrew Restuccia and Elise Foley.

On KCRW’s To The Point this past Friday, Restuccia discussed the claims process for victims of the oil spill. (His segment begins at 45’02″.)

And at the end of August, he also spoke to Michigan radio host Ed Brayton of Declaring Independence about the oil spill in that state and the one in the Gulf.

Hallmark workers at the site of an oil spill cleanup operation. (Michigan Messenger)

In July, a 30-inch oil pipeline burst in Battle Creek, Mich., near a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. The cracked pipe leaked an estimated million gallons of oil into the water, and at the time, Enbridge Energy, the Canadian company that owns the pipe, promised a complete cleanup and rigorous review of its practices. “This is our responsibility,” said Patrick Daniel, Enbridge’s chief executive officer. “This is our mess. We’re going to clean it up.”

[Environment1] But that cleanup has itself been messy. An investigation by the Michigan Messenger – a sister site of the Washington Independent, also part of the American Independent News Network – found undocumented workers laboring in unsafe conditions at the cleanup site.

An Enbridge Energy subcontractor bused in undocumented workers to labor for up to 100 hours a week, clearing debris and cleaning up oil in unsafe conditions. In response to the Messenger investigation, Enbridge fired the subcontractor, who sent the workers back to Texas. There, the undocumented workers, awaiting cash payments for their efforts, met with local authorities – and many were detained.

The scandal has gone national, with politicians expressing dismay at the conditions at the Michigan cleanup site and the labor abuses, and authorities turning their attention to the companies doing the dirty business of getting America’s waterways clean.

An Unsafe Cleanup

After the Michigan oil spill, Enbridge hired contractor Garner Environmental Services to aid in the cleanup of the river. Garner, in turn, hired Texas-based Hallmark Industrial to supply workers. Last month, Hallmark bused scores of undocumented workers to the cleanup site. Living in hotels, the workers spent 12 to 14 hours a day cleaning oil-soaked islands and shorelines along the Kalamazoo River. The workers received $800 per week in cash for their efforts.

After receiving an initial tip from a Hallmark worker who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals, the Michigan Messenger visited a rally site where the workers were picked up every morning. Half of two dozen men interviewed there admitted to being undocumented workers. All of them asked not to be identified.

Photographs supplied by a whistle-blower showed clear violations of safety standards. In those photos, undocumented workers were seen covered in oil and mud getting food and water. In one photo, a worker covered in oil sits on the white cooler from which workers get their water.

Last week, after the Messenger investigation, Garner fired Hallmark. The workers were put on charter buses back to Texas.

Workers, Seeking Pay, End Up Detained

The buses stopped in Winnie, Texas, behind a bank. Reportedly, the workers on the buses were expecting cash payments from Phillip Hallmark, the head of Hallmark Industrial. Soon after, neighbors complained to the police about the buses, which were blocking a street. When sheriffs arrived, the men held in the buses ran.

Local authorities took custody of 59 of the Battle Creek workers, and about 40 men got away. Authorities say 42 of the 59 detained workers were undocumented, and they were sent to a detention facility in Houston. Legal residents were released and allowed to collect their belonging from the buses. Authorities continue to search for men who escaped during the detention process.

Chambers County Sheriff Joe LaRive spoke with the Messenger after the incident. “The [charter bus] drivers were told to drive them to this small house in our little community,” LaRive said in a phone interview. “They were to meet Mr. Hallmark once they got there. Of course, he was nowhere around when we showed up.”

LaRive indicated that law enforcement is looking for Phillip Hallmark. “I’m sure the federal authorities will be very interested in talking to him,” he says.

Enbridge Pushes Back

In the wake of the Messenger investigation, the firing of Hallmark and the detention of its workers, Enbridge Energy — the company repsonsible for the spill — has claimed no responsibility for the workers cleaning it up.

Last week, Enbridge officials said there was no official proof that the undocumented workers were in any way connected to the spill cleanup in Michigan. “This is an issue between law enforcement, Hallmark and Garner,” said Terri Larson, Enbridge spokesperson. “There is no direct connection between Enbridge and Hallmark.”

Larson stressed that contractor agreements with Enbridge contained “very strict” provisions about following all applicable state and federal laws. Asked if the Hallmark situation would impact the Garner contract, Larson said, “That’s something I cannot discuss.”

Larson referred many questions to Garner Environmental, which has consistently failed to return media inquiries.

A Broader Investigation

But the Messenger investigation is ginning up broader questions about Enbridge’s labor and safety practices. A look at the company’s record reveals a pattern of problems with worker safety including multiple worker deaths in recent years.

This summer the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Enbridge for “willful” and “serious” violations after a chemical release at a company natural gas processing plant in Texas resulted in the death of a worker. According to OSHA one employee died and another was left in critical condition on Jan. 10 when hydrogen sulfide was released as workers replaced a faulty valve on a waste heat boiler in the sulfur plant.

Federal officials say Enbridge failed to develop and implement safe work practices for workers exposed to hydrogen sulfide and failed to provide the workers with respirators — required personal protection equipment.

These violations were committed, they said “with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to employee safety and health.”

OSHA also cited Enbridge for failing to review current operating procedures, failing to inform contract workers of the known potential fire, explosion or toxic release hazards related their work and not requiring the use of necessary flame resistant clothing. The agency assessed $152,100 in fines for these violations.

In August, the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline Hazardous Materials Administration fined Enbridge $2.4 million for safety violations involving worker safety and failure to conduct required monitoring and maintenance.

DOT officials said that two Enbridge workers died in a crude oil explosion in Clearbrook, Minn., as they worked to make repairs on the Lakehead pipeline, and they cited Enbridge for failing to safely and adequately perform maintenance and repair activities, clear the designated work area from possible sources of ignition, and hire properly trained and qualified workers.

The agency also ordered Enbridge to revise and implement certain pipeline maintenance and repair procedures and to train and requalify its employees.

While work seems dangerous for Enbridge employees — overall, from 2004-2008, 395 injuries were recorded by Enbridge and then reported to management according to the Canadian environmental group the Polaris Institute — actual statistics are probably much higher because 80 percent of Enbridge workers are non-union and have little protection against discrimination if they report a problem.

“Officially, Enbridge provides on the job health and safety training as mandated by federal and provincial jurisdictions, and has established health and safety committees at each site,” Polaris writes. “However, the only collective agreement negotiated with the company to include specific provisions regarding proactive health and safety precautions, training and remedial action is between Enbridge Gas Distribution and the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union in Ontario.”

Many workers involved in direct cleanup of the Kalamazoo River spill were hired by subcontractors who were required only to provide on site lectures about hazardous substances and personal protection gear.

Under Michigan regulations all employers at a multi-employer job sites share responsibility for ensuring that proper safety ruled are followed, according to Michael T. Mason, safety and health manager for the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Inspectors at the Enbridge oil spill cleanup site on a daily basis, conducted “walkarounds” of the job site and asked workers if they had been trained, Mason said. “We can tell by interviews and by watching them we can tell if [workers] have been trained.” Mason acknowledged that direct observation can be difficult at a 25-mile job site such as the cleanup area along the Kalamazoo River.

Political Attention in the Wake of the Spill

And the Michigan and Texas incident has garnered the attention of politicians as well.

For one, politicians in Michigan are incensed that Enbridge did not use local workers, as the state has the second-highest unemployment rate in the country. Rep. Mark Schauer (D) sent letters to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Secretary of Labor calling for an investigation of Enbridge, due to the Messenger investigation.

“Enbridge needs to live up to the commitment it made to our community, be a good neighbor, and start hiring qualified Michigan workers to clean up the spill,” Schauer said. “Our community repeatedly asked the EPA and Enbridge to use local labor, and the fact that Enbridge allowed one of its contractors to hire illegal immigrants is appalling.”

In an interview with the Michigan Messenger, Schauer took aim not only at the undocumented worker hiring scandal, but also the whole culture of using independent contractors to skirt the law.

“I have worked for some time on the independent contractor fraud that goes on. This is when, typically in the construction trades — and this situation on the river clean up sort of classically fits the mold — where companies will hire workers as independent contractors, as 1099 independent contractors. It’s specifically done to evade paying taxes,” Schauer said, noting independent contractor payments do not have any federal or state taxes deducted from them.

This leaves the individual responsible for those taxes. “Now that’s cheating the taxpayer, but it’s also creating an unfair advantage for these companies that are hiring workers as independent contractors rather than full employees.”

This of course is an issue tied to undocumented workers, Schauer noted. In an interview with the Messenger, Hallmark said his independent contractors were not required to fill out I-9 federal forms. Those forms verify that a person is legally eligible to work in the United States.

“In this case this seems to be a loophole in which the employer is claiming they don’t have to check the legal status of these workers and require them to complete I-9 forms,” Schauer said. “So there’s tax fraud and there’s also a violation of the law by hiring undocumented workers, it appears.”

Schauer says this unfair advantage the independent contracting process allows, combined with the lack of legal status verification, makes it hard for Michigan workers to compete.

“It’s outrageous and disgusting that our local workers — including many who have hazmat training and certifications — have been cheated out of these opportunities to do this work,” Schauer said. “This is another example of a company cutting corners ad cheating our workers out of an opportunity to support their families.”

Schauer said he has been trying “since the very start” of the spill to connect local workers with Enbridge Energy Partners. But those attempts have failed.

Schauer said the allegations of safety violations and the hiring of undocumented workers will become part of a scheduled Sept. 15 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure hearings on the July 25 oil spill.

He says the oil spill was a violation of the people of Calhoun county and “it shouldn’t have happened.”

“What people are looking for is fundamental fairness and that appears to have been violated here,” he said.

Further Allegations About Hallmark

The incident is also shining a light on Phillip Hallmark and his company’s labor practices. The Texas Independent reports Hallmark is already under indictment by a Chambers County jury for insurance fraud and theft in a previous, unrelated case.

Hallmark’s attorney Joseph C. “Lum” Hawthorn said last week he had recently been in touch with his client and was aware of Hallmark’s whereabouts. When asked where Hallmark is, Hawthorn cited attorney-client privilege, saying, “That’s none of your business.”

Hawthorn said Hallmark was not currently in custody, that he was aware of.

Regarding the charge involving insurance fraud and theft, Hallmark has a court date set in Anahuac for Oct. 1. He was originally slated to appear in court Friday, Aug. 27.

Allegedly, in July 2006, Hallmark’s accomplice Joe Collins claimed to State Farm Insurance Company that Collins’ 2003 Ford F-150 was stolen from a parking lot, when Hallmark and Collins were hiding the truck, according to grand jury indictments from December 2009.

Hallmark’s wife Holly is an insurance agent in Port Arthur for Farmers Insurance Group. She is not named in court documents.

In 2004, Hallmark was fined $1,000 after pleading no contest to election code violations involving campaigns for Port of Port Arthur commissioner. Hallmark was charged with failing to report newspaper advertisements that he paid for to the candidates he supported or to authorities. Hawthorn also represented Hallmark during the 2004 case.

Hallmark is the son of former Jefferson County Commissioner Waymon Hallmark, who retired in 2009.

The Michigan Messenger’s Todd Heywood and Eartha Jane Meltzer, the Florida Independent’s Travis Pillow and the Texas Independent’s Patrick Brendel contributed reporting and writing to this story.

“The enemy is Islamic terrorism. It’s not an amorphous extremism….It’s Islamic terrorism which opposes the very fiber of what we stand for,” Rep. King said.

Earlier this year, right-leaning media jumped on a decision by President Obama’s advisers to leave out terms like “Islamic extremism” and “jihadist” from the National Security Strategy. But as Spencer Ackerman wrote for TWI at the time, language matters: “You hear from Muslims all over the world [that] calling al-Qaeda ‘jihadists’ pays them an ill-deserved tribute,” Ackerman wrote.

Here’s the video of Rep. King’s remarks:

Video after the jump:

Watch the video after the jump:

Video after the jump: