Fortunately, for Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont,), not many people watched the video feed from the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee’s December hearing on his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (S.1470). But those who did were probably as embarrassed as I was to see a U.S. senator publicly flogging a witness who dared say something he didn’t want to hear.
When Tester’s turn for questions came around, he instantly launched into a misinformed personal attack on Matthew Koehler, who had testified on behalf of a broad new alliance of 54 small conservation groups called the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign (LBPWC).
Right out of the chute the senator asked: “Isn’t it funny how the far left and the far right often connect up?” Followed by laughter.
Translation: Koehler represents a fringe element, so don’t pay attention to what he said. But is it appropriate for a U.S. senator to belittle any constituent in front of the cameras at a congressional hearing?
Next, he asked when the LBPWC was formed, and Koehler told him mid-July after his bill was introduced.
Translation: The group hasn’t been around long, so has little standing, ignoring the fact that the campaign is combination of many conservation groups that have worked on forest issues for 20 years or more.
Then Tester asked, “I think the first time we’ve met is here today, correct?”
Koehler replied, politely, “no,” he had traveled to D.C. and met personally with the senator soon after he was elected.
Instead of apologizing for forgetting that meeting, Tester asked, “You’ve gotten a hold of our Web site? Is that correct? You’ve sent us e-mails? The reason I ask is that I review all the e-mails and I haven’t seen one.”
Koehler tried to explain that what he personally did or didn’t do wasn’t important compared to the issue at hand and reminded Tester he was testifying on behalf of a long list of volunteer nonprofits, not as an individual constituent, before assuring the senator that he and his partners had indeed been in frequent contact with his staff, but without much success. “To be honest,” he replied, “there was a time when members of your staff weren’t returning our e-mails and weren’t returning our phone calls.”
“That’s because we didn’t receive any,” Tester interrupted, “because I looked at all the emails and your name wasn’t on them.”
Then, Montana’s newest senator gave Koehler an old-fashioned scolding, reminding him how privileged he was to even be on this “distinguished panel” of witnesses, and concluded by accusing Koehler of lying. “Don’t make the claim that is unfounded,” Tester warned.
A lot of issues here, but for starters, there’s obviously a major disconnect between the senator and his staff. I hope it isn’t intentional, because his staffers know as well as their own names that Koehler and the groups he represents have made numerous attempts to be part of this and other congressional efforts to address wilderness and forest management issues, but have been snubbed and written off as the “far left.”
I’ll take the senator’s word for it when he says he reads all e-mails sent to the “contact” form on his senatorial website, but I doubt many in LBPWC used that little form in lieu of sending longer, detailed e-mails to the senator and his staff. The senator’s staff obviously received a lot of e-mails, but obviously didn’t allow Tester to read them.
I have copies of several of these emails. They’re thorough and constructive, but I must ask, why does it matter if Koehler sent an e-mail?
(Ironically, Tester showed proper respect to members of the timber industry who probably didn’t vote for him, but ridiculed wilderness advocates who definitely voted for him – and could have easily made the difference in the razor-thin 2006 victory. Go figure.)
After the hearing, Koehler told me members of the LBPWC have had “five face-to-face meetings” with Tester’s staff and called and e-mailed “four or five dozen times” during the past few months.
Incidentally, Tester implied that he’d invited Koehler to testify, but he isn’t even a member of this subcommittee and the subcommittee’s staff put the “distinguished panel” together. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the subcommittee, invited Koehler to testify.
Tester is obviously sensitive about the claim that drafting the bill wasn’t an open process, an issue Koehler mentioned in his testimony. Keep in mind that when Montana narrowly elected Tester, a strong “open government” promise was a cornerstone of his campaign. But the fact is, the bulk of this key legislation is a backroom deal among a few enviros and timber reps. Tester’s behavior at the hearing tells me he’s edgy about how this deal was done, as he should be.
The senator’s staff probably regrets this screw-up, which might be why they only pulled out supportive testimony to put on YouTube instead of posting the entire tape of the hearing to conveniently hide the forgettable Q&A section – and omit perhaps the key part of the hearing where Undersecretary of Agriculture Harris Sherman, speaking for the Obama administration, objected to several sections of the bill.
Anyway, what’s done is done, but to salvage something from this embarrassing episode, I suggest Tester, on behalf of all Montanans, send Koehler a letter of apology and release it to the press.