I met Jim over 15 years ago, when he was at the Congressional Research Service working on pesticide issues, and I think Jim is an excellent choice to be an Assistant Administrator at EPA.
I've worked on pesticide issues for over 30 years, and understand how important a fair pesticide policy is to the nation's agriculture community. Farmers want many choices in their pest control tool box, and they want them to be available at a low cost.
In my days on the House Agriculture Committee, when we were considering various policy proposals, we regularly called Jim for advice. Jim played a valuable role in the pesticide debates of '86, '88, and most recently '96.
He was much more than just a technical advisor. He knows the laws, the way Congress works, and how to form coalitions and find solutions for difficult problems.
And now, looking back, many of the compromises he helped forge have withstood the test of time. His imprint continues to shape the way we regulate pesticides and chemicals today.
Why is Jim the best choice for this job at EPA? First, because he is the Nation's expert on pesticide and chemical issues. There is no one who has the years of experience and insight that Jim does.
Second, because he is honest, level-headed, and fair. Jim knows how to balance the competing interests, and make fair and rational decisions. He has established relationships on both sides of the aisle and knows how to tackle difficult problems.
Third, because frankly, Jim is not afraid to tell it like it is. Whether it is to his boss at EPA or to the Senator from Kansas. Sometimes a little disagreement is healthy to the debate.
I thank you for your attention and the opportunity to speak on behalf of Jim, and I look forward to a swift confirmation process.