Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman calls the Republican's proposed budget pending in Congress a proposal that would "move America backward, not forward, as we approach the new millennium."  Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner says it "could roll back the basic protections to public health and the environment that Americans want and deserve."

The budget resolution has been approved by both Senate and House.  A conference committee will work out the differences when Congress returns from its spring recess.

"Their plan threatens the safety of the nation's food supply by forcing the lay off or furlough of 1,000 meat and poultry inspectors," says Glickman.  It also would jeopardize "the health of more than 1.2 million low-income women, infants and children who would lose WIC nutrition assistance."

"Safe and dependable water and sewer systems" would be denied 186,000 low-income rural families by the "unwise Republican budget cuts," he adds.

"Perhaps most troubling to me is the impact of this budget proposal on USDA's ability to assist American farmers during a time of great need," Glickman continues.  "The Republican plan would reduce by 16% the local USDA staff who help farmers obtain the loans often needed simply to survive."

If the reductions are enacted, says Browner, they "could affect EPA's ability to set public health standards that protect our communities (and) severely limit the enforcement of national laws that ensure safer food and safe drinking water."

Cleaning up toxic waste sites "will be delayed in communities across the nation," she predicted.  States "will lose millions in resources for providing their citizens with healthier air and cleaner water."

The officials’ comments, typical of Administration reactions to a budget written by the opposite political party, do not reflect specific Republican proposals.  Instead, Glickman and Browner are inferring likely cuts if 2000 "caps" on discretionary spending remain in place, as proposed in the Republican budget.