Washington Post | March 1, 2002 | By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer
Shortly before leaving office, President Bill Clinton decreed the government should spend $300 million in the coming year on a laudable goal -- providing school lunches to poor children overseas.
Lawmakers, farmers' groups and anti-hunger advocates embraced the initiative, saying it would reduce hunger and promote education abroad. Legislators now hope to expand the one-year pilot program by writing it into a $172 billion farm bill poised for House-Senate negotiations.
But according to government auditors, the Global Food for Education Initiative has failed to achieve several key objectives, rushing to provide costly benefits in 38 nations without gaining immediate, concrete results.
In a report by the General Accounting Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, auditors questioned the wisdom of funding the project through a little-known government entity, the Commodity Credit Corp., which draws money directly from the Treasury without regular congressional oversight.
But with strong bipartisan support, the project is moving forward. The campaign to continue the program testifies to the farm industry's clout, and shows how difficult it is to dismantle federal programs once they are in place.
By offering to buy and distribute surplus agricultural products, the lunch program drew support from industry giant Archer Daniels Midland Co., farm groups and soybean and rice trade associations. After former senators George McGovern (D-S.D.) and Bob Dole (R-Kan.) promoted the project, lawmakers from across the ideological spectrum endorsed it.
McGovern said in an interview Wednesday that while there are "legitimate questions" about the program, "the basic idea comes down to, 'Why not one decent meal every day for every kid in the world?' How can you be against that?"
Many aid experts say providing lunches to children overseas will boost school attendance and make students more attentive in class. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who authored legislation along with Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) to make the program permanent, said U.S. officials already have evidence that U.S.-supplied lunches have boosted school attendance. "We're seeing this work," he said.
But the GAO report, released yesterday, questions the program's success. "While [the Agriculture Department] expects more than 8 million children to benefit from the pilot," the report says, "we found that the pilot's structure, planning and management thus far do not reasonably ensure that the program's objectives of increasing enrollment, attendence and learning will be attained."
The report said Agriculture Department officials were pressured to implement the project quickly and the program lacked resources to provide other, critical educational aid.
House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said lawmakers will scrutinize the lunch program now that it is part of the farm bill negotiations.
"We don't like taxpayer money going to programs that don't work," he said.
The Senate has called for $150 million in annual mandatory spending for five years; the House has asked for "such sums as may be necessary" until 2011.
The Clinton administration sidestepped Congress by funding the pilot program through USDA's Commodity Credit Corp., which can draw as much as $30 billion directly from the Treasury. Senators now hope to use that same strategy, which could insulate the school lunch program from future congressional attacks.
Administration officials said they are evaluating the pilot, which they describe as promising, before deciding to make it permanent.
Joe Thiessen, executive director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said: "Members should think long and hard about making permanent a program that has questions out there about its effectiveness and focus."
Rep. McGovern said he and others are addressing the GAO's concerns, adding money for educational tools and promoting parental and community involvement.
c 2002 The Washington Post CompanyWashington Post:
