Peace Corps Expansion Act is Rejected

The Peace Corps Expansion Act was up for approval last week. It would have increased Peace Corps’ budget by more than $33 million in 2010, and gone a long way towards increasing programs and services, and supporting the work of volunteers like me.

Unfortunately, it didn’t pass.

It didn’t pass because while the Peace Corps mission has remained the same since 1961, the world has changed. And Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds foreign assistance programs, thinks it’s time we change too.

He’s right. The world is different now. It’s become more of a global community. So it sickens me to hear that Leahy believes there “are hundreds of volunteers serving in countries with little if any strategic importance to the U.S. Government.” At a time when the health of others—particularly in terms of drug resistant TB and HIV—greatly impacts the health of many, Peace Corps volunteers are doing their part at a grassroots level to increase awareness, educate the people and prevent the spread of disease. In one sense, we are fighting against a global epidemic. And we are doing so with few resources and very limited financial support.

Leahy’s suggestion that Peace Corps make moves to serve only in countries that will ultimately offer financial benefits or natural resources to the American people goes against all that Peace Corps stands for. It suggests that the main objective of the organization should be to offer volunteers and their services in return for something greater than a strengthened global community.

I’m in favor of expanding Peace Corps; of enlisting more volunteers and starting programs in additional countries. That’s one thing Leahy and I have in common. But what he fails to recognize in his quest to increase presence in Muslim countries (undoubtedly a move to strengthen foreign relations), is that their governments must be stable and perhaps more importantly, they must invite Peace Corps in. Sadly, in many of these places—particularly after the last eight years—America is not always welcome.

A letter from Senator Patrick Leahy:

Thank you for contacting me about funding for the Peace Corps. As Chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds foreign assistance programs, I have recommended $373,440,000 for the Peace Corps for fiscal year 2010, which is equal to the amount requested by President Obama and is $33,440,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level.

I strongly support the mission of the Peace Corps, which can be as relevant today in promoting American values abroad as it was when it was founded almost a half century ago. But the world has changed significantly since then, and the Peace Corps needs to adapt to the 21st Century. However, past efforts by the subcommittee to encourage the Peace Corps to reform and make better use of resources have been ignored. A new Director with a new vision, who recognizes the need for reform, supports transparency, and seeks a constructive relationship with Congress, is urgently needed.

I am aware that some have called for a large increase in funding above the amount requested by the President for fiscal year 2010 in order to send volunteers to new countries. Very few of such countries are safe enough or otherwise ready to host volunteers, and there are hundreds of volunteers currently serving in countries with little if any strategic importance to the United States who could be used more effectively. At a time of intense pressures on a limited budget, each volunteer costs the U.S. Government $50,000 a year. Each dose of vaccine for measles, a virus which threatens hundreds of millions of children in poor countries and needlessly kills 200,000 children annually, costs a few dollars. This is but one of the many difficult funding choices our subcommittee faced, yet the recommendation for the Peace Corps is the largest percentage increase in the Peace Corps' budget since 1993. I and other members of the subcommittee believe that reform, not dramatic increases in funding in a single year, is the Peace Corps' most urgent need.

I expect to recommend additional increases in funding to support the goal of doubling the Peace Corps, including sending more volunteers to countries with large Muslim populations, once it is clear that a new Director is providing the leadership that the Peace Corps needs.

Again, thank you for contacting me.