Nevertheless, with only a couple of weeks left before sequestration could occur should a deal not be reached, it is important to clarify the potential implications. Let me start by explaining what sequestration is and what it is not. Sequestration is an across-the-board reduction in budgetary resources for all accounts within the Peace Corps that have not been exempted by Congress. If it occurs, sequestration will reduce our budgetary resources for the remainder of the fiscal year (which runs through September 30). These cuts, while significant and harmful to our collective mission as an agency, would not necessarily require immediate reductions in spending. Under sequestration, we would still have funds available after January 2, but our overall funding for the remainder of the year would be reduced. Accordingly, this situation is different from other scenarios wehave encountered in recent years, such as threats of government shutdown due to a lapse in appropriations.

For these reasons, I do not expect our day-to-day operations to change dramatically on or immediately after January 2, should sequestration occur. This means that we will not be executing any immediate personnel actions, such as furloughs, on that date. Should we have to operate under reduced funding levels for an extended period of time, we may have to consider furloughs or other actions in the future. But let me assure you that we will carefully examine other options to reduce costs within the agency before taking such action, taking into consideration our obligation to execute our core mission. Moreover, if such action proves to be necessary, we would provide affected employees the requisite advance notice before a furlough or other personnel action would occur. We would also immediately cancel any scheduled personnel actions should a deficit reduction agreement be reached that restores our agency funding.

One would have assumed that there was a solid plan - knowing Carrie’s competence - but we shouldn’t have had to assume it.

This is less of a “who shot John” (pardon the name) than a “failure to communicate”.

Some comfort food as the “oldies ” check in to your recent recant. It’s all true.

A favorite PC Budget comparison is the annual military band cost at $388m a year vs $377m for Peace Corps.Sequestration is cutting back military band concerts ( and PCV mobilization) per an Al Kamen’s (RPCV) article in WAPO, March 6.

I am a repeat participant in the NPCA Advocacy Day ( a well organized NPCA activity) and can attest that the RPCV Congressaman stand up for Peace Corps ; however, no one else really opposes. It will take an “stand up ” effort by household name Senators and Congressman , and “more than a wave “: at the reluctant President to grab the attention ,which the PC so badly needs.

It’s our leagcy and it could go the way of General McArthur who said ‘Old soldiers never die they just fade away.” Think about the Peace Corps legacy !!!

Who will stand up.???.Former Senator Chris Dodd -RPCV-DR 8 ( a household name but not enough to win the Iowa primary) told me twenty five years ago..there are not enough RPCV’s to make an effective constituancy…and today there are twice as many RPCV’s..and the same holds true …. there are no RPCVSenators only six Congresssional voices to stand up!!

In talking about “Peace Corps,” I am referring to the agency, not the community. I think that all you say is very valuable. The Third Goal, with its network of cross country and culture connections, succeeds, I think, precisely because it is totally independent of the Peace Corps agency.

At the 50th, I was so overwhelmed by the women in my group who adopted children from Colombia, married HCNs, befriended and were befriended, and whose ties to Colombia spanned generations.

I just reread your article, “While the Peace Corps Slept.” I believe it was written about ten years ago. I do not think that our military is still the face of the “helping American.” But, the issues you raised deserve more than a paragraph of comment. For me, that is the real tragedy of the Peace Corps agency. It does not reflect, it does not encourage precisely this kind of so necessary debate. Nor does it see the need to monitor those changes it may have introduced. Rather, it is, in the vernacular, “anybodies.” The change in the Peace Corps you deplore was mandated by the “New Beginnings” approach of the first Peace Corps Republican administration. That approach was tossed out by Sam Brown, the Carter appointee to ACTION. There is no generic Peace Corps. There is no continuity in philosophy through the years. There is no one Peace Corps.

Sadly, I believe that “Peace Corps” has been a victim of its own mythology. Politicians want to grab the name and brand it as their own. And having done so, lose interest and move on.

It did succeed in becoming a shining image of America both abroad and at home. But it did not reach enough people both at home and abroad to make major changes. Believe it or not most people in the USA and in other countries do not realize that the Peace Corps is still in business. They think of it as a historical event of the 1960s.

Meanwhile, who remembers the dream JFK once envisioned of a Peace Corps of 100,000 new Volunteers a year by the ’70s? After a decade of such growth, JFK seemed to see America fielding 1,000,000 PCVs each decade from then on.

And now we’re into our fifth decade since the ’70s. Of course, we can’t assume that each decade’s 1,000,000 PCVs would have uniformly made a positive difference in their posts abroad, but many PCVs would have contributed something good.

And imagine how many more experienced RPCVs would now be back home achieving our Third Goal: helping other Americans to appreciate what the wide world is like beyond our borders. Imagine what the Congress would be like if even just 2 or 3 RPCVs had been added every decade to the Senate or the House. Our current 5 Representatives would sure have a lot more company.

Moreover, think of how many diplomats we could be counting on to carry the flag abroad as did our recently fallen RPCV Ambassador Chris Stevens. Ah, wouldn’t America and the world be a better place? Wouldn’t you agree?

The Peace Corps as imagined by Warren Wiggins in his epic “Towering Task” was to begin fast with 25,000 volunteers. Both he and Shriver didn’t want the limited jewel box it has become.

Too bad we didn’t have a NPCA that would stage a sit-in or major lobbying effort in the Halls of Congress. That might not help, but it couldn’t hurt. Because as you note, the word never really gets out about the value of the Peace Corps — fragile, ill-managed pokey thing that it is.