July/August 2007

Washington Report to Presbyterians

Sometime during the weekend of August 4-5, Congress will recess for its summer break, not to return until after Labor Day. With remarkably few accomplishments to their credit so far and with most members already engaged in campaigning for the 2008 elections, there is little likelihood of enacting significant legislation. Nonetheless, there are crucial issues facing the legislators that require their attention. Among them are the topics in this edition of the Washington Report to Presbyterians:

• Health Care for the Most Vulnerable
• Immigration, with an emphasis in this issue on African migration
• U.S. Trade Policy

Health Care for the Most Vulnerable

By Leslie G. Woods

As a community of faith, we share a common belief in the sacred obligation to care for all of God’s children and ensure everyone has access to the care he or she needs to live healthy and productive lives. This is a shared responsibility with roles for individuals, families, communities and government at all levels, but one in which Congress now has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership.

As the health care crisis continues to unfold in the United States, the prospects of achieving Health Care for All are grim. In 2002, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly called on Congress “to recognize the importance of universal health care — this is, equal, accessible, affordable, and high-quality health care for all persons residing in our nation” (Minutes, 2002, p. 644). 

That same statement further called on Congress to fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) adequately “so that health-care coverage will be available for all children.” Children are the most vulnerable members of society, and the most likely to suffer the long-term ill effects that result from an inability to access health care. This year, Congress must reauthorize CHIP, or SCHIP (the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) and they have a real chance to live up to the 2002 call from the church.

There are currently nearly 46 million uninsured people in the United States, nine million of whom are children. Six of the nine million children are currently eligible for, but not enrolled in either SCHIP or Medicaid. Children are becoming seriously ill and even dying due to a lack of access to health care. 

Just this year, we have seen these devastating effects. In February, Deamonte Driver, a young boy in the Washington D.C., suburbs, had a toothache, and died after his tooth abscessed, infecting his brain. Had he been able to see a dentist, his tragic and painful death could have been prevented by a simple $80 tooth extraction. The cost of continuing this crisis is paid in the lives of children, and is much higher than any amount that Congress claims it cannot afford to spend.

Since SCHIP was enacted in 1997, it has, in combination with Medicaid, succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured children by one third, despite rising health care costs and declines in employer-based coverage. But with nine million children still lacking health insurance and unable to access the care they need, it is clear that more is needed.

SCHIP is administered at the state level, and states need more funding and more freedom to take innovative approaches to outreach in order to provide services to these uninsured children. 

Fortunately, members of Congress have vowed to reauthorize SCHIP with the needed adjustments. In the budget process, they included the possibility of spending $50 billion in new funds for SCHIP reauthorization, though they did not take steps to provide that money. Therefore, advocates have been focusing on ensuring that Congress finds a way to fund this desperately needed $50 billion increase in SCHIP.

Spending $50 billion in new funding for SCHIP is the minimum needed to maintain current coverage, to reach out to children already eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid but not currently covered, and to begin expanding coverage to all children. There are serious concerns that $50 billion will not be enough to address the needs of all nine million children. People of faith must push Congress to allocate enough to cover ALL children.

To this end, any SCHIP reauthorization must:

• Fulfill the commitment of at least $50 billion over 5 years in new funding. This amount is the minimum needed to maintain current coverage, reach out to children already eligible, but not currently covered, and begin expanding coverage to all children.
• Include new tools, options and supports for states to cover more children. Express Lane Eligibility and other enrollment/renewal simplifications, options to cover pregnant women and legal immigrant children and pregnant women, and financial incentives for states to increase outreach would help reach and retain more eligible children.
• Provide comprehensive benefits. All medically necessary services, including mental health and dental care should be covered by SCHIP.
• Do NO harm to coverage. Medicaid should not be weakened in any way to finance improvements in SCHIP, and states that have expanded income eligibility and chosen to cover parents as a way of reaching more children should not be undermined.

To be sure, an expanded SCHIP reauthorization will not achieve the long-tem goal of achieving health care for ALL, but comprehensive coverage for children is an important first step toward a more just system where all people have access to quality care that not only provides treatment in the event of sickness, but ensures preventative care to avert health crises altogether.

This summer, Congress, and in particular the Senate, is drafting the SCHIP reauthorization bill. Members of both chambers of Congress need to hear of their constituents’ support for a strong SCHIP reauthorization that adheres to the principles outlined above and seeks to expand coverage to all children. It is an important first step, and one for which children can’t afford to wait.

Our faith compels us to continue to proclaim the fundamental right of every person to quality, affordable health coverage. From the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, God asked, “Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of my poor people not been restored?” (8:22). It is a question that is startlingly apt for our day and our time.

African Immigration To The United States

by Laura E. Polk, Intern

After the abolition of slavery, African migration to the United States all but ceased, mostly due to restriction of immigration from non-European countries. The first surge in African immigration occurred after World War II, as African nations began to gain independence from European control.

There was a substantial increase by the 1970s because of changes in immigration policies, specifically:  the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which made allowances for family reunification; the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), granting legal status to those who had entered the United States before 1982, which impacted the legal status of some 39,000 Africans; and the introduction by the State Department in 1990 of the diversity lottery which sought immigrants from underrepresented countries.

A 2006 study by Kwadwo Konadu-Agyemang, professor of Geography and Planning, and Baffour K. Takyi, associate director of the Pan African Studies program at University of Akron, shows that biased practices continue to limit the number of African immigrants to the United States.

They cite several reasons for the influx in African migration to the United States. Despite gaining independence from European colonizers, many African countries continue to experience deteriorating conditions such as political instability, civil conflict and lack of resources such as education, health care and employment.

Although Africans make up a small percentage of the total number of immigrants who enter the United States each year, they are a significant number.  The U.S. Census Bureau estimates there are currently more than 800,000 African-born immigrants living in the United States. Ghanaian sociologist John Arthur stated in 2000 that African immigrants in the United States are primarily from Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa, Nigeria, Somalia and Eritrea. They bring a multitude of skills and abilities as doctors, lawyers, nurses and educators, yet are ignored in the larger context of public debate over immigration reform.

Many African immigrants plan to return to their homeland when conditions improve, and therefore consider themselves “sojourners” in the United States, according to Arthur. They maintain hope for political and economic change in their homelands, and many see migration as a way to obtain revenue in order to invest financially in their homelands.

An example of this comes from Ghana, which, after a change in leadership in 2000, allowed dual citizenship for Ghanaians living abroad, a positive step for those seeking to remain involved with political activities in Ghana.

Another example comes from the recent events in Liberia, which is the oldest republic in Africa and was settled by free blacks emigrating from the United States late in the 1840s. Liberians living abroad remained actively involved in bringing international attention to the conflict in Liberia, and had a significant impact on peace talks that helped bring the conflict to an end, according to Mary H. Moran, an anthropologist who has conducted research on transition in Liberia.

African immigrants aspire to maintain strong cultural ties to their homelands while in the United States as a means of cultural preservation and mutual support. Many in the United States also encounter racial discrimination; however their attitudes toward race at times differ somewhat from those of Black Americans. Establishing ties through community and cultural organizations is a way to cope with these issues, as well as providing opportunities for social and professional networking.

Anthropologists have termed those facing these issues as “transnational migrants.” This term refers to the transnational connections among immigrants that are maintained, and often encouraged by sending countries, through continued involvement in politics at home, financial investments and remittance to remaining family members. This often conflicts with the views of those in the public sphere who push for assimilation, calling for newcomers to sever all foreign ties and pledge loyalty only to the United States. There is little evidence that these ties have been taken into consideration in immigration policy.  

Beyond the issues of border enforcement, employer sanctions, and what to do with undocumented immigrants, the fact remains that economic and political conditions in many African countries force Africans to migrate to the United States to seek better opportunities. Until these issues are addressed, it seems that we will continue to go in circles in the debate over immigration.

These communities would be particularly affected by proposed changes to the family immigration system, which would reclassify “immediate” family members who wish to enter the United States and would place caps on the number of visas given to family members. This will put a strain on immigrants who have already endured lengthy separations from families left behind, and is problematic for those who come from cultures where the family is central to life. Adjusting to a new culture and language is difficult, and can be incredibly isolating when faced alone, without the family as a support system.

It is important to remember that immigration reform is not just about border enforcement, but about providing a humane system for all those who come to this country and make substantial contributions to our economy.

U.S. Trade Policy

by Catherine Gordon

“The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and all those who live in it” (Psalms 24:1)

In 1996, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) passed the policy paper “Hope for a Global Future” which examined the economic polices of the United States and their effects on the world’s poor and poorest nations. The Assembly affirmed that the doctrine of creation tells us that no part of the creation — whether other humans, other species, even the elements of soil and water — is our property to use as we wish.  

Creation is an expression of God’s divine grace and faithful loving kindness. God is love. Love is the foundation and goal of all being. This radical affirmation is the center of the doctrine of creation as well as every other doctrine of the Christian faith ... The moral implication for all living beings of this divine love is that all deserve to be treated with appropriate care and concern. Christians are called to love what God loves.

The Assembly affirmed that there were major problems in the current “free” trade model, policies that did not ensure that all God’s children would be adequately cared for. It noted that in the current trade model many poor countries must focus on exports, even at the expense of local community self reliance and resource sustainability; and, it called for the international trading system to incorporate the basic norms of social justice and environmental sustainability rather than depend solely on the norms and outcomes of free trade. 

As the march toward free trade agreements rather than “fair” trade continued, the Assembly found it necessary to pass additional policies opposing the current forms of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2003 and 2004.

The Assembly stated its opposition to agreements that are not negotiated within a framework of democratic accountability and do not include broad-based citizen participation. Under the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or “fast-track” awarded by Congress, the Administration can negotiate trade agreements which only can be approved or rejected by Congress, but not amended.  Many of the texts of these agreements are not made public until after negotiations are completed.

The Assembly also affirmed its opposition to agreements that put the rights of multinational corporations over and above the rights of governments and citizens to pass and enforce laws that preserve the public good and protect their citizens, economies and environments. Many other humanitarian, development, labor, public policy and religious organizations are opposing the free trade agreements including the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, Mennonite Central Committee, Church World Service and Lutheran World Relief.

Some of the effects of the agreements negotiated under the current trade model follow:

• The agreements harm rather than help small farmers. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement more than a million Mexican farm families have abandoned their land and livelihood because they cannot compete with subsidized food crops from the United States. They then migrate to cities or to the United States to obtain low wage jobs.
• The agreements provide inadequate enforcement of internationally recognized labor and environmental standards.
• The agreements threaten essential services by promoting privatization and deregulation of services like education, health care, transportation and water.

Unfortunately, the current free trade model continues to move forward. While many in Congress are beginning to recognize the harmful effects here at home and on the poor and the developing world, there are now four free trade agreements heading for a vote in Congress, including those with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. 

While the agreements with Peru and Panama are expected to pass, those with Colombia and South Korea may not have the votes. Many in Congress are concerned about an agreement with Colombia, a country with the highest number of union leaders killed every year. There are also worries that an agreement with South Korea would threaten what remains of the United States auto industry.

At the time of writing, the Bush Administration had reached a compromise with Colombia and Peru on amendments to the agreements that offer guarantees of labor rights and environmental protection. However, many who are concerned about the effects of these agreements say that these are guarantees only, with no means of enforcement, which makes them symbolic rather than substantive. The Bush Administration tried to conclude the four amended free-trade agreements before the expiration on June 30 of its so-called “fast-track” trade negotiating authority or Trade Promotion Authority.

Take Action

With Fast Track authority expiring, there is an opportunity to fix the current rules of the global economy. Please contact your Members of Congress and ask them to oppose Fast Track authority that delegates away their constitutional authority on trade and negates their ability to fix any trade agreements that would hurt their constituents. Tell them:

• Fast Track gives the transnational corporations and other special interests the ability to manipulate the U.S. trade negotiating system in their favor over the interests of governments and citizens to determine a just economic policy.
• As a result of the current trade model, poverty and inequality have spread in developing nations. At home, our middle-class living standards have declined, our manufacturing base is undermined and our food safety is damaged. 
• Dramatically different trade rules are needed to strengthen labor and environmental laws, make sure that local development policies can be pursued and ensure that essential services reach those who most need them at home and abroad.

If we do not change the manner in which we make trade agreements, we will never change the agreements themselves.