by Carolynn Race

There is not an American city or rural county where a household with one full-time minimum wage earner can afford to rent a modest one-bedroom apartment. Why? According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's 2003 report, Out of Reach, the national "housing wage" — the amount a person working full-time has to earn to afford a two-bedroom apartment while paying no more than 30 percent of income in rent — has climbed to $15.21 an hour, almost three times the federal minimum wage. The housing wage has increased 37 percent since 1999.

To put it even more starkly, "Someone who makes the current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour and allocates no more than 30% of annual income for housing, should not have to pay more than $257.50 per month in rent and utilities. The average monthly cost of a reserved parking space in downtown Washington, D.C., is $280." (from "Affordable Housing: Designing an American Asset," at the National Building Museum, www.nbm.org).

How do people survive if they earn less than the housing wage? In its 2003 report, The State of the Nation's Housing, Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies found that 14.3 million (nearly one in seven households) spend more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing, while another 17.3 million are moderately cost-burdened - spending 30-50 percent of their incomes on housing. The Joint Center also found that, while 34 percent of the nation's most needy renter households (renters in the bottom fifth of income distribution) receive housing assistance, 66 percent do not. Of those who do receive housing subsidies, half still report severe or moderate cost burdens. Many families live in substandard housing. An estimated 3 to 3.5 million are homeless.

Though finding solutions for the housing affordability and accessibility problems is challenging, it is not impossible. At the federal level, several legislative initiatives have been introduced. Below please find three issues that Congress and the Administration are considering. Contact your Senators and Representative and tell them about the lack of affordable housing. Tell them about the national housing wage, and urge them to support an increase in the federal minimum wage. Call for the development of a National Housing Trust Fund, and to protect funding for the housing voucher program.

The federal minimum wage for covered, non-exempt employees remains $5.15 per hour. The last time it was increased (from $4.75 to $5.15) was in 1997. Sen. Daschle (D-SD) and Rep. Miller (D-CA) have proposed legislation, S 224 and HR 965, to increase it to $6.65 an hour. Such an increase would help reduce the gap between the minimum wage and the housing wage.

Legislation for a National Housing Trust Fund, which would provide funding to build, preserve, and rehabilitate 1.5 million units of low-income housing over 10 years, is currently pending in Congress. The House version, HR 1102, now has 210 co-sponsors. Learn more about the Trust Fund campaign; and urge your local congregation to endorse the campaign. Go to the Web site for more details.

As Congress and the Administration develop budget priorities for fiscal year 2005, urge them not to cut vital housing supports for people living in or near poverty. In the Administration's budget proposal for FY 2005, the housing voucher program (Section 8) is $1.6 billion short of the funding needed to maintain current services. The result of this funding shortfall would be the loss of 250,000 vouchers.

by Catherine Gordon

The issue of trade may seem unrelated to our everyday lives, but it affects us all. In this era of huge multinational corporations, free-flowing capital, and globalization, trade has become one of the major justice issues. We are all accountable for our participation in this system: we are a part of it even if we do not realize the harm that is being done.

As we shop in malls across the country, we may not know that many of the things we buy are produced in poor countries by low-wage, exploited workers; many of them children. Large corporations profit because of their use of low- wage laborers in poor countries. These workers earn pennies and work under harsh conditions - so that we can pay lower prices for our goods and services.

As multinational corporations decide where to hire workers-with little regulation-a "race to the bottom" in wages has emerged. Workers vie with other workers, USA and foreign labor and poor country versus poor, and powerful private-sector interests call the shots. Our prosperity is supported by the oppression of poor laborers in other countries.

As people living in prosperity we rarely think about how what we buy impacts the environment and the working poor in other countries, including small farmers and women and children. But people of faith are raising questions about how daily decisions they make in the marketplace affect others around the world.

The 215th General Assembly of the PC(USA) voted to support efforts toward international cooperation based on fair trade, respect for diversity, and common concerns for a peaceful, just, and sustainable world. The Assembly also opposed multinational actions and trade agreements that elevate corporate rights over the right of governments and indigenous peoples to pass and enforce laws that preserve the public good and protect their citizens, economies, and environments.

The Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment offers the following analysis of the Judeo- Christian tradition and its understanding of who God is and what God desires for all of creation.

"The Hebrew scriptures teach that God is the one who rescued us from oppression when we were slaves in Egypt (Deuteronomy 4:6) and the one who executes justice for the oppressed, who gives food to the hungry (Psalm 14:6-7). Jesus used words from these same scriptures to describe his mission, to bring good news to the poor release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free (Luke 4:18-19).

These scriptures remind us that all of humankind is created in the image of God, and we are called to care for God's creation. Poverty and injustice are understood as problems for the whole human community, not only for those individuals who are poor and vulnerable. Poverty and the suffering that accompanies it are indicators of greed and unjust practices in the community. The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy (Psalm 37:14). This greed becomes institutionalized by those who write oppressive statutes to turn aside the needy from justice" (Isaiah 10:1-2).

On February 4th, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-09) introduced a resolution calling on the USA to base its trade policies on ethical principles. She called on the U.S. Government to adhere to five tenets that can make trade policies more fair and just. (See next page.)

Rep. Kaptur states in her resolution that "International trade operates according to economic logic but without an ethic," a flaw her measure seeks to address. We will never fashion a just trade system without the principles H. Res. 532 espouses. And we will never see those principles enacted unless we insist that our lawmakers do so.

Please urge your congressional representative to co-sponsor H. Res. 532. Go to the Presbyterian Legislative Action Center to find the contact information for your members and contact them today. Or, call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to connect you to your representative's office.

Rep. Kaptur has called on the United States to base its trade policies on ethical principles. She has sponsored H. Res. 532, which calls for adherence to five tenets.

1. International trade and investment systems should respect and support the dignity of the human person, the integrity of creation, and our common humanity.
2. International trade and investment activities should advance the common good and be evaluated in the light of their impact on those who are most vulnerable.
3. International trade and investment policies and decisions should be transparent and should involve the meaningful participation of the most vulnerable stakeholders.
4. International trade and investment systems should respect the legitimate role of government, in collaboration with civil society, to set policies regarding the development and welfare of its people.
5. International trade and investment systems should safeguard the global commons and respect the right of local communities to protect and sustainably develop their natural resources.

by Catherine Dodson

In 1993, the U.S. adopted a new border control strategy as conceived by Sylvestre Reyes, the chief of the El Paso sector of the U.S. Border Patrol: With enough resources, it would be possible to stop people from illegally migrating across the border.

Thus began the dramatic escalation of funding for border security (thousands of new agents, fences, stadium lighting, motion sensors, surveillance video, infrared cameras, the list goes on) aimed at protecting the 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico.

Reyes's plan, "Operation Gatekeeper," did succeed in lowering the numbers of persons crossing the border in El Paso, but it did so by forcing the flow of migrants into other towns, and eventually-as more money was poured into the project and more fences were built-into the harshest areas of desert in the borderlands. This has led to thousands of migrant deaths in U.S. deserts over the last 10 years. More than 3,500 migrants have died since 1998 alone.1

Indeed, it seems that the money spent on border security and immigration enforcement has not reduced the number of migrants who attempt to cross the border, but has only caused more senseless and inhumane deaths on our country's doorstep. Regardless, the Bush Administration has once again proposed great increases in funding for border security in the 2005 fiscal year. These 2005 funding priorities must be questioned, especially since increases in domestic spending on social programs are expected to be restricted to less than one percent.

When the Bush Administration released its 2005 budget proposal, enhancing security was second among their three named top priorities (the other two being to advance the war on terrorism and to strengthen the economy).2 While the Border Patrol does play a vital role in U.S. security, it is clear that current U.S. border policy and funding is much more focused on preventing economic migration than on preventing terrorism. The proposed budget includes an increase of $224 million (10 percent) to maintain and enhance border security and an increase of $186 million to improve domestic and overseas immigration enforcement.3

This year, the President spoke of immigration reform as a priority for our nation and called on Congress to work towards implementing a guest-worker program. However, it is important to question Mr. Bush's true intentions toward this end, as the proposed budget increase of $108 million for detention and removal of undocumented immigrants does not show movement toward becoming a more welcoming U.S. society over the next year.

Presbyterians must advocate for budget allocations that reflect our policy priorities, which include a reassessment of U.S. Border Policy and moral, humane treatment of all persons regardless of their legal status. In 1999, the 211th General Assembly adopted a paper entitled "Transformation of Churches and Society through Encounter with New Neighbors," in which the church called for nations to regulate immigration with a presumption toward generosity rather than restrictiveness, and expressed concern over the militarization of our borders for the purpose of dealing with immigration. Further, the 2003 General Assembly declared the church's "opposition to 'Operation Gatekeeper' and other border strategies that have resulted in an increase in militarization, violations of human rights, deaths from dehydration and exposure, and racial profiling of Hispanic peoples in the borderlands."

Contact your Members of Congress and ask them to re-examine the impact and effectiveness of current U.S. border policy. Call for funding for Border Patrol initiatives that focus on non-invasive security to target terrorists, not migrants.

Footnotes:

1. "Migrant Worker Deaths in the Borderland." Church and Society, Vol. 39, No. 6. Bobbi Wells Hargleroad, ed. July/August, 2003, page 14. [back]
2. "The Bush Fiscal Year 2005 Budget in Perspective." www.USInfo.state.gov. [back]
3. Garcia, Sean. "The Bush Administration's Budget for Fiscal Year 2005." www.lawg.org/misc/budget_analysis.htm. [back]

Last spring, many of you received a questionnaire from the Louisville research department evaluating the work of the Washington Office. It was a random sample of 495 of our readers. There was a 66 percent return rate, for a total of 328 mailed back. We greatly appreciate your favorable comments on our work and your familiarity with our materials. This publication, Washington Report to Presbyterians, was affirmed. To the question, "How familiar are you with Washington Report to Presbyterians — a bimonthly publication of the Presbyterian Washington Office that covers a broad range of public policy issues?" — 53 percent responded "very familiar," while 24 percent were "familiar," five percent said "not very familiar" and four percent "not at all familiar." When asked, "Why do you read the Washington Report?" — 91 percent said it was "to be informed on public policy issues." Our Stewardship Of Public Life issue networks were also favorably rated.

Additionally, the survey asked, "How important do you believe national legislation regarding social justice issues is to the life of the church?" Seventy-six percent checked "very important" and 16 percent "important," while three percent said "not very important" and one percent said "not at all important."

Again, we want to thank you for your support. Please remember to encourage others to join those who are already receiving Report. Just drop us a note with their names and addresses.