[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 122 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9022-S9023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1625. A bill to amend title II of the Public Health Service Act to 
provide for an improved method to measure poverty so as to enable a 
better assessment of the effects of programs under the Public Health 
Service Act and the Social Security Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to speak about poverty and, 
specifically, how we measure it and its influence on millions of 
Americans.
  When we return from the August recess, the Census Bureau will release 
its

[[Page S9023]]

annual report documenting the number of Americans living in poverty. 
But these numbers will provide a flawed picture of poverty in America 
since they are based almost exclusively on 50-year-old food prices. The 
bill I am introducing today, the Measuring American Poverty, or MAP, 
Act, directs the Census to develop a new poverty measure that is based 
on a more comprehensive definition of need. Improving the poverty 
measure is not just an academic exercise for statisticians, it is 
essential in helping us identify and implement effective policies that 
address this crisis.
  Even with an inaccurate measurement, the picture of poverty in 
America is startling. In 2007, the year for which we have the most 
recent data, one in eight Americans--and nearly one in five children--
didn't have the resources to meet their basic needs: food, clothing, 
and shelter. Think about that. One in five children in America in 2007 
went to bed without even the most basic elements that we take for 
granted. In my home State of Connecticut, more than 85,000 kids lived 
in poverty. And that was before the economic downturn in which we now 
find ourselves. The Center for American Progress estimates that the 
cost to our Nation of persistent child poverty is $\1/2\ trillion each 
year. Every year a child stays in poverty reduces future productivity 
over the course of his or her working life by nearly $12,000.
  But the cost is more than just financial--it is moral. We are judged, 
Hubert Humphrey famously said, by how we treat those in the shadows of 
life. And every child who goes to bed hungry, every American who lacks 
the basic necessities of life, is a mark on our national conscience. As 
we struggle with the great challenges of our time, the crisis of 
poverty is growing. More and more Americans find that shadow creeping 
toward them. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that 
if unemployment were to rise to 9 percent--our current unemployment 
rate is 9.5 percent, the highest rate in 26 years--the number of 
Americans in poverty would increase by as many as 10.3 million, and the 
number of children in poverty would rise by as many as 3.3 million.
  To put those numbers in perspective, this recession will add a number 
of Americans equivalent to the population of Michigan to the current 
number who live in poverty, which is already equivalent to the 
population of California. In my home State of Connecticut and across 
this country, people who have long worked hard to get ahead are falling 
further behind. Folks who have worked two jobs with an eye toward 
sending their kids to college are having to choose between purchasing 
food and medications. They are hoping that a child's hacking cough 
doesn't turn into something more serious because they can't afford to 
see a doctor. They are staying up late staring at unpaid bills, 
wondering how to pay their mortgage when their only incomes from their 
meager savings and unemployment insurance, wondering what happened to 
their America dream.
  The vast majority of people who are poor do not lack the desire for a 
better life for themselves and their family. They are not poor in their 
work ethic, their love for their country and their communities. They 
are in poverty, but they are not poor in the qualities that we so 
admire in America. The truth is, many are unlucky and face 
insurmountable hurdles. For some that hurdle is their inability to pay 
for higher education. For others it is that they work two jobs and 
can't read to their kids at night like they want to. And far too many 
others are struggling to pay their mortgage and are spending all their 
retirement savings just to keep a roof over their heads.

  As many hard-working Americans are engulfed by the shadow of poverty, 
we remember Hubert Humphrey's admonition, but too often we can't even 
see into those shadows because the way we measure poverty in America is 
badly outdated. It is that challenge to which I today urge this body to 
rise.
  Currently, we measure poverty by comparing two numbers: the money a 
family has, which the census refers to as an ``income measure,'' and 
the money a family needs to meet its basic needs, which experts call 
the ``poverty threshold.'' If a family's income measure is less than 
the threshold, they are counted as poor. It is a simple calculation. 
But unfortunately both elements--the income measure and the threshold--
are flawed.
  The poverty threshold was created using data from the 1950s and 
1960s. Currently, it is calculated by taking the 1950s cost of 
emergency foodstuffs--food only for temporary use when funds are low--
and multiplying that number by three because in the 1960s, food 
represented one-third of a family budget. But today, food represents 
one-sixth or one-seventh of a family's budget. Similarly, a family's 
cash income before taxes was once an accurate and straightforward way 
to measure a family's resources. But today, many Americans are subject 
to both State and Federal income taxes and may face exorbitant health 
costs or other critical needs which drain their resources. In addition, 
many women now work outside the home, meaning they now need pay for 
childcare and for getting to and from work.
  And on the other side of the ledger, we now provide many benefits to 
low income workers that are not cash payments--they are provided 
through our Tax Code, or like energy assistance programs, paid directly 
to providers. I have fought throughout my career for programs that lift 
people out of poverty. Think of the earned-income tax credit, food 
assistance, housing assistance, home energy assistance, child care 
assistance--hundreds of billions of dollars spent to help Americans 
that aren't accounted for when we calculate whether our efforts are 
working. So, we need a new way to measure both what a family needs and 
what a family has.
  When Mayor Bloomberg decided to tackle poverty in New York City, he 
started by doing what any successful businessman would--he surveyed the 
problem. But he discovered that our outdated system of measuring 
poverty simply didn't allow him to see what was really happening. So 
the mayor charged his Center for Economic Opportunity with creating a 
system that would better represent that threshold, as well as a 
family's resources. They followed the recommendation of the National 
Academy of Sciences 1995 panel described in ``Measuring Poverty: An 
Improved Approach.'' The legislation I offer today also follows these 
guidelines.
  Specifically, this bill--the Measuring American Poverty Act--updates 
the calculations for both threshold and resources in the Federal 
poverty measure. The poverty threshold would be based on the current 
prices of food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and a few basic household 
expenses. And it would revise the current measurement of income to 
better reflect the reality that Americans not only must pay taxes but 
also certain unavoidable expenses like transportation to and from work, 
childcare, and medical expenses. This revised measure would also 
include the value of near-cash benefits like energy assistance, food 
stamps, section 8 housing vouchers, and tax credits such as the earned-
income tax credit.
  Let me be very clear: this isn't a bill to change eligibility for 
programs or the allocation of Federal funds. In fact, the bill's text 
is explicit about that. The MAP Act creates a new measurement. It does 
not replace the Federal Poverty Line. It does not change eligibility 
for programs. It will not lead to an unprecedented automatic increase 
in spending.
  What the MAP Act will do is help us to understand the scope of the 
poverty crisis in America, and to better evaluate the effectiveness of 
our solutions to it. We have a difficult job ahead of us, as we look to 
lift Americans out of poverty, provide middle-class families with a 
strong safety net, and restore the American Dream for working men and 
women. But we must begin by facing unafraid the true nature and scope 
of the poverty crisis. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of 
this legislation.
                                 ______