[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 153 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2592-E2593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND FIGHT POVERTY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 21, 2009

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, according to a study of recent U.S. 
Census Bureau figures, the National Academy of Science found that the 
level of American poverty is even worse than the government's official 
number.
  The official measure, created in 1955, failed to factor in rising 
costs of medical care, transportation or childcare. It also ignores 
geographical variations in the cost of living. Further, it also fails 
to consider non-cash government aid when calculating income. As a 
result, the poverty figures released by Census last month may overlook 
millions of people suffering in poverty, many of whom are 65 and older.
  The National Academy of Sciences' revised formula calculates that 
about 47.4 million Americans lived in poverty last year--7 million more 
than the Census figure.
  The National Academy of Sciences formula shows a poverty rate of 15.8 
percent, which is nearly 1 in 6 Americans. This is far higher than the 
poverty rate of 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million, reported by the U.S. 
Census Bureau recently.

[[Page E2593]]

  The National Academy of Sciences found that about 18.7 percent of 
Americans 65 and older, or nearly 7.1 million, are suffering in poverty 
compared to 9.7 percent, or 3.7 million, under the traditional Census 
measure. This is largely due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising 
Medicare premiums, deductibles and a coverage gap in the prescription 
drug benefit.
  The National Academy of Sciences also found that 14.3 percent of 
people 18 to 64, or 27 million, are suffering in poverty, compared to 
11.7 percent under the traditional Census measure. Many of the 
additional poor are low-income, working people facing growing 
transportation and childcare costs.
  It should also be noted that food stamp assistance, which is at an 
all-time high of about 36 million, likely softened these figures.
  These figures are especially troubling and could get worse. In 2008, 
U.S. median income fell to $50,303 from $52,163 in 2007. That 3.6% 
decline is the largest one-year drop since records began. And, the 
Economic Policy Institute projects that in the next two years, incomes 
could decline by another $3,000 and poverty could increase by 1.9 
percentage points.
  These figures have special meaning for me because I represent one of 
the poorest Congressional districts in the country. In fact, a recent 
report in Forbes Magazine declared Rocky Mount, North Carolina as one 
of America's 10 most impoverished cities.
  Forbes used the new data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 American 
Community Survey, and also looked at per capita incomes for a region, 
the percentage of food stamp recipients, the percentage of people under 
age 65 receiving public health care and the unemployment rate.
  According to Forbes, nearly 8 percent of Rocky Mount area residents 
were among the nation's extreme poor in 2008, living at below 50 
percent of the poverty line. And, about 17 percent of area residents 
received food stamps last year, and nearly 23 percent of residents 
under age of 65 received Medicaid. Also, Rocky Mount's unemployment 
rate at the time of the report was 8.7 percent and since has risen to 
13.8 percent.
  While Forbes also ranked Rocky Mount as the 119th best small places 
for business and careers, largely because of the city's available 
workforce, this is a region that suffers with a great number of needs. 
This is a community with great pride and potential that continues to 
work hard to provide opportunities and improve the quality of life for 
its residents.
  As we look at ways to make sure our resources are going where they 
are needed most, we should look at the way poverty is measured. 
Unfortunately, the official U.S. poverty measure has changed very 
little since it was originally adopted in 1969, with the exception of 
annual adjustments for overall price changes in the economy, as 
measured by the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers.
  Currently, the poverty threshold reflects a measure of the economic 
realities of the mid-1950's. The poverty line has not been adjusted to 
reflect changes in needs associated with improved standards of living 
that have occcurred over the decades since the measure was first 
developed.
  A congressionally commissioned study conducted by the National 
Academy of Sciences has recommended that the poverty level be reset to 
take into account economic changes that have occurred over the past 
four decades. The National Academy of Sciences recommended that non-
cash benefits, taxes and tax credits be counted as income while 
expenses such as work-related child care, housing and out-of-pocket 
medical expenses be deducted from income in determining families' 
poverty status. As a result, comparatively more working families and 
elderly people would be counted as poor.
  The National Academy of Sciences also recommended that the poverty 
income levels be adjusted for regional cost of living differences. The 
current poverty income thresholds are uniform across the 50 states and 
the District of Columbia.
  The Measuring American Poverty Act of 2009 introduced by 
Representative McDermott and a companion bill introduced by Senator 
Dodd would instruct the U.S. Census Bureau to adopt many of the modern 
poverty measurement recommendations made by the National Academy of 
Sciences. If adopted, the legislation would result in a new poverty 
measure that would coexist with the official poverty measure, and re-
designate the current ``official'' measure as the ``traditional'' 
poverty measure. The new poverty measure would not affect programs that 
use poverty as criteria for either determining eligibility or 
allocating funds, but would stand as an additional statistical 
indicator to measure the effects of programs on poverty.
  This would be a helpful step toward ensuring that we have a system 
that is fair to people who need help as well as to the taxpayers 
providing that help. This economic crisis serves as a reminder to all 
Americans just how vulnerable we all are, and that reducing our 
existing poverty will require a great deal of effort and attention.

                          ____________________