[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 22433]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCTION OF THE ``POVERTY MEASUREMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JERRY WELLER

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2007

  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the 
``Poverty Measurement Improvement Act.'' This legislation is designed 
to improve the way our Nation counts various antipoverty benefits we 
currently provide low-income families--to better understand both who is 
poor and how effective those anti-poverty efforts are.
  The Ways and Means Committee and its Income Security and Family 
Support Subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking member, has recently 
held a series of hearings on poverty, reviewing the cost of poverty, 
how U.S. poverty measurement differs from other countries, and possible 
solutions to poverty.
  As several Members noted in those hearings, one of the first failings 
of our current poverty measure is the fact it does not count tens of 
billions of dollars in taxpayer funded assistance provided to reduce 
poverty for literally millions of families each year.
  This omission limits the usefulness of today's poverty measure. It 
also devalues the sacrifices of taxpayers who pay for those benefits 
with their hard-earned tax dollars. And it increases the apparent 
number of families in poverty.
  On August 1 the Income Security Subcommittee will hold another 
hearing on how poverty is measured in the U.S. Several witnesses will 
suggest counting the value of more antipoverty benefits to determine 
whether families are poor or not. That is exactly what the ``Poverty 
Measurement Improvement Act'' would do. Major assistance not counted 
today includes food stamps, public housing, earned income tax credits, 
and health coverage. These also constitute the fastest growing portions 
of our Nation's safety net designed to help low-income families escape 
poverty. So unless we act, more and more of our effort to alleviate 
poverty will be ignored each passing year.
  Consider what this means for families.
  Let's say the Jones family of 4 has an annual income of $30,000--all 
from wages. Current rules count wages as income for purposes of judging 
whether a family is poor. Since the poverty threshold for a family of 4 
is about $20,000, and the income of the Jones family is above that 
level, the Jones family is officially ``not poor.''
  Now let's say their neighbors the Smith family also is a family of 4. 
The Smith family also has a total of $30,000 in annual income. But the 
Smith's income comes from multiple sources--$18,000 from wages, plus a 
total of $12,000 in housing, health care, food stamp, and earned income 
tax credit benefits provided by taxpayers. Under current rules, none of 
the $12,000 in taxpayer benefits provided the Smith family is counted 
as income. So since their $18,000 in wages falls short of the $20,000 
poverty threshold for a family of 4, the Smith family is ``officially'' 
poor.
  This makes little sense.
  The ``Poverty Measurement Improvement Act'' would direct the Census 
Bureau to report on poverty as measured three ways. First, Census would 
retitle the current official poverty rate as the ``partial benefits 
poverty rate,'' which is what it is. The second measure, called the 
``full benefits poverty rate'' would include means-tested food, housing 
and health care benefits as income. The final measure, called the 
``full benefits and taxes poverty rate,'' would also add in the value 
tax credits like the EITC, and subtract taxes paid.
  This legislation would help us better understand both who is poor and 
the effectiveness of current antipoverty benefits. And it would put 
income from earnings and income from government benefits on the same 
level, so that the Jones and Smith families would be recognized as 
having the same disposable incomes, regardless of its source.
  More needs to be done to help families lift themselves out of 
poverty. That means pressing on with more of what works to reduce 
poverty. As we saw in the progress against poverty following the 1996 
welfare reform law, that starts with promoting more full-time work 
instead of welfare dependence. And it includes promoting more healthy 
marriage, which also reduces poverty and welfare dependence for the 
long run.
  But we also should do a better job understanding how current 
antipoverty efforts are working, and the effect of means-tested 
benefits in improving the incomes and wellbeing of families. The 
``Poverty Measurement Improvement Act'' I am introducing today does 
just that, and I urge all Members to support it.

                          ____________________