individuals were to remain on welfare and a burden to the Nation and the community. Prominent American organizations with an aggregate membership of over 60 million people endorsed H.R. 424, including over 30 Governors, four State legislatures, et cetera. The disabled (employed) individual has extraordinary everyday living expenses of between $1,000 and $3,000 over and above that of the nondisabled individual. I brought with me a sampling of 30 letters from individuals and organizations who endorse H.R. 424, H.R. 3150. A letter dated June 14, 1972 by former member John W. Byrnes of your committee. As for H.R. 424, I am more sympathetic with the hardships faced by the handicapped and their families and feel that Congress should consider amending the law so that at least additional transportation expenses and individual incurs as a direct result of his physical condition are deductible from Federal income taxes. Also, member Hugh Carey, in a letter dated February 5, 1973, to me, stated: "As you will be interested to learn, on January 29, I introduced H.R. 3059, a bill which would provide for $750 tax deduction," and it is almost word for word of the Mills bill except the definition is slightly different. I certainly agree with you wholeheartedly that this much needed legislation should be passed quickly and I will certainly work toward that end. As you will note the bill has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means of which I am a member. Another member of your distinguished committee, Joel T. Broyhill of Virginia, in a letter to me dated June 7, 1972. I would be delighted to speak with the Chairman to urge consideration of H.R. 424. A letter by the Disabled American Veterans of the United States, the National Service Headquarters here in Washington, dated March 6, 1970. Dear Mr. Ward, I received your recent letter. We are, of course, strongly in favor of the enactment of this legislation. You may be sure that we will make every effort to secure favorable consideration from the House Committee on Ways and Means. Another letter going back to 1968 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Services, signed by the then administrator, who is now deceased, Mrs. Switzer. In view of our convictions concerning transportation difficulties as they relate to employment opportunities of the handicapped, we are in sympathy with the aims of H.R. 424. Another governmental committee, the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, in a letter to me dated July 19, 1968. I certainly join with Mary Switzer in saying we are in sympathy with the aims of H.R. 424. Even the Treasury Department, although they have been fighting us, said in 1967 in a letter to me. We recognize the obvious social and economic benefits and the humane considerations involving handicapped persons to become dignified and productive citizens. We are in sympathy with your general objectives. I have another letter, 1967, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Washington, D.C. He says although they couldn't take a stand because they are a Government agency, "We are in sympathy with the objectives of the bill," which was H.R. 424 at that time. A letter from George C. Wallace, Governor of Alabama, dated 1966 and I have subsequently gotten others. I have been requested to endorse H.R. 424, a bill to provide for deductions for income tax purposes in case of a disabled individual. A letter from the Governor at that time, 1965, Orville Faubus of Arkansas, where he also states that he is in favor and urges enactment of H.R. 424. A letter from the National Grange dated 1969 endorsing the bill. I have many others. I would like to introduce these as part of the record, printed record, when I am finished. Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI (presiding). Without objection, they will be included. Mr. WARD. Thirteen members of the Ways and Means Committee in 1968 were favorable to H.R. 424. The definition of "disabled" is clear and definitive and acceptable to the Treasury Department. By the way, we got the clearance of the Treasury Department in 1965 because at that time they were worried about who would administer the bill. The way it reads now it would be administered by either the Veterans' Administration or the Public Health Service. It is a very simple definition. There is no question about who is disabled. As it is defined, 40 percent disability for loss or loss of use of, one or more of the extremities. It comes under the schedule for disability of the Veterans' Administration, Federal Register, volume 29, No. 101, part 2. There is further precedent for the definition of "disabled." Congress in granting free cars to disabled veterans, gave the following definition of "disabled." "(a) Loss, or permanent loss of use, of one or both feet. (b) loss, or permanent loss of use of one or both hands.” (Ch. 532, Public Law 187 (S1864) United States Code, vol. 1, p. 572). By the way, the Veterans' Administration in this rating gives a definition from 0 to 100 percent disability. Mrs. Jean Rosborough, former director of the New York March of Dimes in 1967, said the following: The high cost of transportation, extra expenses for prosthetic devices, special clothing is driving the disablde from the job market to welfare. Another quote from John T. Connor, former Secretary of Commerce, in an article in the Congressional Record on May 4, 1966, said the following: It is tragic and wasteful to retain disabled workers on the welfare rolls when they could be on the payrolls and tax rolls. Hundreds of thousands of severely handicapped and disabled veterans, especially those coming back from Vietnam in wheelchairs and thousands of others must be commended for overcoming their disabilities in order to work and pay taxes. Senator Fannin on October 3, 1969, testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, at page 376 said the following: Because of our discriminatory tax laws against the handicapped, we are throwing considerable tax money down the drain. Now I want to conclude by urging and asking that the matter of H.R. 3150, formerly H.R. 424, has never been voted upon before, even though there have been testimony, facts, figures, and other data presented to your eminent committee. I am requesting your eminent committee to please take this matter up for a vote at the conclusion of these hearings and its enactment into the law of the Nation. I also want to end up talking about deductions by saying that last year, I think it was, or 2 years ago, there were child care deductions enacted wherein a housewife when she wants to go to work is allowed deductions of up to $400 a month or $4,800 a year. All we are asking is a $750 deduction. I think the committee should certainly take this into consideration immediately. We have waited 14 years. As I said in my introductory remarks, our economy would gain, the handicapped person and disabled veteran coming home and others would be taxpayers and not on welfare. Thank you. If there are any questions I will try to answer them. STATEMENT OF BARNEY F. STANTON, JR. Mr. STANTON. I have a short statement. It will only take 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Barney F. Stan. ton, Jr., the national legislative chairman of both the National Association of the Physically Handicapped, Inc. (NAPH) and the National Congress of Organizations of the Physically Handicapped, Inc. (COPH) Both are self-help organizations of physically handicapped members who seek to better the economic, physical, and social life of the physically handicapped, whether or not they belong to our organizations. Both have long histories of serving the physically handicapped, COPH is an umbrella agency of member clubs who wish to maintain their separate identity while uniting in common interests. Some of our NAPH members have appeared before you in earlier years for the same purpose we return today-namely, to seek a tax exemption for disabled persons, and a tax deduction for the transportation costs of disabled persons to and from work. You are probably wondering what this cartoon has to do with tax relief for the handicapped? It probably illustrates how we feel more than 1,000 words. I am submitting it for the record. [The cartoon follows:] Mr. STANTON. It is very simple, some of the bills introduced in this 93d Congress and earlier Congresses, both by the Chairman, Mr. Mills, and other friends of the handicapped, sought to define "disability" so the Internal Revenue Service could rule whether certain handicapped individuals would qualify for tax relief based on their disability. Some of these bills use the Veterans' Administration schedule for rating disabilities of 40 percent or more disability (Federal Register, vol. 29, No. 101, part II) as conclusive proof that he is a disabled individual for purposes of these deductions and exemptions. If the announced Veterans' Administration/Office of Management and Budget's suggestion of lowering disability ratings and reducing disability payments to our physically disabled Vietnam veterans (chiefly amputees, and those with bone and muscle problems) becomes law, then fewer disabled persons would qualify for the tax relief we request today. The cartoon says that we mustn't have any more taken away. We were shocked that there was no plank for the physically handicapped in the Republican national platform last year (although the elderly and the mentally retarded were noted), much material and several physically handicapped witnesses testified before that subcom mittee of the Republican Party before they had their convention and requested such a plank. We couldn't believe that President Nixon would veto the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 for the Handicapped, and the Older Americans Act, just before the election-but he did. But we heard the President loud and clear during his inaugural address when he said "We will help those who help themselves." This is exactly what we are trying to do help ourselves and other handicapped persons by asking for these tax deductions and tax exemptions for the disabled. In the floor debate on the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 last Thursday, March 8, 1973, in the House, Mr. Brademas pointed out that "Average earnings of the persons rehabilitated had been $15.95 a week when they were first accepted into the program, but upon completion, their average earnings rose to $68.86 a week." (Cong. Rec., vol. 119, No. 37, p. H1520, Mar. 8, 1973.) I believe you can see where assistance in the form of tax deduction for transportation costs would be necessary to someone with such low income. Taxicab fare is relatively inexpensive in Washington, yet, for example, it costs me $25 a week just to go to and from worka distance of 3 miles. The able-bodied could go for $4 via bus. The fare to my office is $1.10 each way, I need to be put into the cab and taken out at the other end, and my chair must be lifted into the back or trunk—a lot more aid than many drivers are willing or able to give, even though I pay $5 a day for a $2.20 round-trip ride. My wife, Vicki, often wishes for NBC-TV channel 4's probe to stand back and take pictures of empty taxicabs with no "on call" or "off duty" or "out of service" signs pass by when I am trying to get to work, or home again. I am certain if they felt we disabled people could pay them what they think carrying us is worth, we might get picked up more readily. I know you are aware that the cab companies are asking for a fare raise. Some of the more severely handicapped people do ride the bus-at what seems to be at the inconvenience of the other passengers. Last week a middle aged lady with two crutches and braces on one leg climbed very laboriously aboard the Metrobus then sat down with her stiff leg out in the aisle, clearly a potential hazard to other passengers. There are special buses that transport persons in their wheelchairs, but a round-trip in Washington has cost $48. $48 for one round trip! We handicapped have asked that public transportation be made accessible to us, but some of us could not use it sans undue hardship or danger. We were promised 10 years ago that Washington's Metro subway-rapid transit system would be available to us, yet, even today, we are having a court battle to force WMATA to put elevators in for those of us who cannot use the escalators. We have appeared time and again before congressional committees in "oversight" hearings or informal meetings asking Congress to help us get on the Metro now rather than ask them to dig up the system after it is completed to make it usable for us, a far more expensive process. One of the bills this year is H.R. 1181 which would "allow a deduction for income tax purposes of expenses incurred by an individual for transportation to and from work by automobile." It probably has little chance of passing since the big cities wish to keep private cars out of |