his share of taxes, and it would have to dole-out money in public aid. His case is not unique. Those of our members who drive, need cars in top-notch condition, expensive hand controls, excessive parking fees, and a higher-rate of insurance, even though statistics show their safety record to be above average. HR 3150, if passed, unlike grants to conduct expensive studies whose findings are of dubious benefit to the handicapped, would work directly to benefit the handicapped worker. Perhaps, because this law would not have to be administered through a "middle-man organization" might explain the lack of support it has received in the past from funded agencies who serve the handiapped. We ask that our letter be made an official part of the committee record on directly from consumer advocacy groups such as ours who are actually experiencing the extraordinary financial burden incurred in getting to and from work. We believe HR 3150 would help alleviate that burden, since the income in many cases is lower than the average-norm. Our organization, a coalition of organizations of the physically handicapped in Illinois, urges the immediate passage of HR 3150. We ask that our letter be made an official part of the committee record on HR 3150 and that our position be given careful consideration when a hearing is held on this bill. May we hear from you on this? In behalf of our membership, we thank you for your interest in the handicapped. Sincerely, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, R. A. WILSON, Legislative Chairman. REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: Your House Bill H.R. 3150, presently before the House Committee on Ways and Means, would provide immediate and direct benefit to the employed handicapped. A major expenditure is incurred by these people due to exorbitant transportation cost. The proposed deduction would substantially assist these people in overcoming the financial barriers to mobility. Enclosed for your information and consideration is a Policy Implications Paper, Exceptional Transportation Cost Relief for the Mobility-Limited Handicapped and Elderly, complied by the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Northwestern University, at the request of the Social and Rehabilitation Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Briefly, the policy changes implicated involve economic relief for exceptional transportation cost by the disabled and elderly with mobility limitations who cannot utilize our present public transportation systems and must use high cost alternatives such as cabs and specialized vehicles. The problem is not only confined to those disabled who are employed, but to the unemployed disabled and elderly as well. Thus, if provisions could be inserted in the Bill to assist these persons a significant step would have been taken to alleviate the mobility limitations of a substantial portion of our population. I hope that this paper will provide additional insight into one of the major problems confronting our nations handicapped and elderly, and that it be made an official part of the committee record on H.R. 3150. Also, that the policy changes implicated be given careful consideration when hearings are held on this Bill. Sincerely, Enclosure. HENRY B. BETTS, M.D., Vice President-Medical Director. EXCEPTIONAL TRANSPORTATION COST RELIEF FOR THE MOBILITY-LIMITED HANDICAPPED AND ELDERLY * POLICY IMPLICATION 1. Internal Revenue Code should be amended to stipulate that handicapped individuals or dependents with mobility-limitations ** be identified and permitted either a tax deduction or tax exemption for exceptional transportation cost. This benefit would or should be determined on individual basis of need. 2. Social Security Act should be amended to provide the mobility-limited* handicapped and elderly under its jurisdiction with allowance for exceptional transportation cost. This allowance would assist these individuals to "attain or retain capability for self-support or self-care" as stated in Title 1, 10, 14, and 16. 3. The Vocational Rehabilitation Act should be amended so as to provide handicapped mobility-limited* clients of State Bureaus of Vocational Rehabilitation transportation ellowance for purposes other than those already provided for vocational training. 4. Mobility-limited* welfare recipients would not generally be included in policy changes 1-3. State welfare change might be anticipated if federal policy precedent is established, as in 1-3. 5. These policy implications are directed at the mobility-limited* in the several generally recognized socio-economic categories; those with taxable income (IRS) and non-taxable income (social security). Any allowance for mobility limitation from one source should exclude that allowance from another source. FINDINGS Two major problems confronting the mobility-limited handicapped and aged are: 1. inaccessible public transportation systems, and 2. the high cost incurred by using alternate modes. According to the National Center for Health Statistics the chronically handicapped currently comprise about 3 percent of the national population. Of these 6,093,000, 1.5 million, or 25 percent, are mobility-limited and potential riders of public transportation, but they cannot get into or use public transportation vehicles.1 In addition, the population over 65 is continually increasing, so that there are now more than 19 million senior citizens; of these 14 percent or 2,660,000 have mobility limitations, needing either mechanical aids or the assistance of another person.2 Hence, approximately 4.1 million Americans are mobility-limited. The mobility-limited handicapped and elderly are forced to utilize taxis, handicabs, and specialized vehicles which accommodate their physical limitations but which are more expensive than public transportation and which they can least afford.3 the mobility-limited handicapped take about 14 percent of their trips by taxi, while the non-handicapped take fewer than 2 percent by this mode. As for utilizing public transportation facilities one-third of the handicapped and elderly surveyed in Uptown Chicago could not use the Chicago This policy implications paper has been prepared by Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Number 20, Northwestern University-Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. It is based on a research project carried out through RT-20 (Project R-17: Transportation of the Mobility-limited. See reference note 5.). **For the purpose of this policy change implication "mobility limitation" or mobilitylimited" means inaccessibility by a person to public transportation facilities or vehicle because of physical disability for which a wheelchair is the primary means of mobility. The essential need for long term wheelchair use must be confirmed by a licensed physician. 1 The following conditions cause severe mobility limitations; included are the total who are mobility-limited aged 19 to 65: cerebral palsy, 200,000; legal blindness, 225,000; arthritis and rheumatism, 572,000; visually impaired, 128,000; amputees, 142,000; back impairments, 152,000; multiple sclerosis, 150,000; muscular dystrophy, 50,000 paraplegia and quadriplegia, 72,000; Total: 1,487,000. From: Employment, Transportation and the Handicapped, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1969. 2 "The Elderly as a Significant Population Group", Herman B. Brotman, Transportation and Aging, Washington, D.C., 1970. 3 Travel Barriers: Transportation Needs of the Handicapped, Abt Associates, Inc. Cambridge, Mass., 1969. 4 Ibid., p. 89. Transit Authority's facilities.5 The inability of this group to utilize low-cost transportation facilities or modes accounts for their low number of trips per day, 1.13 or 50 percent below the national average." The median personal income for the handicapped person with a mobility limitation is very low, between $3,000 and $4,000. The elderly are in a similar situation, for 18 percent or 3,420,000 of the aged comprise the national poor.8 These factors: inaccessible public transportation and high cost transportation alternatives, tend to limit the employment, social, and recreational opportunities of the mobility-limited handicapped and elderly. Transportation is a significant factor in unemployment of the handicapped. At present, 36 percent of the national handicapped population aged 17 to 64 are members of the labor force.9 This means then that 64 percent are unemployed compared to 29 percent of the non-handicapped population of the same age group.9 30 percent of the mobility-limited handicapped who are unemployed indicate that transportation was a factor in their not being employed, while 67 percent of the same group stated they would return to work if transportation were no longer a problem.10 Those handicapped individuals who are employed tend to travel shorter distances to work in miles and minutes than do non-handicapped persons. Threefourths of the employed handicapped tend to live 5 miles or less from their workplaces, and travel an average of 25 minutes compared to 55 minutes by the non-handicapped.11 This is due primarily to the high cost of transportation for the handicapped and the general inconvenience caused by their impairment. Participation in social and recreational activities by the mobility-limited handicapped and elderly could improve with increased accessibility or lower cost for transportation. 88 percent of the handicapped would take at least one to two additional trips per week if given the opportunity; 12 and the same is indicated for the elderly.13 Thirty-three percent of the mobility-limited handicapped are frustrated in their primary activities, and 40 percent in their social activities because of inaccessible high-cost transportation facilities.14 Increased mobility opportunities could eleviate the discontent which individuals in this group experience due to their dependent role; greater self-reliance, self-care, and self-support could be achieved. Decreasing the exceptional transportation costs should increase mobility opportunities. SEBRING, FLA. March 2, 1973. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE MILLS: I would like to submit a word of testimony in favor of your amendment, HR 3150. When a handicapped person must use special transportation to get to employment, it's only justice to exempt these costs. I'd also like to see added exemptions for the institutionalized and others requiring special care. My own living costs are over $3,000, partly offset by Social Security and other benefits, but my family pays out much more than the $750 exemption. Why can't the full amount be deducted? Many of us still hope HR 17, with the special provisions for the severely handicapped, will become law. However, tax consideration would help us survive and get more financial benefit from our rehabilitation. Sincerely, CHRIS W. FORD. 5 "Chicago Handicapped and Aged Transportation Study", Joel A. Miller, The Transportation Center, The Urban Systems Engineering Center, and the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Northwestern University. 1971. Unpublished. 6 Abt Associates, Inc. 7 Miller, p. 2, Abt Associates Inc., p. 50, and Little, p 41, op. cit. 8 Brotman, p. cit., p. 10. 9 Abt Associates Inc., p. 13. Little, p. 30, op. cit. 10 Abt Associates, Inc., p. 49, op. cit 11 Abt Associates, Inc., p. 54, Little, p. 22, op. cit. 12 Abt Associates Inc., p 73, op. cit. 13 Miller, p Table III, op. cit. 14 Abt Associates, Inc., p. 74, op. cit. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, MONTEREY NURSING INN., Grove City, Ohio, March 20, 1973. DEAR MR. MILLS: First of all, I would like to take the opportunity of introducing myself. I am a victim of cerebral palsy, being injured at birth, but thank God, I have never permitted by physical impairment to keep me down. It was at the age of six, that I was able to take my first step. My particular aim was to seek an education, and as a result, I graduated from South High School, of Columbus, Ohio, in 1939. From my various ambitions I was more than determined to earn a living by selling greeting cards. I became deeply involved in organizations for the Physically Handicapped. For quite a few years, I have served as Chairman of the Legislative Committee of both the Columbus Chapter and the Buckeye Area of the National Association of the Physically Handicapped, Inc. It is my sincere conviction that all disabled citizens throughout the nation who go out to work for a decent living, and have to depend on transportation to and from the place of employment, should be entitled to an exemption of $750.00 from their yearly income tax. This can be a very expensive way to earn a living, especially for those who are confined in wheelchairs. They travel by cabs to and from work which usually eats up most of their weekly income. Mr. Mills, your bill, H.R. 3150, to provide a deduction for income tax purposes, in the case of a disabled individual, for expenses for transportation to and from work; and to provide an additional exemption for income tax purposes for a taxpayer or spouse who is disabled, would be a great savings in the long run. I hope that this piece of legislation will be passed by members of the House and the Senate and signed into law in the very near future. Looking forward in hearing from you in the near future, I remain. Sincerely, JOHN ROGERS. Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Our next witness is Mr. Robert Wetherille. It is the intention of the Chair to try to work through the testimony of Mr. John F. Nagle, barring the interruption of a quorum call or rollcall. For the benefit of those people who want to leave for lunch, we will do that. We will be back here at 2 o'clock. STATEMENT OF ROBERT WETHERILLE, COCHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, ACCOMPANIED BY JEROME LANDRY, COCHAIRMAN, AND JACK WALLER, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS Mr. WETHERILLE. I am Robert Wetherille, cochairman of the legislative committee of the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems. I am accompanied by my cochairman, Jerome Landry. Also with me is Mr. Jack Waller of the International Association of Fire Fighters here in Washington. The conference represents about 200 organizations including State, school, police, fire, and municipal employee retirement systems and their affiliated organizations. The total number of individual members of organizations represented by the conference is approximately 4 million. My testimony is related to taxation of the retired, particularly to section 37 of the Internal Revenue Code, "Retirement Income Tax Credit." As most members of the committee are well aware, the conference and the organizations it represents have long supported equitable tax treatment of the retired. We have been before this committee many times not only on the retirement income tax credit, but on other retirement taxation issues. We have long concentrated on, and urged this committee and the Congress to seriously consider, the taxation of retirement benefits received from public systems. Many of the retirees from public systems were not covered by social security in 1954 when the retirement income tax credit was adopted; many are not covered today. Many of the groups we represent actively supported legislation in 1954 which would place these retirees-whose benefits are taxableon an equal footing with retirees receiving social security benefitswhose benefits are not taxable. When this committee and the Congress enacted section 37, the retirement income tax credit, in 1954, you removed an outstanding inequity in the tax treatment of these two groups of retired persons. We supported that concept then; we have supported it in the intervening years; we are here to support it today. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, the retirement tax credit will only provide equity among retired persons if its base figure is set at the average maximum payable under social security. The present credit base figure is $1,524. The credit is 15 percent of that, with reductions for earned income and any social security benefits received. That base figure-$1,524 has not been changed since 1962-11 years. During those 11 years social security has been increased at least four times. During those 11 years we have urged the tax credit base be raised to more closely to conform to the social security maximums. During those 11 years many bills have been introduced to increase the tax credit, most of these bills have been filed by members of this committee. And session after session, during those 11 years, we have had to report to our members that the bills did not pass. We have reported that bills did not pass in some sessions because Treasury opposed. We have reported that bills did not pass because they were overlooked for more important matters in the rush of the close of the session. And, we have reported that bills did not pass because Treasury, or the Congress, or both, were considering major tax reform and did not want to update the credit until that was complete. We cannot honestly say that our members have waited patiently these 11 years. They have not. But we can say that they have waited without relief. They have been treated inequitably. They do deserve to have the tax credit updated to confrom to present social security benefits. Even that will not make them whole, for it will not return their tax losses of 11 years. But it will say to them that the Congress has again returned to its intent of 1954-tax equity. We urge that the $1,524 retirement tax credit base be increased to at least $3,300 with appropriate adjustments for married couples. This |