NEWS FROM….

CONGRESSMAN LANE EVANS

RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

    U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FOR RELEASE: May 25, 2000 

Washington, DC – Lane Evans of Illinois, Democratic Leader of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, joined by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), today called on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to support veterans who are family farmers. In a letter to VA Under Secretary Joseph Thompson, Evans called for changes to end hardships some farm belt veterans face under local interpretations of VA pension regulations. As a result of these local VA actions, family farmers and their survivors are forced to sell their farming equipment or land to qualify for wartime pension benefits or VA health care. This is wrong and not the way a grateful nation should treat veterans.

In determining eligibility for some programs, VA determines whether or not the veteran’s income is below poverty levels (currently $981.00 per month for a veteran with a spouse). If a veteran’s income is below VA’s income limits, VA then determines the veteran’s "net worth" and the "reasonableness" of requiring a veteran to liquidate assets in order to meet financial obligations.

"VA’s examples for determining eligibility for its programs for veterans who are family farmers need to be completely revised," Evans said. "The VA grants pensions to disabled wartime veterans and their survivors in need. It has a guideline – not a law or a regulation, but a guideline it uses. Today, that guideline suggests that veterans who are family farmers and have assets of $50,000 would not qualify a veteran as needy. First, the limit is far too low. The amount today should be more like $125,000 just to keep up with inflation. I’m asking VA to raise that figure for all pension determinations."

Evans also noted, there is no "hard-and-fast" VA rule in determining net worth. Each case is supposed to be evaluated individually to determine whether or not the veteran has enough assets to reasonably provide for themselves and their dependents without VA’s help. "Farmers today have a great deal of money invested in land and equipment," he said. "When VA employees treat a guideline as an inflexible limit, they force disabled wartime veterans to sell their equipment or farmland in order to receive assistance. VA needs to understand the size of the investment it takes to be a family farmer and that large investments in land and equipment don’t mean profits."

Evans has written to Joseph Thompson, Under Secretary for Benefits, requesting him to take immediate steps to make sure family farmers who are veterans receive a fair and adequate evaluation of their eligibility for pension benefits, without requiring them to sacrifice their means of livelihood.

"Family farms feed our nation," Evans wrote. "Veterans who are family farmers have served our nation honorably. They should not be required to sell their means of livelihood in order to obtain pension benefits or VA health care. This is particularly true when veterans are asked to sell a family farm or farm equipment which in future years can produce income for the veteran and the veteran’s dependents."

In particular, Evans is concerned that some VA employees are not giving proper attention to the net worth pension requirement. "Liquidation of assets, such as a family farm, should only be the last step and only be required when it can be done at "no substantial sacrifice." "I can’t conceive of a situation," Evans said, "where selling assets needed to operate a family farm would not involve ‘substantial sacrifice.’"

VA’s manual provides guidelines to those VA employees who make eligibility determinations. The VA manual says that what constitutes excessive net worth is a question of fact, depending on the circumstances in each case. Frequently, however, the monetary guideline is applied mechanically as a limitation on net worth. This is particularly a problem where a veteran’s assets are essential to generating income, especially in farm communities where adverse weather or other factors beyond the control of individual farmers, may dramatically impact a farmer’s income in a given year.

Evans asked Thompson to provide guidance to VA claims adjudicators, reminding them that the net worth determination is not a mechanical one. He called for changes in the examples contained in the current manual, which suggest that family farms be liquidated without regard to the statutory criteria of reasonableness or the regulatory criteria of "no substantial sacrifice." These examples don’t belong in the VA manual if the examples are supposed to help VA employees fairly decide benefit claims of veterans who are family farmers.

"I also asked VA to provide information on the number of ‘net worth’ determinations rendered nationwide, broken down by regional office, along with information concerning the number of these requests from VA medical centers," Evans said. "I am particularly concerned about VA decisions involving family farms." He also requested any specific directives VA has issued concerning valuation of farmland and equipment.

"I believe where the farm can be generating income for a family," said Evans, "the farmland, the equipment and the necessary supplies cannot be converted to cash without a substantial sacrifice. I am requesting that new guidelines be written which adequately recognize the substantial sacrifice involved in the liquidation of our Nation’s family farms. Veterans’ family farms are never sold without substantial sacrifice."