Homeless Veterans Housing at Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center Promotion Act

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for taking the time and focusing on an issue that is relevant to just one district, namely mine, a facility that is in my district.

I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for coming out to my district and for meeting with veterans and for meeting with those who run the VA in our area and for understanding this issue so well; and for meeting with the one developer who opposes this bill.

And I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida for taking her time to study an issue that after all just relates to one district and one facility.

Now, let me tell you why we are here. It is a story that I can relate briefly.

A developer came to our community and said they would like to provide housing for 150 homeless veterans with substance abuse problems in our suburban neighborhood. You can imagine in some communities those who believe in NIMBY-ism, ``not in my backyard,'' would have said, oh, take care of veterans, but not here. I am proud of my community.

I had countless meetings. Yes, there were a few naysayers. But finally after many meetings, the community was clear, we want to help this project. We want to help veterans, particularly those that are homeless and suffering from substance abuse problems. We as community organizations want to volunteer, our veterans organizations want to send people, our employers want to provide jobs, all so homeless veterans can get the help they need not only with housing but with substance abuse problems.

What we got in return was a clear statement of three principles: that the facility would be for veterans only; that there would be adequate staffing ratios set forth in the lease so that as long as the lease would run, we would know that it was adequately staffed;

and, finally, that the facility be clean and sober because it was designed for homeless veterans with substance abuse problems. We wanted to provide the special environment these veterans need to recover.

And we assumed that once we as a community urged the VA to go forward with a program, they would open it up to a variety of organizations and say we've got two empty buildings right here in the City of Los Angeles in the North Hills community; come and give us your proposals. Instead, something else happened.

First, for reasons I do not understand, the VA decided to spend a lot of time just focused on one developer. Second, that developer, who had promised our community, and these promises were reduced to writing, that the program would have guaranteed staffing ratios, decided to back out of that promise, decided that they would rather not have to provide any particular level of funding.

They had come to us and said the program would be veterans only and would be alcohol free. But then they discovered that certain sources of funds would be available to them only if it was for general public housing; and that in order to get certain sources of funding from HUD, they would have to open it up to non-veterans and they would have to allow alcohol because in a general housing facility open to all types of homeless people, you don't turn to every homeless person and say, We will give you a roof, but you can't have a beer.

So they had to change the proposal from a design to treat homeless veterans' abuse problems in the best way possible, to one that was a general proposal. And VA headquarters decided they had already had so many discussions, it was easier for them, they wanted their statistics to look good, they wanted to cut the ribbon on a facility, that they would just go down the road and provide a 75-year, rent-free lease on valuable land in valuable buildings in the City of Los Angeles to this developer, allow non-veterans, allow alcohol use, not require any staffing ratios.

Now, what does my bill provide? It says to the VA: have an open process; allow the Salvation Army to submit a proposal; allow U.S. Vets to submit a proposal; allow the groups that met with the chairman in my district to submit proposals; and do your best to get a facility that is veterans only; that has adequate staffing ratios guaranteed; and that provides the alcohol-free therapeutic environment these veterans need. Do it in less than a year, says the bill. And if for some reason you can't find some qualified organization to submit a qualified proposal, then go forward. Do your best for veterans, but go forward, because we don't want to delay the use of these buildings to provide care for veterans for any significant amount of time.

I am confident that if the VA opens its process that these groups who have met with me and who have met with the chairman will come forward.

Now, I have recently seen a letter that is issued by the one organization that does not want an open process. They would rather just go ahead and sign a lease. Keep in mind the four issues: staffing; alcohol prohibited; veterans only; competitive bidding.

This comprehensive and long-letter response doesn't deal with the staffing issues because there is no reason to sign a 75-year, no-rent lease without the VA at least putting in there you will have so much staff. This long response does not deal with the issue of alcohol use because there is no reason that an organization that wants to help homeless veterans with substance abuse problems would allow alcohol except for the reason that that opens up funding sources that they otherwise don't have.

Instead, they focus on two other issues. The first is they say legal counsel has advised us that restricting the project to veterans only would expose us to legal liability. That is their phony argument for not having it veterans-only. Why is it phony? I used to be a lawyer. I could have advised any client who paid me that they would face legal liability if they scratched their nose. The fact is while anybody can get sued for anything, any activity, including breathing, can subject you to theoretical legal liability, all over this country we have veterans-only housing. We have a dozen projects in L.A. County alone.

And while you can always find a lawyer to say something could subject you to possible legal liability, none of these hundreds of veterans- only housing facilities has been sued.

What is the real reason? They say we have located funding sources that will not allow veterans only. That happens to be true. The Salvation Army and U.S. Vets, I am convinced and they are convinced, can find the funding sources that will allow for veterans-only projects. But this New Directions group has found only the wrong funding sources.

It is true there are many properly funded veterans-only clean and sober housing facilities across this country, but it is harder to do that kind of project than to do a project that can accept funding from those sources dedicated to general public use.

This may be an issue we in Congress want to look at. We may want to make it easier to have veterans housing in this country, to allow veterans-only projects that are alcohol-free to compete for the HUD money from particular programs, but that is a national issue. The local issue is that many organizations can do it right and can get their funding from sources that want to fund veterans-only clean and sober facilities.

Now this organization has given me an oral promise that at least initially they will only have veterans living there; but it is a 75- year, rent free, no-competitive bidding contract; and we will have no assurance that within years this project will not include both veterans and non-veterans.

This is of such importance to veterans of L.A. County because there is valuable land owned by the VA in my district, and even more valuable in an adjoining district, and every group with a good cause comes and says, Let us use this land for a non-veterans project. Sell this land and give us the money and we will help people somewhere.

But the veterans of L.A. County are very clear.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I am convinced the goal could be done in months. The bill does not provide for a super technical process. It simply says invite other groups under this bill to provide competitive bids, and it provides an absolute limit of 1 year. So this is a short-term process.

We already have other groups thinking about making proposals. They are reluctant to make proposals until they are asked for it.

So what this bill does is it opens the process to competitive proposals. It allows other groups like U.S. Vets and the Salvation Army to submit proposals. It urges the VA to try to create what we always wanted to create--veterans-only, staffing ratios, alcohol-free, and it gives them 1 year to do this. I hope they will act much, much more quickly, and I will push those other groups to submit their proposals very quickly.

Speaking of quickly, I should end this speech quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1642) to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that, to the extent possible, an enhanced-use lease for a homeless housing project at the Department of Veterans Affairs facility known as the Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, located in North Hills, California, shall provide that such housing project shall be maintained as a sober living facility for veterans only, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2642. We all know that homelessness among veterans is a pervasive problem. Estimates are that there are 20,000 to 30,000 homeless veterans in the Los Angeles area alone and more than 200,000 probably on the streets of our entire Nation. Many of these homeless veterans also have substance abuse problems.

My colleague and friend, Congressman Brad Sherman, has worked with veterans in the San Fernando Valley community to mobilize community support for veterans-only housing, a project that will use two buildings at the VA Sepulveda complex to provide housing and supportive services for homeless veterans with substance abuse problems.

The bill before you will ensure that the Sepulveda veterans facilities and resources are used for veterans only. It also provides that all qualified housing organizations receive the opportunity to compete for the homeless veterans housing project at Sepulveda. Most importantly, this bill directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that, to the extent possible, an enhanced use lease for a homeless housing project at Sepulveda shall be maintained as a sober living facility for veterans only with adequate staffing and security.

Additionally, this bill will ensure that all qualified housing organizations receive the opportunity to present competing proposals to the VA for a

homeless veterans project at the Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center in North Hills, California.

Mr. Speaker, two worthy and good nonprofit organizations, New Directions, Incorporated, and their partner, A Community of Friends, made a proposal to local VA administrators and local elected officials and community representatives to enter into this lease with the VA for a veterans-only housing project for recovering substance abusers that would in fact be alcohol-free and would have adequate staffing and security. All the parties that were brought together by Mr. Sherman agreed to these commitments.

But just last summer, the nonprofits abandoned that proposal and sought enhanced-use lease to deliver a project that was substantially different than what everyone had agreed to earlier. They took these steps after discovering additional funding sources through Housing and Urban Development that it believes might be available for this project if it opens these facilities to residency by non-veterans and allows the use of alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, how can you begin to help homeless veterans who are trying to get their lives together, trying to recover from addictions to drugs and alcohol, but putting them in a facility that allows the very thing from which they are trying to recover? It does not make any sense.

This bill does not stop the Secretary of the VA from entering into a lease, but it does ensure that the Secretary conduct a diligent search to find a qualified organization with the experience, efficiency and funding sources to deliver a veterans-only, sober living facility and to enter into a lease with the organization best suited to deliver the projects.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1642. I also ask for their continued support for our Nation's veterans. This bill is the least we can do to help ensure our homeless and recovering veterans have an environment that allows them to reach their goal, clean and sober.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) raised. I think the concern should be directed to the VA Secretary who, if he had asked for a competition on proposals, wouldn't be negotiating with just one group.

I personally have talked to groups that say they would offer proposals which would guarantee all veterans and would guarantee sober living, and we are convinced it would not take 2 years, but could be done rather quickly.

I think Congressman Sherman can answer with much greater expertise and I would yield to him such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and like her, I commend the gentleman from California for his tireless work on an issue that rarely gets community support, and I am convinced, as he said I visited the area, that we will have an up-and-running homeless program for veterans with substance abuse in a very short time. It is a place where the VA is using its facilities, and it is a great opportunity for anybody who wants to help this issue.

So I thank the gentleman and I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose H.R. 1642, the Homeless Housing at Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center Promotion Act, I do have some concerns about the bill.

This legislation would require that the enhanced-use lease for a homeless veterans housing project at the Sepulveda VA Outpatient Clinic provide sober-living housing exclusively for veterans. The bill also mandates that the housing project be adequately staffed and provide for not fewer than 150, nor more than 250, residents.

At first glance, this sounds like a reasonable requirement. In fact, it is my understanding that the original lease proposal by New Directions, which received the support of the local community leaders, contained a veterans-only facility with a sober-living campus. However, when New Directions sought additional funding through the Housing and Urban Development Agency, HUD, due to Federal HUD's governance requirements, they could no longer stipulate in the contract that the facility would be a veterans-only ``with no alcohol on the premises'' facility.

New Directions is a residential substance abuse and mental health treatment program created by a Vietnam veteran and former homeless veteran John Keaveney. Since 1991, New Directions has been working in conjunction with other service providers and the Department of Veterans Affairs to help assist homeless veterans. In 1994, New Directions became the first social services agency in the country to provide temporary housing and services to homeless female veterans as well as family members of veterans.

To address these issues, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, James Nicholson, on March 8, 2007, sent a letter to the New Directions administration that would operate the housing under a dry-housing model whereby the residents would agree not to use alcohol or intoxicating drugs. With more than 20,000 homeless veterans in that area, it was anticipated that all of the beds could be filled entirely with veterans.

Mr. Speaker, here is my concern: the Congressional Budget Office in their April 30, 2007 cost estimate for this bill stated: ``VA is currently in the process of finalizing an enhanced-use lease for the Sepulveda facility with a nonprofit organization, New Directions. However, New Directions cannot reach the specified conditions in this bill. Based on information from VA, CBO expects that under the bill, the Department would be required to break off arrangements with New Directions and search for qualified organizations, a process that could take a few years.''

New Directions has agreed to operate under a dry-housing model, and there is certainly a sufficiently large veterans homeless population in the area to virtually guarantee that the facility will be occupied entirely with veterans. Yet my colleagues wish to impose this legislation which would significantly delay the project.

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the local community would want this legislation. However, H.R. 1642 does not address what happens to the hundreds of homeless veterans in the north Los Angeles area who would have been helped by this facility while they wait several years for the VA to begin this process to enter into a new lease.

With the passage of this legislation, are these homeless veterans still on the street waiting for a lease with better terms? That's the question that the American public deserves an answer to.

I would hope that this body can be offered some assurances that temporary provision will be made for the many homeless veterans during this hopefully brief period of delay while a new lease is negotiated. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would be more comfortable in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend you for working with the community to establish a homeless shelter. Having been a county commissioner, I know how heated those public hearings can be when people think that there is going to be a homeless shelter anywhere in the county, let alone anywhere near their particular residence or business.

Having a homeless shelter for veterans only is a very, very laudable goal, and there is a camaraderie there that I understand where you are going with that.

My question is, do you have any idea how long it would take to go out to competitive bid? And also, as you know and when you were practicing law you may have participated in this, the unsuccessful bidders very often can drag it on ad nauseam because they did not get the bid. Do you have any estimate of how long this process would take, because I think our goals are mutual of having a facility there for veterans?

I thank the gentleman for the response.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1642, the ``Homeless Veterans Housing at Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center Promotion Act.''

America's veterans have risked their lives for their country. They deserve the best treatment and support that we can offer them. Despite this, homelessness remains a pervasive problem among veterans, with many homeless veterans also fighting substance abuse problems. It is our responsibility, as our Nation's leaders, to work to ensure they receive the assistance they need.

This bill is an important step toward that goal. The Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center, located in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley, exists to provide care to veterans. It is currently the major outpatient facility for the 1.4 million veterans living in northern Los Angeles. The Center falls under the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and includes education and research facilities, in addition to comprehensive ambulatory care. This facility serves a vital role for the region's veterans.

This bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain a homeless housing project at the Sepulveda Center as a sober living facility for veterans only. H.R. 1642 also requires that this housing project be provided with adequate staffing and security.

This legislation is a necessary step in ensuring that our veterans receive the support that they need. I strongly support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1642.