[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 74 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4516-H4519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMELESS VETERANS HOUSING AT SEPULVEDA AMBULATORY CARE CENTER PROMOTION
ACT
Mr. FILNER. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1642
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Homeless Veterans Housing at
Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center Promotion Act''.
SEC. 2. ENHANCED USE LEASE FOR SEPULVEDA AMBULATORY CARE
CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
(a) Requirements for Lease.--The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs may enter into an enhanced-use lease under section
8162 of title 38, United States Code, at the Department
facility known as the Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center (in
this Act referred to as the ``Center''), for a homeless
housing project, only to the extent, subject to the
exceptions provided in subsection (d), that any such lease
contains legally enforceable provisions that the tenant under
the lease shall comply with the following terms and
conditions:
(1) That the housing project located at the Center shall
provide housing exclusively for veterans, as defined in
section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
(2) That such housing project shall be maintained, for the
duration of the lease, as a sober living facility.
(3) That the housing project shall be adequately staffed
with health care, counseling, and security personnel, taking
into account the ratio of such staff to residents, in order
to protect residents of the housing project and of the
community, and that the minimum staffing ratios shall be
specified in an enforceable provision of the lease.
(4) That the housing project shall provide housing to not
fewer than 150 and not more than 225 residents.
(b) Consideration of Qualified Organizations.--The
Secretary shall consider proposals for the enhanced-use lease
under subsection (a) from all organizations determined by the
Secretary to be qualified, and which are capable and willing
to comply with the terms and conditions described in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a).
(c) Selection of Organization.--In the event that there are
more than one qualified organizations described in subsection
(b) which submit a proposal, the Secretary shall enter into
the enhanced-use lease under subsection (a) with the
organization that the Secretary determines shall offer the
best treatment services, security staffing, and supervision
with respect to residents of the housing project. The
Secretary shall give preference to entering into such a lease
with a qualified organization which has the most experience
nationwide in providing housing and treatment for homeless
veterans.
(d) Exceptions.--If the Secretary, after a diligent search,
is unable to enter into an enhanced-use lease with a
qualified organization containing all of the terms and
conditions specified in subsection (a) on or before a date
that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary--
(1) may enter into such a lease with a qualified
organization providing that the housing project shall be
exclusively for veterans during the duration of the lease,
with preference given to an organization which housing
project shall provide housing to the highest number of
residents not exceeding 225; and
(2) if, after a diligent search, the Secretary is unable to
enter into such a lease with a qualified organization that
provides that the housing project shall be exclusively for
veterans during the duration of the lease, may enter into
such a lease with an organization providing that not less
than 80 percent of the residents of the housing project shall
be veterans throughout the duration of the lease.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Baird). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. 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
[[Page H4517]]
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.
{time} 1700
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. 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. FILNER. 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. SHERMAN. 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;
[[Page H4518]]
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.
{time} 1715
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. 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?
Mr. SHERMAN. 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.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman for the
response.
Mr. SHERMAN. 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.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
[[Page H4519]]
Mr. FILNER. 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.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Baird). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1642.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________