-House -lawmakers -narrowly defeated a proposal -this week -that would have banned -federal immigration -agents from wearing face -masks while carrying out -official duties in Vermont.

-When I look deep in my heart, -there is a moral imperative -to protect Vermonters -from abduction by mask.

-Unidentified armed -people voting -!yes will do absolutely nothing -to stop ice from wearing -masks in Vermont.

-This administration acts -with impunity -regarding the Constitution, -the rule of law, -and our democracy.

-Plus, lawmakers -!attempt to reorganize supports -for unhoused Vermonters, -and the state -routinely pockets money -that belongs to foster kids.

-A bill headed to governor -Scott could end that.

-All that and more ahead -on Vermont this week.

-From the Vermont -public studio in Winooski.

-This is Vermont this week, -made possible in part -by the Lintilhac -Foundation and Milne Travel.

-Here's -moderator Mitch Wertlieb.

-Thanks for joining us.

-I'm Mitch Wertlieb.

-It's Friday, -May 22nd with us on the panel -today we have Carly Berlin -from Vermont Public -and Vtdigger -and joining us remotely -today, Lola Duffort -from Vermont Public -and Calvin Cutler from Wcax.

-Thank you -all so much for being here.

-And yes, Carly and I -were a little bit lonely -without you, Lola and Calvin -right here -in the studio with us.

-But we are so grateful -that you're there virtually.

-And, you know, -we should emphasize -that you're in Montpelier -because so much is going on -at the statehouse -right now, and a lot of what -we're going to talk about -on the show today, you know, -there could be some movement -on some of these stories, -at the time -we're going to tape -we're going to bring you -the most up -to date information we have.

-!But again, things could change -even by the time -!we get done with this program.

-Today, I want to start -by asking about, a bill that, -the House -lawmakers abandoned.

-They kind of rejiggered -it, actually.

-And now it's -going to go on to the Senate.

-This has to do with, -unmasking Ice -agents, federal immigration -agents, in Vermont.

-There was a great debate -!about this at the state House.

-Lola, where did the two sides -come down on this?

-And why did the House, -basically abandon -this bill, -!at least in its original form?

-Yeah.

-So the -Senate passed legislation -that would have required, -all law enforcement -in Vermont to, basically -identify themselves, right?

-And not, say, wear masks.

-There have always been -concerns -about whether or not Vermont -could do this -when it comes to federal -law enforcement officials.

-Right.

-!Because the federal government -supersedes state.

-But the Senate had received, -you know, some advice from, -legal experts saying, -we think you can try this.

-By the time this legislation -hit the House, though, -another court had weighed in -and said, -we really do not think that -states can do this because, -other blue states are also -attempting similar measures.

-And so House lawmakers -moved forward -with a version of this bill, -this, week that gave up -on, forcing -these measures when it comes -to federal law enforcement.

-So it still requires, state -and local law enforcement -to identify themselves, -to not mask, -except, you know, in certain -certain circumstances.

-But when it comes to federal -law enforcement, -the House has basically said -we don't think -we have the legal authority -to do this.

-And Calvin Cutler, -as I understand that -!a lot of the debate over this, -we heard, -you know, a couple of clips -there at the top and, -you know, one was, look, -some lawmakers feel -we should do this, -if only symbolically, to say -we support Vermonters.

-We don't want federal agents -whisking people off -in vans, etc.

-but it's also true, right, -!that the other side is saying, -if, as Lola was saying, -federal law supersedes -this, Vermont could be faced -with some court cases, right?

-!That would cost a lot of money -if this -if the feds challenge this.

-Yeah, totally.

-I mean, it was a decision -out of the Ninth Circuit.

-That really sort of set the, -the ball rolling on this -and questions -about whether this could -actually meet -constitutional muster.

-And it was interesting, -as Lola mentioned, -I mean, -this bill was moving forward, -but there was an amendment -on the floor where -there were a lot of rank -and file Democrats -that were really sort -of bucking party leadership -and saying, no, actually, -we should move forward -with this number one, which, -as you just pointed out, -you know, symbolically -saying we're taking a stand -against ice, taking a stand -against what many see -as a federal overreach -in terms of law enforcement.

-And the other argument was -that was made -was there's been -plenty of laws -that have been passed here -at the state House -where we knew -!that we were potentially going -!to face litigation, litigation -from the federal government -or from outside -groups or others.

-And that's -never stopped us before.

-!And so there were quite a few, -rank and file Democrats, -that really sort of rallied -around this amendment.

-And I think the, -the final vote was 66 or 68.

-So it did not pass.

-But but certainly though -this is, you know, -a lot of people feel -very strongly about this, -!and this has been one of those -long simmering -sort of undertones -to this legislative session -as to how Vermont will, -will approach, sort of what -some see as federal overreach -and the presence of ice -and sort of the fallout of, -the March 11th incident.

-But I will say, -!I mean, this is one of about 3 -!or 4 instances in recent weeks -where we are seeing, -you know, party, -rank and file -Democrats sort of -!go against leadership as well.

-I'm thinking a few weeks ago, -with that -debate -about the wealth tax as well.

-So there definitely -have been several instances -this session -where there's been issues -that, you know, leadership -has said, here's where we are -and how you should be voting, -but there are some within -the rank and file -that that are actively going -against that -because of their values, -!or they want to send a message -or etc.. -So it is really interesting.

-Now there is -another Bill Calvin, -that is heading -to the governor's desk.

-This has to do with, -certain locations -that ice can -and cannot perform functions.

-What's the status of that -bill, and does that have -maybe a better chance?

-Yeah.

-So this -one would basically bar, -civil immigration officials -from, -conducting business and, -conducting civil -arrests in place, -sensitive areas like schools, -hospitals, -churches, etc., -courthouses -and also would bar, -if you're on -the way to those locations, -if you're on the -way to the hospital -or on the way to school, -you would also, in theory, -be protected.

-I believe the Senate has -!to give one more vote on this, -and then it will go to -to the governor.

-We don't exactly know -how Scott will act on this -as of yet, but, -I mean, it is interesting, -actually, just this week, -there was a instance -where there was somebody, -a worker at CVM C -who was detained -by immigration officials.

-This bill, though, it is -it would cover, -for, for schools -and for courthouses -if you're on the way.

-But if you're on the way -to a hospital, it would not.

-So this is on the way to -to Governor Phil Scott.

-And again, -this is another -one of those instances where, -you know, lawmakers saw, you -know, people being detained.

-I think there were some, -you know, up in, up in, -in this burg, there was one -on a farm in Franklin County.

-You know, there's been -a number of, of instances -!where people have been sort of -picked up on the way -or coming to and from places.

-So this is, just one more way -that the legislature -is trying to wrap their arms -around it again.

-We'll we'll see where this -goes.

-And sort of what -the legal liability -or path forward, -!if you will, is for this bill.

-But but it is -on the way to Governor Scott.

-It could be very interesting -to see.

-Thank you for the update -on that.

Calvin.

-Carly Berlin, I want to turn -to you now, on this story.

-This is fascinating because -you've been reporting on this -for so long now, -and the Senate -has now advanced a bill -that really reorganizes -the supports for Vermont's -unhoused population.

-What can you tell us -about this bill?

-What it does with things -like motel voucher programs, -some of the criticism -and some of, the praise -also the bill is getting.

-So, like you said, this bill -would restructure Vermont's -response to homelessness -and state government.

-It's trying to continue -to pare back -the use of motels as shelter -while bulking up -!the rest of the shelter system -so it creates -this, this, system of, -of basically levels -of, of shelter and services.

-So the idea is, you know, -you would enter the door -and first get offered -these prevention services.

-So like paying for back rent, -trying to divert -someone from, from needing -to leave an apartment -or something like that.

-So if they don't they're not -unhoused in the first place.

-Exactly.

-And then, you know, -if that doesn't work, -the next step would be -what's called in this bill, -a highly structured shelter -with with wraparound services -that would try to move -someone into housing quickly.

-If that setting doesn't work, -someone would be, -you know, -offered a place in a low -barrier shelter, -which is typically a place -that has relaxed rules around -sobriety.

-You know, this works only -if there are enough spaces -for people -to to go to at these -different levels of shelter.

-And this bill does, -appropriated about $83 -million for these, you know, -different levels of shelter.

-And is this dedicated money, -clearly that -that, you know, will be, -!each year that that that folks -who deal with housing -and advocates can depend on?

-Well, for this year, -you know, the legislature -is not making promises for -for what levels of funding -!would look like in the future.

-Here, right now, some housing -advocates are saying that, -a couple of things.

-You, as you said, -a lot of money, -this year, -!but they're saying not enough.

-And not only that, as we're -scaling back the motel -!voucher program, which we know -and you've told us -before, -!Governor Scott is not a fan of -he likes that part -scaling that fact.

-But advocates are saying -it's it's a mistake to scale -back some of those motel room -availabilities -when we don't have -the infrastructure in place.

-Now to to house some folks.

-Is that one of the criticisms -that.

-That's right.

-And I mean, this has been -a concern for years after, -!you know, the federal pandemic -era cash for standing up -motel rooms as shelter -!ran out a couple of years ago, -advocates -have always been concerned -that, you know, -if we scale back this program -too quickly without first -having other shelter -or housing options for people -to move into, we're simply -going to end up with -!more unsheltered homelessness.

-We have seen unsheltered -homelessness rise in the last -few years, as that scale back -has has played out.

-So we're seeing, -you know, another step here -to try to minimize -the use of motels and try to, -you know, bulk up -the rest of this system.

-But, you know, -another criticism here -!is that this this bill doesn't -lay out more of the, -you know, options for people -leaving homelessness, leaving -!shelters, you know, to be able -to enter low income housing.

-You know, -we've seen this retreat -!of of federal housing vouchers -that are this ticket -out of homelessness -for a lot of people -to help pay the rent.

-So there is this real sort -of bottleneck already -happening in this system.

-And there is worry -here from advocates -who work -with unhoused Vermonters -that we're simply not seeing -enough, -you know, opportunities to -to leave this system.

-Yeah.

-One advocate -you quoted in your article -said this is -!just a rearranging of the deck -chairs.

-You know, -!it's a pretty stark statement.

-!Calvin Cutler, let me ask you, -what does Governor -Phil Scott think about what -he's seen of this?

-At least a Senate advancement -of this bill so far, because -he does like the scaling back -of the motel voucher program.

-I think he's -like some of the streamlining -that this bill would do.

-But what do we think about -his chances of signing it?

-Yeah, -I mean, it's interesting.

-This was a bipartisan bill, -really started in the House, -Human Services -Committee earlier this year.

-And so far, -I mean, the governor -really hasn't tipped his hand -on, you know, -how exactly he feels about it -and hasn't -been particularly outspoken.

-As we know, the governor is -really opposed using hotels.

-But you can't to Carly's -point.

-I mean, -you can't just end them -and pull the rug out -from underneath people.

-So this does move forward -and winding down those hotel -rooms.

-You know, -I've been told by some of, -you know, Scott's -Republican allies that this -could are in his signature.

-And it also is, -I believe, $2 million -less than H 91 was last year.

-And that also, -you know, not to relitigate, -you know, ancient history, -but that one had a much -different structure -where we are leaning on, -community action, -service providers -or community action agencies -to do the lump of this, -to do most of this work.

-But to Carly's point, -these would be done -by local community agencies.

-And so the work would be -a little bit more spread out.

-So I'm not hearing a lot of -concern from, from the, -the Scott administration.

And -certainly it is significant -that this does spend less.

-So I think this could be -one of those bills -that that does -get the governor's signature.

-At least that's -what I'm hearing from -!some of his Republican allies.

-And you agree with that?

-Carly is is looking like -it might get the signature.

-Yeah.

-I mean, I think we've -we've seen administration -officials working closely -with legislators -!on this throughout the session -this year.

-And, you know, I think -!the hope this whole time is to -to be able to create a bill -!that's passable and, you know, -would would be able to earn -the governor's signature.

-This is the sort of bill -that, you know, -makes a lot of people -a little bit happy and makes -a lot of people -a little bit angry -in this world.

-And, I think that observers -are expecting the governor -to sign on, but, you know, -he hasn't promised yet.

-We shall see.

-We're going to get to -some more housing issues -in just a moment.

-But first, Lolita for, -fascinating story -brought to our attention -recently about foster kids.

-In Vermont.

-You go through the foster -system, -they are eligible for, -federal benefits.

-And it turns out -that Vermont, -the specifically Department -for children and Families -has been taking -some of that money to pay -for the foster care -these kids had.

-Do I have that right?

-Yeah.

-So some foster kids -are eligible -for federal benefits, -and these are, foster youth -that specifically -either have had a parent died -or both of their parents die -or who have a disability -and so are eligible -for certain -!Social Security cash benefits.

-And what has been happening -in Vermont -as well as other states.

-You know, -we're not alone in this.

-Is that, our child -welfare agency has been -claiming this money -for themselves -and not setting it aside.

-So that say that child -has that money when they age -out of the system.

-Instead, the state -has been reimbursing itself -for the foster care -services -that these kids receive.

-Advocates have been -really live -!in about this for a long time.

-And saying that, no child -should be forced to pay -for their own foster care, -and but, you know, -it hasn't really gained -a lot of traction.

-It hasn't gotten a lot of -attention until recently.

-But this year, -lawmakers passed a bill.

-It is on its way to -!the governor's desk that says, -okay, we're going to stop -doing this by 2028.

-Well, one of the, -one of the you -!talked to a woman in the story -is 18 years old now, -!and she was one of these folks -who was, you know, -eligible for this money.

-I want to make sure -I've got this right.

-So are they not getting -the money they were owed -because DCF was was taking -a portion of that away?

Or -is it that they it's deferred -and they get it later?

-Do they get the money at all -so they don't get the money?

-DCF has been getting -this money.

-I mean, that's -I mean, of course, -once they age out of foster -care, they're eligible -for the benefits that -!they might continue to accrue.

-But any benefits that they -accrue while in foster care, -if DCF has decided to claim -that money for themselves, -!they've been allowed to do so.

-And, currently, -about 80 kids are eligible -for these sorts of benefits -that are in DCF custody.

-And DCF has told lawmakers, -yeah, right -now, they're federal benefits -are offsetting our budget -to the tune of $800,000 -a year.

-Those $800,000 -a year for those 80 kids?

-Yes, those 80 kids have been -paying, -$800,000 a year towards -their own foster care.

-And, it's, you -know, this practice is legal.

-What's interesting -is that, while federal -!regulations have allowed this, -the Trump administration -has kind of jumped on to -this chorus of people -starting to call for change.

-And so, advocates in Vermont -!found themselves with slightly -unlikely ally -of the Trump administration, -the, top federal child -welfare official wrote -to governors, -late last year to 39 -governors, including Phil -Scott, last year, and said, -you really should stop -doing this.

-These are not, -this -this is not in the spirit -!of what these federal benefits -were intended to do.

-They sent to governors -like a template -executive order saying, -you know, you could, -with a stroke of your pen, -stop doing this.

-Please do so, -but in this case, it's -taken, legislative action.

-!Well, very briefly here, Lola, -before we move on -from this, let's say Governor -Scott does sign this bill -to stop that practice, -which I I'm -I'm going to go ahead -and guess that he will.

-But you mentioned that money -that DCF was saying, -would that hurt their budget?

-Would it hurt their ability -to do what they do if the -if this money was -no longer available to them?

-That's what DCF says.

-Right.

-And DCF has said, -look, we're in principle -totally okay -with moving away from this.

-We we get it.

-But, -we're going to have to find -$800,000 elsewhere, or stop -providing certain services.

-You know, the advocates -I've spoken to have said, -sure, -you're going to have to find -that money elsewhere.

-But in the grand scheme -of the state -budget, I bet we can find it.

-Okay.

-But that has been -the objection, right?

-There's anxiety about.

-Okay, where else -are we gonna find this money?

-Yeah.

-And that seems to be a theme -with a lot of -different things.

-But thank you very much -for that update, -It's a fascinating story.

-Tell Cutler -where are we right now?

-Is, again, -you know, we're emphasizing -that you and Lola -are both in Montpelier -because there's so much going -on, at the state House -at the moment.

-Where are we in this -legislative session of over -time, especially related -to education reform?

-What's going on?

-Yeah, totally.

-And Lola, feel free to -to jump in as well.

-I know, -there's a lot of information -that's, that's -totally swirling around.

-I mean, there has been, -you know, all eyes -basically -are on, on the education bill -because that's the one -Governor Phil Scott had said, -is the must pass, -and he would veto the budget -and keep lawmakers -here, until -they, they, you know, -advance -a proposal that goes along -with the framework -of, of act 73.

-Lola, -I will probably toss to you -you've got probably more up -to date information than I.

-Yeah, I think that there is -!light at the end of the tunnel -we're in over time.

-But, -Governor Scott -!made a really major concession -this week.

-The the potential, -the primary, -hang up in negotiations -has been the question -of forced school -district mergers, right?

-Governor -Scott, legislative leaders -totally in agreement -on a foundation -formula, this idea that, -the state would basically -take over budgeting, -!but they were not in agreement -on, forced consolidation.

-Lawmakers have long said -they don't have the votes -to make that happen.

-And this week, -Governor Scott said, okay, -we we don't -we can go forward -with, voluntary mergers -so long as we stick -to the foundation formula.

-I don't I'm not ready to say -there is a deal.

-We're definitely out of here.

-Because, -a lot of things can change.

-There are still -some important, -matters to negotiate, -so we are not out of here.

-But the -the primary sticking point, -is, is no longer, in play.

-And so I, I, I am optimistic -that we are nearing the end -and I'll say to -I mean, there's still a few -outstanding questions.

-I mean, like the education -bill was the, the domino, -right?

-Once you that domino falls, -then the rest of them -start to fall.

-One of them being the yield -bill.

-You know, what will -the House and the Senate -and the governor do about, -you know, the property -tax buy down.

-What's -that going to look like?

-I can imagine that -they'd land -somewhere -closer to what the governor -and what the Senate -would like.

-Buying down to about 3 or 4%, -as opposed to -what the house wanted.

-So, you know, there's a, -!there's these must pass bills, -and you can really feel -!the energy in the building is, -is starting to turn and, -and certainly, -you know, it's an election -year.

-And, you know, -I've been seeing more sort -of political operatives -and campaign managers.

-You know, around the building -this this week, -!kind of looking at their watch -like, guys, it's -it's time we, we, -we got to go.

-So I think you know -certainly there, -there is public and also -just internal pressure to, -to move this along.

-Really appreciate -the updates on that.

-That is a big concession -from the governor, -because he was pretty adamant -before about the, -the mandatory mergers -and dropping.

-That is a big deal.

-!Carly Berlin Another big deal, -has to do with housing.

-Education is huge.

-Housing is huge.

-Apparently, Governor -Scott was very upset -because he had found out -that some changes, -that had been made -to wetlands protections, -were kind of off the board.

-Originally the agency -of Natural Resources -had said, the actually -the attorney general -had said, you can't do that.

-And C had some rules.

-They went back -and then the legislature -ruled against the governor.

-!So I know it's very convoluted -what I've said here, -but give us an update on -!on these wetland rules changes -the governor wanted -and why he's frustrated now.

-Yeah.

-Little bit of an arcane -process here a little bit.

-Sure.

-So this all this fight around -wetlands rules -all started back in September -last year -when the governor issued -an executive order that -did a whole bunch of things -to try and hasten -housing production, -one of those being to try -and loosen rules for building -housing near wetlands.

-Then the attorney -general issued that opinion -that you mentioned, saying, -you know, if -if you want to do this, -!you should probably go through -this formal -rulemaking process.

-The governor was getting -a lot of flak for, you know, -overstepping -his executive authority -by by issuing this order -while lawmakers -were not in session.

-That rulemaking process -happens.

-That rule goes before -this legislative oversight -committee.

-And then this week -that committee said, -we reject this rule.

-We don't like it.

-This this, -you know, goes against -legislative intent -to try and protect and -even increase the number of, -you know, wetland area -we have in the state.

-The governor, of course, -is not happy about this -!and says, you know, Democrats, -you know, don't -don't care about trying to -to build more housing.

-!They're not taking the housing -crisis seriously.

-To be clear, though, -these wetlands, comprise -about, what, 3%?

-It's a it's a small area -in the state.

-And, you know, -!these exceptions around around -building and wetlands -only apply -to a small portion -of, of existing wetlands.

-They, you know, -these exemptions -would only apply to areas -that the state has designated -for, for housing growth, too.

-So, you know, places -that are connected -to municipal infrastructure -or things like that.

-So it is it is a small area.

-But, you know, -I think that this -comes at an interesting -moment.

Right?

-We've talked a lot about act -181 and debates over land -use policy -this year on the show, -and, you know, -it comes at this moment -when there is a lot of -fighting between -the administration -and Democratic leadership -in the legislature over, -you know, where -where do we encourage -housing growth in the state?

-Where do we need -more environmental protection -that, you know, -those goals can be framed -in opposition to each other.

-And, you know, -some of the lawmakers -who rejected the real change -from the administration -say, you know, this is a -this is a false binary.

-It's a false choice.

-We don't need to be choosing -between these things.

-We can protect our wetlands -and still build housing.

-Is is one way -of looking at it.

-But the governor is is -has been very it's -a political statement.

-I mean, he's saying that it's -the Democrats fault -because of this, -that we're drag -our feet on housing again.

-We go back and forth -with these things.

-But all we know -is that Vermont needs both.

-It needs protections, -from flooding -and events like that, but -it also needs more housing.

-And here we are with another -sort of intractable thing.

-At this point, it looks like.

-Yeah, yeah.

-I want to mention to, -that the House leaders -issued a joint statement -calling -for civility in politics -has had to do -with, representatives -saying that, you know, -they were getting some very -nasty messages from people, -dealing with a lot -of these issues.

-We've been talking -about today.

-!And it was basically a call to -say, look, we're Vermonters.

-We don't need the vitriol -that we're seeing -on a national level.

-Certainly.

-And it shouldn't happen here.

-This was a joint statement -that was released by House -Speaker John Krasinski -and, representative, -Patty McCoy, I believe.

-And so that's something else -that we need to watch for -as a lot of these things -build up, over time.

-And we're getting close -to the end of the session.

-And I also want to mention -that, this time of year -with Memorial Day, coming up, -Vermont state parks are now -open for the season, -which is one of -my favorite times -of the year as well.

-Shout out to the Cat -State Park, -one of my actual favorites.

-Calvin, -I want to go around and ask -if you enjoy it in the state -parks in our lovely state, -and if you have a favorite, -Underhill State Park.

-That's mine.

-Excellent.

Well, -before we hike, -I really love -the Groton State Forest.

-Prints, -of course, is beautiful.

-Fantastic.

-And Carly Berlin, -I like biking out -on the causeway -to Grand Isle State Park.

-Lovely things to do.

-Certainly hope you can -get out -and enjoy our state parks.

-And thank you -so much to our panel.

-This week we had Carly Berlin -for Vermont Public -and Vtdigger joining us -remotely today, Lola Duffort -from Vermont Public -and Calvin Cutler from Wcax.

-!Thanks so much for being here.

-I'm Mitch Wertlieb, but -I hope you'll join us again -next week for Vermont.

-This week.

And.