♪ > > This week in the Wheelhouse unaccompanied children what happens when child migrants are picked up at the U.S.

border and what to their attorney say about the resettlement process > > for > > Connecticut Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse show that connects politics to the people.

We got your weekly dose of politics in Connecticut and beyond right here.

Children as young as 5 years old are being resettled in Connecticut after being picked up by federal law enforcement at the U.S.

border attorneys for these unaccompanied children say they're being held for too long.

And in some cases aren't released to sponsors at all until legal action is taken.

This hour, we examined the U.S.

government's obligation to unaccompanied children.

Later in the show with early in-person voting starting next week for the August 11 primary will get a primer on where the candidates stand and learn about a new federal program designed to support Connecticut's efforts in the fight for affordable housing.

But first, we start with Sabrina Tavi.

She's a senior attorney and the director of the Center for Children's Advocacy, Sabrina and her colleagues represent the children picked up by federal law enforcement and resettled in states like Connecticut.

Sabrina, thank you for joining us on the wheel > > They thank you.

Thanks so much for having morning.

> > Good morning.

Test Reagan is managing attorney for kids in need of defense, otherwise known as kind testing.

Sabree have worked together on behalf of the unaccompanied children test.

Welcome the wheel > > Morning.

Thank you.

Thanks for having me.

> > And then Jackie Rape, Thomas.

She brought this story to us.

Jack is an investigative reporter with Hearst Connecticut CT Insider.

Jackie, thank you so much for coming in today.

Thanks for having me.

As you hear what life is like for children resettled in Connecticut.

I want to know what your thoughts are on the state of immigration in the United States.

Hit us up comment on our YouTube livestream work of U.S.

call 8, 8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Sabrina, how many children heavy represented who our designated a guess as unaccompanied and how would they find themselves in Connecticut?

> > Thanks, Well, the center for children's advocacy along with > > our Co counsel at the law firm of Koskoff Koskoff.

And we've co-counsel to represent for children.

You have detained in government custody in Connecticut and be represented them and filing lawsuits in federal court to force the government to release them after the government has been failing to process there sponsors applications to have them timely released.

And and the filing of all of those lawsuits, unfortunately, has been necessary to force the government to do.

But there are required to do by law to treat these children humanely and as soon as we filed those you know, the result has been that the government has in our particular case, is released.

The children.

It immediately.

Test.

What about you and your organization?

What does it do is called?

> > Kids in need of defense.

Also known as kind.

How do you find these children and get involved?

Yes.

> > Starr, thanks, Frankie.

And so kind is a global non-profit that is dedicated to protecting the rights of unaccompanied children and refugee and separated children.

How we get involved in these cases is perhaps they should explain how the children end up in these detention programs.

Yes, please start with, but essentially children come to the border by the ME's selves or with someone else was not their parent or legal guardian.

If they're under 18 and not with a parent or legal guardian, their designated as an unaccompanied child and by law, Border Patrol has to transfer them into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which we call or are then looks for a someone called us on surfer this child.

It's typically a family member who is willing to provide for the child's physical and mental well-being and they engage in the sponsorship process to vet that sponsor.

Make sure it's a safe place for the child to go live.

Well, they go through their removal or deportation proceedings in immigration court.

And so how kind in tracks with them is we are the designated legal service provider for several of the shelters here in Connecticut where these children are held while they go through the sponsorship process.

> > One thing I really want to spell out here and I want to I want to help us get through this and maybe defined it.

Would you say Sabrina test?

Would you say that?

Any point in this legally, the children are detained.

> > Yes, we would describe it as federal detention.

And in that the children's liberty is restricted.

They're held in facilities in a variety of settings.

They're sort of a range of restrictive nus has to in the program and that they're held in which can be anywhere from, you know, staff secure one to one supervision, a residential treatment facility, a shelter level facility where the children reside.

24 7 and in a building where they receive their educational programming sleep, eat their meals, cannot leave without staff supervision to, you less restrictive setting like a transitional foster care program for long-term foster care program for children that are going to be held for very long periods of time.

> > I say that because I can imagine that that could be a touch point with the office and I want to make sure that we did try to reach out to these folks to see what they had to say about it.

We reached out to federal officials with the Office of Refugee Resettlement, public affairs for the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services that sir, sort this is under the purview of sent a written statement through email saying, quote, the administration for children and families does not comment on matters.

Subject to ongoing litigation so that's all we got in that regard.

And now I follow with Jackie.

Your recent reporting filed the lives of some of these children who are held in Connecticut.

What were you told by the office?

> > Also that they don't comment on individual cases.

But we also asked them for you know, do you see this as a problem that children are being held for so long?

You know, we had a five-year-old that we focused on who was held for 118 days and a 12 year-old who has held 505 days.

15 year-old held 255 days away from their family alone.

And they want to answer that question bay being the White House, the Office of Refugee Resettlement in Health and Human Services asking them, do you see these long stays as something reasonable or something that you're working on to speed up and they they want to answer that question.

> > And that's something I want to key in on.

I want to talk about the children in Connecticut that are going through this or at least roughly some kind of number.

But 515, I think was what you said 105 case, 505 days, 215 is there a certain time frame that this should get done in Sabrina tests?

> > I'll take that at yes or are has internal policy and also federal regulations as well as there are is federal case law and federal statutes on what the process is supposed to look like.

For example, or are has 10 days to adjudicate sponsorship.

Complete sponsorship application when the sponsor is the child's parent or legal guardian.

So, you know, they also have other rules that, you know, if they're going to order a home study to have the sponsors home, evaluate it, it should happen within a certain period of time.

If they're going to ask for DNA testing, it has to happen within a certain period of time.

And now pasta, Sabrina, to comment on whether that is happening in these cases.

> > Yeah, absolutely.

It's absolutely not happening in these cases and what we're seeing is that the government is.

Dragging its in terms of implementing these requirements for U.S.

sponsors to comply with our families that we've worked with are more than willing to comply with the requirements of the government imposes such as a DNA test.

Start host.

It and for example, in the case of the 5 year-old and while the DNA test, if required by the government should be conducted within a matter of 5 to 7 days.

They didn't even order it in her case for 3 months for her mother and, you know, to the detention, that's that's absolutely detention.

These children aren't free to leave and that's why it's taken these federal lawsuits to force the government's hand to release them and in the case of I think there's been many, many children in Connecticut who for whom Katie's cases have been filed in federal court.

But in the cases have been filed by the Center for children's advocacy in Arco Council.

I, you know, but we have found is that as soon as we file these cases, the government you know, has has released to the children and have shown that they can act quickly when their hand is forced.

You know, and I just want to, you know, our co-counsel Koskoff, Chris Mattie, you know, has commented that in all of his years of litigating on behalf of and against the federal government.

He's never seen the government unwilling to defend his conduct.

And I think that really speaks to The fact that it is indefensible conduct to be holding these children for such long periods of time.

> > And you would generally say that these children are pretty much ready to go back into the hands of a loved one or sponsor whatever it is.

It around 30 days.

> > Are the Dems are they willing to to to say you ready at that point?

So at that point they should be we can reconnect is what you're saying.

At that point.

It shouldn't be presently.

So like they will have ready set that up.

Somebody will have set that up long enough in advance or through you all to > > They should be ready to go wear.

by 30 days instead of it's not them that are sort struggling at this time to to keep up with it.

You're saying the government's dragging its feet.

> > That's correct.

you know, the law requires that as soon as a child comes into the custody of or all right, that there obligated to look for a sponsor.

2 of the trial can be released because that is the considered to be the least restrictive placement.

And that's required by law and, you know, before this administration, for example, in 2024, the process of vetting sponsors and releasing them was taking on about 30 days.

And 22 24 and now that average nationwide is 206 days.

And as Jackie pointed out, we've seen that number to climb all the way up to 505 days for a a young young child here in Connecticut that's longer than a year.

Jackie.

Dozens of kids.

> > Including a five-year-old the last spring.

When you're reporting on this.

> > Yeah, what we found was that we're talking about on any given day this past spring.

There's that there's just over 2 dozen children around 2 dozen children in federal custody who are living in Connecticut.

I should note that, you know, there's a lot of numbers here by the number of children who have actually been released so far this year during the first 6 months of this year, there's only been 7 children released so far to sponsors here in Connecticut in previous years, it's been about 1000 so the number of children who are really being released.

I can't overemphasize is it seems to be that it's the cases where lawyers are filing lawsuits challenging the tensions that they're calling it illegal.

> > If they're going through normal protocol those years saying there should be more released, then 7, probably particularly if there were dozens, correct?

Yeah.

I want to understand test what a normal day might look like for these children and kind of what they go > > you know, I think it depends on what kind of facility the child is in.

Like I said previously, there's a variety of different settings, but, you know, if you're talking about, for example, I transitional foster care program like one of the ones we have here in Connecticut that is for tender age children, meaning children under the age of 12.

And those children would typically reside with a foster family at night and on the weekends and come to the facility.

First thing in the morning.

They then have, you know, breakfast and lunch at the facility have their educational programming there.

Meet with the clinician and their case manager.

> > And remain at the facility.

Tell about 04:05PM, in the afternoon being picked > > By their foster family.

up.

It's one of the residential facilities which we also have in Connecticut and the children with sleep at the facility do all of their meals, all of their education at the facility that these tend to look pretty similar day in and day out.

The children are only allowed to leave with staff supervision, even just a step outside and get some fresh air or have a walk.

The children have described as extremely demoralizing that they feel completely alone, that they have no freedom that they've lost their spirit sometimes lost themselves.

In this process.

> > What kind of facility is this?

When you say facility and we're talking about somebody being there and maybe even boarding there.

What does it look like in?

There is a look more like a childcare setting or like a school or like a prison.

What is the kind of look like?

> > There are a variety of facilities all across the country.

I will say and Connecticut.

My experience has been positive with the facilities in the sense that these local staff that works there are very dedicated to child welfare and trying to make it and I space for children, though they're not designed to hold children for really long periods of time.

You know, they're designed for the kids to be there 2 or 3 weeks, not a year or 2 years.

So, you know, for example, the facility might look like a house that has kind of has some rooms comforted to office and dormitory style bedroom with a dining area where they do theirs cooling and their meals.

You know, it might look.

More like > > The laws are something like that.

> > Yeah, look more like a kind of like a school, but maybe like a little bit.

> > More secure than a school.

> > With kind of a classroom set up and a recreation area.

> > We're talking about legal intervention for these kids because it sounds like from what saying there that.

This is like supposed to be really temporary.

But more than a year for some of these kids are at least one of them and in custody.

So are you finding that legal intervention is something that's getting these kids out?

Maybe something in the 7 that have been released that you've seen.

> > Yeah.

What we found was shortly after he DIA's case lawsuits challenging their detention, that children were almost immediately released shortly after I should point out that all of this is happening in the context of sort of a broader immigration changes throughout the country and so, you know, looking at just what's happening with this case the administration will tell you that we just want to make sure that we're vetting children appropriately and their parents to make sure that we're releasing children to save homes.

And so I think with advocates will tell you is okay, do that.

But don't let that take a year.

But it's also hard to not sort of ignore what the context of this is happening for these same children or at the Office of Refugee Resettlement has also begun sharing parents, information that they give to ICE and DHS, 2.40, part Haitian and arrest proceedings there.

The Trump administration has also actively been cutting legal aid for children that they have representation for people like tests and to make sure that children who are in these facilities have someone who has eyes on them.

They're the Trump administration is also expediting immigration proceedings, offering some of these children.

You know, 2700 to self deport.

We came across one of those cases.

They've also tried to, you know, bypass to processing Guatemalan children.

Indy putting them through it, not having that.

And then the New York Times reported recently that the Trump administration consider doing away with Haiti's cases for for The very case that got these children out, PBS lawsuits.

The Trump administration was considering doing away with the ability to file those.

> > So then we got to talk about what happens when there's not legal intervention and I would imagine there's child development concert with these.

Resettled youth and tests when we're talking about somebody being there for a year, that's a year of and being somewhere that might be temporary.

That might be your where they miss out on the whole year of school.

And development.

I guess.

> > Yeah, absolutely.

Especially given like the isolation of the children, you know, sometimes the children might be the only child in that facility or program.

So they're not having that social interaction that they should have at that age, which has serious impacts on their ability to form relationships and their development for the future.

A recurring concern of ours is education for these children.

What level of education are they getting?

And, you know, these are group settings.

So the children may be at wide variety of educational levels and all getting the same instruction which, you know, she's not appropriate for a child as the brain develops.

We seen children who are picked up as the result of interior enforcement ice and placed in these facilities and those children were children who were enrolled in public school and in the United States for years and are now going from their public school education, too.

The education programming in a facility like this.

> > And is anyone counseling these children, particularly when I saw in a situation that Jackie report on that one of the children had seen sponsor maybe for an hour at a time a day whenever they could.

And then they're crying and they're separated from that person.

So like is anybody trying to?

Help that child along and cope with some of this trauma.

> > Well, you know, to them.

Yellen, Sabrina, take that.

> > Letterman to say that as as Tess mentioned, the staff of these facilities there dedicated to child welfare and no, they are trying to meet the needs of these kids.

But the emotional and psychological toll of these prolonged attentions on these children really can't be overstated and, you know, when we work with these kids and we go in to meet with them in these facilities.

The trauma of this prolonged detention and separation from their families as profound.

They use and their own words to describe how they feel trapped, desperate, lonely, anxious and sad you know, I I just want to really bring those words to a forefront because, you know, their experience in the long-term effects of these detention.

And then it's what we really need to be thinking about in the government to be thinking about when they are using these kids to you know, an intentional.

Campaign, frankly.

Yeah, to discourage immigration.

One of the kids it is a it was an internal illegal detention here in the U.S.

who is here with deferred action approved Sha Social Security number.

He described that in his own words.

He I've been here so long that I'm forgetting things about my life like my friends names my teachers, all of the things that I wanted to do with my future.

He was there for 6 months to 6 months and those words are haunting.

> > It's very powerful testimony.

Thank you for sharing it.

Supreme.

I'm gonna finish up here with Jackie.

You wrote a piece for CT Insider Dot com with the Headline 5 Things that can help immigrant children detained in Connecticut.

What are they?

> > Number one is the federal government began following its regulations and there's least restrictive requirement in the law that says children need to be.

Close to their families with their families when possible.

And so the federal government should beginning start following that and making sure that children have.

We really are reunited in a timely fashion like they starkly have.

And then the second thing I would say is making sure children have attorneys tomorrow actually theirs.

supposed to be a deadline for when the cost of federal contract is for attorneys for these children is going to be running out and it's it's really unsure what happens to children.

> > Actually have to finish up there.

But before I do, just really quickly, can you tell us how important that deadline is and why it matters to premiere it S?

> > I'll take this one, Frankie.

Yes, so the only reason that organizations like kind are able to meet with these children, give them know your rights presentations to legal and takes with them, represent them and their immigration cases is because of the funding we get through this federal contract and that federal contract is coming to an end with no plan to replace it, which means these children will not have access to counsel.

We're often the only people that have eyes on these children that are seeing what they're going through that are checking in on them as like an independent viewer and representing them in their proceedings because they're in deportation proceedings.

While this is happening and we don't know what will happen with the loss of this contract and the losses this funding.

It's it's devastating to organizations like ours.

And we're very concerned about the future for these children.

> > From Connecticut Public Radio, this is the Wheelhouse.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

You've been listening to Jackie Rape, Thomas Investigative reporter with Hearst Connecticut Insider CT Insider test rig in managing attorney for kids in need of defense.

And Sabrina Tavi, a senior attorney and director of the Center for Children's Advocacy.

Thank you for coming on the show in talking about this important topic.

> > Thank you.

Ranking.

Thank you.

All After the break, there's bipartisan legislation to address a national dearth of affordable housing.

We'll tell you how it made it through a divided Congress.

What's your housing situation?

How might state and federal officials help hit us up listening to the Wheelhouse on Connecticut Public.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano earlier this summer, federal lawmakers, including Connecticut's delegation to the U.S.

Congress struck a broad bipartisan deal on legislation.

They say will boost affordable housing construction in America.

The federal 21st Century Road to Housing Act became a law on July.

11th.

Without having been signed by President Trump.

What does that mean for legislation?

What are our representatives in Washington, D.C., saying about the Affordable housing deal while reporting live from the DC area is Lisa Hagen.

Federal policy reporter for Connecticut Public and the CT near good friend of mine.

Thank you so much for being here.

Lisa.

> > Thanks for having me.

> > So good to have you here.

I want to know what folks.

Situation is with their living situation.

I want to know if they're having an affordable housing crisis let us know.

Hit us up.

Commenter YouTube, live stream or give U.S.

call 8, 8, 7, to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, Let's begin with the basics.

Lisa, what exactly is the 21st Century Road to Housing Act?

> > It's a pretty wide-ranging sweeping bill.

And that's because Congress have not done that much on housing legislation in a number of decades.

And so I'll try to gloss through it quickly reach an so much.

There's so much to it.

But boos housing, construction, especially at a time when supply is low and prices are still high in Connecticut and across the country.

Away.

Think the cost of that really is sends federal funding in the forms of different grants and incentives to state and local governments and really empowered them to try to solve their own, you housing crises in and really teller and passed to their communities.

It tackles homelessness and tries to boost in build more affordable housing.

So it's really kind of a catch-all and, you know, I think the point all keep making is that there's only so much the federal government can do on this issue.

And it really comes down to what states localities can do.

But I think it really empowers > > So much they can do as them.

well.

Only so much they could do as well in terms of passing legislation reported that this proposal was, quote, one of the rare pieces of bipartisan legislation that got through a divided Congress ahead of the midterm elections.

So I guess this bill is sort of an exception right now in a divided Congress.

> > Definitely.

I mean, I think the majority of those you see that interview, you know, getting through a divided Congress are these must pass bills or bills that are really pretty non-controversial.

They garner, you know, near unanimous support.

And so the biggest things really get through Congress.

A lot of the time are government funding.

Obviously that and work out for a lot of last year and this year with with a few shut down, you know, big defense policy bills.

And so to see something this big in major on an issue that, you know, is important to both parties and get through in a midterm election year.

I mean, I can't that can't be overstated enough to to pass major legislation when people are actively campaigning in an issue like affordability being such a big deal and housing playing into that.

I you know, that that that's major, especially for a divided Congress like we currently have.

> > Yeah, I guess the only positive you can say about the federal government shutdown is a 2 friends that are separated for hundreds of miles like you and I could see each other more as we try to talk through and parse through this kind of thing.

This bill passed the House in the winter, according to your reporting, but didn't become law until July.

But was told.

> > It was stalled for a number of months and it was really because the House and Senate were just passing different versions.

Nothing yet.

I would say super major.

But you know, there is different parties asking for different concessions, even things that were pretty unrelated to housing.

And so it was interesting is that, you know, we talked about how it did they ultimately get President Trump's signature.

He did play a role in this and this is something that he did some poor.

And you kind of went back and forth and indoors.

The Senate version any in birth, the House version.

And so, you know, we just kind of saw months of the stalling out and multiple votes on this and so, you know, by by the summer, you know, about a month ago Congress came together on a compromise negotiation, a compromise bill and they passed this and I eventually became law without his signature.

But that's where I want to get to before we get into the nuance of the provision that prison for President Trump and > > other lawmakers might have been a little hesitant on.

There's also a political ploy that Donald Trump employed.

I understand.

> > Yes, he like he has in other different legislative capacities.

He trying to push the Save America Act, which is the Republican state election reform bill.

It would change the way.

> > Voters register.

It would change voter ID laws.

> > And so this is something speaking of legislation song that has stalled in Congress.

It's it's passed.

The House.

It will not be able to make out the Senate Republican leadership has been vocal in public on that.

And so because they've America Act has gone nowhere and will probably go nowhere in Congress.

President Trump's that, hey, I'm not I'm not signing this housing bill until we do something on the Save America Act.

And so that's what he did.

He did not offer his signature basically when legislation passes both chambers of Congress.

The president has, you know, 10 days to sign this.

And as long as Congress does not adjourn, it becomes law automatically.

And that's what we saw on this bill did not earn from signature of candidates.

It is and orthmann but it became law.

> > We did a whole show on the Save America Act, including talking to Rosa DeLauro in that program to go back to the archives at CD Public Dot Org, Slash Wheelhouse to learn more about that.

Thank you for getting into that.

Let's get into maybe a provision that people were really talking about.

my concern is you're worried about not you personally, Lisa, but lawmakers are worried about either private equity firms are private landlords, I guess, gobbling up real estate and maybe trying to turn a profit instead of at least trying to make sure that people are in an affordable kind of a situation that isn't actually nice place to live.

> > Yeah, I would say that is one of the provisions I got the most attention in this bill.

And again, it was something that President Trump that pushing for on his own.

He's actually done executive order exactly on Provision like this.

And so what ultimately got through in the final bill is that it faced a ban on large institutional investors with 350 units for more from purchasing additional single-family homes with some exceptions.

And so what ended up looking different?

Is it to get water down a bit there with a different version originally that would require those same investors to sell off single-family homes that we're going to be rented out after a certain amount of time, basically distilled for rent housing.

And so I think they're workign some concerns in that that, you know, we I think people want to see more housing options, not just single-family homes.

They want to give us a rental housing.

And so I think that's where some here's where in that.

But yeah, this provision takes aim at you know, we're Wall Street, private equity getting involved in this and prevent and potentially pricing out.

Individuals and families from line to buy single-family homes.

And so that was really the crux of that provision that made it into the final bell.

> > Tell me about how Connecticut's delegation voted on it or at least how somebody, Michael, Jim Himes or Chris Murphy might have figured into this whole conversation.

> > Ill and the bully ultimately supported They again, I said that it's gone through multiple revisions.

So everyone in the delegation had supported at one point or another.

The only thing was that Congresswoman Jahana Hayes was that her son's graduation.

She couldn't Vo on the final for some of the bill but said she would have supported it.

But ultimately also the number that the delegation absent poor day.

I think I mentioned when I was talking about the institutional investors in the original burden when it was more stringent.

Senator Murphy had some concerns on it.

And he basically just said he didn't want intended consequences of potentially, you know, taking out some of the types of different types of housing for Connecticut.

Residents like a rental home, a bill to rent kind of situation then you mentioned Congressman Himes.

He was able to get to his own provisions and bills again because this is a massive, massive bill.

So there was multiple pieces of legislation that was part in this package.

And so he was able to get 2 of his own provisions in the bill.

Can you know, he was he acknowledged that they were small and it kills some of it was just incentivizing different towns to be able to use some of their block grant funding to go towards, you know, constructing more housing that would apply to some of his districts and towns of towns in his district and so, yeah, so they you know, the kind of the delegation played a role, but ultimately always a part of the legislation.

> > And finally, Greg, quickly, what are they saying about if it will work, if at all or how it will actually work?

> > I think one thing Bill Hassan and you know, I think I've seen to it that this is not going to be an overnight thing.

I think we realize that building housing and > > you know, there's another tough issue and this is that will take time.

And so I don't think anyone is that.

> > Oblivious to the fact that this is not going to be an overnight thing that a lot like an eye and see hundreds and hundreds of new units.

But, you know, advocates of people who support it say it's a step in the right direction, but it but the boilerplate version or excuse me the way to break this down briefly is to probably say that.

> > As a result of this legislation, some municipalities will able to apply for some CBD.

G's like some community development block grants or something like that.

> > That's the best way to see how this will work.

> > Yeah.

Is it a point I made earlier?

I think the should.

These are lots of different.

Also funding, you know, channel the money that will be funneled from the federal government to states and localities and they will apply the best way they see fit to their communities.

Every community needs different types of housing.

They have their own sets of issues.

And so again, this is at the end of the day, housing is a state and local issue.

And so.

Their I think the government and Congress is hoping that these federal grants and this federal money will ultimately helped their towns and their districts and > > Lisa Hagen, federal policy states.

reporter for Connecticut Public and the Connecticut Mirror.

She isn't going anywhere because stick around for our final segment.

Questions are what you heard so far.

Give us a call.

8, 8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 7 to 0, 9, 6, 7, 7, coming up after the break.

The August 11 primary elections.

What races to watch war in which one you'll see play out on an upcoming edition of the Wheelhouse.

This is the Wheelhouse of the Connecticut Public Radio.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ This is the Wheelhouse from Connecticut Public Radio.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

We've explored a couple different topics today.

What life is like for young undocumented migrants who've been resettled in Connecticut and new federal, affordable housing legislation going to pivot to primary season out.

As we do that.

I want to let you know about something big we got happening here next week.

It's about the race for the first congressional district.

The Hartford Base seat in Congress.

Each candidate running for the Democratic Party primary, including incumbent John Larson will be featured on next week's show.

Hear from the incumbent as well as challenges Ruth fortune Julian Gill Crest and Luke Bronin.

He's a party endorsed candidate on the next Wheelhouse.

Let's talk a little bit about this in election season.

We still have Lisa Hagen with U.S.

federal policy reporter for Connecticut Public in the CT mayor and joining us now in studio for this conversation could do without Marc past Cause Capitol Bureau chief and co-founder of the Connecticut Mirror.

Welcome back to the Wheelhouse.

Glad to be here.

Glad to be.

Are glad to be talking about the primary and I do want to follow up on housing because we were just talking about it with Lisa.

Is this affordable housing issue coming up on the campaign trail?

I mean, I imagine it is.

But how can we talk about how you're hearing about it on the congressional and I would say now, I I think all the Democrats agreed with that bill that the issue there was, you know, with the president allowed to go forward.

> > And in the gubernatorial race a little bit, but again, it's in the congressional.

The issue is really been a call for generational change, which is a factor and a couple of the other down-ballot primaries this year.

> > Maybe.

> > If we were talking about this in some kind of insider way, maybe we would look at that as an opportunity for Josh Elegy Elliott to either make a in the gubernatorial race or maybe miss an opportunity or something like that should affordable housing, maybe be more of that purview.

I was watching the debate.

I think our cause covered it.

I caught it on delay here and watched with WTNH.

But help us understand that debate.

They did talk about affordable housing, maybe for a couple of seconds.

There.

There was a big veto that the government wasn't.

Governor was involved in there his veto of the original.

> > Housing bill was a one of the major sources of friction between Governor Lamont and more progressive elements of the General Assembly.

The other one was his veto of a bill that would have provided jobless benefits for striking workers.

But the governor when he vetoed it, he said > > he is.

> > Open, in fact, wants to see another version.

But he wanted to see greater by and from municipal officials.

And in fact, that's what they did.

They they negotiated a new version.

He kept his word on He called them back in special session and the they pass that bill, which even though there was some compromises made that were sought by municipal officials, it still did not get a single Republican vote in the General Assembly.

So it's still very much a wedge issue in general elections.

Not as much in the primary.

And watching the debate and understanding the candidates visions for the future.

> > Governor Lamont talks about continued economic growth.

Ken residents count on this, I guess like private investment or surpluses to fund the budget.

Can they continue to talk to count on that if that's what he's talking about and then what about Elliott's proposed 4% income tax surcharge that we hear that seems to the something he thinks will generate a lot of revenue for the state in the future.

And solve a lot of these issues that people are talking about.

Seems that they're all lumped into sort of what started as a one percent surtax on the rich as taxpayers in Connecticut.

That something floated and pushed by Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney.

> > When Massachusetts in a referendum passed a 4% surtax on incomes basically above a million dollars.

And that is something that Representative embraced.

You know, he is noted that that tax is actually produced more than was originally projected, which he says is evidence that the richest will not flee estate over taxes.

And that it's something Connecticut should look at the governor.

His position has been it is not necessary Connecticut currently has adequate revenue levels.

In fact, their men, he has had an unprecedented string of surpluses in Connecticut, 7 surpluses.

And, you know, Ned Lamont's, political brand, he's been fiscal discipline and sustainable programs after decades and decades of varying degrees of mismanagement, largely due to this states.

Complete failure to adequately fund pension system for state employees, which led to one of the highest unfunded pension liabilities in the United States.

And that threatened to but become a crippling burden on the state budget was more and more each year was required to deal with the pensions under Governor Lamont.

Used such certain surplus funds to pay down that debt.

And it has.

Impacts in the current year budget because you don't have to put as much money out to keep the pensions viable.

What's the significance of this primary election?

And for governor, it is.

It is a test.

I mean, every primary is a test to a degree of what is the current identity of a political party, right?

You see that in New York City.

Clearly in those congressional primaries, the Democrat Socialist have shown that they have real power in certain parts of the city of New York the question here is.

What is the appetite to push Governor Lamont to the left or to replace him with a 41 year-old tenure State wrap.

Whose campaign began sort of as a protest or issues based campaign to kind of nudge the governor to the left and then it morphed into something else.

Many became clear he was going to qualify for the primary quite easily at the convention and B qualify for public financing.

He's got a 3.7, 5 million dollar public grant can little bit late in the game.

It might have been a different.

Different race if he qualified earlier.

But right now, you know, you have somebody who does have certain back in within the party and he's got the money to deliver his message.

So it will be a test to a degree of again.

What is the appetite for change?

Governor Lamont is clearly a social progressive on On a on on conventional shopping list of things.

You know, he supported the $15 minimum wage in the index saying in whole bunch of other labor things other than the strikers benefits.

But yes, he is a fiscal centers or by Connecticut Democratic standards passed a fiscal conservative kind of a Charlie Baker.

You know, the Democratic version of Charlie Baker, Massachusetts, first primary, that Governor Lamont is Fay since he ran in 2018, the first time when he went against Joe Ganim and the first wanted 40 years for sitting governor.

Now the Lakers won in 48 years.

4 years.

It was the sainted.

Ella Grasso.

Believe it or not, whose Lieutenant Governor turned on her.

> > And challenger in 1978.

So this is the first primary challenge to a sitting governor and a long, long time won't be covering that on election night.

And I mean, imagine you'll be paying attention to it in writing about it, but you'll be.

> > Physically the first congressional races.

I understand.

And so Lisa, Lisa, I'll be out in the governor's well, you'll be at the governor's.

I'm sorry about that.

I had that Yeah, you'll be with the governors.

Are with Elliott or Lamont?

You know, yet both out?

Well, what we're going to staff both.

I'll probably be at the governor's.

> > Courtright CT mayor is going to have it all your data where we got that CT public Dot org as well.

> > Lisa, you're covering the first congressional district.

Has that going for the incumbent?

> > Yeah.

It kind of in the same being that Marcus just talked about the governor's race.

I mean, it's that same kind of streams happening, but I would say least when you're looking at the challengers and especially someone like former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, it feels very much generational.

So and you're talking about the governor's race, Josh.

Ali, it is kind of running more of a ideological reasons.

The challenger in out the in the first Congressional district.

Again, it feels a bit different.

And I think that was made clear at last night's debate on WTNH shows the first time they all kind of came together for a televised debate.

And, you know, you had 3 different people.

LeBron undulating go cross through fortune.

All made the case in different ways that there should be someone new and much like the governor's race.

You know, we haven't seen many by memories of sitting incumbents in Congress.

This will be the first one for.

Congressman Larsen and 28 years.

And you know, you have them.

Calling for generational change and maybe in a different way that we've seen in other primaries like Mark alluded to in New York City and Congressman Larson defending his 28 year record in Congress and trying to make the case that he is in fact, standing up to Donald Trump for the Democratic Party.

> > Lisa, this is a 14 term incumbent who is going to do says that he has the ways and means chair a position coming to him.

There's that.

But he endorsed in this race and he doesn't have the most money in this race.

As I understand it.

> > Yeah, it's a fascinating dynamic.

He again, he's been in this season's 1999.

It's > > really big deal for a sitting incumbent to not have the endorsement of the party and, you know, I'll be it.

We probably want an early.

He still he still managed to win it and he is the party and verse candid in terms of money.

It's, you know, I look for and does have a bit more money back in the day.

If that.

John Larson and with prominent bulls of more than enough money to run ads on the airwaves.

They've been dominating.

It's the fact that Bill Press and Fortune haven't been able to put up the same kind of money.

That's not being able to run ads and a lot of the times I just felt like more of a that of the 2 person race.

As you can see on the airwaves.

Most of the debate, just a real quick.

> > Correction.

John Larson is not in line for the ways and means chairmanship.

He is in line.

Recover the position he had as the chair of the Social Security subcommittee.

Sorry, you know, yes, I'm trying to I believe I that he was going to chair, but we know it's hard.

It's it's part of ways and means that's the yeah.

But in any event, really quickly, what other primary should we watch for in Connecticut, the General Assembly there there are 8 Democratic and > > 3 Republican in the as there's a nod of the and one that there's a Republican candidate has been repudiated by his party, a front.

> > Homophobic statements.

Jim McCormick in eastern Connecticut.

We have a generational thing in New Haven, Patty Dylan, who would be the longest serving member of the House.

She's facing a challenge from somebody in their 20's and somebody else who just turned.

I think 31.

Thank you so much for listening to the show.

You got to listen back next week as well.

You got to listen to the show next week as we are going to have.

> > Candidates for the first district here.

Thank you to Chloe.

When Eric cost and the rest of the team.

And of course, Mark past Kiss.

Joining me today, Lisa Hagen, thank you so much for watching the show.

This is the Wheelhouse.

Download it wherever you get your podcast.

Have a good week.

We'll talk to next week.

We'll talk about the first district.

I'm Frankie Graziano.

This is the Wheelhouse.

Thank you for listening.

♪