Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Welcome back after a brief break. We're going to wrap up the morning some testimony that is specific to the impact of federal changes on our immigrant and refugee population, and in particular with regard to Afghan refugees who are here in Vermont. And so we're going to start off with Molly Bray. So welcome.

[Molly Gray (Human Rights Attorney; representing the Vermont Afghan Alliance)]: Morning. I think it's still morning. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak this morning about the impact of the end of SNAP for special immigrant visa holders, also asylees and refugees. I am going to use a lot of terminology during my testimony, I will explain. But certainly feel welcome to interrupt me if that's per protocol. I'd like to begin by saying that we at the Vermont African Alliance, we are an apolitical, nonpartisan, non lobbying organization. So I am here today because of your request.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I can verify that.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: Thank you. So

[Molly Gray (Human Rights Attorney; representing the Vermont Afghan Alliance)]: there are three questions I'm hoping to address in the time that we have today. First, who is a special immigrant visa holder, an SIV? Second, to the best of our knowledge, with the limited knowledge that we have, why did Vermont end SNAP for SIV holders and others on October 1, and most importantly, what the human impact has been. First, a little bit of table setting around the Afghan community in the state. Vermont is now home. That's my word, but six fifty Afghans have been resettled in the state. Refugees, asylees, and special immigrant visa holders. This is the largest per capita population of Afghans in The United States. Congratulations, Vermont. Notably, you'll see these different stars on the map. If you can't see the towns, I'll name them. But Afghans are living in St. Albans, the greater Burlington area, in Montpelier, most recently in Springfield, Brattleboro, Bennington, and Rutland. The faces of Vermont are changing in the face of our communities. Notably, that between 2019 and 2023, this community and the community of Afghans around The United States had contributed 1,970,000,000 in local, state, and federal taxes, including contributions to Medicaid and Social Security, which is far, far more than they've received in federal benefits. I'm here today, again, on behalf of the Vermont African Alliance, really want to emphasize that we are one of a number of organizations working across the state. You'll hear from USCRI and ECDC. There's also CB RAN and SHARE and BRIDGES, really an alphabet soup of community based organizations working to help these refugees resettle in Vermont, but also other communities. And I want to note, actually, something very specific. I also need to take a breath. And that is that we sometimes say refugees to meet generally people who arrive in one country coming from another country, in this colloquial way, the way that we talk. We talk about refugees. There are different, very specific legal meanings around a refugee and asylee, a special immigrant visa holder. But when we talk about Afghans in Vermont, I want us all to be thinking about allies and veterans, because The United States made this community refugees. So that is another layer of complexity and deep importance in talking about this community. A little bit about the Vermont African Alliance. Not only do we support housing assistance, now most recently a little bit of emergency food assistance, driving instruction, employment assistance, immigration legal assistance, support with Medicaid and health and wellness programming, as well as statewide programming on civics and legal rights. A little bit about the community in Vermont today. There are really two populations. There are those, I'd say, in the bigger picture, this bigger group. And these are just two representative images, if you will. They're individuals who fled Afghanistan in August 2021. Many of you may remember that time and watching CNN or MSNBC. Who knows? Maybe there are individuals in this room who were serving in Afghanistan and fleeing at that time as well. But it was a very chaotic time when The United States evacuated 125,000 Afghans. And individuals who arrived in The United States after that period, they arrived here on something called humanitarian parole. The US government said, we don't care yet what your immigration status is. We're going to allow you to come in, and we'll figure out those other pieces once you arrive. Many individuals who arrived during that time were entitled to a special immigrant visa, a visa that was promised to them because of their employment with the US government, as interpreters, as security guards, and a number of other positions. And that meant that when they arrived here, they had to go through the process of finding that employer, getting that letter that said that they did work with the US government, and then applying for a special immigrant visa. So when as we talk today about what SNAP means for such special immigrant visa holders, I want you to think about that group, many of whom now, four and a half years, are getting their green cards, but it's taken that long. They'll become legal permanent residents. But there's another group, and that's the picture at the Burlington Airport from September. Two women who worked with the US government, whose families scrapped together every penny that they had, and were able to get them visas to go to Pakistan. Because there's no longer a US embassy in Kabul, right? We know that. Where they were able to go through consular processing, get their special immigrant visa, partner with a national organization called No One Left Behind who paid for their flight, and then arrived here to be resettled by the AA with the support and cooperation of USCRI. We can talk a little bit more, if you like, about that process. That's a different group. That group, as soon as they arrive in The United States, they become a legal permanent resident because they wouldn't be able to come here without that process being in place. And that's how it should have been in August 2021. But in the chaos of the withdrawal, it just wasn't possible. So there's two groups. But those who are arriving today become legal permanent residents as soon as they touch down in Newark and then come to Vermont for a port of entry. Okay. I share this photo because it is the executive order that ended The US refugee admissions program. I want to make sure we're all clear on what has happened and how the landscape changed for refugee admissions over the last several months. But really, being the starting point of that change. And just some high points. So prior to January, Vermont, working with the State Department, was a state that was welcoming refugees. Individuals would register with international organizations. The State Department would have a contract with designated refugee settlement agencies, USCRI, ECDC here in Vermont. And per that contract, the state would welcome refugees, also special immigrant visa holders and asylum seekers through humanitarian rule. That program was completely dismantled in January and February, which meant no more funding, no more refugees were allowed to get on a plane out of Pakistan. Then we had the end of humanitarian parole altogether, which meant The US said, we're not even going to let anyone come in through this program. Then there was a travel ban that was put in place that included Afghanistan. The one exception in all of these massive changes to policy was for special immigrant visa holders, so individuals who work with the US government. This is the only, largely, the only population that's still permitted to come into The US today, that goes through consular processing, and we would argue is still eligible for SNAP benefits. Now we're going to go pretty deep. So buckle up. I'm going to try to explain in the most accessible way possible what we believe HR1 did and did not do. I'm sorry this language is so small, but really have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it in front of us.

[Molly Gray (Human Rights Attorney; representing the Vermont Afghan Alliance)]: Seeing the plain language is so important. H. So one, the one big beautiful bill. First, it's important, amended only the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. And as far as we're concerned, and just say I'm a lawyer, I'm a human rights lawyer, I'm still a licensed attorney, I have a growing expertise in immigration law. I am not an expert, but I have provided to the committee today legal memoranda from three different national organizations who are full of immigration lawyers who share the same views that I'm expressing to you today. So Food and HR1 did only amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. I really want to draw the committee's attention to B, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Largely, HR one ended SNAP, except for this enumerated list. And B means that those individuals who are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence in The United States do not lose SNAP. So far, so good? Okay. Your question, my question is, when does someone become a legal permanent resident? So I want to explain four individuals who came here as a refugee, sometimes called a P1, P2, if you really want to get into the weeds, or an asylee, both fleeing a country of origin, country of nationality because of persecution. But they become legal permanent residents at different points. So a refugee is allowed to come into The United States. Normally after one year of residence, they adjust status. That's the legal term, adjustment of status. They adjust to illegal permanent resident status. Second, asylees, it's a little bit longer. Arrive in The US, have to apply for asylum, have to make a case that if they went back to their home country, they face persecution. And after asylum is granted, which can take a couple of years, one year after that grant of asylum, they can apply to become a legal permanent resident, and generally that is granted. So far, so good? So, that can be I just want to understand the lag periods. So, for refugees, one year before leave permanent resident. Asylees, it can be sometimes one year, mostly two, sometimes even three. Unfortunately, we've seen four years or longer.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And for those who are coming in now, you're just talking about the two women coming in now, they become a legal permanent resident. Oh, sorry. Attention to the witness. A

[Molly Gray (Human Rights Attorney; representing the Vermont Afghan Alliance)]: very important point. I want you to remember that the Trump administration dismantled the refugee admissions program. Except for Afrikaans, and you'll hear from Tracy Dole later, who'll probably speak with a little bit more clarity on this, refugees aren't coming to The US. They're not permitted to come to The US. Asylees are not coming to The US. Humanitarian parole is done. So really, when we're talking about people coming to The US henceforth or after January, we're talking about special immigrant visa holders. So again, what is an SIV? SIVs were created by Congress in 2009. Why? Because The US was involved in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe they wanted to honor those individuals who were hand in hand, arm in arm with the US government, supporting US military and diplomatic missions. The Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 created the SIB program for Afghanistan, and very, very importantly said that for the purposes We're not going to go back and amend lots of legislation, but we are going to say that for the purposes of immigration benefits and resettlement, that SIVs are really treated like refugees. Very importantly, as I've already said, special immigrant visa holders become legal permanent residents the moment they arrive in The United States across a port of entry. Their green card, that's where legal permanent resident proof comes in the mail. It literally comes in the mail after someone comes in from Newark, or JFK, or whatever the major airport is. So on that basis, on HR1 alone, one could argue that as soon as someone becomes a lawful permanent resident, either once they meet that cross path, cross the legal permanent resident doorway as a refugee or an asylee, but most importantly as a special immigrant visa holder, as soon as they arrive in The United States, they are eligible for SNAP benefits. The problem that we are all navigating and that HR1 truly did create was that at that time for refugees in Esallies before they adjust, are now gone. SNAP's gone. And we know there are many, many families in Vermont where moms are here on their own, moms and dads are working, moms have kids here on their own, and they've lost SNAP. The guidance we received from the state of Vermont came September 23 through a thoughtful email from the Vermont State Refugee Office, and this is what they shared with us. The state of Vermont has exempted some green card holders, former asylees and refugees, from the cancellation of SNAP while they await further guidance but did not feel they had legal backing to exempt the SIB holders. SIB holders meaning legal permanent residents who were previously SIVs. How did they get there? I'm going to be very transparent that what I'm about to share with you is my general understanding, but I don't actually know. My belief and understanding is that the state went to another body of law. You've heard earlier today about the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, PERRORA, which is a weird number of letters to say in a row. Parora essentially established this bar for receiving SNAP related to the amount of time someone had been a legal permanent resident. Notably, Parora exempted certain categories from that waiting period. They exempted refugees. They exempted asylees. And they exempted other humanitarian entrants. I think some people would say, well, they didn't mention special immigrant visa holders. Aurora didn't mention special immigrant visa holders. But you all know, you draft legislation. If something's passed in 1996 and there's another bill in 2009, SIVs weren't even in existence in 1996. It was the 2009 Act of Congress that established the SIV program, and as I explained earlier, stated that they should be treated just like refugees. Additionally, So in 2011, the US Department of Agriculture clarified this question of how special immigrant visa holders or Iraqi or Afghan special immigrants should be treated under FARORA, saying they don't have to meet this five year waiting period while they have their legal permanent residence status. And again, they should be treated like refugees. So I just want to go back to There's two lanes here. There's one lane, the legal lane, of saying that HR1 says that legal permanent residents get snapped. Plain language. But even if you're in Perora, if you're saying Perora still exists, and I don't know why it wouldn't because the one big beautiful bill didn't amend Perora. It didn't say that Perora is gone. If you're in PERORA world, the PERORA lane two world, special immigrant visa holders treated like refugees should not lose their SNAP benefits at this time. So under either legal pathway, you get to the same conclusion. Moving ahead to takeaways. Our takeaway is that Vermont, for that reason, incorrectly ended SNAP for Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders on October 1 in contradiction not only of HR one, but of Aurora and the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009. Additionally, three different international immigration sources released legal memos outlining how Vermont's determination is incorrect, and I've shared that with the committee. And and I think that those documents have been sent around. I'm happy to send them around. Vermont was the first state in the nation, from what we know, because it created quite a stir, to remove Afghan SIV holders from SNAP, with other states taking a different approach. And you see the states listed there. Additionally, I think it's really important to think about the bigger picture policy in this moment, and that is that the Trump administration continues to allow special immigrant visa holders to come into The US, continues to process special immigrant visas in Pakistan, and most recently restarted IOM, which is the International Organization for Migration, to help process SIVs coming to Pakistan to get to The United States. To conclude, recommendations from the Vermont African Alliance would be urgently to reinstate SNAP benefits for SIV holders and provide back benefits to October 1, full stop. Additionally, and I know there's been a lot of discussions around the error rate. I'm not an error rate expert, although I've done the math and I'm still trying to understand because this population is so small, whether it would put the state over the error rate, but I'm sure the state will speak to that. If the concern is for the error rate, fund SNAP for these Vermonters through state funds. It's not that many people. And then I would also advocate that as a matter of policy, additionally reinstate SNAP for refugees and asylees awaiting adjustment to legal permanent resident status using state funds. Because again, it's just those people who are waiting for adjustment period. It could be six months from now or four months from now or a year from now. But it's taking care of the population that's here, that's also Afghan or came here under humanitarian parole, and it's just waiting for that adjustment. Then finally, this is really my plea to you all as leaders in your communities and leaders for the state. Everyone last night was applauding the incredible work of our governor, and we applaud that work as well, and the e board and the legislature. And the governor said, it's our obligation at this point as states to do what we can for the people we serve. We couldn't agree more. And this is the basic benefit that many, many Vermonters rely on. But at this point, it's really hard to believe that the state has one group of Vermonters over here then now it's relegated to this separate system, and another group of Vermonters

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that is still on SNAP. And so I think it's important to publicly clarify the state's position as well as expressing unequivocal support for the contributions of SIB holders, refugees, asylees as Vermonters to Vermont's workforce, tax base, economy, and communities. Thank you very much. This has been really helpful to lay the groundwork and understanding about what all of these terms mean and how they are applied in sort of real life terms, because they impact people's real lives. So it's very helpful to have. I'm going to hold questions right now to make sure that we have time for all of the witnesses. And then we will see if people have questions for people after we hear from the other witnesses. Thank you very much. Thank you. So now if we could hear from Sonali and Joel, that would be wonderful. You can pull up a chair here.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: I just need to Is

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: it Joe? Joe? Are we presenting to people?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. You can come you can come forward now. Yeah.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: I Yes. Just need to share my screen.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You can Yeah, have a seat.

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: How we

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: Yeah, because we are from two different organizations.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I understand you're from two different organizations. I'll Yeah. Talk to you about the same thing, though.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: It's still the main issue.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, are you going to have we have the documents here.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: Hello, can you speak to me?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think why don't we just go ahead because we can see it on our screen. And for people in the audience, if you have a mobile device, you can go to our committee's webpage and you can pull up their Yeah, that would be great. And I'll leave it up to you to decide who goes first. And just I'm not sure if you've presented to a Vermont legislative committee before, but you just introduce yourself and where you're from, what organization you're representing, and then you can proceed. And we have your testimony on our computer. Thank you.

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: I'll let you start and then I can.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. You.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: My name is Sonali Samarasingha. I'm the field office director for USCRI Vermont. And I speak to you today not only as a representative of USCRI Vermont, but as a witness to the lived experience of hundreds of refugee families who have arrived in our state seeking safety, dignity, and a chance to rebuild their lives. Sixteen years ago, I too came to the state as a refugee, a state that embraced and helped me and my family to an extent that within a month of our arrival, we were able to become taxpayer and contributing members of the community. That is the best of who we are as a state. On October 1, Vermont became one of the first states to implement federal snap rule changes. And somewhere at the September, most of those households that we serve received English language SNAP notices that their benefits would be terminated or significantly reduced, with only several categories of non sitting and remaining eligible. But the cruel irony of this is that refugees and asylees must wait twelve months from arrival or asylum approval to apply for a green card, and resulting in a wait likely over two years to be even eligible for SNAP. Because the USCIS says, according to them, the average processing time for submission to approval for a refugee green card application is currently thirteen months, and for an asylum application, it's over nineteen months, meaning that children of newly arrived refugees and newly arrived approved asylees must wait more than two or two and a half years respectively from arrival or from the date of assignment granted to receive SNAP. And this delay is not just bureaucratic, it's punitive. SNAP is not a luxury, it's a lifeline. And I would like, in my testimony, I have given many examples, I would like to bring up one example, which is the mother, a single mother with five children. She came here three and a half years ago. They came as Afghan humanitarian parolees. Their SIV application was last completed. They applied for and received asylum, and in fact, they just received, in the past week, they received their grade cards. The father of the family worked for the US military and he was killed by the Taliban. The family became destitute, they came here, the oldest son was only 14 years old. Thankfully, all the children were of school age when they came here, enabling the mother to work. But the mother had very little education, no prior work experience and health issues. But she was very successful in her work because she was determined to work as much as she could. And she learned to take the bus, and she advocated independently for herself to get her hours, and she became full time. And her oldest son began working part time as well after school and on the weekends, but their financial stability is precarious. Their son lost his job, but thankfully he's getting a new one. But the entire family's SNAP benefits were terminated on October 1 because they had not received their green cards. Now that they have green cards this past week, the mother took them to ESD, but supposedly they were told that the entire family, minor children included, needed to show passports, and they have none, that they had to wait a full five years. USCRI Vermont is providing donated grocery gift cards to help them in the hinterland. Why? I just want to say a few words about why refugees are so vital to Vermont's future, because Vermont is, as we all know, an aging state. Refugees bring youth, energy and economic vitality. And our statistics over time indicate that ninety two percent of refugees find work within eight months, and the majority of those within two to four months of arrival. And they do not just fill jobs, they create and retain jobs for Vermonters. And at a community forum, one owner of manufacturing firm stated that refugee employees enabled them to add a shift and to avoid moving out of state due to labour shortages. And so, I just want to say a few words about the impact of SNAP changes to USCRI clients. SNAP is such a crucial resource covering a significant portion of a large family's budget. Not only that, it's used at supermarkets and local grocers, because they're used for culturally important specialty items found only in local ethnic groceries. The restrictions on SNAP eligibility will therefore harm refugees and immigrant grocery owners as well. Us as resettlement agencies, we ensure that refugee families are on a path to self sufficiency and also integration within the community. If families are focused entirely on meeting basic needs, it hinders their ability to start learn speaking English, participate in community events, and become more involved in their neighbourhoods and local schools. Snap also unlocks access to community resources and events such as farmers markets, prop cash, discounted internet and phone plans, discounted admission to museums, and even field labels for GED, SAT and ACT exams. And I'm going to slide two now. In the interim, as a stop gap measure, USCRI, Vermont, ECBC and its partners, the DAA, we have identified 46 highly vulnerable households, most of whom arrived in Vermont within the last fifteen months that abruptly lost all or a portion of their SNAP benefits. Some of these households alone, 150 individuals lost SNAP benefits. Each of our organisations is raising funds to support these and other families, but we will not be able to make up for all the SNAP funds lost. Of these 150 highly vulnerable individuals, approximately 30 individuals are Afghan SREs from six different families. Among the impacted Afghans are an expecting mother who arrived in The US last month and whose husband is working hard to find a job. A recently arrived leader with health problems whose daughter is through to attend high school for the first time. An elderly woman who has risen to who had risen to join AFCAD's cohort of female judges and had to flee without her family. So she's here alone after the fall of Kabul. Slide three is a chart that shows refugees resettled in the past five years by USCRI, Vermont. And if you look at the first two roles, for all of those who have come here up to one year ago, they are only eligible to apply for green cards after one year. And therefore, all of them, if you would see the red is theoretically, they are no longer eligible for SNAP. And in the second one, for one to two years, they have applied and they are waiting for green card approval and they are also not eligible for SNAP. So, during the last five years, USCRI Vermont has resettled 255,000 and over the 300 Afghan humanitarian parolees, almost all of whom have obtained asylum or special immigrant visa status. Of those we settled in the last five years, by USCRI Vermont, 30 households consist of six or more members. A few households were as large as 10 to 13 members. 13 of those households arrive less than two years ago and are unlikely to have a green card, including two families of eight, one family of nine and two families of 10. None of these families would retain any snap of eligibility. Most refugees, according to the Vermont FEC Site five, I have given the livable wage report from the Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office. Most refugees earn between $17 and $22 an hour, far below the Vermont's basic needs wage. The math simply doesn't work. Even with two full time earners, refugee families with more than two children struggling to meet basic needs. Housing too is a crushing burden. And we have on slide six, there is a sample budget that is a comparison based on actual household income. And you would see that rent is the most significant contributor to the cost burdens families face. Sometimes they pay up to 64% of their income on rent unless they have subsidised housing. And therefore SNAP is what keeps most families' finances in the black. Medical expenses are not listed either in that budget. Currently refugees without green cards are categorically eligible for Medicaid. However, we are concerned that come 10/01/2026, that too, there'll be restrictions on that as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm going to ask if you could, because we have this information to look at, and we're pretty familiar with some of the challenges that you're talking about. If you can think about moving to some of the recommendations that you have, that would be We can see very clearly from your testimony the impact that this Yeah, so some

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: of the recommendations that we had or some solutions that perhaps the community- That's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a very nice heading that you have. I like that. Can

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: we compensate for high food costs statewide and snap cuts to increasing the state share of benefit levels for other federal funded programs? Example, TANF benefit levels, weak low income home energy assistance program for households facing snap cuts or reductions due to federal rules or changes. The National Centre for Children in Poverty recommended its Vermont state profile, sure you know, that we consider increasing the maximum tenant's benefit level from the current 40 to 41 of the federal poverty level to a higher level, such as 60%.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We try every year.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: This is especially crucial for households with only one member or no members able to work. Since so much of the cost burdening of households is caused by housing, find ways to decrease housing costs for the most vulnerable, the volunteers. And I know this is not exactly in the purview of this, we are just talking about SNAP benefits, But we think that if there are ways we can support these families with housing, which is the two biggest costs of food and housing. And so for the most vulnerable Vermonters, if we can decrease housing costs using a variety of creative state revenues fields, maybe increase state taxes, utilize sports betting revenue, save state revenue spent on education by increasing the share of education funding to progressive property taxes for second homes of significant value. Continue to fund development of affordable rental housing, especially units with three to four bedrooms, which are extremely hard to find and we find that and the clients we resettle usually have large families as well. Increase the number of housing vouchers using state funds if needed, while the production of new rental housing led so far behind demand. So those are some of the recommendations that we've had because we are here to talk about the impact mostly for our clients as we see them today. And also, I think, yes, I said that use estate tax taxes in sports betting revenue, just had that idea. So in slide nine, our closing message, as I conclude, I would like you to imagine being a parent of six working full time at $20 an hour and still unable to adequately feed your children or pay rent. This is really not a failure of effort on their part, it's a failure of policy. And we here, what we are doing is we are otherising a certain group of Vermonters, the state's newest Vermonters, and most of whom are people of colour. And they are the ones who are being impacted less. And it's just one group of people. And Vermont has the power to restore dignity and stability to these families. Let us not allow these technicalities to become tragedies. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Zonelle. Appreciate all of the data too that you provided here for us. It really helps us with understanding the background and the impact on Vermonters who we have welcomed here and who we want to continue to welcome. So, Jill, we're going to move to you now. Thank you.

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I would encourage witnesses who are coming up to We don't need to repeat things, you know, about what the federal changes have done, but give us your interpretation of what that impact is. So we know the what the federal changes have. So thank you.

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: Thank you, representative. My name is Joe Weir. I am the executive director of ACDC, and ACDC is the Ethiopian Community Development Council. We are one of the 10 resettlement organizations that credited by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration under the Department of State. So here in Vermont, USCRR and ECDC are the most are the two organizations that have this contract with the State Department. We're based in the northern part I'm sorry, the Southern part of Vermont, which is our offices in Brattleboro and in Bennington. I'm here before you to speak on behalf of hundreds of refugees that are based in Brattleboro, Bennington, and Springfield. One thing I want to say is to thank you all from all of you here at TEN. Vermont has been since I started this job, Vermont has been one of the states that really support refugees resettlement. It's a testament to all of your commitments here from the governor's office to all of you here that you have really continued to support refugees. And in doing so, we have one of the lowest out migration of refugees leaving them on to go to other places. It's because of all of you, what you do for refugees. In recent times, one of my refugees left and went to North Carolina, and I got a call from him three weeks after that saying I'm coming back home. So, thank you so much on that. I already gave you the background of what we do. We have a slide before you. So I just want to go through the code of a Resetment Programme. It's based on self sufficiency, and self sufficiency is as quickly as possible within ninety days. That means refugees come and really want to start working and we do all we can to support them to do that. But just imagine if you move through a new phase and you've been asked to be self sufficient within life, it is just not possible. And so that's how why the benefits that refugees receive is so important to be able to give them that light to be able to be set sufficiently in ninety days. From refugees resettlement agencies, our focus is to support them both in ninety days and post ninety days. And after the ninety days period, we continue to reevaluate the cases that we work with and see who has reached that self sufficiency and then either close the case to move on. Sometimes you are not on state benefit or federal benefit anymore. For those who are state, they will continue to provide you the support for a long period of time. We have resettled for ECBC, and we have resettled over 500 refugees, just imagine within the last four years, in South Timbambo. And as I work with students in Brownborough Pennington Centre Springfield and see how I live in the South for over ten years now and when I start to see how our communities are changing, it always brings me that kind of peace and joy because of how we in Vermont have made revenues we settled there, you know, for those who for the first time come into Vermont. You may think that because we are a rural state so people wouldn't come, but people want to come and people want to stay. And the only thing we can do is submit them to stay here. The refugees and nationalities we have in the South Of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic Of Congo, South Sudan, Yemen, Guatemala, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia, Syria, Honduras, Peninsula, Colombia, and Ukraine. So that's the the first group of people we work with every day there. Now I want to move on to the eighth part of the SNAP benefit, you know, termination. You know, just for this year, we want to give come back to how many refugees we settled this year. This year, along with the termination of contract with PRM, we were still able to reschedule two zero six refugees. Of those two zero six, we have 121 of them who have decided to make their money at home and are still living in this site. Of that number, we have 45 special immigrants in Zakotos for which we are here today. And of that 45 refugees, I mean, the SRGs who have come, most of them came in just before the October deadline, and today, most of them are eligible for SNAP benefits. I want to read story to you here in my conclusion from one of the people who arrived in recent times and who currently live in Springfield. And I'm not using the person's real name, but this is someone really impacted by this. I have with you today about I want to leave with you today about case that represents not merely an administrative oversight, but a profound moral failure. It is a story of N. B. It's now a real name of 62 year old widow who holds a special American visa and whose life bears testament to both extraordinary courage and unimaginable loss. MB worked for the United States Agency for International Development in Afghanistan. In that capacity, she served American interests with dedication and tremendous personal risk. For her association with the United States government, she paid the ultimate price. Before her bare eyes, her son was killed when the Taliban took over. A life extinguished brutally because she chose to work alongside us, because she believed in a mission, because she trusted that America will stand with those who stood with us. No one should have to watch their family mental murder for the crime of death in The United States, yet Anne B. Did. And she carries that trauma every single day. On September 8, Anne B. Arrived in Springfield, Vermont. She came bearing not only the scars of trauma, but the weight of profound grief and displacement. At age 62 years old, she found herself in an unfamiliar land without family, with limited English proficiency, and struggling with severe trauma that no human being should have to endure at all. We immediately applied for food assistance through the program. It was just basically the most fundamental form of support. Help putting food on the table while she attempted to begin rebuilding her life shattered by violence. Her application was not approved. Because at the time, the Government Services Division was already issued termination letters during a period of her life. MBKs fell through the cracks as a result of federal policy change. Sorry. That's okay. She never received full stamps. Not one that of her assistant has reached this widow who sacrificed everything for America's interest. Our per capita form pay, which is $16.50, almost correct that it's not at 9, and this is the amount that the federal government gave us to reset the issue of it to its public, is still pending approval by the Department of State. So imagine she doesn't have a per capita fund, she doesn't have full stents, she has nothing. They cannot survive on bureaucratic day. She needs food today or whatever. Anne B. Is a woman whose husband I'm sorry, whose child was brutally murdered because of her work for the United States government. She holds a special immigrant visa precisely because our nation recognized its debt to all. She came to Vermont seeking safety and a chance to survive her her grief, and yet she cannot receive basic assistance from the very government for which her son was killed. How do we now how do I explain that to her? How do I look or do we look into her eyes of a traumatized widow and tell her that federal policy change prevent us from ensuring she has just basic food to eat? How do we reconcile our nation's promise to protect those who serve us with the reality of a woman who went hungry in the month. This committee has the power to ensure that individuals that end you do not fall through the cracks. Special immigrant visa holders are not ordinary immigrants. They are individuals who risk everything, often losing everything, because they believe in America's mission and trust America's promises. When a woman loses her child to violence committed because she worked for The United States and they cannot access food assistance in the state where she seeks refuge and represents a policy failure of the highest order. It is not simply because of one case. It is about whether or our state here and our nation will honor the commitment we've made to those who still with us. So to conclude, thought this committee, please, if we can immediately address the barriers preventing special immigrant visa holders from assessing emergency food assistance during a transition period here. Please, if you can, create an alternative program for private keys and SRV voters who arrive after the policy came to effect. This also ensured that no individual who rates their life for America interest goes without basic food assistance due to federal policy in our state. Anne B. Story is one of the unimaginable loss and remarkable survivor. She deserves better than to struggle for basic substance in the country that promised her safety. She deserves the dignity of knowing that her sacrifice matters and that Vermont will not abandon those who give everything for a parent. The question before this committee is simple. Will we honor our promise of those who pay the ultimate price? That's two of us. So I want to end it and say thank you for your time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Joe and Sonali, for putting a human face to the statistics and numbers that we've heard about today. And it's important for our committee to hear the personal stories that you both brought here. And we appreciate that greatly. So I just wanted to say thank you for that. And we don't really have time for questions right now, but if you are here during the lunch break, I'm sure other people may have an opportunity to chat with you. I really, really appreciate you all being here.

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: Thank you. Thank you for your Thanks

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so much. So we invited Tracy Dolan, who's the director of state refugee office, really to get a sense of the numbers, really, to talk about that. And we might as well have Miranda and Bart come up as well. Thank you for sticking with us. And so the committee knows, we are eating into our lunchtime, and that means we're gonna have a shorter ready kit lunch. So really, I mean, we understand what's happened. Okay. So we're looking to understand, you know, from the perspective of making sure we understand the numbers and then understanding the why. Because we have gotten different information and I'm really looking to understand why the state made the decision that it made, other than trying to keep their error rate below 6%. So I'll turn it over to you all.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: Thank you very much. My name is Tracy Dolan, and I'm the director of the State Refugee Office within the Agency of Human Services. I think my presentation will be relatively brief. Some of the explanations have already been addressed, but I just wanted to walk through the numbers. So from Oh, I see. We're starting with the geographic overview. Actually, I think we can probably move past that quickly. I think folks have described where people have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, see we've gotten that from the previous witnesses here.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: Thank you. So the arrivals, I looked at numbers between 2020 and 2025. I just need to put a caveat. We don't have great numbers. The federal databases aren't always consistent. So this is our best information. If I were to poll each agency, I might be able to tighten it up. But overall in the last five years, we've had 1,007 refugees arrive, we've had about 169 special immigrant visa holders, about 55 asylees, two fifty nine humanitarian parolees who are Afghan, 116 humanitarian parolees who are Ukrainian, and 47 Cuban Haitian entrants. Now, some people now might not have that category anymore. For example, the Afghan humanitarian parolees, some of them may have gone down the special immigrant visa route. A lot of them are asylees now. So I didn't put the full number of asylees each year because there was a conversion happening. So this is our best estimate about actual absolute numbers who arrived. Again, could be

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: a little higher or a little lower. And

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: I think you already heard about how long people have to be here before they can apply for long term lawful permanent residence. Just on the humanitarian parole side, again, a lot of them have applied for and received asylum, which creates a path to long term permanent residents, and some of them may be SIVs as well. Also, Cuban patient entrance, some have received and applied for asylum status. I think you heard about the employment, but it is a top priority, we have really good outcomes. In particular, my office measures retention rates, and I just want to highlight Vermont's retention rate, ninety day retention rates for employed refugees is 86%, which is higher than the national average. It's actually the highest in the country. However,

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: although a lot of

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: folks are working, their wages remain well below Vermont's average. So that impacts people's ability to meet their needs.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Excuse me, is minute, Tracy. People are having It's under Miranda's name. I think we have to refresh. You have to refresh. That's what I hadn't done. It wasn't there. If you refresh and then look under Miranda, you'll see it. Thanks. Yeah.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: Yeah. What's the title?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's why I couldn't. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. That

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: concludes my portion of the

[Unknown committee member]: Sorry. We can catch up. You gave us the numbers.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We we now we can look at. And so can I can I just ask this? So of those sixteen fifty four plus or minus individuals, do you know how many of them were receiving SNAP benefits?

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: I don't have that information. The SNAP program might be able to speak to you about which households currently, but I wouldn't have information. And I'm not sure that we collect it in that way over five years. I don't collect any of that information through my office.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you know how many are currently receiving? I would have

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: to defer to the SNAP. Okay. Right.

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: Yes. And

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: I'll be happy to get that to you because I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: don't have it off the chat. Okay.

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: So thank you. And I think we've already shared slides. But I do just want to say, it is not lost on

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: us that these are people that

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: are impacted and that it has been incredibly challenging to implement this federal law. But it is. And technically, Vermont was late. HR1 was supposed to be effective upon passage, so July 4. So by implementing an actuary first, technically, Vermont was late in doing this. And I know that we have heard a lot about what are other states doing. We're trying to understand what other states are doing. We also know that a lot of states haven't started. And so I think that is also challenging to say, well, what are other states doing? Well, they're still assessing what they need to do and to try to take action. And so now I will jump right into it because I think this is where you do have questions. And I know you have one more witness. For the special immigrant immigration visa holders, the law says they are entitled to the same benefits as refugees, and refugees have been removed from eligibility. So that is the basis for our decision for having ended the SNAP benefits for this population.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So say that again, please. Absolutely. So the law says that they're entitled to the same benefits as refugees. And HR1 says refugees have been removed from having eligibility. And so we've also heard from previous witnesses that they are considered lawful permanent residents, are eligible for continued benefits. So I think that what we're trying to understand is what's the intersection between those two. And we did hear from Molly Gray that with looking at the I forget the I think it's the one with the Aurora. Yeah, that one's that felt that even with that interpretation, that there was reason to make a judgment that they would continue to be eligible. So I think we're struggling a little bit. Vermont was first out of the gate in making this determination. You do see some other states who have opted not to do that. I think I heard during the break that there was maybe one other state who is now looking at potentially the same action that Vermont took. And so are you saying by this action that you are not considering these individuals lawful permanent residents?

[Unknown (AHS/DCF legal counsel)]: No. They are lawful permanent residents, but lawful permanent residents still have a five year wait in order to be eligible for SNAP benefits unless there is a specific exemption from that five year wait, and we have not identified a exemption that applies to this population, to the Afghan SIV holders, that would entitle them to an exemption from the five year wait.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So by virtue of having a special immigrant visa, does not entitle them to an exemption from the five year wait?

[Unknown (AHS/DCF legal counsel)]: Not under not anything we've identified.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So realize that's in contrast to the testimony we've heard. So I'm try I'm trying to figure out what is that you have you seen the interpretations of the other legal arguments that people have offered, and you're just saying you don't believe them or you don't think they're accurate or?

[Unknown (AHS/DCF legal counsel)]: This comes down to really nuanced statutory interpretation and the exemptions have very specific statutes they reference. So when they reference specific statutes, a lot of times it's to a specific, section in the INA, in the Immigrant Naturalization Act. There is not an exemption that we have identified that applies to this

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: population. The other exemptions are very specific to other categories of individuals. We have not identified one for this population. So would it be customary for the federal government to issue guidance on implementation of new changes that they make in federal programs, such as the one we're talking about? Yes. And have they done that yet?

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: No, not to the degree that we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: prefer. So how many and just look from your records from the SNAP perspective, how many individuals is it the 86 that you referenced earlier, 86 cases that have closed, 33 that have had a partial reduction in their benefit. Are those all individuals who have SIV status?

[Joe Wiah (Executive Director, ECDC Vermont)]: They're households.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Those are households. Excuse me,

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: No, households. They're a part of that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They're a subset of that. Do you know how many? I don't have that number. So I guess I I want to check-in because also at yesterday's e board meeting, deputy commissioner, you you made a reference to something that the state is doing, or planning to do or might be considering. I it seems rather vague, to be honest. Can you provide us any with regard to trying to assist these individuals. And just to be clear, committee, you know, there's, there's legal interpretations. We're not lawyers. We're not going to, try to discern, I guess, who is right and who might not be right. But our goal here is to try to provide assistance to people who have that assistance sort of yanked out from underneath them after we promised to do that. So I think that there will be lots of legal minds at the national level duking this out, essentially, over the coming months. So we're not gonna be able to answer that question in particular right here. So I just want to assure people I'm not gonna be asking you to do that. But I am interested to hear a little bit more about the statement that you made yesterday at the e board.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: And I'm happy to be able

[Molly Gray (Human Rights Attorney; representing the Vermont Afghan Alliance)]: to provide even more clarity because the agreement was signed yesterday. So there was existing funds, and

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: I will ask Tracy to jump in, because she can probably do this. There was existing funds already that we were able to move. And I believe you heard Sonali mention that they were going to be helping put this money out to these impacted households. So that's $106,000 that would be issued out and a ramp down. So I can't remember if it was $80.60 I

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: think they're determining that. The agencies will use the discretion on how

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: to do that. In terms of giving benefits to those impacted households, starting off larger and decreasing. So that should be happening soon. And so will

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you be consulting with the organizations that were just here in terms of identifying those families and individuals most at risk?

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: Sure, can speak to that. So the grant came out of my office and USCRI is working with partners and they are basically assessing who's most vulnerable and how should the money best be spent to address the most vulnerable. And so it's really in their hands to do that piece of it, but they are working to see it will be primarily likely the families who are most impacted by the snap cuts. And they're using their own formula to figure out what makes best sense. Some situations might have changed in families, for example. And so they are probably getting some of those funds out starting next week. Go ahead. Assuming these are state funds? These are state funds, yeah. These are state general funds that were already in the refugee office budget to assist with employment supports, etcetera. And so we repurposed some of those funds, 106,000, to do a short term off ramp to provide a little bit of a cushion.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just to be clear, because it's already appropriated, it did not require any e board action. So that was just a there was no motion yesterday regarding this. That was just an FYI, essentially. Okay. Using my voice. Representative

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Still Bishop. Bishop.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: It's

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: couple been of months. It was just referred to as funding for off ramp. I guess to me, that implies people who were receiving and are no longer receiving SNAP benefits. What about special immigrant visa holders who have arrived, who were not previously receiving SNAP benefits, they arrived today, will they be included among those folks who can access that $106,000

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: To the best of my knowledge, but it'd probably be best to speak directly, the way we set up the grant was with the folks who have been cut off in mind. I don't know that the funds will be enough to take on new folks who are arriving who also don't get the benefit. I can't say for sure, I probably have to sit down and chat with the USRI, but primary goal was really an off ramp for folks who had already been getting it. So we haven't had one, we probably had a handful arrive, and so I don't know if they're going to determine and figure that out within group. I think it becomes tricky if they are able to take in more as they arrive, even small numbers. Really dilutes that codified.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: An additional question if I could on bullying.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: So would be completely unable to go toe to toe on interpreting sections of the INA. I guess I'm curious more about a process question about resources that state access. I don't know whether we have immigration attorneys on staff that were, we were able to access as part of that conversation. If so, that would be interesting to hear. If not, were there immigration attorneys that were a part of the consultation process in arriving at the conclusion that's stated?

[Unknown (AHS/DCF legal counsel)]: I relied on our legal team that's within AHS. We speak with partners in other states to see what they're doing. But I don't know if I can answer your question specifically as far as whether or we have an immigration attorney on board. Not that I have spoken of.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: As a representative, Lamoille, I'm Garofano. Just point of clarification. So the $106,000 that then will be distributed

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: among the nine nineteen households? The impacted families, I think USCRI and ECDC are doing a vulnerability assessment to determine, it might not be all of the 119, I think it's close, they're doing a vulnerability assessment to see which households have the most need. For example, if someone else got a job in the last month, it might not make sense that that household gets it. Again, I probably asked them to come up to speak a little more, We left it abroad enough that they could use some discretion in determining and reviewing their own assessment. But primarily, that's what the money is for. Rex Zonnierfano? Was the AG's office consulted on this at all as far

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: as interpreting the legal question?

[Unknown (AHS/DCF legal counsel)]: I wouldn't be able to speak to I don't know. We have a lot of attorneys working on this, so I don't know who would have spoken to who exactly on that. We're in constant contact, but I couldn't speak to that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So guess I want to ask a general question. So I have a quote here from the governor that says, and I quote, we have a moral obligation to help the people of Afghanistan who did so much to help us in the war on terror. In addition to this being the right thing to do, we know that welcoming more refugees also strengthens our communities, schools, workforce, culture, and economy. And that that was a statement made in, 2021. And I'm just trying to make sure that I understand that, I guess I wanna provide some assurance to the people sitting who were just testifying that we are maintaining that commitment to those refugees. Has that position changed at all from your perspective?

[Miranda Gray (Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division)]: As you know, I can't speak for the governor. I'm going seek to quote the governor, but certainly having people be able to come here to Vermont is very important to us.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You may also have any questions for these witnesses.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm trying not to get too into the weeds, but I guess a question. It seems earlier today, heard testimony about a congressional act of 2009 that seemed to answer the question differently than the state has interpreted. There also then seems to be some fairly direct guidance from the US Department of Agriculture in 2011 regarding special immigrant visa holders from Afghanistan. Do you know would you know what the state's position is with respect to that USDA guidance?

[Unknown (AHS/DCF legal counsel)]: I've reviewed I So I've received a lot of memos in the last few days. Clicked on every hyperlink in those and read everything that is cited to those. Believe the 2008 guidance by the FDA is a footnote. That was just a comment on it was not a interpreted memo. It was a if you can double check that memo. But if you click on that link, I believe it takes you to a footnote in a general guidance document from 2011 when the laws were completely different. So I think that's been one of the difficult things here is that as we look at all of the preceding laws, these have changed. HR one fundamentally changed the rules here. And so we are looking at all of those, but that would be kind of how I'd respond to that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's probably the ultimate question is whether we agree whether HR1 actually fundamentally changed the rules for this group of people or not. And I think that's probably something we're just gonna I personally probably don't agree with that assessment. And obviously, have witnesses here who don't agree with that assessment. But I understand why it's in question. I understand the ambiguity that we've been sort of forced to deal with and that you all have been forced to deal with. So I think that's it for you folks. I appreciate you being here. Appreciate the explanation about why you have done what you did. And then I think we're going hear briefly from Ledge Council. And then we have a motion to consider with regard to providing food assistance to this group of refugees.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: Welcome. It's not morning anymore. Good afternoon.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is afternoon, yes.

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's nice to see everyone, meeting with the Office of Legislative Council. I think my role here is to sum up briefly what you have heard about the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders and where we are now. It is typical when the federal government passes a major piece of legislation to receive federal guidance eventually on that piece of legislation. There's kind of a confluence of difficulties, one being the FAST implementation as part of that legislation, the other being the federal government shutdown. So folks who would typically be working on this and answering questions are not available. As you've heard, this is an extremely complicated area of the law. There are different interpretations emerging as to how HR1 impacts Afghan SID holders and their SNAP eligibility, if at all. You've heard an analysis as to why some believe that Afghan SIV holders should still be eligible for SNAP without being subject to the five year waiting period. I believe we've also received written testimony from some national think tanks and advocacy groups that specialize in immigration law that articulate that particular argument. We've also heard from DCF that they've reached a different conclusion. At the end of the day, what matters is what will be forthcoming from the federal government in terms of the guidance that they will give to states. Until we have that guidance, states are working in a place of uncertainty. It's tricky for lots of reasons, the human impacts that you've been hearing. It's also tricky in terms of the payment error rate. If a state is to incorrectly include or incorrectly exclude a population that could negatively impact the payment error rate. And I think there's some uncertainty as to whether the federal administration would hold harmless an error that the state made due to lack of guidance? I think that's probably an open question. States are not making uniform decisions on this. It's very tricky to track down. I've been in touch with a few different sources. There's not legislation, so it's a little bit harder to track. It seems at this point that Oregon, Ohio, and possibly Nebraska and Montana are proceeding in the same manner that Vermont is. Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, and possibly Iowa are exempting Afghan SIV holders from the five year waiting period. And then we know that a number of states are waiting for federal guidance before making a decision, including New York, Utah, Maryland, Louisiana, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arizona, and West Virginia, which I would interpret to mean they're maintaining the status quo for the time being until they receive the federal guidance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Status quo meaning they're continuing Yeah. The

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's what I know at this time. It's changing every day.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: Just for clarification,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: can contribute to our, it can increase our error rate whether we extended benefits or we decreased benefits.

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would we made a mistake either way? That's my understanding.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just looking over there for confirmation, yes. That's the way I just showed it from this morning, yes. And is there a penalty? Are states looking at a penalty for being slow to define this piece of

[Molly Gray (Human Rights Attorney; representing the Vermont Afghan Alliance)]: their own SNAP policy? I mean,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if we had waited, would we have been hurt or negatively affected by the feds? Since there are many states that have not resolved this yet. We didn't take that risk. Okay. We did that. Is that fair? It's not

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: clear that there's a behavioral penalty.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's right. It's yeah. I mean, it's we don't know what's gonna happen at the federal level, you know, with their guidance and how they're going to interpret error rates and how they're gonna because this all had an effective date of immediately. And so okay, just a second, we have experts down there who are raising their hands.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: So there is a whole harmless period for implementing this new law. It doesn't start for a state until they implement, and it only runs through November 1. So we implemented in August by publishing an updated policy manual. We are held from our list for mistakes with respect to that implementation until November 1. After November 1, errors related to misapplication of federal law will be held against us. I'll go back to Pam Eric. I'd just add on something Leslie had mentioned earlier, that we are one of the few states who has an error rate under 6%. So the risk for states is also very different. Some states already can see that they will have millions of dollars that they're going to have to contribute. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Katie. All set. Okay. So, just just to be clear, we're not going to solve the legal issues here. But also to be clear, as the governor has said, 2021, and as we have heard today, you know, from organizations that are supporting refugees, the state of Vermont has been a welcoming place for refugees. And speaking for myself personally, I want that to continue. And so I think that I just wanna be clear that we're any, I am gonna ask for a motion, but that is not solving the legal issues that are before us. Okay? It is, it is, essentially indicating ongoing support for our refugee population.

[Unknown committee member]: May just add one background piece? Many people were here, but many weren't. My recollection is at least twice in the governor's State of the State address. He made a specific comment about the desire to support continuing to bring in refugees. The thing of note to me was those were pieces, very rare pieces in his addresses, which received unanimous support. Applause. Thank you. That's the word. Not unanimous applause and very loud applause from the full general assembly. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was here during that time as well. So, I think that Representative Garofano has a motion to make and then we'll just go by a show of hands for committee members.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: Yes, am sorry. I shall not vote.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, everyone, that provided context and the background and really the impacts on this very specific community. This is important for me as an immigrant to this country myself from that region, so it's especially hitting hard. So based on the information that we heard from the national immigration sources that indicates that Vermont may have acted too quickly in discontinuing benefits for Afghan refugees with special immigration visa status, I move to recommend to the Department for Children and Families that pending USDA guidance to the contrary, SNAP benefits be reinstated immediately for Afghan refugees with a special immigration visa SIB, or that state funds be used to provide food assistance for this population.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is there a second to that motion? Second. Okay. This is the discussion part. So just so you know, this is a recommendation. It does not hold any law status or anything like that. It's a little bit out of the ordinary, but we are living in extraordinary times. And so this, this indicates our preferences to the department and the administration that we, as a legislative body, would like to see continued support for our refugee population. That's essentially what that's doing. Does it require them to do anything? It says, this is our recommendation to you. So could I see by a show of hands those people who are supportive of that motion? I'm gonna abstain. Okay. And those who are opposed? I'm abstaining. And since it's not an official vote, you kind of stay.

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: That's true.

[Tracy Dolan (Director, Vermont State Refugee Office, AHS)]: Yeah. I kind of think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're not going Okay. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses this morning. I want to extend my really, and the whole committee's sincere appreciation for all of the work that's gone into, one, being here in a special committee meeting that's off session, especially knowing some of you are gonna be here back this afternoon, and appreciate hearing and really feeling the impact that this is having on Vermonters. We felt that this morning. And so thank you all

[Sonali Samarasingha (Field Office Director, USCRI Vermont)]: for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: being here.