♪♪ >> GOV.

HOLCOMB VETOES AN AGENCY >> GOV.

HOLCOMB VETOES AN AGENCY RULEMAKING MEASURE.

INDIANA'S US SENATORS SPLIT ON SPENDING BILL.

PLUS, PERMANENT DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME AND MORE ON INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING MARCH 18, 2022.

>> INDIANA "INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.

>> THIS WEEK, GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB ISSUED HIS FIRST VETO OF 2022, CITING CONCERNS ABOUT HOUSE BILL 1211'S EFFECT ON BROADBAND PROJECTS AND STATE AGENCY EMERGENCY RULES.

.

IN HIS VETO LETTER, HOLCOMB SAID THE “ENTIRELY NEW AND UNVETTED” BROADBAND LANGUAGE COULD JEOPARDIZE 154 MILLION DOLLARS OF PROJECTS ACROSS 28 COUNTIES FROM HIS READI GRANT INITIATIVE.

HE ALSO CITED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE OF A BILL TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR INDIANA STATE AGENCIES TO CREATE NEW RULES - WHICH WAS ALSO ADDED TO HB1211 ON THE LAST DAY OF SESSION.

A SENATE COMMITTEE HALTED THE ORIGINAL RULEMAKING BILL, PROMISING TO RETURN TO THE ISSUE NEXT YEAR.

STATE AGENCIES EACH YEAR PASS DOZENS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES - THEY'RE OFTEN THE NUTS AND BOLTS TO KEEP THE STATE RUNNING.

1211 ALSO REQUIRED STATE AGENCIES TO SUBMIT EMERGENCY RULES FOR APPROVAL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

IN HIS VETO LETTER, HOLCOMB SAID HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DELAY THE REVIEW COULD CAUSE AND SAID “[A]LTERNATIVE LANGUAGE COULD HAVE SOLVED THIS PROBLEM.” WILL LAWMAKERS OVERRIDE THIS VETO OF THE GOVERNOR'S?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL.

DEMOCRAT DREW ANDERSON.

REPUBLICAN CHRIS MITCHEM.

JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

AND NIKI KELLY, STATEHOUSE REPORTER FOR THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATEHOUSE REPORTER BRANDON SMITH.

DREW ANDERSON, WAS HOLCOMB RIGHT TO VETO THIS BILL?

>> I MEAN, OF COURSE HE WAS.

HE'S VOUCHING FOR THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN BECAUSE THE RESCUE PLAN IS PAYING FOR ALL THESE READI FUNDING, $500 MILLION.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GOING TO FAULT HIM ON THAT.

GOING TO YOUR POINT AT THE BEGINNING, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT AT THE STATEHOUSE.

CHECK ME HERE, NIKI, THE STATEHOUSE HAS OVERRIDDEN HIS VETO, WHAT, THREE TIMES BEFORE, ALL ON LOCAL ISSUES.

IF THEY DO IT AGAIN THEY'RE KIND OF DOING THAT THING WHERE THEY'RE PROVING THAT THEY'RE THE PARTY OF THE BIG BROTHER.

I'M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THEY USED TO BE ALL ABOUT LOCAL CONTROLS, PROVING EVERYONE WRONG THERE.

>> CHRIS, THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER VETO COMING FROM THE GOVERNMENT, HE HAS A FEW MORE DAYS TO DECIDE.

THAT'S A BIGGER ONE, FEELS LIKE LAWMAKERS WOULD WANT TO COME IN AND OVERRIDE.

IF THIS IS THE ONLY, DO THEY OVERRIDE THIS ONE?

>> GREAT QUESTION.

WHEN I INITIALLY SAW THE VETO COME THROUGH, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAD THAT RULE-MAKING LANGUAGE IN THERE.

I THOUGHT WHEN I READ IT THAT THIS BROADBAND LANGUAGE WAS NOT NECESSARILY A FRONT BUT A REASON TO VETO THE LANGUAGE WE KNOW THE GOVERNOR OFFICE DID NOT LIKE FROM THE BEGINNING.

I DID A LITTLE BIT OF DIGGING AND I SAW THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THESE READI GRANTS VERSUS THE RURAL BROADBAND GRANTS.

THE RURAL BROADBAND GRANTS ARE TAILORED TOWARDS PROVIDERS WHICH HAS MORE STRICT REGULATIONS.

WHENEVER YOU ARE TRYING TO ALIGN PUBLIC UNITS OF GOVERNMENT WITH THESE MORE STRICT PROVIDER REGULATIONS, I CAN SEE HOW THAT COULD POTENTIAL CAUSE A LOT OF ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO STALLING A LOT OF PROJECTS ALREADY IN THE WORKS ON THIS READI PROGRAM.

EVEN WHEN YOU GET TO THE MORE OF THE AGENCY REGULATION LANGUAGE, I DON'T THINK IT IS UNREASONABLE WHEN YOU LOOK AT GOVERNOR HOLCOMB TO SEE THE DETAILS OF THIS REGULATION BEING IF YOU MAKE AN EMERGENCY RULE, AFTER SIX MONTHS, IF IT'S STILL AN EMERGENCY, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GET ADDITIONAL APPROVAL TO MAKE SURE THAT CAN EASILY GO THROUGH.

I THINK THAT'S A FAIRLY REASONABLE EXPECTATION WHEN IT COMES TO AGENCY RULE MAKING, BUT WHEN THE LEGISLATURE VETOING THIS, I DON'T SEE THEM PUSHING FOR AN EMERGENCY SESSION.

>> JON, WE TALKED ABOUT PROCESS THE LAST FEW WEEKS WHEN IT COMES TO THE LEGISLATURE AND SOME OF THE THINGS THEY'VE BEEN DOING.

IS PROCESS SOMEWHAT AT THE HEART OF THIS VETO, TOO?

>> PROCESS, AND THE TRADITIONAL ROLES OF THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF GOT.

LET'S PUT IT MAYBE MORE THAT WAY.

BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS OFF AND ON OVER THE PAST YEAR OR TWO, THIS, WHAT I SENSE IS AN ENCROACHMENT BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY INTO THE DOMAIN THAT HAD FORMERLY BEEN RESERVED FOR EXPERTS EITHER AT THE STATE LEVEL WITHIN THE AGENCIES, OR EVEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

AND TO DREW'S POINT LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE CEDED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

WHETHER THAT IS A MATTER OF PROTOCOL, OR VIOLATION OF TRADITION, I GUESS WE COULD ARGUE THE SEMANTICS.

IT IS A CHANGE IN COURSE, SEEMS TO ME.

AND IT DOES CERTAINLY AS IT RELATES TO -- IT RUNS TRADITIONAL MANTRA OF GOVERNMENT, CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE IS THAT -- I'M BUTCHERING THE PHRASE.

>> THEY'RE BUTCHERING THE POLICY.

>> I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A POET.

WHERE IS THE EXPERTISE OF PEOPLE WHO DO THIS FOR A CAREER, VETERINARY MEDICINE, PHARMACOLOGY, THE ENVIRONMENT OR ARE -- DO THEY WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RULE MAKING, IT MAY BE MORE ON THEIR PLATE THAN -- >> DO THEY WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RULE-MAKING OR DO THEY NOT WANT ANYBODY TO MAKE RULES?

>> MAYBE A LITTLE OF BOTH.

DON'T FORGET THE EMERGENCY RULES WOULD GO TO SOMEBODY WHO HAS BECOME SOMETHING OF A THORN IN THE GOVERNOR'S SIDE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE THE SAME PARTY.

>> ON THE BROADBAND STUFF, POTENTIALLY MESSING WITH THESE READI PROJECTS, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN IN A SEPARATE ISSUE SOME OF THE READI PROJECTS BEING SCREWED AROUND WITH A LITTLE BIT.

>> YEAH.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS, WHEN THEY FINALLY PUT OUT THEIR RULES HOW THAT MONEY CAN BE USED, SOME OF THE PROJECTS PUT FORWARD AREN'T GOING TO MEET THOSE.

THIS WOULD BE A SECOND.

I DID TALK TO A FEW LAWMAKERS, THEY -- CLEARLY THAT LANGUAGE HAD NOT BEEN VETTED THE ENTIRE SESSION.

AND SO, THE FEW LAWMAKERS I TALKED TO DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WOULD AFFECT THAT MANY PROJECTS, 154 MILLION WORTH.

I KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.

SAYING WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE AREAS THAT NEED IT MOST.

BUT THOSE WEREN'T THE RULES THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE WHEN ALL THOSE COMMUNITIES PUT THOSE PLANS TOGETHER.

>> MAKE SURE WE HAVE QUALITY PROJECTS.

>> THAT WAS THE MAIN CRUX, WHICH I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, IF IT DID GO THROUGH THAT VETTING PROCESS, MAYBE WE CATCH MORE OF THOSE.

>> INDIANA US SENATORS TODD YOUNG AND MIKE BRAUN SPLIT IN A RECENT VOTE ON A MASSIVE, TRILLION-DOLLAR SPENDING PACKAGE THAT ALSO PROVIDES MORE THAN 13 BILLION DOLLARS IN AID TO UKRAINE.

>> THE MEASURE SIGNED INTO LAW LATE LAST FRIDAY BY PRESIDENT BIDEN AVOIDED A LOOMING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BY FUNDING THROUGH ITS FISCAL YEAR AT THE END OF THE SEPTEMBER.

THE OVERALL SPENDING PACKAGE INCLUDES A 5.6%, INCREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING OVER CURRENT LEVELS, ALONG WITH 6.7% INCREASE FOR NONDEFENSE SPENDING.

THE $13.6 BILLION IN THE MEASURE FOR UKRAINE INCLUDES MONEY FOR HUMANITARIAN AID, DEFENSE ASSISTANCE AND ECONOMIC SUPPORT FOR THE REGION.

IN A STATEMENT, SENATOR TODD YOUNG, WHO VOTED FOR IT, HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF HIS PRIORITIES IN THE BILL - INCLUDING EXTENDED COVERAGE OF TELEHEALTH SERVICES FOR OLDER AMERICANS - AND THE SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

SENATOR MIKE BRAUN, WHO VOTED AGAINST THE PACKAGE, ISSUED A SIMPLE STATEMENT, CALLING THE SPENDING BILL A “DISGRACE” THAT SPENDS MORE MONEY ON “SWAMP EARMARKS” THAN HELP FOR UKRAINE.

CHRIS MITCHEM, TODD YOUNG VOTED FOR A PACKAGE THAT MIKE BRAUN SAID SPENDS ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLARS WE DON'T HAVE.

IS THAT GOING TO HURT HIM WITH CONSERVATIVE VOTERS?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

I THINK THAT QUESTION WOULD MEAN A LOT MORE IF TODD YOUNG HAD A PRIMARY COME MAY.

THE FACT THAT HE DOESN'T AND HE'S NOT REALLY PRESSURED TO NECESSARILY CATER TO THE FURTHER RIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, I THINK THAT MAKES THIS VOTE NOT TRULY IMPACTFUL IN THE LONG RUN.

VOTEERS LIKE TO HAVE A SHORT-TERM MEMORY, JON LIKES TO SAY.

COME NOVEMBER, TALKING POINT PRETTY LOW.

I THINK IT'S HARD TO CHALLENGE SOMEBODY WHO CAN SAY, YES, I VOTED TO SEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO WHAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE MOST -- CRISIS OF OUR GENERATION.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT BRAUN'S POINT, I UNDERSTAND, I'M STILL KIND OF PATIENTLY WAITING FOR SOMEBODY IN CONGRESS TO MAKE IT A BIG POINT OF SAYING THIS NATIONAL DEBT IS KIND OF GETTING OUT OF HAND.

YOU SEE THIS EXCESSIVE SPENDING BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, AND HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATS, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET THIS REINED IN, COME TO FRUITION, IMPACTING OUR GRANDCHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN'S CHILDREN.

IT IS GOING TO COME DUE EVENTUALLY.

I CAN SEE SENATOR BRAUN HAVING A BIGGER STAKE IN THIS, BEING HE OFFERED AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE CUT $8 BILLION IN THIS EARMARKED FUNDS THAT WOULD GO TO DIFFERENT THINGS.

ONE OF MY FAVORITE WAS IN THIS BILL THERE IS $1.8 MILLION GOING TO AQUA CULTURE EQUITY, I BELIEVE IT IS, WHICH I MEAN, COULD BE A PRIORITY TO SOME, TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE WHERE THEY WANT TAXES TO GO.

>> TODD YOUNG GETS TO SAY I HELPED UKRAINE AS WELL AS HIGHLIGHTED SOME OTHER SPENDING PRIORITIES THAT HE CARED B. MIKE BRAUN GETS TO SAY, WELL, THIS IS JUST WAY TOO MUCH MONEY, AND A TRILLION DOLLARS IS A LOT OF MONEY TO THE AVERAGE PERSON.

SO, IF YOU'RE MIKE BRAUN, ARE YOU WORRIED SOMEONE IS GOING TO CLUB YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH YOU DIDN'T HELP UKRAINE, SOMEBODY WHO WORKS FOR THE INDIANA -- >> AT THE END OF THE DAY MIKE BRAUN WOULDN'T HAVE VOTED ON ANYTHING THAT COST MORE THAN A DOLLAR IN D.C.

WHEN IT COMES TO TODD YOUNG, McDERMOTT IS CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO MAKE THIS AN ISSUE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

THIS IS NOW NINE TRILLION DOLLARS THAT TODD YOUNG OVERSAW IN CONGESS IN THE SENATE THAT HE ALLOWED TO BE ADDED TO THE DEBT.

SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, CHRIS, I HEAR YOU, BUT THE REPUBLICANS LITERALLY TRIED TO HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO ON THIS ISSUE, EVERY SINGLE TIME A DEMOCRAT IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, THEY'RE ALL QUIET WHEN A REPUBLICAN IS HANGING OUT IN THERE.

THE MOMENT A DEMOCRAT GETS ONBOARD THEY'RE ALL SCREAMING ABOUT IT.

THAT IS POLITICAL STUNTS AND PARTISANSHIP.

>> HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THE VOTES WERE TODD YOUNG NOT HAVING A PRIMARY AND MIKE YOUNG NOT HAVING TO RUN FOR ANYTHING FOR A COUPLE MORE YEARS?

>> I'M NOT SURE IT REALLY MATTERS THAT MUCH.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 1.5 TRILLION, YOU CAN FIND A LOT IN A BILL YOU LIKE, AND EASILY FIND STUFF YOU DON'T LIKE.

IT IS JUST SORT OF THE WEIGHT YOU WANT TO GIVE IT.

OBVIOUSLY THE UKRAINE MONEY WAS IMPORTANT, BUT LESS THAN 1%.

$15 BILLION IS A LOT, NOT COMPARED TO 1.5 TRILLION.

>> WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THESE MASSIVE SPENDING PACKAGES, YES, UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND GOING BACK FURTHER.

HOW MUCH IS THE AVERAGE AMERICAN STARTING TO JUST TUNE OUT TRILLION DOLLARS -- BILLION OR TRILLION DOLLAR SPENDING PACKAGE AFTER SPENDING PACKAGE.

>> THEY MAY BE TUNING OUT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

I THINK THEY SEIZE ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS.

THEY ARE ON UKRAINE.

ANOTHER ONE, IT IS A TINY FRACTION, I COULD SEE VETERANS SAYING THIS IS THE FIRST FUNDING WE HAVE HAD TO CLEAN UP TOXINS AND CARCINOGENS AROUND MILITARY BASES, BURN PITS, GEE, MIKE BRAUN, YOU VOTED AGAINST THAT, WHAT ABOUT AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

YOU CAN PLAY THAT GAME.

THE BIGGER ISSUE, PURELY POLITICAL, AND IT'S THE SLOGAN GAME IS THE NOTION -- WE SAW IT WITH REFERENCES TO SWAMP, EARMARKS GENERALLY, YOU CAN CALL EARMARKS PORK BARREL, YOU CAN CALL THEM LINING YOUR OWN POCKETS, ACTUALLY THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SAY WE DESPERATELY NEED WHAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS RETURN TO DIRECT FUNDING, BECAUSE THAT'S SORT OF THE OIL THAT MAKES THE PROCESS WORK.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, I KNOW, PEOPLE WOULD MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE WHO STUDY THIS, THEY ARE SMART PEOPLE, WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THEM.

AND A LOT OF FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, TOO.

THEY'RE VIEWERS OF THIS SHOW, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.

THE BAN IN 2011 ON EARMARKS REALLY CONTRIBUTED A GREAT DEAL TO THE GRIDLOCK THAT HAS SO FRUSTRATED THE AMERICAN MRIVENLTH NOW THERE ARE RULES.

DON'T JUST SAY IT'S SWAMP.

YOU HAVE A NEW LAYER OF TRANSPARENCY, THEY HAVE TO BE -- HAVE SPONSORS ATTACHED TO THEM, THEY HAVE TO BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE.

THERE ARE LIMITS ON THEM IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL FUNDING PERSONAL.

LIMITS ON HOW MANY EACH MEMBER CAN REQUEST.

IT'S NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER'S OR FATHER'S EARMARK.

AND WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT.

BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY MAKE -- WELL, IT DID.

WE HAVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, THIS WENT THROUGH ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, AND IT WOULDN'T WITHOUT THE EARMARKS.

>> IT ADDS INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING IN THE REGION.

SO THERE IS SOME DIRECT BENEFIT ALREADY HAPPENING IN INDIANA.

IT'S BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN -- CREDIT TO TODD YOUNG, TOO.

THEY DELIVERED INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING TO THE STATE.

>> HIS AMENDMENT THAT HIS STAFF WENT THROUGH AND EARMARKED $8 BILLION, THAT IS STILL NOT EVEN A FRACTION OF THE PERSONAL OF THIS ONE TRILLION DOLLARS WAS.

IMAGINE WHAT OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN THERE -- I THINK WE NEED TO BE KIND OF CALLING FOR INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY TO OUR PARTNERS.

>> IF YOU'RE ON THE SHORT END OF THE AQUA CULTURE, THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.

>> THE SENATE PASSED A BILL THIS WEEK THAT WOULD MAKE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME PERMANENT ACROSS THE U.S. BEGINNING IN 2023.

THE SO-CALLED SUNSHINE PROTECTION ACT OF 2021 WAS APPROVED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT - MEANING NO RECORDED VOTE - BUT WOULD STILL REQUIRE HOUSE APPROVAL AND PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SIGNATURE TO BECOME LAW.

>> DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME CURRENTLY MAKES UP ROUGHLY EIGHT MONTHS OF THE YEAR, WITH THE REMAINDER CALLED STANDARD TIME.

IT BEGAN AS A BID TO PACK MORE HOURS OF SUNLIGHT INTO THE DAY DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS AND CUT DOWN ON ENERGY USE, THOUGH CRITICS QUESTION HOW EFFECTIVE IT'S BEEN TOWARD THAT GOAL.

INSTEAD, HEALTH EXPERTS SAY SWITCHING OUR CLOCKS TWICE A YEAR HAS LED TO AN UPTICK IN SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS.

AN ECONOMIST/YOUGOV POLL FROM LAST FALL FOUND THAT 63% OF U.S.

ADULTS WANT TO ELIMINATE THE BIANNUAL CHANGING OF CLOCKS.

IT ALSO FOUND THAT MORE PEOPLE SUPPORT INSTITUTING DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME PERMANENTLY RATHER THAN STANDARD TIME.

>> JON SCHWANTES, WE'RE IN INDIANA, I FELT COMPELLED BY LAW, IS THIS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME?

>> WE'VE WRESTLED WITH THIS SINCE WORLD WAR I, ONE DIRECTION AND ANOTHER.

YOU HAVE TO DIVIDE THE ISSUE, IF THIS IS ABOUT CHANGING THE CLOCK TWICE A YEAR.

MOST EVERYBODY SAYS, LET'S GET RID OF THAT, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT TRAFFIC FATALITY DATA THERE IS A SPIKE, IF YOU LOOK AT CRIME -- WE DON'T DO WELL WHEN WE GET OFF SCHEDULE FOR EVEN AN HOUR, APPARENTLY, AS HUMAN BEINGS.

THE BIGGER DEBATE IS WHETHER WE ARE -- SHOULD STAY ON STANDARD TIME OR DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME.

I'M A NIGHT OWL, I'M A DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME.

A LOT OF THE EDUCATION COMMUNITY, PHYSICIANS, I THINK YOU LOOK AT -- MOST MEDICAL GROUPS ARE GOING TO COME OUT AND NEVER MIND SLEEP SPECIALISTS WHO ARE CRYING FOUL HERE, THEY SAY THAT THE BODY WILL RELEASE WHATEVER CAUSES US TO DO WHAT WE DO AS HUMANS IS MUCH MORE AKIN TO THE STANDARD SCHEDULE.

SO, AND THEY SAY THEY WEREN'T CONSULTED BEFORE -- >> I DON'T THINK -- >> APPARENTLY NO ONE WAS.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO WEIGH IN NOW.

THERE IS THREE DEBATES.

AN OPTION -- THIS OPTION, IS IT GOING -- NO CHANGES, BUT GOING WITH STANDARD, OR LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS, WHO KNOWS WHERE -- >> TO THAT POINT, LET'S SAY -- WHICH DEBATE DO WE NEED TO HAVE FIRST?

>> THE FACT IS THAT FOR MOST OF THE COUNTRY, THERE ISN'T MUCH OF A DEBATE.

WE ARE VERY PARTICULAR WE'RE ON THE EDGE OF A TIME ZONE.

MOST PEOPLE WOULD BE GREAT, I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE MY CLOCKS TWICE A YEAR, PERFECT.

WE LOVE THIS.

BUT INDIANA IS IN A WEIRD POSITION.

SO THEN WE GO TO THE SECOND PART, WHICH IS DO WE WANT TO WAKE UP IN THE MORNING WHEN IT'S DARK LITERALLY ALL THE TIME, LIKE IT IS NOT GOING TO BE LIGHT UNTIL LIKE 9:00 A.M.?

OR DO WE WANT TO -- >> HAVE A LATE -- >> 10:00 P.M. SUNSET.

AND IT BECOMES VERY PARTICULAR TO JUST YOUR OWN -- YOU SAID YOU'RE A NIGHT OWL, SO YOU WOULD LIKE ONE WAY.

NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

>> THAT IS RIGHT IN THIS CASE.

GENERALLY SPEAKING.

>> IS THE SECOND PART OF THE DEBATE, WHICH TO CHOOSE IF WE STOP CHANGES CLOCKS, GOING TO STOP THE FIRST ONE FROM EVEN HAPPENING BECAUSE NOBODY CAN AGREE ON THE SECOND PART WE WON'T DO THE FIRST PART.

>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, LET'S REMIND OURSELVES, NIKI, YOU WERE COVERING THE STATEHOUSE, AND YOU MAY HAVE, TOO, BRANDON, WE DIDN'T SWITCH OUR CLOCKS UP UNTIL 2005, WHO MADE IT A PRIORITY?

MITCH DANIELS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THE DEBATE IS NOT JUST ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE STICK WITH DAYLIGHT SAVINGS OR STANDARD TIME, IT IS DO WE WANT EASTERN TIME OR CENTRAL TIME?

BECAUSE PERSONALLY, CENTRAL TIME IS WHERE IT'S AT, ESPECIALLY FOR MARCH MADNESS DAYS.

>> AS A PERSON FROM SOUTHWEST INDIANA, CENTRAL TIME IS GOD'S TIME ZONE.

>> I'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

>> I'M AN EARLY BIRD -- >> AS A CHICAGOAN, MOVING HERE TO EASTERN TIME, THAT WAS MAYBE THE BIGGEST ADJUSTMENT I HAD TO MAKE.

IT'S NOT GREAT.

SO THEN MY QUESTION TO YOU THEN, I THINK I KNOW YOUR ANSWER OBVIOUSLY ALREADY.

BUT IF THEY MADE -- WHETHER THEY MAKE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME OR PS THAT'S THE CHANGE THAT THE CONGRESS MAKES, DOES INDIANA NEED TO HAVE A SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT WHICH TIME ZONE TO BE IN?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

IF YOU HAVE THAT CHANGE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THAT'S AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO KIND OF TRIGGER A DISCUSSION YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AT STATE LEVEL.

>> THAT'S A COUNTY BY COUNTY DECISION, THAT'S THE WAY IT'S HANDLED RIGHT NOW.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD CHANGE WITH THE STATE HAVE TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION?

>> I'M NOT SURE THEY CAN.

RIGHT NOW DON'T YOU HAVE TO PETITION THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THEM TO SWITCH IT.

>> PROBABLY AMENABLE TO THAT.

ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO COVERING SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> NO, NO.

>> I WASN'T HERE FOR THAT.

>> IT WAS CRAZY.

GOD BLESS TROY WOODRUFF WHO LOST HIS SEAT BECAUSE OF THAT WHOLE THING.

>> I SAW PEOPLE BREAK OUT GRAPHS OF THE STATE.

>> THE COWS HAVE FINALLY GOTTEN USED TO IT.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO -- >> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA'S OFFICE SPENT ABOUT $2,400 SENDING TWO STAFFERS AND ROKITA TO A TEXAS BORDER BRIEFING IN JANUARY, NEW RECORDS SHOW.

IN A STORY THIS WEEK BY THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE'S NIKI KELLY, THE COSTS INCLUDE FLIGHTS, GAS, A RENTAL CAR, HOTELS, A PHONE CHARGER AND A NEW TIRE.

ROKITA'S SON WAS ON AT LEAST PART OF THE TRIP, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTENDED A RALLY BY FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WHILE DRIVING BACK TO INDIANA.

>> THE JOURNAL GAZETTE REPORTS THAT THE AG'S OFFICE SAYS NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS WERE SPENT ON ROKITA'S SON, WITH ROKITA PAYING FOR ALL EXPENSES RELATED TO HIS PRESENCE.

ROKITA, ALONG WITH ABOUT A DOZEN OTHER REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL, WENT TO TEXAS IN LATE JANUARY AT THE INVITATION OF THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS FOR A “BORDER SECURITY BRIEFING.” AND WHILE THERE, ROKITA FINALIZED AND ANNOUNCED A MULTISTATE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE BIDEN'S ADMINISTRATION'S HANDLING OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.

BUT SOME HAVE CRITICIZED THE AG FOR SPENDING TAX DOLLARS ON A TRIP STATES AWAY FROM INDIANA AND ON A TOPIC THAT'S LARGELY FEDERAL.

ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE JOURNAL GAZETTE, ROKITA DROVE A STATE VEHICLE DOWN TO TEXAS WHILE ONE STAFFER RODE WITH HIM AND ANOTHER TOOK A ROUND-TRIP FLIGHT COSTING $628.

>> NIKI KELLY, DO THESE NEW DETAILS YOU UNCOVERED SHED MORE LIGHT ON WHETHER ROKITA'S TRIP WAS APPROPRIATE?

>> NOT REALLY.

YEAH, THEY GIVE US THE EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNTS.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK YOU EITHER FEEL LIKE HE WAS DOING SOME WORK DOWN THERE, HE FILED A LAWSUIT WHILE HE WAS DOWN THERE.

IF YOU -- >> HE WAS UNQUESTIONABLY DOING A LOT OF OFFICIAL WORK.

>> RIGHT.

AND I THINK HAD THE SON NOT BE INVOLVED AND I THINK THE TRUMP RALLY.

IF HE WENT TO A BORDER BRIEFING AND COME BACK.

I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD HAVE HAD A LOT OF SERIOUS OFFENSE TO IT.

BUT WHEN YOU ADD THOSE THINGS IN, AND DOES HE NEED TWO STAFFERS WITH HIM.

IT STARTS TO ADD TO THE QUESTION.

>> JON SCHWANTES, DO VOTERS CARE MUCH ABOUT THIS ANYMORE?

FEELS LIKE THEY USED TO CARE MORE?

DO THEY STILL?

>> DEPENDS ON HOW IT IS FRAMED, AND THE WHEREWITHAL OF THE CRITIC TO BRING IT TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION IN A WAY THEY UNDERSTAND AND CAN BECOME OUTRAGED.

IF YOU HAVE CRITICS WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, OR MORE LIKELY CRITICS ACROSS THE AISLE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHO SEE IT IS OF VALUE TO RUN A SPOT THAT SAYS, YOU CAN JUST SEE THE TAX TICKER GOING HERE, WHAT IT COSTS.

AND THEN A LITTLE CAR WITH A LITTLE THING TOOLING DOWN THE ROAD, AND DETOUR TO A TRUMP RALLY, AND OH, SON, COME ALONG, A LOT OF IDEA.

IF YOU DO THAT WITH A LITTLE MATCH BOX CARS, THAT, I THINK -- PEOPLE SEIZE ON WHAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND.

AND REALLY THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY THE OPPONENTS, WILL THEY FRAME IT THE WAY THE PLUCK CAN SEE IT OR NOT.

>> PART OF THE STATEMENT IN NIKI'S STORY, THE FACT THAT HIS SON WENT ALONG IS SORT OF LIKE A PHILOSOPHY IN THE OFFICE OF FAMILY FIRST -- >> YOU CAN'T LIKE DISREGARD THAT.

YOU CAN'T LIKE TALK DOWN UPON THAT.

GRANTED -- >> DOES THAT SHIELD HIM OF ANY CRITICISM?

>> I THINK THE QUESTION COMES IN WHENEVER YOU'RE USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON YOUR SON, WHICH THEY DIDN'T.

>> THEY DIDN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE DID HE STAY IN THE HOTEL ROOM THAT WAS PAID FOR, WE STILL DON'T KNOW THAT.

>> ALL THIS, ULTIMATELY, IF THIS WAS HIS OWN PREROGATIVE, HE WAS ULTIMATELY INVITED BY A GOVERNOR OF THEIR STATE THAT WAS IN CHARGE OF BASICALLY COORDINATING -- >> WASN'T JUST HIM, IT WAS CONTINUES GENERAL.

>> YOU CAN CRITICIZE, DID HE USE TAX MONEY, THE ULTIMATE TRIP, THE LARGE MAJORITY, I THINK IT IS JUSTIFIED.

HE WAS INVITED IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY.

>> HE NEEDS TO MAY IT BACK -- >> ALL OF IT.

>> IT'S $2,500.

HE NEEDS TO PAY IT BACK.

>> IT'S $2,500.

>> THIS PARTY KEEPS SHOWING HOOSIERS -- >> HOW LONG.

>> THIS PARTY KEEPS SHOWING HOOSIERS THAT THEY'RE THE TAM FAYE JIM BAKER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

THEY'RE GRIFTERS, THEY LITERALLY ARE ALL ABOUT CULTURE WARS AND TALKING POINTS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM EVERY SINGLE TIME.

IF THE SHOE WERE ON THE OTHER FOOT AND IT WERE A DEMOCRAT, WE ALL KNOW THE REPUBLICANS NOT ONLY WOULD HAVE BASICALLY LIT THEMSELVES ON FIRE, THEY WOULD BE TRAVELING THE STATE TALKING ABOUT IT.

>> FINALLY, MARCH MADNESS IS UPON US, SO IT'S TIME TO ASK FOR TWO PREDICTIONS.

FIRST, WHO WINS THE MEN'S TOURNAMENT?

AND THEN, CAN THE THREE-SEED I-U WOMEN'S TEAM >> I HAVE PURDUE IN THE FINAL FOUR, BEAT BY CHAMPIONS GONZAGA.

>> GONZAGA IS A GOOD TEAM.

>> PURDUE I THINK CAN -- >> CAN.

>> FINAL FOUR.

>> 360.

>> YES.

THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT DREW ANDERSON.

REPUBLICAN CHRIS MITCHEM.

JON SCHWANTES OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

AND NIKI KELLY OF THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS PROGRAM YOU CAN FIND IT AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR STARTING MONDAY YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET IT ON DEMAND FROM XFINITY AND ON THE WFYI APP.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE >> THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

"INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" IS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDIANA'S PUBLIC