♪♪ >> IS CONTROVERSIAL SCHOOL >> IS CONTROVERSIAL SCHOOL CURRICULUM LEGISLATION DEAD?

A SENATE GUN BILL WITH A TWIST.

PLUS, A CARBON CAPTURE MEASURE AND MORE ON INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING JANUARY 21, 2022.

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

THIS WEEK, ADVOCATES REPRESENTING BLACK HOOSIERS, TEACHERS AND OTHER EDUCATION GROUPS CALLED FOR LAWMAKERS TO VOTE NO ON A CONTROVERSIAL SCHOOL CURRICULUM BILL.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S JEANIE LINDSAY REPORTS, THEY GATHERED IN THE STATEHOUSE TO FURTHER CONDEMN LEGISLATION MANY OF THEM SAY IS RACIST AND DIVISIVE.

>> SENATE REPUBLICANS WILL NO LONGER CONSIDER SENATE BILL 167 - THAT'S THE CONTROVERSIAL SCHOOL CURRICULUM BILL THAT WOULD PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON HOW SCHOOLS TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE RACISM AND POLITICS.

BUT A HOUSE COMMITTEE MADE CHANGES TO AND APPROVED HOUSE BILL 1134 LAST WEEK, WHICH IS NEARLY IDENTICAL.

MARSHAWN WOLLEY SPOKE AGAINST THE BILLS IN COMMITTEE.

HE SAYS THE VOICES OF BLACK HOOSIERS WEREN'T CONSIDERED AS LAWMAKERS WROTE THE LEGISLATION, AND SUGGESTIONS FROM WOLLEY AND OTHERS ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

>> MARSHAWN WOLLEY: AND SO WE'RE HERE NOW TALKING A LITTLE BIT LOUDER BECAUSE WE WEREN'T HEARD WHEN WE TRIED TO ENGAGE IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

>> THE REMAINING BILL IS STILL WAITING TO BE HEARD ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

>> WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM BILLS?

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

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY.

REPUBLICAN JENNIFER HALLOWELL.

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.

>> WITH ALL THE PRESSURE FROM WITH CONSTITUENTS, ARE LAWMAKERS REALLY GOING TO PUT THIS ISSUE TO BED?

>> FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BACKGROUND OF THIS BILL.

IT COMES ON THE HEELS OF A YEAR OF INCH PUT FROM CONSTITUENTS AND A LOT OF STORIES FROM STUDENTS ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN SOME CLASSROOMS ACROSS THE STATE, DIVISIVE CONCEPTS AND EXERCISES THAT SOME EDUCATORS, AND I WOULD SAY A VERY SMALL NUMBER, WERE ENGAGING IN.

BUT THE GOAL OF THE BILL IS TO BRING GREATER TRANSPARENCY AROUND SCHOOL CURRICULUM, AND TO ENCOURAGE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

THE CORE, EDUCATORS CAN'T TEACH, ONE, SEX, RACE, CREED IS SUPERIOR AND A CHILD SHOULDN'T BE BLAMED OR SHAMED BASED ON TERRIBLE ACTS OF SOMEONE WHO HAPPENS TO BE OF THE SAME RACE, GENDER, SEX, CREED, ET CETERA.

THOSE ARE ALL THINGS, AND THERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR PRINCIPLES IN THIS BILL THAT I WOULD THINK WE COULD ALL AGREE ON.

NOW, THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY ONEROUS FOR TEACHERS AND EDUCATORS, AND I THINK SOME OF THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHANGED.

AND I EXPECT THAT THE BILL IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO CHANGE THROUGH THE PROCESS.

BUT A LOT OF THE NARRATIVE AROUND THIS IS FULL OF INACCURACIES, I'VE SEEN ALL OVER FACEBOOK INACCURACIES.

SO I GUESS ONE THING I WOULD SAY, WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

IT'S EARLY IN THE PROCESS, AND I EXPECT THAT IT WILL CHANGE.

BUT IT'S HARD -- AND THEY ARE LISTENING, THERE IS A LOT OF INPUT COMING FROM STUDENTS, FROM PARENTS, FROM EDUCATORS, FROM ADMINISTRATORS, AND LEGISLATORS ARE LISTENING TO THAT INPUT AND ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS THIS BILL MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS.

>> ANN DeLANEY, THE CORE CONCEPTS OF THE BILL THAT JENNIFER HALLOWELL JUST TALKED ABOUT, IF THE BILL REALLY IS STRIPPED DOWN TO JUST THOSE VERY BASIC THINGS, IS THAT A PROBLEM?

>> OH, I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS STEMS FROM THE COMPLETELY MANUFACTURED ARGUMENT THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING TO THEIR PRIMARY VOTERS, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, ABOUT THEIR PRIMARIES, NOW, CALLED CRITICAL RACE THEORY, WHICH EVERYBODY AGREES IS NOT BEING TAUGHT, NOT BEING TAUGHT.

REMINDS ME OF THE DEBATE WE HAD YEARS AGO OF WHETHER SHARIA LAW WAS GOING TO BE TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS.

IT IS ANOTHER MANUFACTURED REPUBLICAN ISSUE -- STIR UP THEIR BASE AND MAKE THEM ANGRY.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND IT IS POORLY THOUGHT OUT, IT'S POORLY IMPLEMENTED.

YOU KNOW, THE IDEA EVEN WITH THE ONEROUS PROVISIONS THAT ARE ON FEATURES ABOUT POSTING EVERYTHING THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT DAY WITHIN SO MANY HOURS, ALL THAT NONSENSE IN THERE, THE OTHER PART OF IT IS HOW DO YOU EFFECTIVELY MAKE A PRO CASE FOR SLAVERY, OR A PRO CASE FOR NAZIISM, OR A PRO CASE FOR FASCISM.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT -- >> THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING THE EVEN -- AND SUPPOSED TO NOT HAVE ANY OF THEIR VIEWS OF THIS EXPRESSED.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BACK AND FORTH DEBATE ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ISSUES, THEY CAN'T EVEN DEFINE HOW THAT IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE, AND ALL THIS IS ABOUT ARE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES IN 2022, THAT'S WHY ISSUES LIKE THESE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT THEY MANUFACTURE COME UP IN ELECTION YEARS.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

BUT THEY'RE DOING DAMAGE, AND EVEN INCLUDING UNIVERSITIES IN THIS.

IT ISN'T JUST K-12.

THEY'RE TRYING TO CONTROL THE RHETORIC IN UNIVERSITIES IN THIS STATE.

THEY'RE MAKING US A LAUGHINGSTOCK OF ALL THE STATES IN THE UNION.

THEY'RE MOCKING US ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, BECAUSE OF THIS ILL-THOUGHT OUTSIDE IDEA.

WE DON'T PAY TEACHERS ENOUGH AND CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS EVERY SIX MONTHS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS FACTOR IN.

IT ISN'T ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, ABOUT PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

ABOUT REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM, THIS BILL DOES NOT SAY YOU HAVE TO MAKE A PRO CASE FOR THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT SAYS TEACH THE FACTS, AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE TEACHING OF HISTORICAL INJUSTICES.

IT DOES NOT SAY TRY TO GIVE BOTH SIDES ON SLAVERY AND COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

>> WHY COULDN'T THE AUTHOR -- >> I WANT TO MOVE ON.

JON SCHWANTES, JENNIFER TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS COMES OUT OF, WE SAW A LOT OF PARENT ANGER OVER THE LAST YEAR IN INDIANA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND WE HAVE PERHAPS ISOLATED ASSISTANTS WHERE TEACHERS WERE NOT DOING WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING IN A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT.

BUT IF THIS IS REALLY ABOUT ISOLATED INCIDENTS, WHY DO WE NEED AN ENTIRE BILL FOR IT?

>> THAT'S A STRONG ARGUMENT YOU MAKE, BRANDON.

WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T NEED A STATE LAW FOR ISOLATED INCIDENTS.

WE HAVE SOME TEACHERS WHO GO ASTRAY IN INDIANA AND 49 OTHER STATES, I'M SURE, FROM TIME TO TIME.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT SHOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHOLESALE CANGES IN THE WAY THAT CURRICULA ARE DEVELOPED OR EXECUTED.

YOU KNOW, AND I THINK IN SOME CASES, SURE, WE'VE TALKED TO LAWMAKERS WHO SAY THAT SOME OF THEIR STRENGTHS CAME UP -- OR PRESENTED THEM WITH EXERCISES, OR WORKSHEETS, AND SO FORTH THEY VIEWED AS PROBLEMATIC.

I THINK A LOT OF THIS WAS PROBABLY IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT THIS REALISTICALLY WAS FANNED BY MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, MEDIA ORGANIZATION, FOX AND ITS ILK.

SO I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE MAYBE WENT LOOKING FOR THESE PARENTS, WENT LOOKING FOR THIS, AND IN THEIR MINDS MAY HAVE FOUND IT.

BUT I THINK THIS IS NOT JUST POPPING UP IN INDIANA.

THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE, TO PICK YOUR STATE, TEXAS, NAME IT.

AND I THINK IT'S -- I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF PARTISAN POLITICS HERE AND A LOT OF ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE AND ENERGIZE CERTAIN FACTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

>> NIKI KELLY WE TALKED TO SENATOR RODRIC BRAY THIS WEEK, THEY KILLED OFF 167, 1134 IN THE HOUSE IS STILL ALIVE, HASN'T BEEN ACTED ON IN PART BECAUSE THAT BILL'S AUTHOR UNFORTUNATELY LOST HIS FATHER THIS WEEK.

WHAT DID SENATOR BRAY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS ISSUE'S FUTURE IN THIS SESSION?

>> IT'S FUNNY, THEY PUT OUT THIS ONE SENTENCE SAYING THERE IS NO PATH FORWARD ON 167, BUT YET HE WAS PRETTY OPEN TO 1134, AND THEY'RE VIRTUALLY THE SAME.

SO I THINK SOME OF IT WILL DEPEND ON SOME AMENDMENTS WE MIGHT SEE THIS WEEK ON 1134.

I ALSO THINK THERE IS PROBABLY SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THE SENATE SITTING DOWN AND SAYING, OKAY, SENATOR BALDWIN, WHO IS THE AUTHOR IN THE SENATE, KIND OF BECAME THIS NATIONAL JOKE BECAUSE HE SAID WE SHOULD TEACH NAZIISM IN A NEUTRAL MANNER.

SO MAYBE THIS WAY THAT GETS HIM OUT OF THE STORY SO WE CAN FOCUS MORE ON THE BILL INSTEAD OF THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WELL, A SENATE COMMITTEE HEARD LEGISLATION THIS WEEK THAT ALMOST ENTIRELY ELIMINATES THE LICENSE REQUIREMENT TO CARRY A HANDGUN IN PUBLIC.

AND IT DIFFERS FROM A SIMILAR HOUSE BILL IN SOME KEY WAYS.

>> FOR ONE, THE SENATE BILL WOULD KEEP IN PLACE THE LICENSE REQUIREMENT FOR HOOSIERS AGE 18 TO 20.

IT ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDS THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO POSSESS A HANDGUN AT ALL.

AND THOSE DIFFERENCES HAVE SOME PRO-GUN GROUPS OPPOSING THE MEASURE.

WILL FITE IS WITH HOOSIER GUN RIGHTS.

>> WILL FITE: THE ERA OF HALF MEASURES AND PUTTING ONE'S NAME ON A BILL FOR A CHEAP POLITICAL VICTORY - THAT'S OVER.

THESE PEOPLE WANT THEIR RIGHTS RESTORED NOW.

>> PEOPLE WHO, UNDER THE BILL, WOULD NOW BE BARRED FROM EVEN HAVING A HANDGUN IN THEIR HOME INCLUDES PEOPLE WITH RECORDS AS “ALCOHOL ABUSERS.” THAT MEANS HAVING AT LEAST TWO ALCOHOL-RELATED OFFENSES, WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THEM WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

IT ALSO ADDS PEOPLE CONVICTED OF MISDEMEANOR RESISTING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THOSE CONVICTED OF ILLEGALLY CARRYING A HANDGUN IN PUBLIC WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

WHETHER THE BILL WILL GET A VOTE IN COMMITTEE IS UNDECIDED.

COMMITTEE CHAIR LIZ BROWN SAYS THE SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS WILL DISCUSS THE MEASURE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO DETERMINE ITS FUTURE.

>> ANN DELANEY, I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE ELIMINATING THE LICENSES.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT ON PAST SESSIONS AND SHOWS.

BUT CONSIDERING THE WAY THE BILL EXPANDS THE LIST OF PEOPLE PROHIBITED FROM HAVING A GUN AT ALL, DO YOU SUPPORT IT?

>> NO.

NO.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO ENFORCE THAT PROVISION.

I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE LICENSES FOR THIS, HOW DO YOU KNOW AT GUN SHOWS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE PERSON IN FRONT OF YOU BUYING THE GUN HAS HAD A MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION IN THE LAST THREE YEARS FOR AN ALCOHOL OFFENSE?

THE ANSWER IS THIS IS SHOW IS ALL IT IS AS FAR AS THE RESTRICTIONS ARE CONCERNED.

WE HAVE AN EXPLOSION OF FIREARMS IN THIS STATE, AN EXPLOSION.

WHEN THEY FIRST TOOK THE LICENSING PROVISION, OR SCALED IT BACK, I SHOULD SAY, IT WAS GOING TO COST THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT THREE MILLION A YEAR.

NOW IT'S GOING TO COST 10 MILLION A YEAR.

NOW THEY'RE MAKING IT UP FROM STATE FUNDS, OKAY.

BUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF GUNS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, AND YOU KNOW WHAT'S AMAZING ABOUT THIS?

THE REPUBLICANS DON'T SEE ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN HAND GUNS FOR EVERYBODY INCLUDING CARRYING CONCEALED, CARRYING IT OPEN.

WE PROBABLY HAVE HOLSTERS BEING SOLD NEXT SO PEOPLE CAN THINK THEY'RE IN THE WILD WEST.

THEY DON'T SEE ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT AND THE MURDER RATE.

THAT'S WHAT A GOING ON HERE.

WE HAVE MORE GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY THAN PEOPLE BY A MULTIPLE FACTOR.

AND THAT IS FRIGHTENING.

ONE THING GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO, IT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US.

THIS ISN'T GOING TO -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE FOR THIS, YOU COULD HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, YOU CAN PROBABLY BE A CONVICTED FELON AND PICK A GUN UP ANYWHERE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET A LICENSE FOR IT ANYMORE.

THESE KINDS HE HAVE THINGS ARE ENDANGERING CITIZENS AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE MURDER RATE, AND IT IS COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE ON THE PART OF BOTH THE NRA AND THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS TO KEEP CATERING TO EACH OTHER.

NEXT THEY'RE GOING TO ISSUE WITH NEW BABIES INSTEAD OF RATTLES, THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM GUNS, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY SEE THIS COUNTRY GOING FORWARD IS EVERYBODY ARMED TO THE TEETH AND FREE TO SHOOT AT WILL, AND IT IS FRIGHTENING.

>> IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE LICENSE TO CARRY A HANDGUN AND BEING ABLE TO BUY A HANDGUN ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE DON'T ENFORCE THAT.

YOU CAN BUY THEM AT SHOWS EASILY.

>> JENNIFER, WE SAW LAST YEAR A VERY SIMILAR BILL COME OUT OF THE HOUSE THAT ELIMINATED THE LICENSE REQUIREMENT TO CARRY A HANDGUN.

AND IT WAS PUT -- IT WAS KILLED BY THE SENATE.

DO YOU SEE THAT GOING DIFFERENTLY THIS YEAR?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S HARD TO PREDICT.

I MEAN, CERTAINLY ON ANN'S POINT, PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO MURDER PEOPLE AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT WHAT OUR LAST ARE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE ARE DIFFERING OPINIONS.

AND AMONG REPUBLICANS ON THIS ISSUE.

SO YOU HAVE SECOND AMENDMENT ADVOCATES WHO BELIEVE IT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AND DON'T ACCEPT GOING THROUGH ANY SORT OF PERMITTING OR LICENSING PROCESS.

YOU HAVE OTHERS WHO WILL SAY THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN THAT IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REQUIRE A LICENSE OR A PERMIT.

AD THEN WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO FRANKLY ARE ALSO SPLIT.

YOU HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS -- THAT THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS THAT SOMETIMES ALLOWS THEM TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, WHO MAYBE A RISK TO THEIR OWN OR OTHER SAFETY.

AND ALSO -- IN INSTANCES WHEN THEY WOULD BE ENCOUNTERING A PERSON.

AGAIN, YOU HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO ARE SUPPORTIVE.

IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE FOR ALL THOSE REASONS.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL END UP.

>> NIKI KELLY, WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUE BECOMES LAW OR NOT THIS SESSION, IN THE SHORT TERM, DO YOU THINK IN TALKING TO EVERYBODY YOU'VE TALKED TO THIS WEEK, THE LIKELY SCENARIO IS THAT THIS SENATE BILL WILL JUST GO AWAY, AND THEY WILL ULTIMATELY JUST DEAL WITH THE HOUSE ONE?

>> YEAH, I MEAN, THE SENATE BILL, YOU KNOW, CURBS WHO CAN POSSESS A GUN, NOT WHO CAN CARRY A GUN, WHO CAN POSSESS A GUN EVEN IN THEIR HOME.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING ANYWHERE IN THE SENATE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING THAT THEY SEEN HEARD THAT BILL GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE BILL HAD ALREADY PASSED AND WAS OVER IN THE SENATE.

SO THEY HAVE A VENUE -- VEHICLE COMING.

ALSO, SENATOR TOM'S HAD AMENDMENTS TO GET RID OF THE OFFENDING LANGUAGE, AND SENATOR BROWN WOULD NOT LET HIM OFFER THEM.

SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW THE SENATE IS GOING TO GO.

ON ONE HAND YOU WOULD THINK, REPUBLICAN SUPERMAJORITY -- BUT LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION BACK AND FORTH IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SHOW ME THAT MAYBE NOT EVERYONE IS AS BIG A FAN OF THAT AS YOU THINK.

>> ALL RIGHT.

TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL QUESTION.

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION: WILL THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ELIMINATE INDIANA'S LICENSE REQUIREMENT TO CARRY A HANDGUN THIS YEAR?

A YES, OR B, NO.

LAST WEEK'S QUESTION: SHOULD LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES HAVE TO DECLARE A POLITICAL PARTY?

WE HAD MORE SUBMISSIONS TO THIS ONE THAN USUAL, AND JUST 12% OF YOU SAY YES, 88% SAY NO.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART IN THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.

A STATE HOUSE BILL WOULD SET UP A PERMIT PROGRAM TO ALLOW COMPANIES THAT POLLUTE TO CAPTURE CARBON EMISSIONS AND STORE THEM UNDERGROUND.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S REBECCA THIELE REPORTS THAT COULD CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMPANIES TO OFFSET THEIR EMISSIONS AND POSSIBLY RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

>> RIGHT NOW, THE STATE HAS ONLY APPROVED ONE COMPANY TO STORE ITS EMISSIONS UNDERGROUND.

BUT AFTER NEARLY THREE YEARS, THE PILOT PROJECT WITH WABASH VALLEY RESOURCES IN TERRE HAUTE STILL HASN'T MOVED FORWARD.

DAMIAN BILBAO IS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF US BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FOR BP.

HE SAYS THE BILL WOULD ALLOW OTHER INDUSTRIES TO INVEST IN CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE OR CCS.

>> DAMIAN BILBAO: SO A LARGE CCS PROJECT IN NORTHWEST INDIANA, WE BELIEVE, COULD EFFECTIVELY REDUCE THE EMISSIONS OF THE STATE ON A NET BASIS BY TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE STATE CAPITOL.

>> SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES SAY UNDERGROUND CARBON STORAGE DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SOURCE OF CO2 EMISSIONS AND HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER OR CAUSE EARTHQUAKES.

AFTER THE FACILITY IS CLOSED FOR A DECADE, THE STATE WOULD TAKE OWNERSHIP AND ASSUME LIABILITY FOR THE UNDERGROUND CO2.

>> JON SCHWANTES, SHOULD THERE BE CONCERN THE PILOT PROGRAM HASN'T EVEN MOVED FORWARD AND NOW THE STATE WOULD ALLOW OTHERS TO DO THIS?

>> I DO THINK THIS TECHNOLOGY -- I'M NO EXPERT, CERTAINLY -- HAS YET TO BE PROVED TO BE NOT ONLY EFFECTIVE, BUT ALSO PROVE TO BE SAFE IN THE LONG-TERM.

AND YOU CAN LOOK AT, FOR EVIDENCE OF THAT, NOT JUST AT WHAT'S HAPPENED INSIDE THE STATE OF INDIANA, BUT LOOK MORE BROADLY, YOU HAVE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WHICH BETWEEN 2010 AND 2017, EARMARKED UPWARDS OF A BILLION DOLLARS TO TEST SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS.

I THINK THE PLAN WAS FOR 11 SUCH TEST FACILITIES.

WELL, ONLY THREE WERE EVER BILLED.

AND ONE OF THOSE WAS CLOSED DOWN IN 2020.

SO I'M NO EXPERT, BUT AGAIN, IF THIS IS GREAT TECHNOLOGY WITH NO DOWNSIDE, WHY IS IT THAT ONLY 3 OF 11 GOT OFF THE DRAWING BOARD EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE FULLY FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEN ONE OF THOSE CLOSED?

I UNDERSTAND THEY APPEAL, CERTAINLY.

THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY.

IF THIS TECHNOLOGY WORKS, AND IF INDIANA'S AT THE FOREFRONT OF THIS NEW INDUSTRY, GREAT.

BUT I JUST MENTIONED TO IFS, IF IT WORKS, NOT ONLY SHORT TERM IN TERMS OF THE SEQUESTRATION, BUT ALSO THE LONGER TERM IMPACT IN TERMS OF GROUNDWATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT WE MAY NOT REALIZE FOR YEARS.

>> JENNIFER HALLOWELL, THE BILL SAYS TALKING ABOUT THAT LONG-TERM IMPACT, THAT OF COURSE NOBODY CAN REALLY KNOW AT THIS POINT.

TALKING ABOUT THAT LONGER TERM IMPACT, THE BILL WOULD MAKE IT SO THAT ULTIMATELY IT'S PERHAPS THE STATE THAT WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR LIABILITY IF THERE ARE LONG-TERM ISSUES, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE PUTTING INTO LAW?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

I MEAN, I KNOW THIS IS PART OF THE DISCUSSION A COUPLE YEARS AGO, OR AT LEAST SIMILARLY PART OF THE DISCUSSION, I THINK IT IS KIND OF HARD TO BALANCE THE APPEAL OF A TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD HELP US REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS WHICH I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD SUPPORT, BUT ALSO THE SAFETY AND THINGS -- SOMETHING THAT IS SO EXPERIMENTAL WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN YET.

I THINK WE SHOULD GO PRETTY SLOWLY INTO THAT AND BE INCREDIBLY CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE DETAILS.

>> ANN DeLANEY, SORT OF THE SAME QUESTION, PARTICULARLY THAT STATE LIABILITY PART OF THE BILL, JUST MAYBE A LITTLE TOO FAR?

>> I THINK IT IS, YES.

AND I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH JENNIFER.

THIS TECHNOLOGY IS EFFECTIVE TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS AND SAFE.

NOT JUST FOR THE GROUNDWATER, BUT FOR THE HOUSES AND THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THESE STORAGE UNITS.

THEN GREAT.

LET'S GO FOR IT.

BUT THE FACT AS JON POINTED OUT, IT'S PROCEEDING SO SLOWLY EVEN WITH FUNDING MAKES ME CONCERNED AT LEAST ABOUT THE SAFETY PART OF THIS ISSUE.

SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO SLOWLY, I DON'T THINK THE HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE WILL ENCOURAGE THOSE ENTITIES USING THIS TECHNOLOGY TO BE AS SAFE AS THEY COULD BE, IF THEY KNOW BACKUP IN THE STATE OF INDIANA.

ALL RIGHT.

LOCAL SCHOO BOARDS WILL BE FORCED TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT BY A BILL APPROVED BY AN INDIANA HOUSE COMMITTEE THIS WEEK.

THE MEASURE REQUIRES AT LEAST THREE MINUTES PER PERSON OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT EVERY IN-PERSON MEETING.

>> THE ORIGINAL BILL WOULD HAVE REQUIRED PUBLIC COMMENT AT MEETINGS OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF ANY STATE OR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY, LIKE CITY AND COUNTY COUNCILS.

BUT A CHANGE IN COMMITTEE LIMITED THE BILL TO JUST SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS.

BILL AUTHOR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE TIM O'BRIEN SAYS IT'S GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.

>> REP. TIM O'BRIEN (R-EVANSVILLE): THIS ALLOWS FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THEIR MEETINGS, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ANY PERSON WHO IS WILLFULLY DISRUPTIVE IN THE MEETING.

>> CONTENTIOUS SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS OVER THE LAST YEAR SAW SOME BOARDS LIMIT OR RESTRICT PUBLIC COMMENTS.

NO ONE FROM THE PUBLIC TESTIFIED ON THE BILL.

IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, NOW HEADING TO THE FULL HOUSE.

>> NIKI KELLY, IF THIS IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY, WHY PULL THE BILL BACK TO ONLY APPLY TO SCHOOL BOARDS?

>> YEAH, THAT WAS REALLY WEIRD, YOU KNOW, THE AUTHOR CAME IN AND IMMEDIATELY HAD THAT AMENDMENT.

IT WASN'T DISCUSSED REALLY IN ANY MANNER, CLEARLY IT MEANS THERE WAS OPPOSITION TO APPLYING THIS TO CITY COUNCILS, AND TOWN BOARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE PUBLIC POLICY EXPLANATION FOR THE ONLY ENTITY IN THE STATE THAT MUST BE IN LAW THAT THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT SCHOOL PUBLIC COMMENT IN SCHOOLS.

BECAUSE THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT EQUAL ACTION.

HECK, EVEN THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T HAVE THAT.

AND THANKFULLY THEY DO.

BUT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO.

>> JON SCHWANTES, WHETHER IT APPLIES TO SCHOOL BOARDS OR ANYBODY ELSE, IS THIS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY TO REQUIRE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT ANY MEETING LIKE THIS?

>> SEEMS TO ME KIND OF A NO-BRAINER THAT A PUBLIC ENTITY, A PUBLIC BOARD, ESPECIALLY ONE ELECTED SHOULD HEAR PUBLIC INPUT.

THEY'RE DOING THE PUBLIC'S BIDDING, DOING THE PUBLIC BUSINESS WITH THE PUBLIC'S MONEY.

SO LET'S START WITH THAT ASSUMPTION THAT THAT'S A GOOD THING.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS, HAS THAT SORT OF COME OFF THE RAILS IN THE PAST YEAR OR TWO WHERE PEOPLE HAVE -- IT'S GOTTEN VERY COMBATIVE AT MEETINGS, AND PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO BRING PROCEEDINGS TO A HALT WITH THEIR TESTIMONY.

AND WE TALK ABOUT THE FILIBUSTER IN THE U.S. SENATE.

I THINK IF IN FACT -- IF YOU TAKE THIS BILL LITERALLY, AND IT IS THREE MINUTES PER PERSON, AN ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN OF OPPOSITION TO ANYTHING COULD SEEMS TO ME ESSENTIALLY FILIBUSTER ANY ISSUE BEFORE A SCHOOL BOARD.

I MEAN, IF YOU WERE ORGANIZED AND COULD GET PEOPLE OUT, AT LEAST YOU WOULD BE VOTING AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING AT THE VERY LEAST.

SO PUTTING IN A SPECIFIC NUMBER ON IT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC, IT SEEMS TO ME.

>> JENNIFER, IF I HAD A NICKEL FOR EVERY TIME I'VE SEEN A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE LIMIT PUBLIC TESTIMONY TO LESS THAN THREE MINUTES PER PERSON, OR AT LEAST THE STATED GOAL, I WOULDN'T HAVE TO -- THIS SHOW ANYMORE.

WOULD THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BE HELPED HERE BY PERHAPS MAKING IT APPLY TO MORE THAN JUST SCHOOL BOARDS?

>> I THINK THE ISSUE IS I'VE NOT EVER HEARD OF AN EXAMPLE OF A CITY OR A COUNTY GOVERNMENT BODY NOT ALLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT.

BUT WE DO HAVE SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF SCHOOL BOARDS NOT ALLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE LAST YEAR.

SO I THINK IT IS SOLVING THE ONE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE SEEN EXIST.

>> AND ANN DeLANEY, FUNDAMENTALLY, IS THIS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY?

>> I THINK WHAT'S SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE, YOU KNOW -- IF THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SCHOOL BOARDS IT OUGHT TO BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERY ELECTED BODY.

AND I DON'T THINK THEY CAN MAKE THE CASE FOR WHY IT SHOULD BE ONLY SCHOOL BOARDS AND NOT THE REST OF THEM.

I'VE SEEN SOME PRETTY HEATED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, TOO.

IT JUST -- EITHER IT'S THE THREE MINUTES IS A GOOD THING FOR EVERYBODY OR IT IS NOT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

FINALLY, THE HOUSE IS MOVING LEGISLATION TO NAME THE MASTODON THE OFFICIAL STATE FOSSIL.

I'VE LEARNED THIS WEEK INDIANA IS ONLY FIVE STATES IN THE COUNTRY WITHOUT A STATE FOSSIL, WHICH I WOULD NOT HAVE GUESSED.

ANN DELANEY, WE'VE HAD THE OFFICIAL STATE INSECT, GUN, PLANE AND SNACK IN RECENT YEARS.

WHAT'S THE NEXT OFFICIAL STATE THING LAWMAKERS SHOULD DESIGNATE?

>> HOW ABOUT THE OFFICIL STATE EMBARRASSMENT?

I WOULD NOMINATE TODD ROKITA.

>> WE DIDN'T BRING HIM UP, AND YOU MANAGED TO FIND A WAY FOR TODD ROKITA TO COME INTO THIS WEEK'S SHOW.

>> BY THE WAY, ISN'T A MAST DONE THE RELATIVE OF THE ELEPHANT?

>> I THINK THEY ARE PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT RELATED.

I THINK THIS IS A BIG BOOST FOR PURDUE FORT WAYNE.

JENNIFER WHAT IS THE NEXT OFFICIAL.

>> HAVE WE MADE THE PORK TENDERLOIN THE EFFICIENT STATE SANDWICH.

>> YOU COULD GET A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THAT.

NIKI, NEXT OFFICIAL STATE THING?

>> STATE SPORT?

>> BASKETBALL.

>> THAT COULD GET -- >> OBVIOUSLY BASKETBALL.

JON SCHWANTES, REAL QUICK.

>> GOOD BEER.

SOME KIND OF BEER.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY.

REPUBLICAN JENNIFER HALLOWELL.

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.

STAY SAFE, STAY HEALTHY, PLEASE GET VACCINATED IF YOU CAN, AND JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS, INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDIANA'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING