♪ ♪ Senate lawmakers dramatically change major house bills.

That includes measures on taxes, vaccine mandates, and education.

Plus, the lottery going online, on Indiana week review, with the week ending February 18th, 2022 ♪ ♪ >> Indiana weekend review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana public broadcasting stations.

>> This week, Senate lawmakers significantly scaled back legislation that would have largely prevented private employers from enforcing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

And that prompted several hoosier who used to be in favor of the measure to testify against it.

>> The committee made several changes, perhaps the most significant has to do with religious exemptions to get the vaccine, previously the bill forced employers to honor those requested exemptions no matter what.

But now, employers must grant those exceptions based on compliance with existing federal law, so essentially, the bill wouldn't change the status quo.

That's not good enough for hoosiers like Peter, he says he's been suspended without pay from his job with the Indianapolis symphony orchestra and he says, the federal standard didn't protect him when requested a religious exemption from getting the vaccine.

>> The citizens of Indiana need more, we need protections against the kind of harsh discrimination I've experienced.

>> But businesses applaud the changes.

Carol represents several local chambers of commerce, they used to oppose the bill and now, she says they're in support.

>> Government interference in private business is not another thing we need added to our plate.

Employers know what is best when it comes to the safety and health of their businesses employees and customers.

>> The bill's future still isn't set.

The house author of the bill indicated the two chambers will continue to discuss the measure.

>> What is the future of the vaccine mandate bill?

It's the first question for our Indiana weekend review panel, Democrat, Anne Delaney, Republican miycobrine, and digital editor for health and education.

I'm Indiana public broadcasting State House reporter Brandon Smith Nicki Kelly wanted me to let everyone know she's off this week because she's mourning the Bengals Super Bowl loss while in actuality she's covering the Indiana election commission hearing candidacy challenges today, but Anne, is where the bill is now, the balance that we've been talking about, that was needed?

>> Anne Delaney: Where the bill is now, is where the federal law is, so I guess the answer to that is yes, I mean, all of the people in the house, that voted for that ridiculous piece of legislation -- they put out -- had a chance to demonstrate their anger.

And their commitment to letting everybody infect everybody else, and so, they've done that.

And now it's time to get sense of all of -- sensible as following the federal guidelines, you can't just walk in like this guy from the -- symphony orchestra and say all of a sudden you have a religious exemption, you need to be able to show, that you have a religious exemption.

And you know what?

He doesn't need protection, the rest of the orchestra needs protection from him.

And, it's about time, they started realizing that they have an obligation, to the people that work closely with them, to help keep everybody safe.

He, obviously, doesn't feel that obligation!

And I don't feel any sympathy for him!

I would like to see what orchestra would hire him with that kind of an attitude!

But I think the balance is better now, certainly, than it was, and it gives the employers the flexibility, the chamber recognizes employers need.

They have an obligation to their employees to keep them safe.

And this allows them to do so, and as safe as possible, and that's -- that's a good thing.

>> Same question we've been talking about the individual rights and the right of a business and an employer, is this where the bill is now?

>> Mike: I think it's important to remember that the context of the vaccine mandates is different, sitting here on, you know, the -- end of February than it was in the beginning of January, the legislative session began.

At the time we -- there was a federal employer vaccine mandate coming down at the U.S. Supreme Court since struck down.

There were mandates on healthcare workers and others.

There were real concerns vaccine passports and proof of vaccination, those types of mandates were all coming down from the Federal Government.

All of that's gone, if you look around the country especially as we get in the political season, some of the most liberal parts of the country that had most stringent restrictions lifting mask mandates and as fast as ey Biden administration can't really keep up and CDC is retooling their advice.

And part of that is for, yes, omicron is fading.

We didn't know what that -- >> Yeah!

>>.

[LAUGHTER] >> that strain was going to be a month and a half ago but when these previous strains, faded out, we didn't see the type of activity and movement around the country, on removing these restrictions that we're seeing now, and part of that is politics, and there's no other -- no other answer for it.

These placed that behave so stringently early on are now all of a sudden finding individual freedom is the way to go.

So the -- >> Also -- >> This piece of legislation is moved forward.

It's important to understand kind of how the world outside of the State House, has also changed.

>> Yeah.

>> Liberal areas -- I want to just make one point in the liberal areas of the country you're talking about also overwhelmingly have people vaccinating, and that is another substantial change.

>> Lindsey, obviously, the legislative process is such that the House, obviously, passes the bill.

The Senate takes its crack at it and then it will go back to the House, and they will hash it out presumably in conference committee.

But these are two kind of polar extremes, and this is not going to be the first time I ask a question like this today.

So, where do you think, is there more of a middle ground between the two chambers on this?

Or is it going to -- the final product going to look an awful lot like what the Senate just did?

>>, I mean, that is -- I think -- the million-dollar question, right?

It really kind of was this big hoopla, we do see from time to time you mention -- we're going to talk about it on some other bu bills on the show today we've seen big changes between the house and Senate and we've heard from leaders that they're working through it; and, you know, this is just all part of the process, and, you know, no need to think that there's, you know, major disagreements between the two Houses.

But this was a big change, one of the things, I'm curious to see, if -- gets tweaked, as it goes through conference committee, is specifically that language about testing.

You know, it seemed like they wanted to -- give businesses, this freedom to have vaccine mandates that they want.

The business groups are there, really, you know, kind of lobbying lawmakers and trying to get this possibility back; but then they want to step further and amended that testing language, and allowed employers now to be able to charge employees for it; and increase the frequency of it.

So that was just another step of -- taking more away from the employee side of it, that I'm curious, to see if that changes to kind of get more of a little bit of a middle ground and give a little bit more something to Employees.

But, in terms of, you know, who the lawmakers might end up siding with: If the employers ore employees those business groups have lobbyists day in and day out and talking to lawmakers and your average employee really can't be in there day in and day out talking to lawmakers, so I don't know -- people don't want to hear that and lawmakers would disagree with it.

To an extent.

But, you know, I -- I think the business side of things may end up winning out here >> John kind of the same QUESTION: Where do you think this ends up?

>> Probably pretty close to what we saw.

Where it stands in the Senate with the changes that were made this weekend, and for three reasons and I think we've touched on all of them.

One that house Republicans who were so concerned about this, who, insisted on making it, their caucus's No.

1 priority.

They've had a chance to voice their concern to go on record saying what a terrible draconian, you know, measure this would have been if -- if employers had been subjected to -- to these employer edicts.

So they were able to go on record with that.

No.

2: The climate -- medical climate has changed dramatically and it's hard to maintain sort of that fervor when you look around and there's the reason for the fervor is sort of dissipated to a large extent.

The wind is -- you might say out of the sails.

Then, I think, the Senate position all along -- and that, actually, is the position of the Governor as well is that -- let's be careful here!

Because, just as the pandemic -- as COVID-19 was a -- we hope a oneoff it was certainly unprecedented do we really want to shift policy that could set precedent in ways that aren't foreseen, to deal with this one circumstance?

When we may have something that isn't at all related to Public Health but still would perhaps erode what has been, Indiana's long-standing support of -- of work, of employer rights, and the notion that we are an at-will state, you know, I don't want to use the slippery-slope term but I'm sure there are other scenarios where people could have claimed a religious exemption to, you know, certain types of uniforms, certain types of clothing certain behavior in the workplace, and I don't think -- some members in the Senate wanted to risk going down that path.

>> All right, well, speaking of the Senate, Senate committee added language to a tax bill this week that would stop the hoosier lottery from adding online gaming without lawmakers' approval.

That comes after a report by the Fort Wayne GUZ kick Vicky Kelly the plan to forge ahead on igaming without legislative action.

>> The 1989 law that authorizeed the state lottery is pretty broad giveling the lottery commission plenty of room to add new games without legislative approval that apparently moves into online gambling, the journal Ggu/* gazette is alread working with its vendor to do so, the Senator isn't comfortable with that.

>> We've sent a message to the commission, and asked for information on ilottery, what their plans are and where they are in that process.

But up to this point, we've somehow in been in the dark about what's going on over there, so we just want to get a handle on it.

>>> Holdman's amendment to a tax bill would require legislative authorization, for the lottery to add online games.

And he says "any discussion of whether to give that approval, should take place next year".

>>> Mike, is the hoosier lottery offering online gaming a good idea for Indiana?

>> Mike: First, we're using two terms interchangeably, that aren't interchangeable igaming is the legislature that requires legislative approval kind of mobile electronic casino games the legislature would allow casinos to kind of put out like sports betting.

And those games would run through that casino license.

Ilottery, is strictly the lottery, itself.

Going to a -- a mobile, or electronic platform.

But the question you just asked.

Yes, I mean, the future of this -- the 1989 you -- went to the gas station, and parked you your car, went inside and bought lottery tickets and went home in 2022 it's becoming evmore likely your car is plugged in, in your garage and you buy a lottery ticket on your phone or play a game on your phone, it's one of the reasons that, back to igaming, it's one of the reasons that casinos, where you wouldn't think they support playing casino games at home, they want you in the building.

They know that there's a demographic of people that just are never going to do that.

They're never going to get in their car and go drive to a facility, and do that.

Because that's just not what consumers want anymore.

So, the lottery's got to -- got -- you know, chase this and chase their demographic and their customers, and what they -- what they prefer, and I don't think the legislature necessarily -- there's not -- igaming there's no kind of natural opposition to it other than people that just don't like gaming and ilottery, there might be a loser there in the convenience stores I think the legislature wants to figure out, which was one of the -- comments that was made, but, you know, all the lawdecide what the law going to do but the industry is going in that direction, surrounding states have it and this isn't a huge policy shift.

It's how they do it that's going to be the debate.

>> Anne, without approval, it appears strongly that it can, is that a good idea for the hoosier lottery?

>> Anne Delaney: I think Mike's right about that.

That's what the future is, I mean, I don't like seeing all these ads for gaming on television constantly.

Constantly.

Constantly.

But, that's what's happened.

And the legislature gave them the sweetheart tax deal, when they let the gaming industry infiltrate Indiana, and -- you know, why would they be opposed to competition?

I don't quite understand that.

I mean, it seems to me the lottery is just doing what other entities or at least, it's trying to do what other entities are already doing with legislative approval, and in this case, rather than the profits going to these people who are raking it in by the bushel basketful it would go to the state of Indiana and that seems to be a "no"-brainer.

>> John, Mike brought this up, but there is the question of, particularly convenience stores, who are perhaps crying loudest, right now over this issue.

How much is -- the potential harm to convenience stores if you move a lot of the lottery online?

Going to play a factor in what the legislature decides to do?

>> John: Well, I can see why that sector of the retail economy would be concerned about it.

Probably generates a fair amount of foot traffic in stores.

So then we have to shift to the Legislature, and which often points out that it is not want to pick winners and losers.

Now, we know that, virtually.

>> They do!

>> They do pick winners and losers to a large extent but at least we can pay heed -- at least note that they do suggest at least that that's an overarching philosophy but just about every bill, somebody will hurt and somebody will gain, it's just a constant balancing act.

The only other thing I would point out here is this is part I think of an interesting broader trend, not a sexy perhaps as gaming per se, but just the notion that the general assembly, has grown more and more uncomfortable with the -- with the executive branch, with agencies, promulgating rules.

Whether we see -- alcoholic beverage commission, whether the department of environmental management, more and more it seems like people in the general assembly are saying whoa!

Wait we know you you have that power but we don't like you making those rules so we're going to take that over.

It's an interesting, I mean, we're not there to see when this hits the fan, but at am some point either the general assembly is going to have to cede the Rulemaking authority to do the fine points of Rulemaking or it's going to have to meet year-round just to deal with the volume of Rulemaking it has on its plate.

>> Something that Senator Ray talked about this week struck me, he was quoted in Nicki's piece as saying, you know, seems fine to him.

But then he said this week that taking more of a look at what sort of ops, options the lotter could be taking online, it was just like the scratchoff game you could buy at the store or powerball ticket what we see other lotteries online around the country offer are things like slot machines and basically the equivalent of candy crush on your phone, only, you know, for money.

So, how much do you think the lottery here was kind of, down-playing what they wanted to do to legislative leaders at least initially?

>> It's certainly possible they were, you know, -- we weren't, obviously, in the room when they were having those discussions so it's hard to say exactly but, you know, this is something the Lottery has been looking into for several years now.

You know, I, actually, went back -- I wrote a story about them exploring this in 2019.

They wouldn't really talk about it then.

I think because they didn't really want to draw too much attention to it.

But they were looking into it, and seeing what their options were, and kind of -- what you were just saying, is that, the -- dozen or so states that have this, have different options, some offer a little bit, some offer a lot more.

You know, some require you to do different things to even be able to do it online.

Some require you to go into a store, to cash your ticket so that kind of -- you know, helps the retailers out a little bit.

And so, you know, I think that is something that everyone's kind of waiting to see, a little bit more about how this would actually work here.

And that's probably why to -- the Senator's point, why the legislature wants to get involved with it and have a little bit of say about, you know, what this looks like exactly, you know, we saw this, when they were expanding sports betting and whether or not to allow Mobile sports betting, right?

We got really into the nitty-gritty about how exactly that would work.

And, you know, all the interested parties wanted to make sure that they would essentially be taken care of during it >> Yeah.

>> You know, and to -- what Mike and Anne were talking about is that, this comes up every time we talk about gambling in the state, and, you know, are we opening Pandora's box, in adding one other element to it?

But, time and time again, the state ends up adding that extra element to it because that's the way everything is moving.

>> Yeah.

Well, time now for viewing feedback, each week we post an unscientific online poll question and this week's question should the Hoosier lottery offer online games?

A, yes, or B no, last week's question was will Mike pence be the Republican nominee for president in 204, just 7% believe in the hoosier's chances 93% say no, if you would like to take part in the poll go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the p ♪ ♪ Senate lawmakers approved sweeping changes to a controversial school curriculum this week, Indiana public broadcasting reporter saying many hoosiers testified they appreciate the effort but still have concerns.

>> Reporter: The bill no longer requires, that teachers post classroom materials online before an annual deadline or that schools create parent-led curriculum committees.

It also reworks a section, limiting the promotion of divisive concepts along the lines of race, ethnicity, and religion.

Many say they still can't support the bill because it requires parent consent for ongoing student mental health support.

Lindsey, a student at Purdue polytechnic high school is one of them.

>> Lindsey: The very same parents that need to give written consent could be the very root of the issue.

>> The route also doesn't include a provision for parents, to file lawsuits against schools for violating legislation.

>> I've asked on the show who this bill is making happy, is there anyone left who now likes this bill?

>> Probably not, which means it's perfect.

Perfect as it is.

[LAUGHTER], that's the old joke, we used to have in journalism too if you get the same number of letters from the left and right saying you're no good we must be doing something right.

I mean, this was -- this is such a -- a hot-button issue when you talk about education.

It's something that Hoosiers lots of hoosiers can relate to, so many things state government does, are sort of, yeah, you may have some intersection with them, once a year, or when you renew a license or, you know, -- if you're in a certain occupation, that, intersects with the state government on a regular basis, for the most part you don't.

But, yes, education, if you're a student or parent, if you're a taxpayer, concerned about the school in your District.

I think there's a -- a familiarity there, and that's one of the reasons, why this is so important to a lot of people.

This is probably, I think, about the way it's going to end up because of the -- the challenge that was associated with the original Bill as it was -- as the form it was in when it came out of the House, probably would have been, subject to litigation about -- definitions and -- and.

>> Yeah.

>> Not this kind.

I know now that civil penalties are out, but it still would have created litigation about what is defined, and not covered by the prohibitions about certain curriculum standards.

>>, yeah.

And, exactly what John's just talked about.

If this bill becomes law, is it pretty much going to be in the form it's in right now?

>> I hope so, I mean, it's -- clearly a lot better than it was.

I just assume not have it become law, frankly.

But it is certainly better than it was when it started out.

As to the mental health part of it, all they need to do is put a bypass mechanism in there, like you do for example if a child, is -- seeking.... Any kinds of things the parents don't consent, having some neutral party say, "Okay you need the mental health counseling and you want the mental health counseling or your parents don't agree, you can go ahead and do it", I mean, that can be fixed I just assume frankly the whole thing died.

This really comes down to if you're concerned with what your children are being taught, look at the textbooks, talk to the teacher, you don't like the teacher or you think the TEEFRN teacher is out of line going to teacher is out of line going to the principal or superintendent, the mechanism is already there, they have already, again, showed how angry they are about critical race theory and all this other nonsense there in the first place, now let this die a natural death which is what it deserves.

>> Mike, is the bill pretty much how it's going to look if it becomes law?

>> Mike: I think so, said a few weeks ago, you have to take this off the teacher's plate, which they've done, the focus has got to be on transparency, which is where they put it and now it's on the parents to -- Andrea just described the good old days go talk to the teacher instead of showing up at the public meeting, start with a conversation.

>> Yeah!

>> All right.

We're on -- a theme here today.

A Senate committee this week gutted, the house Republican tax cut package, eliminating every tax cut from the bill.

Senate Republicans have long expressed hesitance about the house GOP's mix of business utility, and individual income tax cuts that will eventually cost the state more than a billion dollars a year in revenue and the committee took out all the cuts without discussion or debate.

>> Reporters: Groups who represent local governments and shools applauded the changes, Madison mayor, says the tax cuts were a real threat to local government funding.

>> The loss of revenue will have to be shifted to other local property, and income tax payers.

>> Business groups however lamented the removal of the tax cuts, despite Indiana boasting one of the best business tax climates in the country, Indiana chamber of commerce vice president says it could be better.

>> It's an attempt to address some things that have been known, to be kind of the -- the few remaining Black marks.

>> Reporter: Republic Senator the committee chair says discussion on the bill's future will continue and wouldn't rule out some tax cut getting ultimately included.

>> Despite how pessimistic Senate Republicans have been about tax cut this session are you still surprised they took out every single one?

>> Not particularly, I mean, I think you can make the argument that, these are tax cuts, that Republicans would generally support, but to the point you just made, they wre never really on board with this, from the very beginning.

You know, it's not a budget year.

They wanted to wait until next year.

And, you know, the Senator said something might be added back in, but, I would bet if anything it's going to be a small "something" because they just don't want to do something major, in a nonbudget year.

>> Yeah, Mike, what is the middle ground on this one?

>> Mike: Kind of half a loaf on business personal property tax, on the state tax credioncept th doesn't affect the local, I think income tax is off the table for this year.

I do love the idea that we don't do any of this for, like, the next six years and pay off our -- the teacher pension debt which would be one of the only states in the country that do that.

But telling legislators to wait six years before getting to something it's, like, why not make it 100 years?

We'll do it next century, it's three general assemblies from now and 4 elections I don't see that happen, but I did like the frugal approach that the senators took.

>> Anne, would you predict at least some small tax cut ends up being in the bill by the end of the session?

>> Anne Delaney: I hope thought.

I think this is the fiscally-responsible position to take and Republicans in the house facing primary contests could say just like with critical race theory we voted for all these tax cuts, it's not our fault they're not enacted.

So when you spend a billion dollars without any real meaningful debate about what that means to locals, what that means to the state budget, what that means to initiatives to make the state better, it is -- it's pretty fiscally irresponsible.

So I think -- I hope they don't do anything this year.

>> All right.

Well, this was a big week, at the state house, and, only a few weeks to go before the end of session and that is Indiana Week in review for this week, our panel is Democrat Anne Delaney.

Republican mike O'Brien, John of Indiana lawmakers and Lindsey of WFYI, if you would like a Podcast of this program you can find it at WFYI.org slash IWIR, stay safe, stay healthy, and please get vaccinated if you can, join us next time.

A lot can happen, in an Indiana Week.