♪♪ GOVERNOR HOLCOMB VETOES THE GOVERNOR HOLCOMB VETOES THE TRANSPORTS BILL.

SENATOR BRAUN HAS OPINIONS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT, PLUS HOLCOMB SIGNS THE GUN BILL AND MORE ON INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING MARCH 25th, 2022.

>> 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.

>> HOLCOMB AS VETO LETTER ECHOED MANY OF THE CONCERNS LAID OUT BY THE BILL'S OPPONENTS, AND MANY APPLAUDED THE GOVERNOR DECISION.

BUT LAWMAKERS STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERTURN HOLCOMB'S VETO.

KATIE BLAIR DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY SAYS IT IS CRITICAL PEOPLE CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

>> LAWMAKERS CAN CERTAINLY BRING THIS BILL BACK UP.

THEY CAN BRING IT BACK UP OVER THE SUMMER MONTHS IF THEY WANT TO COME IN AND OVERRIDE THE GOVERNOR'S VETO.

>> SEVERAL STATE AND FEDERAL REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS HAVE CALLED FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO OVERRIDE THE VETO.

HOUSE SPEAKER TODD HUSTON SAID IN A STATEMENT TUESDAY, THE HOUSE WILL DO SO ON MAY 24.

>> ARE YOU SURPRISED HOLCOMB VETOED THE TRANSPORTS BILL, THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA "INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" PANEL.

ELISE SHROCK, MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND NIKI KELLY, STATE HOUSE REPORTER FOR THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

I'M BRANDON SMITH.

ELISE SHROCK, ARE YOU SURPRISED.

>> I DON'T KNOW ANYONE -- HOW COULD I WATCH ALL THE TRANS CHILDREN, FAMILIES, PRIESTS, PASTORS AND RABBIS COME TO THE STATEHOUSE EN MASSE OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND HAVE TO ASK FOR THEIR HUMAN DIGNITY, A SAD THING, TO REALLY SHOW THAT THEY WERE PART OF THEIR COMMUNITY, AS HOOSIERS WE VALUE SPORTS BECAUSE WE VALUE WHAT IT TEACHES OUR CHILDREN FOR LEADERSHIP, WE VALUE THAT IT TEACHES EQUALITY AND HARD WORK, SO TO SAY IT IS FOR SOME AND NOT OTHERS, AND TO SEE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND HOW THE TRANS COMMUNITY REALLY ORGANIZED AROUND THIS ISSUE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD NOT VETO IT.

I'M REALLY SAD TO SEE THAT IT COULD BE COMING BACK IN A SPECIAL SESSION.

>> YEAH, I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE PRETTY EASILY OVERRIDDEN, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE INDIANA HAS A RELATIVELY WEAK VETO.

ARE YOU SURPRISED?

>> I AM, ACTUALLY.

IN PART, FOR EVERYTHING THAT ELISE JUST SAID, SHE'S RIGHT.

I WORKED ON FREEDOM INDIANA AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS EXPANSION EFFORT, AS ATTITUDES WERE CHANGING IN INDIANA ON THIS ISSUE AS A PRECURSOR TO THE LEGALIZATION OF GAY MARRIAGE.

MOST PEOPLE, THE REASON THIS POLLS SO WELL, ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, BY THE WAY, IS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS -- I THINK PEOPLE GENERALLY DO BELIEVE SHOULD TRANSGENDER PEOPLE BE ABLE TO GET MARRIED OR HAVE A CHILD?

ABSOLUTELY, SHOULD THEY BE FIRED FROM WORK?

OF COURSE NOT.

SHOULD THEIR KIDS BE ABLE TO ARM WRESTLE COMPETITIVELY IN HIGH SCHOOL?

WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT?

PEOPLE ARE WAIT A MINUTE, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

ONE THING WE HAVE SEEN AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL, THE NCAA COME INTO THIS SESSION AND SAY TAKE US OUT, WE HAVE GOT THIS FIGURED OUT.

NOBODY THINKS THE NCAA HAS THIS FIGURED OUT AFTER THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS OF THE NATIONAL DEBATE ON THIS.

THIS ISSUE IS COMING TO A HEAD NATIONALLY.

SO THERE IS SPACE -- THERE IS -- HAS TO BE SPACE FOR THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN EVERYTHIG THAT ALL KIDS ALIKE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN, CERTAINLY.

ARE WE CLOSE TO HAVING THAT FIGURED OUT FOR YOUR AVERAGE PERSON?

ABSOLUTELY NOT, THAT'S WHY YOU SAW THE POLITICS ARE WHAT THEY ARE.

>> JON, POLICY ASIDE, DID THIS HURT THE GOVERNOR, AND IF SO, HOW MUCH?

>> IT DOESN'T HELP HIM.

I THINK -- THERE WERE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT THE SESSION, WHO THINK HE'S HEAVEN FORBID, A RHINO REPUBLICAN IN NAME, THAT HE HAS TAKEN POSITIONS THROUGHOUT THE -- VARIOUS ISSUES, WHETHER EMERGENCY POWERS AND COVID, OR HIS INITIALLY STANCE ON A TAX CUT, GRANTED THAT CHANGED A BIT OVER TIME.

THERE WERE VARIOUS AREAS WHERE THE MOST CONSERVATIVE WING OF THE PARTY THOUGHT IS HE REALLY WITH US.

SO IT PROBABLY -- I MEAN, FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

>> THEY ALREADY DIDN'T THINK HE WAS WITH THEM.

>> DIDN'T THINK HE WAS WITH THEM.

THIS IS A SURPRISE.

I PREDICTED A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT HE WOULD SIGN THIS.

AND IN FACT I WAS BASING THAT LARGELY ON THE FACT THAT HE HAD INDICATED -- >> HE CERTAINLY -- >> LOOKS LIKE HE INDICATED -- >> HE CERTAINLY HASN'T EXPRESSED ANY ACTUAL CONCERNS ABOUT IT.

>> NOT MUCH SURPRISES ME ANYMORE.

THAT SURPRISED ME.

>> THE IHSAA WAS NEUTRAL BECAUSE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, THAT ARBITRATION PROCESS, THAT WAS THE IHSAA'S IDEA, THEIR LANGUAGE PUT INTO THE BILL.

IT WAS WEIRD HOW IT CAME -- HOW THE POSITIONS CAME TOGETHER.

WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT, IT WAS HOW DOES THIS ISSUE POSITION AGAINST PERMITLESS CARRY, OR STUFF -- >> I WOULD JUST POINT OUT -- >> WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.

>> THIS IS GOING TO BE LITIGATED OBVIOUSLY.

>> ASSUMING THE VETO GETS OVERRIDDEN.

>> YEAH.

THAT'S THE -- THE ANALYSIS WILL COME DOWN TO SOMETHING PERHAPS AS SIMPLE ON THIS BILL, WHETHER THE MEASURES WITH STANDS SCRUTINY OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE THIS ONLY APPLIES TO TRANSGENDER GIRLS, AND THE SPORTS THAT THEY CAN COMPETE IN.

IT'S NOT THE OPPOSITE.

I'M NO LAWYER, BUT THAT SEEMS TO ME A POTENTIAL FLAW FOR A COURT WHO SIMPLY WANTS TO LOOK AT THIS FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS, NOT MINDING HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THESE NUANCED ISSUES.

>> IMAGINE THAT, INDIANA PASSING SOMETHING THAT ENDS UP HAVING TO BE RELITIGATED IN THE COURTS.

>> THEY WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

>> NO MAJOR ABORTION BILL SO FAR THIS YEAR.

ACLU HAS GOT TO MAKE ITS MONEY SOME WAY FROM THE STATE.

EVEN IN TALKING ABOUT THE POLITICAL FALLOUT FOR THE GOVERNOR, THIS WAS -- THIS VETO ATTRACTED MORE ATTENTION THAN A TYPICAL VETO DOES IN THIS STATE.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, WHEN YOU'VE GOT NATIONAL STORIES GOING ON ABOUT IT.

AND THEN TWO DAYS LATER, THE UTAH GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, DID THE SAME THING.

>> ALTHOUGH THE UTAH GOVERNOR WAS MUCH MORE DIRECT AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THE TECHNICAL ISSUES WITH THE BILL.

>> RIGHT.

BUT, I MEAN, LOOK, I THINK IT'S GOING TO HURT THE GOVERNOR.

I WAS CHATTING WITH THE HOUSE MEMBER, REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBER WHO WAS OUT KNOCKING ON DOORS THIS WEEK.

HE SAID EVERY SINGLE PERSON WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT BILL.

THAT'S ALL THEY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.

>> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK, EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNPSYCHIC ONLINE POLL QUESTION.

THIS WEEK IS WILL GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB'S BILL BANNING TRANSGENDER GIRLS HURT HIM POLITICALLY.

A, YES, B, NO.

LAST WEEK WE ASKED YOU ABOUT DELIGHT SAVING TIME.

33% SAY MAKE IT PERMANENT, 13 PERCENT SAY THE CLOCKS SHOULD CONTINUE TO CHANGE.

I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

54% OF YOU, THOUGH, THING WE SHOULD MAKE STANDARD TIME PERMANENT.

COUNT ME AMONG THAT, 54%.

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

>> MIKE BRAUN THIS WEEK SAID THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WAS WRONG TO LEGALIZE INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE.

YEP, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

BRAUN'S COMMENTS CAME AS HE DISCUSSED WHAT HE'S LOOKING FOR, AS HE EVALUATES THE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE JACKSON.

>> AS THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, SENATOR BRAUN SAYS SHE SEEMS WELL QUALIFIED AND THE GOP LAWMAKER SAYS AS HE EVALUATES HER RECORD HE WANTS A JUSTICE WHO WON'T BE AN ACTIVIST.

>> STICK WITH INTERPRETING THE LAW, DON'T LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH.

>> HE SAYS EXAMPLES INCLUDE THE LANDMARK DECISION LEGALIZING ABORTION.

HE SAYS THE SUPREME COURT SHOULDN SHOULDN'T HOMOGENIZE.

WHICH EXTENDS INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

>> IF YOU'RE NOT WANTING THE SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH IN ON ISSUES LIKE THAT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR CARRICK AND EAT IT, TOO.

I THINK THAT'S HYPOCRITICAL.

>> IN A FOLLOW-UP, BRAUN CLAIMED HE MISUNDERSTOOD THE LINE OF QUESTIONING, THE CONSTITUTION UNQUESTIONLY BANS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION THAT HE CONDEMNS IT AT ALL LEVELS.

HE WAS ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES SPECIFICALLY ABOUT INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

>> SO YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE SUPREME COURT LEAVING THE QUESTION OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE TO THE STATES?

>> YES.

>> MIKE O'BRIEN, WHY SHOULD ANYONE BUY THE MISUNDERSTANDING CLAIM.

THAT WAS AS DIRECT AS YOU CAN GET?

>> BECAUSE IT'S 2022, IT BE ABSURD TO THINK ANYONE WOULD THINK -- I SPENT ZERO MINUTES THINKING ABOUT THIS WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

ONE, I THINK WE SAW THIS WITH CRITICAL RACE THEORY DURING THE SESSION, WE'RE SEEING IT NOW WITH THE SUPREME COURT DEBATE OVER STATE'S RIGHTS AND PARENT'S RIGHTS, THESE GUYS, WE SAW SENATORS AND BRAUN IN THIS SITUATION, THEY GET SO SPUN UP ON NOT BEING HYPOCRITICAL.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE DEFENDING NAZIISM, YOU CAN'T TEACH BIAS, ON ANYTHING.

NO BIAS ON ANYTHING, WAIT A MINUTE, THERE ARE CERTAINLY THINGS THAT ARE MORAL ABSOLUTES, PEOPLE BELIEVE AREN'T STATE RIGHTS QUESTIONS, THEY ARE UNITED STATES QUESTIONS, RIGHT.

THINGS WE ALL SHOULD BELIEVE OR HAVE DECIDED ARE THE MORAL AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTRY.

AND WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO STATE BY STATE TO DECIDE WHETHER INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL, OR SLAVERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEGAL, OR GAY MARRIAGE, NAME YOUR ISSUE.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT TRANSCEND WHAT WE SHOULD DECIDE IN STATE LEGISLATURES THAT MAKE US A COUNTRY.

THESE GUYS IN THESE DEBATES GET SO LOCKED IN ON STATE'S RIGHTS, OR NO BIAS, BEING TAUGHT IN CLASSROOMS, THEY CAN'T GET OUT OF THE LANE WITHOUT THINKING THEY COULD LOOK HYPOCRITICAL, AND IN THE PROCESS WIND UP DEFENDING POSITIONS THAT ARE COMPLETELY UN -- >> AND THEY DO HARM, THERE ARE INTERRACIAL COUPLES ACROSS OUR STATE, INTERRACIAL HOOSIER COUPLES THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THIS AND NOT DO HARM TO PEOPLE.

IT IS NOT LIKE THIS EXISTS IN THIS POLITICAL VACUUM, PEOPLE DON'T HEAR IT, AND THEIR KIDS DON'T HEAR IT.

AND THAT HARM ISN'T TRAUMATIC TO SOME PEOPLE.

AND I DON'T KNOW, IN THIS CASE, MAYBE WHEN PEOPLE SHOW YOU WHO THEY ARE, YOU SHOULD BELIEVE THEM, LIKE MAYA ANGELOU SAYS, A ALSO IN THIS CASE, I THINK HE FELL INTO THE TRAP OF WHEN YOU'RE EXPLAINING, YOU'RE LOSING, AND HIS EXPLANATION DID NOT HELP HIM AT ALL.

>> I CAN'T BELIEVE LOOKING AT THIS, THAT PEOPLE GO WHAT A BIGOT.

WHAT HE WAS DOING, HE WAS TRYING TO BE AN ABSOLUTIST, IN THE STATE'S RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF A FIGHT OVER WHETHER OR NOT THIS NOMINEE FOR THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE NOMINATED.

AND -- JUST LIKE SCOTT BALDWIN -- IS A PRO NAZI.

>>...WHEN YOU'RE DOING THINGS FOR A POLITICAL WIN.

IT'S DAMAGING, IT LACKS INTEGRITY AND HOOSIERS, INTERRACIAL COUPLES IN OUR STATE AND ALL HOOSIERS DESERVE BETTER, AND HE EMBARRASSED US.

>> THERE IS SOME THOUGHT THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE.

DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER?

>> YEAH.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE MISUNDERSTANDING CLEARLY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MARRIAGE, I THINK HE MAYBE THOUGHT GAY MARRIAGE, AND HE CLEARLY DRAWS A LINE BETWEEN RACE AND, YOU KNOW, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, IN THAT SENSE.

EITHER WAY, ISN'T THAT STILL -- SHOULDN'T THAT STILL BE FOLLOWING THE SAME LOGIC LINE, YEAH, HE JUST GOT HIMSELF IN A WHOLE HEAP OF TROUBLE ON THIS ONE.

>> HE'S NOT UP FOR ELECTION FOR A COUPLE YEARS.

SO THERE IS OUTRAGE, CERTAINLY.

BUT WILL THERE BE ANY REAL FALLOUT FOR MIKE BRAUN PRACTICALLY SPEAKING.

>> HE'S FORTUNATE IN THAT THERE IS IT NOT AN ELECTION COMING UP THAT HE IS PARTICIPATING IN.

>> WHO KNOWS WHAT HE WILL SAY BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

>> JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A DISTANCE BETWEEN NOW AND THAT OF NEXT TIME HE'S UP -- HIS NAME IS ON THE BALLOT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OPPONENTS CAN'T FIND WAYS TO PAINT HIM WITH THAT BRUSH, AND TO, YES, THE ELECTORATE HAS A SHORT ATTENTION SPAN AND ITS MEMORY IS LIMITED.

ON ITS OWN THIS WOULD BE GONE NEXT WEEK, OUT OF THEIR MEMORIES.

BUT, IF A SKILLFUL, WELL-FUNDED OPPONENT CAN FIND WAYS TO BRING THIS UP AND CREATE THIS THEME, THAT HERE IS SOMEBODY WHO IS STILL FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR, AND STILL QUESTIONING WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SUPREMACY, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, YOU KNOW, AND CAN FIND A WAY TO PAINT HIM INTO THAT CORNER AND FUND SPOTS THAT BACK THAT UP, THEN IT BECOMES A POTENTIALLY POTENT WEAPON -- >> YOU CAN EVEN GO BEYOND INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.

MAYBE HE DIDN'T MEAN THAT, BUT DOES HE THINK THAT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH CONTROL, A MILLION OTHER THINGS.

>> INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE TO BE PERMITTED -- I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT PART OF THIS IS A REACTION TO, JUST LIKE, CRT WAS A REACTION TO BIAS IN CLASSROOMS.

THIS IS A -- WHAT HE SAID IS A REACTION TO ACTIVIST JUDICIARIES, CHIPPING AWAY AT STATE'S RIGHTS.

IS THIS THE EXAMPLE YOU GO -- THAT YOU GO MAKE?

OF COURSE NOT.

>> NOT SOMETHING YOU PUT OUT THERE AS A SITTING STATE SENATOR.

>> AND HE PROVIDED SOME LOVELY ACTUAL VIDEO OF HIMSELF SAYING IT.

>> MORE CONSISTENCY, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS YOU START TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT ABOUT THESE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS?

THE RIGHT TO CARRY FIREARMS.

>> THE THINGS YOU LIKE.

>> BUT YOU COULD ARGUE, BY GOD, YES, BUT THAT EQUAL RIGHTS, ARE ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

FLAG BURNING, I'M SURE THAT OPPONENTS OF FLAG BURNING WOULD SAY THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED ON A PIECEMEAL BASIS WHERE CRAZY CALIFORNIA CAN LET YOU BURN A FLAG, BUT ARKANSAS, ALABAMA.

THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL INCONSISTENCY.

>> IT'S GOT TO BE CASE-BY-CASE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

HOOSIERS WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO GET A PERMIT, SPEAKING OF GUNS, HEY, TO CARRY A HANDGUN IN PUBLIC STARTING JULY 1.

THAT'S AFTER GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB SIGNED THE SO-CALLED PERMITLESS LAW.

HE DEFENDED HIS DECISION EXPRESSING SUPPORT, 23 OTHER STATES HAVE SOME VERSION OF A PERMITLESS CARRY POLICY.

>> HOLCOMB ALSO SAYS PEOPLE CURRENTLY BARRED FROM CARRYING IN PUBLIC WILL STILL BE BARRED FROM CARRYING IN PUBLIC AFTER THE LAW TAKES EFFECT.

YET THE STATE POLICE TESTIFIED THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR HAD THEIR CARRY PERMIT APPLICATIONS DENIED, OPPONENTS QUESTION HOW THOSE PEOPLE WILL KNOW THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY IN PUBLIC ONCE THE PERMITS ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED, IN A STATEMENT, STATE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT DOUG CARTER PLEDGED TO WORK TOWARDS SOLUTIONS ENACTING A LAW AND MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES TO FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT.

A FEW WEEKS AGO, CARTER SHARPLY CRITICIZED REPUBLICANS PUSHING THE LAW, TELLING THEM THEIR SPORT OF PERMITLESS CARRY MEANT THEY DON'T SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THAT SENTIMENT IN CARTER'S LATEST STATEMENT.

>> NIKI KELLY, ARE YOU SURPRISED AT THE VETO, THAT HE SIGNED THIS BILL?

>> LESS SURPRISED THAN I WAS WITH THE VETO.

I THOUGHT HE MIGHT LET IT BECOME LAW WITHOUT A SIGNATURE OR SIGN IT.

I DIDN'T THINK HE WOULD VETO IT.

I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO COME BACK IF HE VETOED A SECOND AMENDMENT BILL.

IN THAT SENSE, NO.

IT CAME ON THE SAME DAY, ALL TOGETHER, IT WAS A SURPRISE IN THAT MANNER.

BUT I THINK HE DID WHAT HE NEEDED TO DO IF HE'S GOING TO TRY TO RUN FOR SOMETHING ELSE SUCH AS THE U.S. SENATE.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT DOUG CARTER.

HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND AN APPOINTEE OF GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB.

THE STATEMENT SENT OUT WAS GOING TO INCLUDE DOUG CARTER SLAMMING HIS BOSS.

BUT IF YOU'RE DOUG CARTER, HOW DO YOU CONTINUE TO WORK AS THE STATE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT AFTER SAYING WHAT YOU SAID AND THEN HAVING YOUR BOSS SIGN THAT BILL INTO LAW.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHEN HIS PENSION IS VESTED, PARTICULARS OF HIS H.R.

STATUS, ALL KIDDING ASIDE, MAYBE THAT DOES COME INTO T. AS OUTSPOKEN AS HE WAS ON THIS ISSUE, TO BE STANDING IN THE BACK OF THE CHAMBER IN UNIFORM WHEN THIS WAS BEING VOTED UPON, DOESN'T LEAVE A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM.

NOW HE SAYS THAT HE IS GOING TO DO HIS BEST TO FIND WAYS TO ADJUST PRACTICE TO FIT THIS NEW POLICY.

YOU KNOW, BUT IT IS TOUGH, PUTS HIM IN A TOUGH POSITION.

I WAS 100% WRONG, I WAS 1% WHO THOUGHT THE GOVERNOR WOULD VETO IT.

I STILL THINK THERE IS A DANGER TO HIM EVERY TIME, HOPE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, IF A POLICE OFFICER, YOU KNOW, MAKES A STOP AND SOMEBODY WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE A GUN, EVEN IF IT IS NOT GERMANE OR ON POINT TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IT IS GOING TO BE MENTIONED IN STORIES, DREDGED UP, ONE OF THE TESTS YOU CAN ONLY FAIL, YOU CAN'T WIN.

TO ME, POLITICALLY I THINK THIS WAS A -- I DON'T GET IT.

THIS WAS NOT THE WAY I WOULD HAVE ADVISED HIM.

>> I THINK IT IS A LOSE, LOSE, LOSE, BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR, YOU KNOW, WASN'T PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE A POLITICALLY GREAT WAY TO NAVIGATE THIS OTHER THAN SIGNING IT, IT IS A LOSE, LOSE, LOSE, ALSO HOOSIERS ARE GOING TO BE LESS SAFE BECAUSE OF THIS BILL.

LAW ENFORCEMENT DIDN'T WANT IT, A LOT OF HOOSIER CITIZENS DIDN'T WANT IT.

YOU KNOW, WE HEAR -- AT THE START.

>> LAWMAKERS WHO SUPPORTED IT.

>> AT THE START OF THE SESSION WE HEAR REPUBLICANS SAY WE'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT CRIME, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SO WORRIED THAT PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPORTING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THEN WHAT ENDS UP BY THE END OF SESSION, WE HAVE THIS BILL THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT SAYS THIS MAKES IT HARDER FOR US TO CHARGE AND PROSECUTE VIOLENT CRIME.

THIS MAKES IT HARDER FOR US TO DO OUR JOB, AND NOT TO MENTION, WE DENY THOUSANDS OF THESE PERMITS A YEAR FOR PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT BE CARRYING.

SO HOOSIERS WILL BE LESS SAFE BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

>> NIKI TALKED ABOUT WHAT DOES THIS DO FOR HOLCOMB RUNNING POTENTIALLY FOR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE?

I MEAN, I COULD SEE A CAMPAIGN AD IN WHICH HOLCOMB IS SIGNING THIS BILL, AND YOU HAVE DOUG CARTER SAYING YOU DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR FRONT LINE POLICE OFFICER.

BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DOUG CARTER SAID.

HOW DOES THAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP WORK?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN.

THE CREDIBILITY -- THE PROBLEM DOUG CARTER HAS NOW, NOT THAT HE'LL NEED IT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE STATEHOUSE AND LEGISLATURE, HE HAS LITTLE CREDIBILITY TO NOT HIT THAT HARD AND NOT HAVE THE GOVERNOR HAVE HIS BACK.

THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GOVERNOR SAYING HE'S MEDICAID EXPANSION AND -- TO SUPPORT IT, OR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OPPOSE A GAS TAX.

>> YOU REALLY DON'T EVER SEE THAT HAPPEN WHICH MAKES THIS -- >> THAT'S WHY IT IS SO NOTABLE FOR PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING EVERY DAY.

IT IS A HARD THING TO NAVIGATE.

>> MORE GOOD NEWS.

INDIANA HAS THE MOST POLLUTED RIVERS AND STREAMS OF ANY STATE.

THAT'S ACCORDING TO A NEW REPORT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT, INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING REBECCA THIELE SAYS AFTER 50 YEARS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT WE STILL HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO PROTECT OUR WATERWAYS.

>> INDIANA HAS THE MOST MILES OF RIVERS AND STREAMS THAT ARE DEEMED TOO POLLUTED TO SWIM IN.

ERIC SCHAEFFER IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT.

HE SAYS THE MAIN CULPRIT IT THE MANURE RUNNING OFF LARGE ANIMALS FARMS CALLED CONCENTRATED FEEDING.

IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO HANDLE.

>> THE LAW IS ORIENTED TOWARD DEALING WITH DISCHARGES THAT COME OUT OF PIPES, THAT YOU CAN SEE AND MEASURE.

AND THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY WHAT YOU GET.

>> THERE ARE MANY LARGE LIVESTOCK FARMERS IN THE STATE, MOST SMARLS RAISED UNDER A CONTRACT FOR A FEW MAJOR COMPANIES LIKE TYSON AND JBS.

SCHAEFFER SAYS THOSE CORPORATIONS SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROBLEM AND REGULATED LIKE ANY OTHER INDUSTRY.

>> JON SCHWANTES, OBVIOUSLY INDIANA HAS A WORSE PROBLEM THAN OTHER STATES, BUT IS THIS A STATE OR FEDERAL PROBLEM?

>> YES.

IT IS.

IT'S BOTH.

THIS IS A PROBLEM.

IT DOESN'T REALLY -- DOESN'T DO US GOOD TO POINT FINGERS AND SAY THIS SHOULD BE POLICED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL OR POLICED AT THE STATE LEVEL.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THE DEBATE YOU'RE ON, YOU'RE STILL DRINKING THE WATER OR BREATHING THE AIR THAT IS POLLUTED, AND MAY BE DETRIMENTAL, AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IS DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR HEALTH.

WE'VE SEEN THE DEBATE -- WE SAW IT THIS SESSION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, THINGS SHOULDN'T BE MORE STRINGENT THAN -- OR COUNTIES SHOULDN'T BE MORE STRINGENT THAN STATE.

ALWAYS BACK IT UP TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE LEVEL ENFORCEMENT.

SO THERE IS A LOT OF BLAME TO GO AROUND.

LET'S KEEP IN MIND THAT ASIDE FROM ENFORCEMENT AND MOST OF THE MONEY THAT GOES INTO CLEANUP, THAT'S NOT STATE MONEY.

IT MAY BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE STATE, BUT THAT'S FEDERAL DOLLARS.

THERE IS BLAME, AND OPPORTUNITY, I SUPPOSE, FOR BOTH GROUPS TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS.

>> REALISTICALLY DO YOU EXPECT THE STATE AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO LISTEN TO THAT AND CARE?

>> I MEAN, THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME THAT CARE.

BUT MOST OF THEM ARE DEFINITELY, WE'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS, WHENEVER ANYTHING ON FOR INSTANCE CAN FIND FEEDING -- CONFINED FEEDING OPERATIONS, THEY ALWAYS DEFEND THE BUSINESS'S RIGHT TO BE THERE, AND OBVIOUSLY PROVIDE, AND LET'S BE FAIR, THEY ARE PROVIDING FOOD FOR ALL OF US, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THEY SEEM FINE WITH THE WAY IT IS NOW, DON'T WANT TO SHUT DOWN -- >> I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE BUSINESS SIDE, THE INDIANA CHAMBER HAS BEEN TALKING A LOT THE PAST FEW YEARS ABOUT WATER AND AVAILABILITY, IT IS A BUSINESS ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE, TALK ABOUT QUALITY OF PLACE, THE BUZZ PHRASE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THAT DOESN'T DO MUCH FOR QUALITY OF PLACE, DOES IT?

>> IT DOESN'T, WHAT IS THE USE OF A RIVERFRONT OR WATERWAY IF YOU CAN'T BUILD ANY TYPE OF RECREATION AROUND IT.

IF YOU HAVE THIS WATERWAY, AND WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT IT IS OH, DON'T GO NEAR IT, DON'T TOUCH IT, I MEAN, AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT LIKE THE LEGISLATURE, THIS IS THE SAME BODY THAT DEREGULATED OUR WETLANDS TWO YEARS AGO.

I JUST DON'T THINK THERE IS HIGH REGARD FOR THE WATERWAYS, EVEN THOUGH WE SHOULD, AGAIN, THERE IS CONVERSATION FROM THE CHAMBER, WE ARE WOEFUL IN OUR STATISTICS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO, LIKE JON SAID, EVERYBODY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY.

WE NEED TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, NOT KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

>> WE CAN'T GET THEM TO CARE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, WHEN DOES IT BECOME AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUE, OR IS IT ALREADY?

>> THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR IS THIS SEWER OVERFLOW, A HUGE PROBLEM FOR DECADES, SPENT $6 BILLION, A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT THE LOCALS HAVE NO MONEY FOR, WHICH IS WHY THE STATE IN THE LAST 15 YEARS SPENT $6 BILLION ON IT.

THE STUDY, THE RANKING REQUIRES A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION, EVERY STATE SETS ITS OWN STANDARD WHAT THEY WANT THEIR WATER USED FOR, HERE, IS IT FISHABLE AND SWIMMABLE, AND YOU SET YOUR STANDARDS TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.

IT IS NUANCED, NO TWO STATES ARE THE SAME.

>> IT IS NOT GOOD NEWS FOR THE WATER.

>> WE KNOW THAT WATER IN ONE STATE NEVER ENDS UP IN ANOTHER STATE, CLEARLY IT JUST CLEANS UP.

>> MAYBE IT IS MICHIGAN'S PROBLEM, SOUTH OF THEM.

>> BUILD A WALL.

FINALLY THE COLTS HAVE A NEW STARTING QUARTERBACK AFTER FALCONS MATT RYAN THIS WEEK, MIKE O'BRIEN, SHOULD FANS BE EXCITED?

>> I'M EXCITED, I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF MATT RYAN LOOK ALIKE PHOTOS.

>> YOU DO.

>> ALSO AS A BEARS FAN I LOVE SEEING THE LIST OF STARTING QUARTERBACKS FOR THE COLTS.

WELCOME TO CHICAGO BEARS FANS.

>> HE DOES HAVE A SUIT LOOK ABOUT HIM.

>> THAT'S INDIANA "INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" FOR THIS WEEK, OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ELISE SHROCK, REPUBLICAN, MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES, OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND NIKI KELLY OF THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST, GO TO wfyi.org/iwir, OR STARTING MONDAY, STREAM IT OR GET IT ON DEMAND OR 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