(Music plays) >> US House Republicans finally choose a speaker.

Brad Chambers pages and online child safety plan.

Plus, a pension benefit recommendation plan and more.

Let televisions is WFYI, it's Indiana Week In Review for the week ending October for the week ending October 7, 2020.

>> Indiana Week In Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana public broadcasting stations.

>> This week, Republicans in the U.S. House acted a chaotic three week vacancy in the speakership, lifting Louisiana's Mike Johnson to lead the chamber.

(Applause) >> Therefore, the Honorable Mike Johnson the state of Louisiana having received majority of the votes cast is duly elected speaker of the House of Representatives for the 100 for the 110th Congress.

$$TRANSMIT(Cheering) >> Johnson was the fourth Republican chosen by the GOP caucus to secure enough votes to become speaker in the last few weeks.

After Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, and Tom Emmer failed to do so.

Every Republican member failed voted for Johnson who has a low profile in national politics.

A lawyer who served in the house since 2017, Johnson had vice chair of the house Republican conference and was previously chair of the Republican committee, and influential group of fiscal conservatives at the chamber.

Johnson is a staunch opponent of gay rights and help lead an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

>> With a speaker not chosen, will the chaos of the last few weeks have any long-lasting impact?

It is the first question for our Indiana Week In Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney.

Republican Chris Mitchem.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana am Indiana public broadcasting state has Brandon Smith.

Ann DeLaney or Chris Mitchem, will this matter to voters a year from now?

>> I think you still have another month to figure that out, because unfortunately with this whole debacle, think this is maybe one of the best elections the Republicans could have had, simply because this guy seems normal.

Thinking comparatively like the Jim Jordan's and Steve Scalise, if you have picked a Jim Jordan, he would have had a more negative impact on a lot of the Republicans in the sleep discharge because of his persona.

His history and things like that.

The fact most people had to Google what this person was, rented, you may or may not like what you find.

He does not have the publication Jim Jordan coming in and being ultra-right, all of her stuff.

I think of doing over the good job, obviously he had unanimous support from his caucus which is something that would have been hard to believe, even two or three days ago.

If he can maintain the quorum and start getting Congress back on track, I think a year from now, as long as things are not as they held up in Congress, I don't think it will have the big of an impact.

>> I agree, he is relatively unknown.

US senators were asked about him saying I would have to google him.

As we are starting to learn more about him, I think fairly far right... >> Fairly far right?

I think very right.

Emmer everybody else that came forward.

>> He said Trump preferred Jordan.

>> He might have.

He could not sell Jordan.

This guy is ideological the same as distorted.

His personality may be different from but ideologically he is right there.

If you have a national ban on abortions, women denied the vote, he would be right in there.

It depends on what happens.

If he perceives the magna agenda, or if he does what is good for the country, the problem from their perspective is if they do what is good for the country and deal with Ukraine and Israel and deal with the budget and deal with the immigration, and Joe Biden looks good and they don't want that.

That is more important to them than what is good for the country.

>> Politically speaking, I agree, I don't think there is.

He does not seem to be much between Jim Johnson and Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise.

It is different than Tom Emmer if it was one of the more moderate members of that caucus.

Personality wise, he is very different from a lot of people, partly because he is unknown and because that seems t see in a couple weeks on the shutdown.

I don't think this speaker stuff is over, because if he gives even a little to keep the government going, his caucus is going to do the same thing.

They will try to get him out again.

The corridor compromise, they don't like that.

I honestly don't know what his personality is, except for what I have seen so far, Izzy has press conferences where he refuses to take questions or answer questions, and he does not want to talk about any of his stanzas in the past against gay marriage.

Calling the election Rick Dan stolen.

I think people are going to learn, but I am not sure Republicans can move on from this as fast as they want to.

>> Is this for the over?nt makeup U.S. House Senate for that matter.

I think he has made an attempt.

Those questions he has answered, which what he has tried to moderate a bit.

Should the inquiry into the Biden impeachment still proceed?

He said it was not as, and I know this is all very relative.

It is not like he was building a scaffold and said look over my shoulder, it is ready to go.

He did say, we are the party of law, with the facts proceed.

He is saying something.

He is trying to say that I see is the right thing.

You cannot do that forever.

There will be some moments where his deeply held beliefs, which seem to be by all accounts very much to the right, far to the right of Kevin McCarthy, welcome to the floor.

What I think will be interesting, well it is all interesting I guess.

Like Halloween.

Appropriate.

He is the most conservative speaker ever, he is also the least experienced speaker ever.

He was elected in 2016.

Typically, we have speakers who have been around.

They know how to negotiate.

They know how to work off some of the rough edges and maybe give a little bit, take a little bit.

You cannot run a deliberative body when it is evenly divided as it is, without some willingness to compromise.

There will be another explosion.

>> To John's point, even with a Republican standpoint, that is what you should be worried about.

The experience when it comes to the simple procedural things in the house, also fundraising, I believed in McCarthy was one of the biggest, if not biggest fundraisers in Republican history.

When it comes to that right Matt Gaetz, I think they will give him more leeway, something because Matt Gaetz can look in the camera and say "I want."

Even if he does tend to go she think Kevin McCarthy will, but I think you have a lot more leeway with that.

>> We will see what happens when the budget comes up.

We will see.

>> Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online full question.

This week's question is will the chaos around choosing a U.S. House speaker hurt Republicans in the 2024 elections?

A yes, B, no.

Last week we ask you whether we support the UAW strike between Ford, GM, and Stellantis.

64% say yes, 31% say no.

They reached a tentative agreement.

If you went to take part in the pool, go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Greta Chambers -- Brad Chambers wants to create measures into helping protect children online.

>> Chambers has his campaign focus heavily on policy issues and he is starting with online child safety because it puts an estimation point on the fact that children are critical to Indiana's present and future.

>> Addressing the challenges that parents have in today's technology environment is super important to just make a priority.

>> $$CAPITALISE's proposal to require stricter age verification on social media, giving platforms, and adult sites.

It would limit data collection of users under age 18 and would require education and social media.

>> We got to be careful about not overburdening our educators but our kids with these issues.

This is fundamental and foundational.

>> Age verification measures in other states have repeatedly brought into constitutional problems.

Chambers says is worth trying regardless.

>> Ann DeLaney, let's start here.

Is this a good plan?

>> I had to make a disclosure.

I am not the most technologically advanced person on this panel.

I have questions about how Indiana can control the internet.

Having said that, I think the idea of discussing in the classroom, the dangers of social media is a good idea.

You get these kids terrible ideas and they post them and affects them what they apply for college orbit they apply for a job.

They need to understand what the risks are.

As far as the rest of it goes, if you can come up with a legislative way to do something about this and protect kids, how can you not be in favor of that?

I just don't understand how Indiana can affect the rest of the world.

>> I did ask him that.

He said Indiana to a certain extent needs to not worry about what the companies will do.

We have to put our flag in the ground insight this is what we are going to demand of you.

They will have to comply or not.

We have seen this trite in other places.

So far it has not worked all that well.

Does that matter in an election process?

>> No, because honestly in the election process, this is an awesome move by the Chambers campaign, because you are putting out a proposal that you would think large majority of people would agree with, and you now come out as a first what is the thought leader out of the plant that lacks the details of how you are going to implement these very minute details.

I think you have seen this around the country.

Louisiana started it and it has been adopted in five or six states or major pornographic websites have left.

Once you get that age verification of having to submit a government ID, which is quite a step, unfortunately with the internet, there are a lot of options out there.

You have seen that kind of work in certain ones.

It is in court about the legality and things like that.

You have seen a lot of major pornographic websites leave other states because of this.

>> To be fair, Chambers acknowledged that yes, particularly the age verification department is one of the challenges in other states.

It has not been successful.

He said it is worth trying, regardless, because kids are being harmed.

To that end, what do you make of this being his first policy?

>> I think it is a logical one.

Let's look at the goal line.

The first edition of Anne's politics, you might have said politicians, elected officials were reported on the success, ultimate success of the proposals or plans.

I think that is thrown away.

The attempt is what seems to curry favor with your support.

We have seen Todd working on time and time again.

It is not the end, it is the fight against people going.

This is one that seems to be, everyone wants to protect kids.

There is not a big pedophilia lobby.

I think there is a small group.

Not deep pockets.

It is a safe issue that way.

Do I think it is a practical issue?

Probably not.

The target which weigh in on this, not on this particular fine point, but the whole notion of moderated content.

The Supreme Court, we have the issue of should a politician like Donald Trump for example, be forced off of a privately held platform, or does he somehow have some right that is superior or anyone else in a similar position?

>> Or even down to the level of courts leading in eventually on the politician block one of the constituents on social media.

>> This is all going to be... That is going to give to those lawmakers.

That is the oldest excuse in the book.

Not do anything now, because we need to wait to see what the courts say.

Since we are in this new paradigm, if in fact it is the pause that gets people stirred up and Jen's up the fandom, there is no loss.

>> In terms of my file we always want to talk about any of these Republican gubernatorial candidates from protectable make them stand out, because that is the goal what is going to make me be just far enough ahead that the other four candidates?

Is that something that makes Brad Chambers stand out because it would be so widely supported?

>> Yeah, I mean, I think it is no one is going to argue against this.

Everyone is going to come of course, we want kids to be online safely.

It is not going to set anything on fire.

It was an initial policy attempt.

It was safe.

It was a little lacking details, but not too badly.

>> Comparatively, we have seen other things like more details.

>> Is a good start, but I am hoping there will be some more meat as he gets going.

It also gives him another reason to put money out there in an at with his face.

He has got to use that to build his name idea which is the whole game.

>> Particularly... (Multiple speakers) >> Particularly Eric Doden.

This is what he has been running for a while, policy, policy, policy.

I will put ads out there that you get to know me, but also I like the policy I have been talking about already.

We will see if it works Brad Chambers.

>> 's latest study committee recommendation adopted this week that will see a blend cost-of-living adjustments for COLAs and an increase of pension benefits for public retirees.

Any changes expected in 2025, with short-term help for entire public servants unlikely.

>> The recommended plan would give all their public retirees a 13 check each year.

One extra month of benefits.

Newer retirees will get a COLA going forward.

The dividing line will be a past state, present a more sometime in the future is a key issue left to be decided.

Presented Jeff Thompson says any long-term change will wait for 2025 when lawmakers in the state budget.

The current budget did not include either COLA 13 check.

Thompson was asked whether retirees can expect help in 2024.

>> We will discuss that.

I am not sure on that part.

There will be some discussion there.

>> Senator Brian Buchanan who chaired the study committee expanding on the issue, said lawmakers typically don't reopen the state budget and on budget session.

>> Jon Schwantes, we talked this before.

Finally how to recommendation for long-term solution.

When should be surprised if lawmakers do nothing in 2024, on this issue?

>> Does nothing include talk?

Just talk does not count.

This sort of parallels but we just talked about in a way.

Nobody will come out against helping the seniors and retirees who serve the state well during their tenure as an employee.

And there is much more synthetic audience than the pedophiles we alluded to.

(Laughter) >> They have that going for them.

No one is going to say, we should not do this.

They will probably be convenient ways to push it back.

Let's see how revenues look, let's take a look at this, that, or the other.

We all know lawmakers do not want to do anything of the sort, even as palatable as this in a non-budget year.

There will be those who sit you have to wait for budget year, but back to the top, there would be proposals to address this in the short-trm.

No doubt about that.

>> The long-term solution waiting until 2025 makes sense.

New budget, we had to do something brand-new.

It makes total sense.

There is money.

To do something in the short-term.

>> That is the reason I think this is obviously every short session, no money, and budget.

In this case, one thing that helps the cause is there is a special supplemental fund builds up with money just for this reason.

It is sitting there, and they can pay it without affecting any reserves, any structural balances.

Nothing.

That will be the one thing that will make it hard for them to say no.

>> In the 2023 budget, for the first time in decades, no COLA or 13 check.

We always had done one or the other.

That was not in an election year for state lawmakers.

>> It is now.

>> If they don't debate in 2024, it shall be.

>> I am glad we are discussing it.

We have underpaid our pensioners for years and years.

They need to do something in 2024.

If nothing more than a gesture of good faith for the 13 check, or maybe even a little bit more than the 13 check.

Maybe the 13th and 14th to make up for this.

They have to look at this long-term.

We have to correct this problem because we are underpaying our pensioners.

That is really in a state with the budget surplus, the way we have it is inexcusable.

>> I have asked this question before.

I was stunned when they did not include a COLA or 13 check.

But then they said we would study it and do this.

Throughout the study committee, a lot of good work went into the study committee.

We talked on the show recently about how maybe not so much great work would be going on.

This was a really good committee.

They have a recommendation.

Why is it not a no-brainer to go long-term solution can wait, we know we had to do something in the short-term.

>> To that point, I think a lot of people agree with you.

It does seem like a no-brainer.

Nikki's point, I think is a tangible chance.

I think there is a tangible chance representative Bob Sherry, one of the top representatives.

There is good to be a bill.

The way to shaping that in the past, the influence he has in the caucus, there is a solid chance that gets a hearing.

See where it goes.

To your point, I think that is what you want to see study committee.

You see a lot of recommendations come out of the status quo, or should study it again.

This one had a tangible long-term solution.

>> Data will be eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal funding to help advance biotechnology development.

That's because the state this week was named one of 31 regional tech hubs across the country under the federal 6.

And chips & tax.

>> US under Todd Young who helped create the CHIPS Act called Monday's announcement a major win for the cougars.

It was awarded to Heartland BioWorks, and Indiana group led by the Apply Research Institute.

Its purpose industry leaders such as Eli Lily, Cook Medical and Roche, higher education institutions such as Purdue, Notre Dame, Ivy Tech Community College, and Indiana University.

Economic development organizations, labor unions, and the city see pictures of Annapolis.

The designation makes Indiana eligible to compete for up to $75 billion in grants later this year to help further help medical and biotechnology.

>> Niki Kelly, how big is this for Indiana?

>> I think it is a pretty big deal.

Obviously that bill is making some waves.

This is horrible.

Only 75 million?

I know it sounds horrible, but it does seem to make a big impact in a biotech world.

It may be a little more than that.

We will see what they get.

Interesting that the Albion support this.

We have to remember most of the Republicans in the state voted against the bill.

Mike O'Brien, Victoria Spartz and others.

Maybe it would be exact to see if they embrace it even though they voted against it.

Check think that would be a press conference?

>> One notable Republican, the most notable Republican who did not only vote for this, helped write this in Congress.

How big is this for Todd Young?

Segment in the real world, it is a huge win.

It is a huge win for Indiana.

Somebody will try to spin it negatively.

We have seen this upside down approach to jobs.

When are they bad?

When they seem to be high-paying and are based on education requirements and technology.

>> When our jobs back?

If you are a Republican.

>> You get these direct investments, but this is sort of like the early automotive investments, where an initial plant would give rise to an entire cottage industry of secondary suppliers.

Those suppliers were supplying a secondary supplier.

It is all good.

Chuck went up for Indiana.

>> It shows when you have a moderate senator like Senator Young, who is willing to with the Biden administration, you can actually accomplish something with the state of Indiana, like the senator.

>> I want to ask this question.

Todd Young stuck his neck out on this one.

The majority leader, Chuck Schumer, like the bogeyman.

He stuck his neck out and work for the Biden ministration and said we need to do this.

Does this now, with the tech hub would be named here, potentially money coming here, does this pay it all off?

If the gamble was worth it?

>> I think so.

Even future endeavors, however in his own party, working with the other side, it does not seem to be very popular right now.

Any future endeavors, I think if he stays the line points again to the tangible things he has done, I think that will support the future for sure.

>> Has got to be continued funding.

It has historically challenging for the National Science Foundation which was created in 1950.

Just because it is powerful on paper, there had been times in our history working there because of lean times federally, or philosophical changes does not get funded.

>> This is different.

It is technology and manufacturing, and is technical products.

It is not research.

It is something you will be able to put your hands on.

>> Finally, a twist on a spooky season standard.

A carwash in Fishers has created 'Tunnel of Terror', a kind of haunted house but in a carwash.

They are doing it for the last three hours of their service on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, mid to late October.

Chris Mitchem, is as an alternate it has?

>> I somebody who does not look hundred thousand somebody who does not hundred houses, this sounds was.

You are latched on for a minute of terror.

No thank you!

>> But they still washing the cars?

>> I don't think they are.

>> You are not steering.

Just close your eyes.

>> Me go get your carwash 20 is not the 'Tunnel of Terror'.

>> Real terrifying, I would do this to kids or anyone who might be impressionable.

Sitting at the gallery of the U.S. House for an extended period of time, that can be traumatic.

You know that go alert whenever you are supposed to go, that better have allowed Simon.

My eyes would be closed.

>> Buys Indiana Week In Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, publican Chris Mitchem, Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers, and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You get fired Indiana Week In Review's podcast episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR on the PBS App.

I am Brandon Smith of Indiana public broadcasting.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indian oblique.

(Music plays) -- a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

(Music plays) >> The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week In Review is a WFYI production in association with Indiana's public broadcasting stations.