while the entire country is focused on the controversial ice operations in Minnesota, an immigration enforcement bill for Indiana has cleared the Senate.

>> We'll talk about that and other issues including improving school lunches and the Chicago Bears of Indiana.

>> All that and more including your questions and comments right now on prime time.

Hello everyone.

Welcome to Prime Time.

I'm your host Ed on the General Assembly moving forward on bills that address everything from empowering the governor to deploy a military police force to a gambling casino in northeast Indiana.

>> Here to discuss those issues and much more is Senator Sue Glik from Indiana Senate District 13 and from House District 80, the minority leader of the Democratic caucus, Phil Chiquitita.

>> Welcome to Prime Time.

Guys, thank you.

>> So I really want to start with this immigration thing SB 76 it's an enforcement bill that expands the the necessity for local governments to cooperate on enforcement issues related to immigration.

Look, can you explain that a little bit?

What you know what is this cooperation that's being enforced?

>> Well, I think what the intent of the bill is and I don't speak for the author but but the intent is to make sure Indiana law enforcement, the local law enforcement is up to speed on what they can and cannot do, what expectations there are.

It's unfair for local law enforcement to be thrust into a federal issue without proper training and skilling them up to deal with with the federal government and what the rules are in terms of release.

Many of these individuals come into contact with law enforcement for minor offenses and they under the bill as I understand under federal law they have to run them through the identification systems, check their their status if you will and if in fact there's a detainer form or they do not have a recognized status, then they have to go further with the finding out, you know, what their status actually is.

>> And for some people that's very difficult because they might not have the papers.

They've moved around some and they don't carry the papers with them.

But if they're not a citizen, I think it's it's pretty much an idea that, you know, they should have the papers available to more readily available.

So local law enforcement isn't is more the reason I voted for the bill in the Senate was to make sure that that our local people have the knowledge they need in order to enforce the law but doesn't so doesn't that draw local enforcement deeper into the federal operation, maybe be taxing resources and putting them in a situation where they're not really fully trained well and that's that's the intent of the bill is to make sure they are trained as far as being drawn in.

>> They already are they they are required to make some of those inquiries in regard to the arrest and especially if it's a serious or violent offense.

They have to check warrants, active warrants and and other issues with their NCIS and their NCIC computers to make sure that the individual we're dealing with is the person who was identified by that name and Social Security number tax I.D.

number.

>> So it's a it's a protection as much for the law enforcement as it is for the individual.

>> Anything to add to that?

Well, that bill will be up second reading on Monday so there'll be some amendments.

I know that there are changes in the House committee.

I also know that the House sponsor has an amendment I think to take I must take it back to look like what the Senate version of it.

So we're going to have to see I know there'll be some amendments on our side with regards to the response ability of campus police hospital.

>> You know what what they're allowed because if the bill penalizes departments, if they don't comply or if they don't join in the enforcement efforts .

>> So that's kind of a that's kind of new territory it seems.

Yeah.

And like I said, we're just getting into this now whether there'll be more debate on Monday, OK, by the way, I want to I just want remind our folks that you can join in on the conversation.

Our phone lines are open right now for your questions and comments at two six zero (969) 27 two zero.

You can also text really easy.

Another number for tax it's (969) 27 three zero and if you tax please let us give us your name and where you're texting from sort of a you know, an adjacent bill is is HBE thirteen forty three and this is the one that allows the governor to deploy the National Guard as a military police force.

>> Do that in light of Minnesota.

What's going on there?

Does this does this seem like it is necessary?

Doesn't the governor already have the right to employ the National Guard in an emergency situation?

Yeah, I mean obviously the situations have been really well.

It's in cooperation with local governments, particularly in flooding and things like that.

Emergencies that we've seen this would basically just allow the governor just to send the National Guard into into these some certain situations.

I personally just think that it again should be in cooperation with local mayors and say, you know, either we can, you know, handle it with ourselves and maybe it'd be best just to let our already professionally trained police handle the situation or if they want to go ahead and ask for help from the national Guard.

So but that's not what the bill says basically just kind of gives this governor any other future governor just go ahead and send in the National Guard and I think that could potentially conflict with what a mayor may be doing on the local level.

And the other issue too is that it's we had a lot of discussion as to how much training as the National Guard had in some of these situations where, you know, police are kind of that's their job.

Yeah.

On a day by day basis they're always constantly talking about getting, you know, updated on the latest and greatest techniques and all those things whereas the National Guard really isn't fully engaged on a day by day basis and you know, it just we'll just kind of see where that goes in the Senate, right?

>> I mean but isn't that isn't that what people are seeing in Minnesota is that here are here's a force that is maybe not fully trained for the missions that they're out doing?

>> Well, the National Guard bill was we felt that it was in pretty good shape when we were looking at a Senate.

We required them to take training very similar to law enforcement training academy so they knew the constitutional rights of the individuals they were involved with.

If you're in the United States of America, you are protected by the Constitution of the United States.

You have to remember the National Guard people can be 19, 18, 19 years old whereas law enforcement in Indiana has to be twenty one in order to be a fully serving officer.

>> So we want to make sure that we don't turn people loose who have not had the the training who are not aware of the situations are going to be involved in we train these young people in the National Guard for various capacities but are trained to fight wars and what we're dealing with are immigration issues.

It's a different kind of training but they need to know what they can do and what they can't do in terms of the protection of the rights of the individuals.

And we don't want to escalate situations beyond what they should be or what they could be.

>> Right.

I think that's what many people are reacting to is the kind of the perception that there's an over militarization of our cities .

Exactly.

And I don't think anyone wants to see that we want to make sure that we don't turn young people loose in a situation that they're not ready for law enforcement spends a lot of time on the the various situational reactions that they have.

They are they trained over time to react in terms of of what those triggers are by the individuals involved.

We don't want to put people in a position to react that or not they're not qualified to do that's not good for the state of Indiana.

>> It's certainly not good for the individuals mind.

>> There's a real quick back in the early 90s Governor Evan Bayh at the time said state troopers up and to Gary at the request of the mayor of Gary, you know they're working in tandem with the partnership there because there were some things that were getting out of control and the illegal drugs and whatnot.

>> And so I think that's an example a good example of actually how the state in cooperation with local government because this was a request of the of the mayor.

Sure.

That they can the state can be helpful and that that was something that happened I remember vividly back in the early well that's already in place, right?

>> Yes.

And so do we need this law?

>> Some people don't think we do, you know, and we don't want to get in over over our skis of U.S.

reaction in in Minneapolis is a perfect example.

People who are ready or weren't you know, weren't qualified to deal with the situations overreacted peers in some cases we don't want to put our our military people in that that's not the role they're preparing for .

We need them for emergencies.

We've had situations with flooding and tornadoes, those kinds of emergencies.

Sometimes we need additional help from local law law enforcement.

Let's skill them up for what they really need to be and let's not as you say over militarize the militarize the National Guard.

>> That's not the role.

>> We have a text that's come in from Hannah.

It's adjacent to this.

I don't know if you'll be able to answer this but the question is what authority will local law enforcement have against ICE if they are not following local laws like do they need warrants?

You know, how will they pull recognize peaceful protests?

>> They should yeah.

You know, the First Amendment hasn't gone away.

People do have a right to protest and and as long as it's peaceful and it's not threatening, that's where the lines are blurring and some of these situations that have arisen in other states I would hope that in Indiana we won't approach those types of situations and if we do that then our law enforcement, local law enforcement will will react accordingly.

The Indiana State Police has a is a fine record of responding and being able to discern the difference between what's threatening and what is just a peaceful demonstration.

>> All right.

Let's talk just real quick total agree with Sue that really the best outcome on all these situations when folks are cooperating together I'm talking about the different agencies where they're cooperating and working side by side in tandem to to get the best results.

So that if if one agency just going in alone like John Wayne we're going to handle it ourselves without giving out any cooperation or communication with local the local government, then you're going to have disasters like you've seen in Minnesota.

>> So folks need to work together.

All right.

Let's move on to something that is going to affect northeast Indiana.

Phil, I think you're involved in the spill.

>> How spill ten thirty eight .

The casino gambling bill talked to us about where where that's at.

>> Well, let me take it back just just a little bit maybe thirty years.

>> But you know, we there were referendums that went out there and little Switzerland county I forget where a rising sun is located.

>> I think it's Switzerland.

>> Yeah.

They were one of the first counties to pass a referendum and at the time member had the boat they had to go back out on the water to gamble and that we had ducks dockside gambling then land based casinos and so on.

Well, over the course of time we've seen competition from not only know Michigan by keepers but Toledo, Ohio and then of course Cincinnati, Ohio.

>> But the casinos that have opened up have caused great competition for the state of Indiana and rising sun is a small area and they in the last oh gosh I'd say the last five to seven years have inquired about possibly moving they at one point we're looking to go to Vigo County and Terre but we had two licenses up and Gary again they were seeing competition from Chicago.

So one of the two licenses er moved to Terre Haute so that took care of that area and frankly there's really only one area left in the state that that of Indiana that really doesn't have a land based casino if you will and that's northeast Indiana.

>> So the bill basically says that includes Steuben County, DeKalb Alan and now Wayne which is Richmond and would allow the gaming agency the Gaming Commission to examine which of those four four counties would be the best place for this particular license which is in rising in Indiana to transfer to and is going to move here.

>> It's going to move here somewhere local.

And what is this a referendum on the ballot or is it going to the game?

>> There was an amendment by referendum Smalls to put in referendum language.

So I'm not it would be up to the county each county to decide whether or not they would like to have a referendum on gaming.

So it's when I look back at the history of gaming and where anyone is I started out with this little story here.

Rising Sun was one of the first one to be a referendum that they passed it and most of these areas that have casinos have passed with some kind of referendum I'm sure.

>> And did I read correctly that whoever wins the contract has to invest five hundred million dollars into the casino ?

That's where it stands right now.

That's where the number is.

It's you know, it's it's a high number but it would also probably guarantee that you're going to have a pretty nice facility here with with just not only gaming but hotels and everything that that comes with it probably located you know, on four sixty nine or sixty nine if it's not an Allen County it's up the road away so that folks can travel from other parts of the state and and is that so now the counties will have to present their their best plans.

>> Well it hasn't passed yet so we'll see what happens.

I mean it's over in the Senate.

We'll just kind of have to see where it goes.

But you're right exactly.

They would put forth their own their bid, their proposal and the gaming Commission would have the kind of have the final say again they're going to look at a referendum and see who's it if that's a step than that.

That's the way the the county wants to go and see kind of based upon that where we are.

>> You know, I've heard from both sides of the issue on when it comes to gaming and and I always like to remind people that, you know, for example in our county we have an off track betting.

We have gaming here out in New Haven where you can bet on sports, you can bet on the horses, you can sue and I can right now can so you can bet on how long I'm going to keep talking with you if she picks up her phone and goes well there's there's a long track record of of what these casinos do in a community right for the good and the bad in terms of economic development and as well as bringing maybe some some social ills into into the community is that do the Northeast Indiana resistance do you think filt?

>> Well, you know, I tried we all try to do our homework.

I think the mayor of New Haven last year when we were talking about moving the casino potentially up to New Haven, I mean he he did he went to several casinos in Indiana.

He went to visit a few that were out of state.

He does not he came back his report was he was not seeing an increase in crime or sort of social ills that you talked about.

>> In fact the fact that you have both Wayne County and Steuben County for sure that have appeared down in at the state House hoping to get to be the winner of this, if you will.

They do not worry about some of those things that they that they've heard.

>> So yeah, we'll just have to kind of see where it goes.

So realistically if this passes, what would be a timeline?

>> I think people would be interested in understanding what would be a timeline to where the casino that they can walk into.

>> Well, if there's a referendum I'd probably go in the fall of November of twenty twenty six and then however long it takes about a year I don't know I'm sure that it could be you know twenty twenty eight or something.

>> Yeah I can imagine it would take a long time yeah.

>> All right let's move on to some other another kind of unique economic development issue and that is the Chicago Bears are looking for a new home and Indiana has stepping up and saying hey, we'll take the bears.

>> What are your thoughts on on public money for a stadium and to it to get get a stadium going in Indiana?

>> It's not just the football game.

All right.

Anyone who has a large sporting facility has other attractions that go there as well.

Certainly the bears have been a draw in northern Indiana, certainly northwestern Indiana for many, many years.

A lot of this were bears and long before we were Colts fans because that was the team and it can't hurt the Gary area, if you will, to have that kind of economic development, that infusion of hotels and and restaurants, that sort of thing.

The city of Chicago has got to step up to the plate if they want to keep them.

It appears that Arlington Heights, Illinois has said we don't really want to change the the nature of our community to accommodate a large facility like a new stadium.

I don't think downtown Chicago wants to lose Soldier Field and the attractions that are there.

But Mayor Melton who used to be a state senator is very strong in his advocacy.

He wants to see the bears come there and he's willing to make the investment.

>> It would be an economic boon to that area.

Absolutely.

>> I think in many other cities the the public has been reticent to put public money towards the ambitions of billionaires which are these are these owners are billionaires.

>> Thoughts on that say that.

But but you know, just like casino there is money that will come with, you know, people who do the construction people who invest in things like the hotels and the other venues in Steuben County has a very robust tourism industry now because of the lakes, because of the state park at Polk and they have an influx of summer people that is tremendous and even you know, with a casino that might turn into a year round venue if you will, but just dropping a note on the casino, I have an amendment for the bill that makes the referendum mandatory.

So the people of Allen County, the people of DeKalb County, the people of Steben County and Wayne County would have it on the ballot.

They could express themselves if a community or county is going to invest that kind of money, then I think the the electorate should have the right to go forward and say we want it or we don't want it and and I think it should be mandatory.

It's on the ballot so that it's just not a decision made by just the investors, just the billionaires, if you will.

Right.

But but all the people are going to have to live with the consequences of of any kind of facility like this.

>> Sounds like common sense I'm hearing yes.

Bears to you bears well I know the speaker was in Hammond yesterday so speaker of the House the bill is going to come to him in fact and we will be having those discussions among our caucus members and but you know, the members of northwest Indiana are very excited about the potential there.

>> I think it's getting closer and closer.

I think what would once thought is something that was never going to happen is real becoming more likely so so we'll see.

>> The big question I think do think is you know, of state dollars that would go to the go to Indianapolis if you are come to a state government versus local taxes and how much they're going to put in up there in Lake County and the surrounding counties as well.

What the main question how this all gets played out.

But you know and I haven't really seen kind of heard about a renderings of what the stadium would look like.

There could be, you know, retractable roof and those sorts of things which means Super Bowl, Final four, all those things that would come with it and and the development around there too like Sue said, you know, with hotels and things like that for that area.

>> So I'm hearing Goebels from you too, sir.

All right.

We have a text from James and this is about nuclear power if everything passes I don't know that I'm familiar with the bill that James is mentioning.

Are either of you have thoughts on what what this is about?

>> Well, no.

I mean I there were some legislation that I know passed we passed last year and it takes a long time to build these reactors does you know but I think there is a lot of positive energy, if you will, with regard to and you know, as far as you know, it's clean and and energy and things like that and it's potentially the way a way to go.

But it does take a while to and he might be referring to some of these small modular smaller reactors that we we've talked about in the past.

>> So it'll take a while to build.

We've advocated for a long time to see the small modular reactors most people think of nuclear energy is the size of Three Mile Island or the cook plant.

>> But in this day and age you're talking about small modular reactors that would power a city the size of Fort Wayne or some of the smaller cities of Goshen or in Elkhart much smaller in scale, much different construction not a total the an implosion would not be the same danger to the surrounding area I think more in terms they're safer anyways.

>> Well, think of the size of a new nuclear reactor on board an aircraft carrier or in some of those areas Crane the Naval Service Weapon Center down in southern Indiana.

It is in desperate need of more energy because of their their expansions down there.

And and we've been talking with them because you know, frankly the United States Naval Academy graduates about 50 to seventy five nuclear engineers every year.

It would be far easier for the military because of national security to get the licenses in a short order and construct such a film felicitated there in an area which is in desperate need of of energy then it would be for a city or town in and around the state of Indiana.

So that might be a place to start and I think if if it was successful there more people would be willing to to consider it for , you know, local energy use.

>> All right.

We're coming near the end of our time.

But we have one comment from Dale.

He says he's a retired person and he's seen an increase in his property taxes over the last few years.

Is there anything help on the way for retirees with the rise of property taxes?

>> I know that's a big question.

Has any progress been made and some of the films like to take that one?

Well, the the this year will be the first that some of these the the the the provisions of SB one from last year or ACA one will kick it into effect.

It will have some impact impact on the cities and towns and there are some provisions it's some of the deductions for the the senior citizen veterans and groups like that so he will not see him until this year.

>> The really sad part is that that it is not as significant as we had hoped although there are there is some legislation in coming across to us we haven't seen it yet from the House.

The real issue is whether or not in offsetting income loss to the municipalities the making it up on local income tax may offset some of the savings on property taxes so people who own property are going to see some savings but there may be a local income taxes that will impact.

>> All right.

Not I'm sure that's not the answer you wanted to hear, Dale, but their work they're working on it.

All right.

Well, this and that's going to wrap us up.

I want to thank you both for being here tonight.

Sue Glik from Indiana Senate District 13.

Thank you.

And Phil, your Quinter House District 80 and minority leader of the Democratic Caucus Imit.

Leon, thank you for joining.

>> We'll see you next time on prime time