the Indiana General Assembly has completed its third week of the session and with committee report deadlines next week, the pace of deliberation is moving quickly stand out legislation this week includes approval in the Indiana House on Thursday of a one point four billion dollar tax cut package.

That measure now moves to the Senate as does last week's House passed handgun permit bill that would make it legal for someone to carry a gun in public in Indiana without a permit and of particular interest to Fort Wayne resident with trash cans, the House Local Government Committee approved a measure giving municipalities more building flexibility when negotiating future solid waste contracts.

>> Our guests today are leaders in the Indiana House to speak on these and other issues as well as to take your calls and all of that on prime time.

>> Good evening.

I'm Bruce Haines.

With us in studio is seven the 9th District Republican state representative and House Majority Floor Leader Matt Laman and 8th District Democratic State Representative and House Democratic leader Phil Geia Queta.

And you can join our conversation calling your questions and comments.

You see the number there on the screen as we widen out and say hello to everybody.

There's Phil there's Matt Chettle.

Thank you.

Good to see you.

Happy New Year to you.

Good to be here.

Thank you.

>> Three weeks.

Does it feel like three weeks or does it feel more like three days a short session seems like a lot and the calendar just the breeze comes off the pages of the calendar as it goes by whether I can say three years or so now it's been yeah, it's and can I first off by saying that, you know, it's always really fun and a privilege to appear on the show with my friend Reverend Lehman but it's obviously been a little difficult these last oh I don't know, six years because every time we come on the show IU basketball suffered a typically defeat at the hands of the Purdue Boilermakers.

>> But last night Representative Laman we got back everybody I see we're out of time.

Thank you for being on the show anyway.

No, it's beer that and you have been we the speaker and I keep kind of joking with each other and Matt as well with regards to the pace a lot of bills and I know it's difficult for chairman to tell folks know and so you know, we're going to hear a lot of them.

They have heard a lot of them.

You know, it's a short session.

I always think it's sort of one of those you know, we we laugh because back in the day it was an emergency session.

>> You know, back in the early 70s there was there was no short session so but we're here and we'll we'll hear the bills that are in front of us and going from going from there.

But as you said, things will wrap up with committee's deadline.

This coming Tuesday and then will for the following Monday we'll be third reading deadline.

So first half will be over rather quickly move right along on.

>> You've gone very, very quickly and I would I would echo a little bit with Faucette that we seem to now have more emergencies than I thought we would be having because we have a lot of bills that have moved or are moving a lot of things that are still very high on the priority list.

But we're seeing some things come out that are important to people.

But you know, it is a short session.

It's going to be a very, very tight calendar this upcoming week with the second reading done with the committee deadline and the and the second deadline following Monday.

And I think I think half the bills that have been filed are still in that committee process .

>> So it's going to be it's going to be a pretty fast pace, you know, the next couple of days.

Yeah.

A big priority for House Republicans.

We're moving through with the announcement Thursday of the tax cut package, the one point four billion that one being something that may well take several years to see come to fruition over the several months of the a short session most look at this they're interested in what's inside the package around the larger question is this the right time for the package?

>> Matt, let me start with you about what what you see inside the package and the timing of all this.

>> Yeah, and I know I'll start with that and that is I think it is a good time for the package.

I think a lot of people said well, should we be doing tax cuts at a time when we're not really sure what the total fiscal might be because a lot of our influx of cash came from the federal government and we should sit this out.

But but if you think we've been running those two billion dollar surpluses now for several years last decade almost and so you really have to step in sometime and say it is the people's money and so let's find the right path to return some of that money what ten or two does it puts about a billion hours back into taxpayers hands and the discussion began with you know, I think we've created a very good environment for corporations and businesses in Indiana but how do we get some of those tax dollars back to the taxpayers, the individuals?

So we did a couple of things I think the bill really focuses on on helping corporate from the standpoint of a 30 percent floor on depreciation is gone.

We're lowering personal income tax is to bring in over some time as you said, we are taking away the utility tax which everybody pays if you pay an electric bill or a utility bill.

And so I think some of those things there are some other pieces in there but I think all that leads to a good time to do it is when you can do it you know what your fiscal is.

It's very it in the forecast for Indiana and I think that we are making the right decision and facing a lot of that down because we've seen other states that have gone into this tax cut mode and then find themselves, you know, on the other side of that and need to pivot.

So I think this 10 or two is in a good place.

>> I think it's time to return the money to all taxpayers in Indiana.

And Phil, when you peak in the package your your perspective a little bit different I suppose you we put forth some amendments tax bill 10 or two that we felt would really go toward helping Hoosiers with with different things whether it was earned income tax credit, child care tax credit, some things to help with tuition costs, things like that.

Most of this hospital tended to the bill that passed the House will go toward businesses corporation, things like that.

We mentioned utility cut that's really going to benefit you know, like for example Duke Energy and some of those larger utilities not so much Joe taxpayer if you will.

So in that from our perspective that's really probably the thing that we really wanted to see was an amendment that unfortunately we're not, you know, adopted into Tenno too.

So we'll see where he goes from here.

I know there's some reluctance in the Senate that maybe, you know, not the best time to be doing this that we still have to kind of wait and see because it's one of the reasons that we you know, we're at the four to five months it getting high the surplus is because of the one time shot of federal dollars that came in earlier in two thousand twenty one.

And and I do think though that it's really kind of a really great opportunity that the state is going to be missing out on if we don't take the money that we have particularly from the federal government and invest it in certain things.

I think what I hear from employers and that's quality of place, quality of life what what can we do for particularly citizens of Indiana to make this place make Indiana attractive place to retain talent, gain talent, expand job opportunities in the state?

So so just again kind of a difference in philosophy there and we'll just have to kind of see where he goes and over the Senate I know part of the governors address spoke to that idea of the business personal property tax reduction or for that matter it's elimination to encourage investment and so on.

So he sees some slice of the pie.

I don't know if you have if there has been much communication with the executive branch to know if he's interested in the entire pie at this point or particularly to with the ready program.

There was no discussion on the state funding that's been shared as a result of that and his saying this is great, I'm coming back, we're going to do more and we're we're might more come from against the backdrop of a tax cut plan as it may may well pass.

>> Well, I think you're going to see you know, starting with kind of the regional cities programs and that's kind of what led to the ready programs.

I think those have been very successful and a lot of that is kind of a there's some matching money there.

There's some things we could do I think to be creative.

But even with those programs in place we were still running some very serious surpluses.

So I think this time to continue that discussion of returning that money and to the you know those right there's the energy tax because across the board but that includes everybody who pays for that electricity from Duke Energy.

>> So you know, it may not be as big a cut to the individual but that's still dollars in their pockets.

>> There was a comment made by a gentleman named Tom Jackson who's a principal economist at IHS Market.

He said that one of the things that he feels holds Indiana's economy back fully is a lack of child care and senior care that as resulted in worker shortages.

And so I I I share this because it seems to speak to some regard to some of the legislative initiatives for House Democrats and yet wondering if in fact it is a complementary strategy or may well be a time to look at either additional support for child care or additional workplace assistance to keep the good times as good as possible Filt?

>> Yeah, no you're exactly right that it's been interesting to watch where parents struggle is you know is it is it more am I economically better off to stay home and care for my kids versus having to send them to a child care facility that become very expensive and and so that's why we push these sorts of things to because we know that folks want to get back to work.

Employers are looking for employees.

And so I think anything that we can do there to help with regards to the lowering or the assistance for child care is something that I think we we we've addressed from the get go and we'd love to see something happen.

>> Well, I think well, you know, we've done a lot in the past for those areas and I think we'll continue that not so much in the form of the tax credit but this will go to the Senate.

As you said, the Senate had some reluctance from the standpoint of maybe being on a budget year and et cetera.

>> But you know, we're a long way from it.

You're across the finish line but I think it's a good place now.

I know the speaker is looking to lobby hard for two and several have made note that this is going to be an interesting dynamic just to see how this does in fact play out.

So this is one thing the Senate now has if the package moves across the aisle.

One thing I will note too on the police business personal property taxes that that's a tax that goes to local governments and which not just not your city county but obviously schools, libraries, things like that.

And and I know that there are some those of us that have been concerned about, you know, any sort of replacement revenue and I know there's a tax credit based on the equipment but as the equipment gets older, the credit goes down and there's another bill I believe will be loss of revenue for local government or government as time goes on.

>> Things to watch indeed weeks go on as the session continues for sure.

I'd like to go to Ronda's off outflanks question which is something that you can share with us by either calling the number on the screen and talking directly to our state lawmakers this evening or if you'd like to share a question we can break that down, pass it along and this particular one is for both Phil and Matt.

What feedback have you been?

Have you taken rather from law enforcement's opposition to the gun permit bill meant you're offering and this was an interesting juxtaposition perhaps at least as noted in the gallery.

I would say and Ron, thank you for your question.

I think it's interesting even the choice of the the law enforcement opposition and law enforcement themselves was divided.

So you had the sheriff saying we're fine with, you know, going to carry our state police and et cetera.

And I think, you know, there's there's been opposition to this in the past I think represent Smoltz has done a really good job of getting this bill to a point where those who and this works gets a little bit misguided sometimes some people want to interpret this.

>> This doesn't say if you're currently prohibited from carrying guns you can now carry one that is still a federal law that is still state law.

>> This simply says if you are a legal person who can own a firearm then you legally can carry it though a difference is you don't get that little pink little pink card anymore.

>> And so it's been it's been a debate over you know, one of the questions asked in the committee was what does the word shall where our Constitution is or shall not be infringed?

Does it word shall does it mean anything in one law professor said well doesn't really mean it shall.

>> Well others quickly said no shall I shall.

So it's been both a debate around the legality of just that whole, you know, firmness of that constitutional right.

And then two is as I said I think represent Smoltz has it to where we are still going to protect the people who should not have guns, should not have guns.

They will not be able to carry the legal people who who can will be able to.

>> Well yeah.

Interesting testimony from several law enforcement agents, agencies, FBI and state police that I believe came out in the position of the Sheriffs Association remained I think neutral as an association or local sheriff here in Allen County is it was against the bill.

>> And I think that what I heard most was that two things one and we pull someone over the plate or whatever, you know, we can just want to know what we want the information as much information as we can possibly get is a person do they have a license something that we as officers would like to know before approaching the vehicle and to if they don't and they happen to have a gun that one gun, that one more gun they can take off the street, could that be an illegal possession of a gun?

And so that's that's something that you know, I've heard from law enforcement agencies.

The second thing though is that you know, there still is a background check when you buy a gun at a store that's just for felony only the background checks that the state police as for the the actual license looks at more than just that and and so they there are other ways to stop someone who shouldn't have a gun from having one and and I'm just afraid that this bill is going to lead to unsafe streets and when we're, you know, fighting crime and we see the homicide rate high and high as it's ever been.

I don't know the stat on that but it's certainly high and and anything that we can do and I think the the main thing though is to make sure that we're doing everything we can do to help law enforcement do their job too right.

>> One of the differences apparently that President Pro Tem Bray has noted is that this year's bill is a different bill and possibly a better bill.

>> Better bill is his words better in what way have any sense of whether he's seen this or not?

>> Not really.

Particularly because I think this is I think this is the only difference in this bill.

Last year's bill was the removal of the database because we were saying you have to have a database that would collect this data.

>> I think where this bill is better or worse and I think it's a little better in the sense of I think it's tightened up some of those places where there might have been a concern over whether it be the mental health issue and things like that.

But I guess I'll go back and say, you know, just if you look at the data you know, we heard this in testimony time and time again is the states to pass this have not seen the uptick in violent crime that everybody has predicted.

In fact, there's some evidence that in some places it's actually gone down and part of that is is we heard testimony of an undercover officer who said, you know, I realized when I went undercover all the bad guys have guns and they know the good guys don't a lot of them don't.

And so that sets this up.

>> So you also have a situation where if you look at communities where they've had very, very strict gun laws, they have some of the highest crime rates when it comes to violent crime.

So I don't know that this you know, prohibiting is going to actually get to the point where we want to really fight crime.

I think it's going to matter of most people to they don't want to be able to make sure if I need to go out and I want to be safe do have no legal right to carry a gun maybe I don't always carry a gun.

>> Can I today in the will be us one thing I want to be sure we get to because I'm looking at the clock on the wall as well as all of the information rather there's a lot in a short session you know there really is and there's not a lot of minutes and a half an hour appropriate.

But I do want to talk to you both and particularly Phil as coauthor of What is Known as House Bill twelve eighty six.

But this is the one which allows cities to revamp their bid process.

The stories of Fort Wayne and its trash collections are above the fold on the front page and what are you believing this will help?

What is the answer that this bill represents to the problems that we're all experiencing once?

>> So right now the city of Fort Wayne when they put for example in this case contract out for bid for trash pickup, they are obligated under state law to accept the lowest and most responsible bid and only in the city of Indianapolis doesn't have that provision.

They're the only city in the state that doesn't every other city has to take the lowest, most responsible bid.

So I've been involved in other contracts where you put out a request for proposal, you get some bids back and while you got three bids, bid number three is not very good bid one and two are pretty good but I really like bid number two but it's a little more expensive than number one and so I would love to be able to negotiate a little bit with that person that submitted submitted bid number two under the current law I'm not allowed to but we would like to do is have the law changed and say that the bids that come back the city would be able to to engage with a particular someone that they had submitted bid.

It looks really good but it's just a little bit too high.

Can you can you get the price down a little bit?

Can you add some things that's going to justify the higher of the two cost and so it really kind of puts the city in a better position to negotiate to get some more things back potential higher cost not necessarily a higher cost but particularly if you asked this particular bidder to sharpen your pencil and do what you can if we really want you.

But you've got to show us that you want to be with the city and you need to come down on your price a little bit.

And so that's really what we're looking to do.

We tried this back in 2014.

It didn't make it so we weren't able to do that when the trash pickup then came around the bid came around for back in 2017.

So hopefully this will help and the city will be able to because I think they would like to reengage with some different haulers and see if they can maybe get a better hauler and better customer better service for the citizens of Fort Wayne.

>> Yeah, and the key the key word there is responsible because I think what you're seeing is there needs to be the ability to say as I said, this may not be the cheapest but it may be the most responsible bid and so that needs to be in the hands of the locals to make that decision.

Yeah, I think that I think this is a good bill and I was just going to say the prospect of passed out of committee this week and I think it'll pass out of the House and we'll we'll go work the site as that car was in the few moments we have.

Let's let's put those moments and let me start with you a couple of the pieces of legislation that you're authoring or following in between now and March 14 that you'd like to share.

Well, the one that we didn't talk about Hospital Tunnel one which is our response to the vaccine mandate that has occupied most of my time since about November and we did get it out of the house this past week and it isn't going to be to the Senate.

There's maybe not as warmer reception is as on some other issues.

But I think it really tries to find that line between employer and employee in a very difficult time right now as we all know.

And so I think watching that over the next couple of weeks will be very important.

But also I just think there's a lot of things we come from a citizen legislature.

So I tell people now I'm back to looking at insurance issues making a very consumer friendly in the state.

So it's great that we all bring our perspectives and got dental bills.

We got stuff.

So there's a lot of things out there to watch.

I think it's going to be a very, very rapid pace and with 10 to one I think there's another bill 1100 that's also looking at legislature governor relations with executive orders and the calendar.

>> It's there's been I mean we had eleven point three last year and eleven heard this year.

It's all trying to find that that space between the balance between the elected legislative branch and the people and then the executive branch which is the you know, the broader sense and you know, we'll see what all that goes but we'll keep an eye on all that.

>> And Phil, how about you, sir?

Well, as a leader of the House Democrats, they don't allow me to serve on any committees you get to do that.

>> I don't we don't we don't believe that's true.

>> That's right.

You're right.

I can debate yourself exactly.

So and so I get it but I get to do other things, have other fun with some things and and yeah.

>> And that's exactly right.

It'll be really a rapid finish here maybe forty or 50 bills are going to be out there maybe a little bit more we'll just have to see and some won't be very complicated.

You they're rather smaller fixes.

One thing about a short session is from last year if there are things that maybe that didn't quite get over the finish line you can but they really almost ready to go.

They've been debated and vetted and things like that.

>> Those go rather quickly too.

So you know, we're hoping and who knows we'll cross our fingers.

>> Maybe we can get out a little bit earlier.

There's one thing that just it up is is that what we don't know is what's coming to us.

That's true too, you know, because we spend so much time filling out both looking at what we're doing and what's going from us to them now we're getting to that point where we can now be talking about what's come from them to us.

>> Yeah, yes.

Not the least of which would be for example, interest in a passenger rail commission is being discussed in the Senate with apparently the opportunity to leverage some federal funding.

There is of course a popular turn signal bill seven of wanting to adjust the amount of distance before things turn.

Are there comparable bills like that already in the House that match these in the Senate?

>> Is that yet to the turn signals a new one for me?

Well, that's one I've not seen in the house.

There's another that sort of speaks to an area of Phil's concern with property tax assessments.

Bob is calling in offline.

I'm not sure how much we can get to Bob.

He's wanting to add sewers or IFIs he is in a town that is adding sewers that will cost about two thousand dollars for ten to twelve of his his lights when disagreements come up and property tax assessment issues are creeping up.

>> You had some legislation on on that as well and we have about a minute so yeah.

>> You know and I I, I will credit our our assessors our county assessor in our local township assessors around the state do a wonderful job.

They really do and and I think that they are if this Bob I think his name is if he has any questions concerning property assessment or things like that ,you know, give his local assessor a call.

I mean they're they're there to answer your questions and I think they do a wonderful job of it being more difficult.

>> In fact, we need regional sewer districts that are being formed.

That's part of the problem as well.

That's going to be an issue we'll deal with.

I know we'll be talking about over the next several years.

>> Yeah, well we appreciate both of you sharing your assessment of what we know so far and best wishes for the rest of the journey.

>> Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate our guests.

They of course have been House Majority Floor Leader Matt Laman and House Democratic leader Phil Quinter.

I'm Bruce Haines.

I remembered my name and for everyone associated with prime time thank you so much for watching.

>> Take care.

We'll see you back here next week.

Good night