OK, well, I see that it is 9.30. And so I think that we will get started with our pre-session town hall
today. I am your moderator. My name is Sonia Lierkamp. And I'm vice president of the League of Women
Voters for Brown County. If you've tuned in before for one of these, you may have seen me moderate a
session or two of these discussions.
And it feels good to be back here and being able to moderate these questions and have conversations
with a couple of our representatives. We ask that anyone who is not actively involved in asking a question,
if you would please mute your sound so that there's no background noise while other individuals are speaking.
So please do that if you have a moment to check. When you have a question, all you need to do is to
go into chat and address one question moderator and say, I have a question. You will be called upon
in the order that your questions have been received. We will then begin in order received,
following the legislators' remarks. In this particular session, we do want to make sure that you note
that all of our state legislators representing Bartholomew, Brown, Johnson, and Monroe counties have
been invited to attend the legislative updates.
You can see on this slide a list of all of our senators and representatives. From there, we will get
into a little bit about the process for having our discussion. First of all, this is for information.
It is not a debate. We ask that everyone be civil and respectful.
We will be asking you to participate in a bit of an informal poll during this town hall program. It
will invite you to weigh in on some of the most important issues that you would like to hear about that
you believe will be considered in this session of the legislature. Each legislator will then
give his introductory summarization of expectations for the legislative session in his or her opening
remarks. You will present issues for the legislature to consider. I'm sorry, I'm a little tongue tied
this morning.
As I mentioned before, send a private chat question to one question moderator. You'll be called upon
in order your request is received. And if time permits, we will let you have some follow-up questions.
The legislators may respond to each issue if they wish. Time will be moderated to facilitate participation
of as many people as possible. This session is being recorded.
by CATS, the Community Access Television. So let us go ahead and start out with having our legislators
introduce themselves. I'd call upon, oh, here is the poll. If you could, this is a Zoom poll that's
being presented on the nine issues that
we think should encompass most of the priorities of most of the people involved in the conversation
today. So if you could vote on your three top priorities and submit that, then we will be able to provide
the results at a later point in time.
give you a minute or two to do that. So far, 12 people have participated, 13 have participated. Okay,
18 of 28 folks on the call. Okay, thank you very much. I think we've actually got
30 on the call now. So we hope everyone will just take a moment to click the three most important items
and submit those. And perhaps while you're finishing that up, we can go ahead and have our legislators
start with their introductions. And Matt, today, I think I'll call on you first. OK, good morning, everyone.
Thank you for participating in today's
Hearing that, it looks like our priorities have popped up here. All right, so kind of not surprising
in healthcare. Looks like it's the top one at 65%. I hope I'm not stealing all this thunder by kind
of revealing this. Looks like housing's next at 39, and it looks like the environment at 35. So although
it's fairly even, I mean, jobs workforce at 9%, maybe that's a little lower than expected, childcare
preschools at 13.
Um, voting is 57%. Excuse me. Voting and election security is 57%. Oh, you know what? Maybe I'm not
seeing all of them at the school down here. Oh yeah. I missed a couple. Yeah. I don't listen there.
Yeah. So these are, um, a lot of issues that obviously are on people's minds and that I think the legislature
needs to address. The thing is I have no idea at this point what the super majority has to, um,
has on its agenda. I mean, you can kind of guess a few things. So I guess first, let me say that this
whole issue about whether we're going to have mid decade redistricting kind of suck the oxygen out of
the air. I mean, it's been waiting since August trying to decide whether they would actually do it.
If they would do it, would they try to actually eliminate both Democratic districts? If so, what would
that map look like? I mean, all kinds of speculation and just trying to scratch your head, figure out
what's going to happen. And so now with
The announcement yesterday, it seems like that is not going to happen with the Senate saying they don't
have the votes and they will not be coming back in December for this little mini session that was supposed
to deal with quote time sensitive issues, which apparently redistricting was supposed to be one of those.
So that's the good news. But you know, in the legislature, we have a I think it's a Yogi Berra quote
we steal. It's like it's not over till it's over. Right. It's as long as the legislature is in session,
something can happen.
I think it's unlikely anything will happen on that topic. But I mean, the governor essentially put out
a statement saying he thought they should have to come in and debate the issue. And so he hasn't given
up. There was one report that the president was like, summoning people to his own office in the Senate
Republican caucus to have a talking to. I don't know if that's accurate or not.
But I don't think they've quite given up yet. But it seems to me like the Senate now for the third time
has said, we just don't have the votes. And they've said we're not coming back in December. The House
speaker has been, at this point, as far as I know, has been silent and not said anything. And so it's
a little bit unclear what the position of the House would be. I can't imagine that they would actually
come into session when the Senate's not going to in December. But you could imagine if they're going
to play super hardball,
And they feel they have to placate the president. I mean, the House could come in and attempt to pass
some kind of map and send it over to the Senate. And the Senate would then have pressure to come in
and actually handle that map. And so the question is, will the governor and the speaker of the House
essentially gang up on the Senate?
I can't imagine they would want to start that kind of war because then, you know, that's going to poison
their relationship and there's going to be nothing else. I think they'll be able to, you know, to work
on together because there'll be such hard feelings on that. So I think that's unlikely, but you never
know. So when will we figure all that out? Well, Tuesday is the organization day, which in a year in
which we don't have elections is largely a kind of a ceremonial thing, but it's the official first day
of the regular session.
established by statute. And the speaker said a couple weeks ago that he would be putting out a schedule,
which normally happens on organization day for the entire session. And so I think if we get that schedule
on Tuesday, that'll tell us a lot of what we need to know and also allow you to kind of figure out what
are going to be the deadlines for bills to get out of the House and out of the Senate. And, you know, when the
Legislature expects it's going to finish up its work by law. We have to be done by March 14th. Normally
we finish about a week earlier. The majority likes to show that it's efficient and saving a little money.
So usually it's like around March 7th. When they had announced that there's going to be this two week
December session, they'd said we were going to get out no later than February 27th. They're basically
going to shave two weeks off the back end. But, you know, that's probably going to change now. So on Tuesday,
be on the lookout for the schedule to understand kind of what the rhythms of the legislature will be
for the upcoming session. The other thing that's informative on organization day is traditionally the
speaker of the house gives a speech in which he lays out the majority party's agenda and kind of their
priorities for the upcoming session. And so that'll give us kind of some idea because I feel like I
don't really recall coming into a session
where I had such a little understanding of what might be considered there. Because there's lots of issues
that could be addressed that need to be addressed. And yet I really haven't heard a whole lot coming
out of the majority party as to as far as what they want to do. The only thing to me that seems fairly
certain is I think they know they have to fix some of the bigger train wreck aspects of Senate Bill
1, which was that property tax bill, which is really causing all kinds of problems for local government.
attempting to raise the revenue they need, figuring out how to be able to actually, you know, let a
bond and have the bond raiders decide they can actually pay for the, you know, pay the bond back. And
so that's creating problems all across the state. So I think that there'll likely be some kind of fix
on Senate Bill one. And that's really the only thing that that I'm certain will get taken up. And again,
just these affordability issues. So I just I have
No idea whether the majority party is kind of sensing the same, you know, desperation's maybe too strong
of a word, but people are really struggling to try to figure out how to, you know, pay the bills and
keep things going. And, you know, fundamental basic things that people need like childcare, healthcare,
housing, you know, the government, state government should be stepping up and trying to do something
on that. One thing that it could do,
is it could adopt a supplemental budget. The revenues have been coming into the state ahead of the forecast
that the current budget was based on. And so they could come in and they could attempt to allocate some
more money to things like Medicaid where people are backed up on long wait lists, the childcare stuff,
same thing. They could look at these areas where people are really waiting to get services and see what
they could do to kind of move the wait list line along.
That used to happen a lot of supplemental budget. There was a time maybe 20 years ago when it was pretty
routine in a short session to have a supplemental budget, assuming there was extra revenue coming in.
That hasn't happened for a long time. I doubt they will want to open up the budget. But I think that
if they really wanted to help out struggling Hoosier families, they would do that. And they would try
to get these programs better funded that they essentially capped off.
in the last budget. They pretty much said, we don't care what the need is. We're just drawing the line
here. And I think that they would do better if that's how they're going to operate it to move the line
if they have more money so more people can get in. So that's kind of my general assessment of where
things are as far as I know it. And we'll just see what happens on Tuesday. Matt, thank you very much
for those opening comments. Shelly, now can we get your perspective of things?
Well, thank you for inviting me to listen to what your priorities are and jumping on this call on a
really gorgeous, warmer than usual fall day. And my remarks, as I was thinking this week about what
I wanted to say and how I would frame it, where I was yesterday morning is very different than where
I am this morning. I will say the news
The phone call I received from President Bray was one that I was surprised, shocked, but it was a win
for Hoosiers for sure. And the boost that it gave to Hoosiers across the state to know that your endless
emails, your calls, does anybody fax anymore? I don't think so. But your text messages, the conversations
that you've been having from
individuals to advocacy groups to the mobilization that happened around the issue of redistricting mid
decade our congressional maps extraordinary and to see a response that parallels what poll after poll
after poll has said it really
I think it was a boost in the arms, so to speak, to see that that happened. So thank you to everyone
on this call who I know didn't just email once. You have been at it since August when we knew that we
were in the crosshairs of the president and the fact that Indiana will go down. If we can hold our ground
and keep this firewall up and stand up to the president,
for trying to take over Indiana. We are leading in something in this country and something that's so
positive. I think it's pretty exciting. Thank you to every single person who worked hard to make sure
that that happened. Matt is right, we still have to remain vigilant and we still have to continue to
watch. A lot of it is reading the tea leaves,
I know that they're under an incredible amount of pressure. Pivoting to that, at the same time focusing
on that, really discussing with the Senate Democratic Caucus what our priorities will be, this is helpful.
We've all had listening sessions in our district. Yes, redistricting has sucked the air out of the room
for the last four months.
In tandem with that, we also heard from Hoosiers that affordability is buckling so many individuals
and so many families in this state. So we are really focused on that. It was helpful to see the poll.
And I'd like to ask questions. So when we do have an opportunity to hear from people, I see that 65%
say healthcare. I'd like to know what, in that,
realm of healthcare, and of course, affordability, accessibility, but maybe specifically, what would
you like to see the state to do? One of the bills that we're working on, that I'm working on and started
working on immediately after session last spring is a bill that creates transparency
when people are thrown off of Medicaid, when they get these letters and they're incredibly confusing,
and it almost feels that it's intentionally complicated, just to create some accountability and transparency
from FSSA to clean up these documents and make it very clear, extending
the amount of time that individuals have to produce their documentation. In this session that we're
coming up on when everything has to be pretty much zero fiscal impact, trying to figure out what can
we do that really will help address this. That's one area that we're working on with the Legislative
Services Agency on coming up with some language to give protections to
consume the customers on Medicaid. The other area that was high is housing. I will be having a bill,
I'm working on a bill with some housing affordability leaders in this state to create some ways that
we can address this, not just for renters. We are filing legislation,
to address renter affordability, but also for homeowners, people who wanna buy a home and people who
are at risk of losing their home. What are some things that we can do? And so I and the Senate Democratic
Caucus are looking into different policies that we can file and really advance and push for in this
next session that again, have zero fiscal impact.
The other area is childcare. I know it wasn't up there on this list and would love to hear maybe from
those on the call why it's not. There's a number of reasons why that is. I hear it a lot and especially
when the state first put a freeze on the wait list, we have in Bloomington, I mean, in Monroe County alone,
hundreds of families who are on the CCDF waitlist to receive a waiver for support to put their children
in childcare, or I like to say early childhood learning centers, but you know, it's a mouthful, so for
childcare. But when it comes to thinking about what we can do that has a zero fiscal impact, that's
You know, it's difficult because I have been, I think I just attended in the last six months, my seventh
childhood or early learning summit, whether that's a federal or statewide or locally and as early as
last Monday, this past Monday.
the Indiana Chamber of Commerce put one on and attended that and heard directly from the state. And
I think the state is really pulling back. Their talking point was it is not the state's responsibility.
And I just would love to hear some feedback on that because
I think there's a shift in where people are. Young families are asking for an option. If they are having
so many issues, they wouldn't be able to choose either a childcare benefit or a healthcare benefit,
because they cannot afford both. And that is striking for families to be able to support themselves,
that they would take the risk of dropping healthcare
to be able to at least go and get a job and keep their job and have a childcare benefit. I think these
are really important questions that the state absolutely needs to be having. And I don't agree. I think
the state needs to be involved in this problem solving, just like we would never question that it isn't
a public good for public education K through 12. And it is a public good, if you want to argue,
the development of the brain zero through five, those years, and making sure that children in this state
have access and a shot at having those years maximize when it comes to their learning potential because
that's really where it happens. I've been working with several different stakeholders across the state trying to
put trying to create a list of indicators for kindergarten readiness. We talk a lot about kindergarten
readiness and DOE has a whole document on kindergarten readiness, but there isn't a one pager to say
if your child is zero to one,
here's what they should be doing in order to be ready for kindergarten. If your child is one to two,
here are the things they need to do in order to be ready for kindergarten. Because if parents are having
to ask their neighbor or their moms and dads or each other to care for their kids while they go to work
because we don't have enough childcare access, at least empower parents to know what
does my child need to be able to do before I go to kindergarten and find out, oh, my child isn't ready
for kindergarten, which is when they are typically assessed. So I'm working on some legislation for
that. And would love your feedback, because I know that with this group, it wasn't that high. And I
would love to hear more from you all. And then, of course, the environment. Working on bringing back
possibly a seat
It's called CPACE and it's a financing option for commercial investment of energy efficiency and solar
arrays, different ways to invest in your business, wouldn't be for resident, but for business and allow
If we become a C-PACE state, then counties can adopt a C-PACE ordinance and provide some support to
banks to make those investments possible for different commercial businesses in our state. The residential
PACE, it's called our PACE, residential legislation has
gotten a little sticky in some of the states. So I'm just focused on the commercial side of this to
see if we can get that. The last time it was filed, it was filed by two Republicans, Senator Greg Walker
and Senator Chris Garten in 2023. So trying to fix some of the little hurdles that that legislation
encountered and see if we can get it across the finish line. Because again, it's zero fiscal impact,
but would be a huge,
a benefit to the environment for some of our biggest consumers of energy to think about renewables and
energy efficiency. So with that, I'll be quiet. And I'm really excited to hear from all of you some
maybe feedback on what area of health care or what about voting. We will be filing the Independent
Redistricting Commission from our
from our caucus for sure, since it's top of mind. We will be definitely advocating for that this next
session. Seems like people have the appetite for it, hopefully. But with that, I will be quiet. Thank
you for having me. Shelley, thank you so much for that. I particularly like that perhaps the
Independent Redistricting will come back up since our league participated in that project a few years
ago. Also, just a side comment. I'm surprised that you're surprised by the legislature's attitude towards
preschool and kindergarten because Indiana has never required kindergarten.
and they shoved so much money towards charter schools.
that it seems intuitive to me that they're also gonna turn their back on preschool. I can always hope
for better, but anyway, right now we just have one person in the queue. So all of you need to be putting
on your thinking caps to be thinking of questions for Shelly and Matt. And the first person we have
up is Marie Douglas. And Marie, I would ask you to unmute
and ask your question, direct it first to Shelly. Thank you. How am I the only one?
that has a question right now. But anyway, thank you so much. My name is Maria Douglas. I'm with Hoosier
Asian American Power. And I just want to thank everyone for being here. And I was, yes, I'm sure your
prepared statements were edited just a bit last evening. And I do want to congratulate all Hoosiers
on the bipartisan stance that we will not let DC meddle in our state's business. And our legislatures
do uphold laws and do what is right.
So, but this important work of fighting against this mid cycle redistricting did take time, energy and
resources away from very important issues as Senator Yoder mentioned. And I was pleased to see that
about 50% of the people on the call are concerned about voting rights because none of these bills will
be voted in our favor, the favor of
the people if we're not voting, if we are disenfranchised from voting. And I do want to take time to
mention that HAP along with Partners League of Women Voters State, Common Cause of Indiana and Exodus
Refugee Immigration has filed formal litigation against the Indiana Secretary of State and the Indiana
Election Division as of October 1 this year.
So these lawsuit challenges or this lawsuit challenges two new Indiana laws that went into effect on
the July 1st.
of this year, House Enrolled Act 1264 and House Enrolled Act 1680. So I also want to publicly thank
Monroe County Clerk Brown for holding space publicly and time on September 18th to discuss these matters
and how they are affecting people in Monroe County.
What do you think that we're hearing or that we will hear in terms of bills that might be heard that
harm black, brown, Asian, and marginalized Hoosier communities? And how do you plan to protect voters'
rights and stop the ridiculous narratives that Indiana has a problem with people voting who shouldn't
be voting? And how do you plan to protect Hoosiers who are immigrants from other harmful bills?
Thank you, Maria. Oh, sorry. No, go right ahead, Shelley. I'm sorry. Thank you, Maria. Excellent question.
I don't know, because if you sat and listened to or read the bills that are filed and listened to debate
on the floor, you would think that election fraud is just running rampant in Indiana. I mean, it is
hours upon hours of these bills are filed.
When you know, when you see the data, the occurrences are so small, but yet we spend a lot of time trying
to make it harder and harder to get people to make it easy to vote.
I think I want to say, realistically, we could file the bills. They won't get a hearing. But I think
what we can do is build off of, since we have spent the last four months growing our base of people
paying attention, how can we use this time to educate people
on the importance of staying engaged and talking about these issues. So I don't know. I mean, I would
love to have a really great answer to that. But I don't know how we change that line set in Indiana
about voter fraud.
I think we definitely, well, we need to do something, but I got distracted. I was thinking about your
second question about what do we do with immigration in Indiana and what kinds of things are we going
to be seeing? I mean, probably more of the same.
and I anticipate it's going to get probably worse. We were able to hold off some even worse legislation
last year and the AG has come after Senator Liz Brown who chairs judiciary on the Senate side because
she held a bill that was about
um, law enforcement, um, acting as ICE agents and, um, she has been raked over the coal. She now has
a, an opponent, a primary opponent that is coming after her pretty hard. So she has really moved further
to the right and she has promised not only to hear the bill, she's filing the bill. Um, so we will hear that.
And now I know that she was also probably not happy about the announcement yesterday. And so I anticipate
we're going to we will need to keep an eye on what she files because it could be very far right.
very far Magda, because she has to prove herself, her bona fides, before the primary in May. So, I don't
really, would love to hear your thoughts. Maybe we can work together in putting together a listening
session with your group. Thank you.
Yeah, Matt, before you start, Mr. and Mrs. Kubal, if you could mute your mic, please. Oh, sure, sorry.
Thank you. Matt, can you take a shot at that one? Yeah, I mean, obviously in session, you do everything
you can to speak out against the bill. You try to offer amendments that, you know, try to moderate or
kind of blow up the bill. I mean, you do all that legislative kinds of things.
when we had the, you know, they passed the legislation that says student IDs can no longer be used to
prove who you are when you vote, clearly done to try to disenfranchise students. And I spent a lot of
time in the House floor questioning the author of that bill point by point, line by line, making the
point that there was no special treatment. Their argument was students are getting treated specially
because they get to use their student ID. And I said, no.
Let's just walk through the statute line by line. I said, there are like five basic things an ID has
to have to qualify, you know, to use on voting day. And I said, it doesn't talk about, you know, what
kind of ID it's on, just you have these five things. And I went through every one of them. I said, the
student IDs have this, right? And then he said, well, it's special. We're treating them special.
It's like, well, you know what? You treat veterans special over here. The veterans get to use their
ID, right? And so you try to just point out the absurdity of it in the hopes that maybe the public will,
kind of catch on and push back. But you know what, the reality of the situation is you have to have
political power to adjust the outcomes. Right. And so by the time you get into the session
with a supermajority, it's kind of too late. I mean, you fight, you push back, you hope that things
will line up.
I mean, there have been times where we've gotten the public engaged enough that they've kind of thought
better of doing something and it got derailed. And so, you know, you can have some victories that way.
But at the end of the day, there have to be more legislators who respect voting rights and actually
want more people voting. And so that means that we have to do the hard work outside of the legislature
to get people engaged and get people voting so that
We have legislators down there who want to have nonpartisan redistricting, who want to have competitive
districts, who don't want to disenfranchise people. And that's the bottom line. So that if you really
want to affect change, we have to convince people they can do it. Now, the thing that I think has pushed
back against that or caused that not to work here in Indiana is just a lot of people have given up.
Now, I sense people are getting more energized now. I think there's more hope.
I don't know how many times I've heard people just say like, ah, we're a red state. What are you going
to do? We can never elect a governor. We're a red state. What are you going to do? And it's a self fulfilling
prophecy because people just don't get engaged because they think it's hopeless. And, you know, we had
a democratic governor for 16 years. We had a democratically controlled house for most of 20 years. It's
not an impossible task, but people have to feel, um,
They have to understand the power they have in voting and they have to care about voting enough that
they want to power through the hurdles that are put up and actually vote. And obviously this is a hard
thing. If you're a struggling family and you're working a bunch of jobs just to try to pay the bills
and now to say, okay, take time out of your day and learn about the candidates or maybe even go knock
on your neighbor's doors. You know, that's, that's a hard thing for people to make time for, but that's
what it's going to come down to is we have to basically have a movement.
in which a broad array of people are involved across the state in attempting to elect people. And Senator
Brown is the classic example. You know, she obviously recognized that immigration bill was over the
top and as Todd were key to craziness and she didn't hear it. And then he like sick the right wing maggot
dogs on her. And now because she's in a super lopsided Republican district, the only election that matters
is the primary.
So the people who are going to pass judgment on her are the most active, extreme Republicans. And so
for her self-preservation now, she's got to go way to the right. And she's going to now probably pass
a bill that last year she thought was bad because she has a primary opponent. And so this goes back
to the way the districts are drawn. And if we could just get into nonpartisan redistricting, which is
a whole nother big movement, which take a lot of work. But if we had, if we had objectively drawn districts,
We wouldn't have a situation where the most extremes of whatever party dominates that district is going
to call the shots. Thank you, Matt. We have one person in the queue again.
I encourage everybody again to please be thinking about the questions. We have so little opportunity
to really talk directly with our representatives and the ones that show up really care to hear what
you're thinking about. Please line up with some more topics for these individuals to address for you.
The next individual in the queue is Kathy Roundtree.
Kathy, if you would unmute and direct your question first to Matt. Hi. Thank you so much for being here.
And I just want to recognize the impact that your voices have. I think when you and Shelley and others
speak out publicly around issues, that does bring those issues to people's attention.
feel that, well, you don't have the votes, and the bill might not go through. But at the same time,
you elevate those issues and make us aware. So thank you so much. And this kind of comes back to health
care. I have a comment and a question. And the comment is, anything that you can do, either of you,
to point out the added cost that
Indiana's added rules to Medicaid are putting on the system, work requirements, continually re-enrolling
in Medicaid. It just adds so much cost to the system itself, which is what the opponents are complaining
about. So anything you can do to bring that to light would be great. And then my question is, what threats
do you see this year or additional threats perhaps coming up
on women's health issues, reproductive health, access to birth control, and things of that nature.
Thank you. Well, on your direct question, I haven't heard of anything at this point. It seems like a
lot of legislation in that area seems to just kind of come out of nowhere. You're not really expecting
it. And so I have not heard any rumblings of something in that particular area.
And in the House, we have kind of a fairly extreme set of culture warriors who really love to fight
out these issues. And I wouldn't be surprised if some bills are introduced. The question is whether
the leadership will want to actually move those bills and have that fight. My impression is that the
Republicans, seeing the results of the elections back East and President Trump's current approval rating,
I think they know they're kind of slipping into a hole.
I believe they just wanna get in and get out. And I think that their general policy goal for this session
is let's not do anything that's gonna rile up people. Let's just try to hope no one notices us, get
through this thing and get out. And then we can go out and use all the structural advantages we've created
for ourselves in Indiana to try to win these elections again. So I think they're probably gonna wanna
shy away from more controversial things.
if possible. And I think that might have been what happened in redistricting. I mean, those senators
are looking at the polls and things. And you could tell that really across the political spectrum,
you know, most people thought redistricting in the middle of the decade was not the right thing to do.
And I think they took notice of that. On the Medicaid work requirements, you know, the Republicans know
it's more expensive. They know it doesn't save money. And they also know that people on Medicaid
are either disabled and can't work or they're already working their butts off and they just don't have
access and they're working their butts off for really horrible wages. And so they and they can't afford
to even, you know, go on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. They know this stuff. Right. The bottom
line is they don't like funding these programs. They just decided that Medicaid's gotten too big. They
want to at least freeze it, if not shrink it. And that's their whole policy goal. And they could care
less about the people behind the numbers.
And so that's the reality and the work stuff. I mean, that for people who don't, you know, pay attention
to the Medicaid program or can't even differentiate it between Medicare and HIP 2.0 and all this other
stuff. When they hear that one set of legislators want to make sure that, you know, if the taxpayers
are paying to help you get insurance, you should at least be working. If you're able to work, you should
at least do it. Right. That is a very simple message.
that most people say, yeah, that's common sense. If you're gonna ask for help from the taxpayers or
the healthcare, you should at least be trying to help yourself and work, right? That's a very simple
political message, right? Then the Democrats, we gotta come in, we're the nuanced people, right? Okay,
let's look at the data. Look at all the percentage of people on Medicaid who actually have, you know,
chronic conditions, debilitating conditions, they can't work. Let's look at all the people on Medicaid
who are actually senior citizens, you know, in the nursing home who are like,
in their retirement years, okay? That's not a work thing. Let's look at the people on Medicaid who are
already working their butts off, several jobs, but we're paying them horrible wages, right? Now we gotta
have this big, long discussion about who's on Medicaid, how does the program work, and then get into
the issue of here's why it's so it's more expensive to have all this bureaucracy. But you know, the
truth is the reason why the Republicans want the work requirement as other than the fact that it's a
nice sound bite for politics
but it's a way to kick people off the program, because they know they're going to screw up the paperwork.
They know that even if they're following all the rules, they're going to get trick bagged by getting
this form filed at this time in this place, and then they can kick them off and save some money. It's
really that cynical. And this is the thing that frustrates me. Oftentimes you'll hear people say, this
is another thing that we need to change. It's like, oh, there's no difference between the political
parties. It's all the same. And I guess this is going to be my partisan comment for the day.
particularly when it comes to budget issues. The Republicans tend to look at just the bottom line numbers,
right? And they essentially say, how do we get to the bottom line numbers we've decided we have to have?
And they will do what they need to do to get to those bottom line numbers. The Democrats look at it
and they think to themselves, what can we do to provide the services that are needed to as many people
as possible? We may not have the resources to help everyone who needs help, but we should be maximizing
what the state is able to do. And then we go about trying to craft a budget that will reach that goal
of maximizing the help that people need. And it's just two very fundamentally different ways of approaching
the problem. And so until the voters kind of better understand that difference and basically express
their preference for one over the other, we're gonna get more of the same. Thank you, Matt.
Shelly, would you like to respond to Kathy's question? Sure. Hi, Kathy. Thank you. I met with the ACLU,
and they were under the impression early that Representative Lucas was interested in filing his access
to birth control for rural communities throughout Indiana, which was such a surprise.
caught us all by surprise last session, but then it got amended in committee to be totally wackadoo
and was awful and ended up dying. That bill died. He had communicated that he was interested in filing
that bill again, as he originally filed it. However, he also expressed
maybe going in a different direction over the last month, things really changed for him. I don't know
if you've noticed. They're not sure he's going to file that bill again because he's just gotten a little
bit more further to the right since the murder of Charlie Kirk.
they're not sure if he's going to file that bill. So I don't know if he's filing that bill again. The
other thing that I've heard is maybe some legislation on banning the exceptions in our current, near
total abortion ban currently, but taking those exceptions away. And it,
The possibility came out of, through this conversation about rigging the congressional maps, it would
be used as a bargaining chip, either to keep power, move power to those who needed a win. So I don't
know what's going to happen there, but it's definitely something to keep an eye out for those.
Other than that, I haven't heard. I know that we have bills to help new moms. The Senate Democratic
caucus is working on a mom-to-bus bill. We filed it last session. We're filing it again. And mainly
in ensuring that our Medicaid moms, we increased access
to a full year of access to care. However, many of these moms are not getting any return calls. Like
they reach out to start their care and then there are all of these hurdles being put out in front of
them. So maybe in the end, their 12 months of eligibility end up being like two months of eligibility
because they actually can't access the care. So our caucus,
We got that studied over the interim and the bill will be filed again and I'm really proud of that Senator
Jackson's bill. She's new to the Senate and to the caucus, the Democratic caucus. That bill will be
seen again. I know you specifically asked about access to women's healthcare and I wanted to respond
with those three things I'm hearing.
Thank you very much, Shelley, for your input on Cathy's questions. There's no one in the queue right
now. So I hope you guys are putting on your thinking caps. I'm going to propose a question that the
leagues kind of put together when we were preparing for this forum. Indiana college going rate.
for high school graduates is down to 51.7%, the lowest rate in recent history. What, if anything, can
or should the General Assembly do to address this trend? And I address that question first to Shelly.
Well, we can stop
I mean, at a basic level, it has been sort of a war on higher education, a demeaning of higher education,
a devaluing of higher education, not even talking and speaking to what's happening in my backyard at
Indiana University, some of the concerns there. But overall, the conversation I serve on education and
the conversation has been, we need less
losers going to four-year schools and sort of feeding them into more apprenticeships and skills, which
are great, but it isn't a matter of finding where a student wants to go and providing those opportunities.
It is more of, we need to create
a workforce that they're sending less students to college and more students directly into the workplace.
And that priority and that value and devaluing of higher education has had a real impact. And thank
goodness, I've had some good conversations around this area with my fellow Senate Democratic leaders
in education
Republican, excuse me, Republican colleagues, and they are sensing it too. They are equally as concerned
that we have shifted so much and maybe need to course correct because I'm just going to say they said,
we absolutely need those investments in research. We absolutely need to have Indiana be leading the
way in our country.
We have great universities and maybe we've gone too far. That was a plus and I appreciated hearing that.
How we get there, I don't know because I think the train has left the station, so to speak, in what
we're hearing nationally. But here's what I'm going to say. It is amazing. I think much of this is social
media and the
of access to information. So much of where we are in Indiana is determined by sort of the national trends.
And that's, you know, good and bad, but we definitely see sort of a national trend of the demonization
of higher education. And we, you know, it's a huge concern and we see that
really from the governor's office, first and foremost. So how do we change it? I think we continue to
speak out. I appreciate Matt and I have been tackling it at the grassroots level in changing this. But
I think it just is going to take all of us
doing our part. I know it seems exhausting. The last four months, we've all been working really hard
with stopping the rigging of our maps. But it can't just stop there. We have to use that same kind of
intensity in other areas. And education and access to education is one of them. Thank you, Shelly. Matt,
would you like to address that question, please? Yeah.
It's kind of this trend, you gotta wonder if the pendulum is gonna come back. And so the first thing
is you just have this national kind of Trump administration decision to attack universities.
And so they've, you know, now in the Republican base, when you mention a university to them, in their
mind is not the place that does the research that cures their family members' cancer. They're the woke
place that indoctrinates our children and turns them against our values that we spent
you know, 18 years trying to inculcate them in our values. And these guys are working against us. And
that has been, you know, that idea has been the flames that have been stoked on the federal level. And,
you know, one thing I've noticed over the years is the Republicans are very good at having a coordinated
messaging from top to bottom. So when Congress and the president start doing stuff, you see the governor
and other people, the legislative level begin to mimic all that.
first thing is you just have that issue of the demonization of the university. Now, there was a time
when the presidents of those universities would stand up and push back. They would come to the legislature
and they would explain what is actually happening in your institution and why the policies are not good
for the state. But we now have people running our institutions in Indiana who just want to be compliant
and I guess collect their salaries and call it a day.
And if you want to kind of see firsthand what's happening at our own university, there's a documentary
that's been done called Freedoms Under Assault. And there's a free screening today at the Buskirk Chumley
Theater at two o'clock. And you can attend that and see kind of through this documentary what's been
happening at IU and just attacks on academic freedom and all that. So you've got that piece there, which
is undermining support for higher education with those kind of cultural attacks, if you want to call it that.
Then you have the other thing where the legislature just has been spinning its wheels for decades, trying
to figure out what are the policies that will cause us to have a better educated workforce and people
who really have the skills that are needed to succeed in a career. And what has happened is people become
completely fixated on kind of occupational trades side of things. And so there really is the attitude
of why should you send a kid to college for four years, probably go into debt, pay all this money, and
then they get out and they can't even get a decent job because they got a degree in something that,
you know, it's like not important, you know, and instead of like a hard science kind of degree or something. And
They say, why should they do that when, you know what, if they just go to trade school and a few months
get a certificate in welding, they can go out and make a hundred thousand bucks a year. They can like
be driving a cross-country truck, make a lot of money every year, right? Now they're ignoring the fact
that the studies show that people with college degrees over the course of their lifetime actually have
higher earning power than other people. So they kind of ignore that, but everything now that the legislature
is doing is completely focused in on workforce.
And they've got this, the latest thing they put all their chips on, we'll see their chips on, we'll
see if it actually pans out, is the idea of apprenticeships. You know, one of the Chamber of Commerce's
flew a bunch of people over to Switzerland and they looked around at their apprentice system, they decided
this is the ultimate solution. And so they want to now transition to a situation where you have a student
who basically when they get into like the ninth grade, they just start working half time in the occupation
they've chosen. And so if they want to be a banker, this is the first big internship areas in the banks.
The banking association is investing in this internship program or this apprenticeship program. And
so they want a situation where you just go to school for half a day and then you work at the bank for
half a day. And then when you graduate from high school, you've already had, you know, four years of
experience working in the bank. So now you can get hired at the bank. Right. And then that's going to
be your career.
Who needs college? You've done your apprenticeship and they want to roll this out to all the different
trades and occupations that are out there. And there's a lot of problems with that that I don't think
they fully considered, but that's kind of where they're going. And so college in that kind of current
strategy for education is just way down the level. And so like everything else, it comes back to trying
to educate the voters
parents, people who are going to help kids make these decisions to understand, you know, the value of
a college education. And then the last thing I'll just say is it also is frustrating to me is that people
refuse to recognize that no matter what degree you might earn in college, you are, you're getting a
broader, your horizons are being broadening. You're learning more about lots of things and
Hopefully when you get through the system, you will have developed some critical thinking skills, how
to be analytical, how to work in teams and do things to other people that you would pick up a lot of
skills that could work in any occupation, any workplace. And I think that's completely discounted. And,
you know, just the fact that we're going to churn out people who can be better citizens because they're
more critical thinkers, they have a broader array of knowledge. That's just completely gotten lost in
the discussion.
Thank you very much, both of you, for responding to that particular question. I believe that Sherry
Frank may have an environmental question that she would like to ask of each of you. Sherry, would you
like to unmute and ask your question and direct it first to Matt?
Hi, sorry. It took me a while to unmute. I was just wondering what you see on coming up, if anything,
attention to the environment. You read so much about coal ash, protecting forests, reducing chemicals,
how horrible plastic is. There are so many issues
That have a lasting impact just wondered if you guys have any priorities in those areas. Well,
my environmental priorities have mostly been focused on the energy area because I was on the environmental
affairs committee until.
I don't know, it's probably been six or seven years now. And then we had some other members get elected
who had a very strong interest in the environment. And so I kind of shifted my interest into energy
and utilities, which, of course, with climate change and a lot of the impacts of coal, there are significant
impacts on the environment. And so I'm the ranking Democratic member of the House Energy and Utilities
Committee. And believe me, I spent a lot of time just talking to people about renewable energy and
you know, what are what's the best strategy for utilities, both for what's best for the environment
and what is going to make energy more affordable. Right. Those are the kinds of things I've been pushing.
And so I I really feel like at this point in time, a lot of the environmental issues all run through
the energy sector, you know, one, because climate change is such a looming disaster out there that's
not really getting addressed the way it needs to be. And then you have
just all of the kind of external costs of coal. You know, coal ash ponds, you've mentioned that. Now,
the thing about the legislature is just absolutely maddening that there is zero interest in the current
majority party in any environmental issue. When they do something on the environment, it's never good,
right? It's like it's, you know, letting wetlands get paved over more easily or something like that.
I mean, we had a little bit.
of action, very kind of moderate stuff on PFAS. So we've had a few things here or there, but we have
an interim study committee on the environment. And I think it's met once out of 10 years and had some
issues assigned to it. So as far as the legislature is concerned, the majority, there aren't
any environmental issues even worth talking about in the summer between sessions to decide whether you
might need some legislation.
That's a very difficult, frustrating thing. The other thing which I should probably mention again, which
I think I've talked about before during these sessions is in the House, we have this rule called the
bill pending rule. And what that says is that if I introduce a bill and the bill gets assigned to a
committee and then that committee chair decides that the bill is not worthy of being heard, basically
just puts it in the trash can,
You cannot offer an amendment on the House floor that has the same subject matter as the bill that's
stuck in committee, that's pending in committee. That's why they call it the bill pending rule. And
they use that a lot of times to block you from doing stuff. And so what I've concluded is that when
you're in the minority, most of the time, it makes sense not to introduce a bill, but to kind of have
you know, look for the bills moving through the process and see if you have an opportunity to offer
an amendment on the floor of the House on second reading, because you can force the you can force the
debate and you can force people to have to vote and be on the record. And then maybe you can do something
with that to, you know, get the public to understand, you know, who's actually serious about
these environmental issues. And so a lot of what I do is work with people on the Environmental Affairs
Committee who are kind of seeing those issues.
Um, coming along and then see if there's opportunities that we can push for things, you know, like renewable
energy and, you know, less toxics and on the coal ash thing and, and all of that. And so it's, uh, it's
a difficult, um, situation because I don't know why they don't have more immediacy about clean air and
clean water, but it's, it's difficult. Thank you, Matt. Um, Shelley, would you like to address that question?
I would just say the legislation that you are interested in, I dropped my email in the chat, please
send your ideas and desires my way. Okay, thank you, Shelly. We do have some, Maria has another question
that she would like to pose. So Maria, would you unmute and direct your question first to Shelly Yoder?
Thank you. Everyone on this call, I'm just going to keep asking questions if you don't, because I got
a lot. But anyway, this is Maria as a Monroe County resident, not Maria with her half hat on necessarily.
So I've heard that a bill may be reintroduced or snuck in somewhere that criminalizes being unhoused.
What are we hearing about that? What do we know about that? Thank you. Shelly, would you? Yeah. Haven't
heard anything, wouldn't be surprised, kind of preparing that it will be filed again. We worked hard
on the Senate to kill it last year. And if it gets refiled, we'll have to work even harder.
Those election years, sometimes you can see some pretty wild things. So people can whip up their base.
However, with the trends that we saw last week, I think some people are rethinking maybe some of these
really extreme policies are not popular. And you're seeing it in other states. I think after what we
saw yesterday, maybe
You know, one thing they have is money to poll. So maybe they have their own polling numbers to show
that they need to temper some of these really extreme pieces of legislation. But I would imagine we'll
see it. I have heard that the governor is trying to put together some
executive Warner or policy direction. I've not seen anything. I've not heard that from him. I only heard
it from folks. So maybe you start directing some of your ideas and thoughts and feedback to the governor.
Thank you, Shelly. Matt, would you like to address that question? Yeah, I haven't heard of anything
yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if something else comes up. I mean,
That bill was kind of interesting because I think there was a lot of public pushback immediately on
it. People like, really, you're going to arrest people that are just trying to survive. And, you know,
so the bill kept getting adjusted and they kept adding in more and more requirements like, well, you
have to be given so many warnings before you would be arrested. And they have to be offered to be driven
to some shelter. But the shelter has to be within so many miles. And they were it kind of got more convoluted
as it went along. And people were pointing out, it's like, hey,
You know, the services aren't there. We don't have the shelters that are needed. You know,
I mean, Bloomington, there are a lot of organizations that are working very hard to try to help the
unhoused, but you get in the rest of Indiana and there's not much going on. And so I think that maybe
that's ultimately what kind of caused the bill to grind out is they kept saying, oh, this is not a punitive
arrest people. This is just a tool to get people into services that they need that will cause them to
become housed.
at some point. And then as it was pointed out, well, what are you going to do in all the places where
there are no services? Right. Of course, then that triggers the next thing. It's like, all right, government
needs to step up. The state needs to put more resources into programs for the unhoused and actually
address a lot of the underlying issues, which are things like substance use disorder and mental health
challenges. And, you know, they have not been willing to make those kinds of big investments, at least
up to this point. And so I think that's what caused that bill to maybe
kind of just collapse under its own weight. So I wouldn't be surprised if there's another attempt to
try to figure out how to address some of those issues and try something again. So we'll just have to
see. Although, like I said, it's a short session, there's less time. And I do think they would like
to avoid controversy in this session, if at all possible. Thank you very much, Matt. I believe Sherry
Frank has another question to ask.
Hi, I just wanted to ask where you think we're going with public education versus taking money for non-public
education. What you see happening there, that's just a huge frustration, as I'm sure you know. Thanks.
And we'll direct that question first to Matt, please.
Yeah, I share that frustration and really the last session where they essentially made it a universal
program. And so now even the wealthiest multimillionaire families in Indiana will get tax dollars to
send their kid off to a private school at a time when our public schools don't have the funding that
they need. I mean, it's extremely frustrating, but the Republicans are completely invested in that program.
They're convinced it's the right thing to do.
In fact, in the House, it's interesting because we've had some pretty strong debates about that. And
when we really start beating them up, pointing out things like, well, these hundreds of millions of
dollars that you're redirecting to these wealthiest families, that buys the state nothing because those
wealthy families are already sending their kids to the private school. You're just subsidizing a wealthy
family and you're not getting anything in return for it.
And by the way, there are a lot of families where even if you give them that money, they can't afford
the tuition at those high priced schools. So, you know, you're really just helping out the wealthiest
people. And at the same time, you could be funding early childhood learning. Right. And actually helping
people and making a change and changing people's lives. But when we really attack them, it's interesting
because oftentimes, you know, the speaker of the house normally is kind of like the
traffic cop of the legislature, just calls on people, recognizes them, rules on, you know, objections
about rules or whatever. And whenever we really beat him up on this voucher program, he will often come
down off the rostrum to join the debate. And he will really defend the program greatly. And you know,
their attitude is like, hey, rich people pay taxes too, they should get something out of it as well.
Not just all these lower income people. It's kind of the attitude.
Thank you, Matt. Shelly, would you like to weigh in on that question? Well, the direction isn't good.
We could have avoided this altogether. In a year where we had a dire fiscal forecast and had to make
some severe cuts, we could have used that as a reason that we're going to pump the brakes. But we didn't.
We actually took money away from CCDF vouchers
took money away from On My Way Pre-K and said, we're going to fund Indiana's richest families. I mean,
that was a statement and it was not a good one. So yeah, the direction when it comes to funding private
education, it's not good. And if there was ever, I mean, this topic, wherever you go,
It is not something that Hoosiers want. I mean, you could see it on their faces. They can't even believe
that we're doing it. It's either that or the fact that we, back in 2019, created a sales tax exemption
for data centers that has a price tag of, I was like,
I think it was over maybe in the billions long-term for the state. So that's not good either. So I think
there are lots of little ways that we can address this. How do we better support our public education
system and how can we create more support for early childhood learning opportunities? I think those areas,
universal choice vouchers and the tax exemption loss of sales tax from data centers could be places
to start. Okay. Thank you, Shelley. I have another question, and after you answer this question, we
may be heading into your concluding remarks. The question is Senate Enrolled Act 1, which took effect
this year as
projected to cost cities, towns, school districts, and townships up to 1.8 billion over the next three
years. Is there any prospect of relief for local governments? I'll direct that first to Shelly. Yeah.
Thank you. Definitely, I'm hearing that we will be addressing there. Oops, we stepped in it.
move from last session with Senate Bill 1 or Senate Enrolled Act 1. They know it. They felt like they
had to do something for the governor, made all these promises, and then put into place a plan that was
completely unpopular across the board. It had bipartisan hate.
So I would say, no, one of the things that we thought that we would be addressing when we came back
into special session and then early regular session and now just regular session in January is fixing
this complete mess up that has occurred with Senate Enrolled Act 1. But they have not said how. And
that part has been really unclear. So they've been hearing from mayors across Indiana
Uh, and they're really listening to the Republican mayors across Indiana and they're unhappy. Well,
hopefully they will do something. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Matt, your response. Yeah, I expect they'll probably
address the most immediate kind of biggest problems, like maybe the.
They've structured things now, so it's hard for communities to bond for the projects that they need
to fund. So I think there'll probably be some kind of addressing of that. So I think they'll be looking
to just do the most immediate things that they need to do to get themselves past the next election.
And then I think in the long session, they'll probably be forced to take a look at the longer term detriments
of the bill.
and things that take effect a little bit later down the road. So I think short term fixes this session.
And if the pressure continues on them, perhaps longer term changes in the long session. Thank you very
much. We do have a couple of people in the queue now. Amy Oliver would like to ask a question. So Amy,
if you would unmute and ask your question directing it first to Matt.
This is Amy Oliver. And actually, Sonny, you just asked my SEA one question. But as another question,
I guess, looking forward, what are the priorities from the House Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic
Caucus as you're moving into session? What are your top five? I think that was for Matt. Yeah, I think
it's one word. It's affordability.
I think our number one priorities are these, you know, some of the things in the poll. So, you know,
early childhood learning, being able to afford childcare, housing, how do we help people afford housing
better? And, you know, just all these costs, energy costs, and
So the legislature may not be able to do something about the bigger inflation trends and the overall
rising of costs. I mean, we can't really counteract horrible tariff policies from the president who's
actually taxing every consumer in America and driving their costs up. We don't have the ability to undo
that. But I think the state government has a responsibility.
wherever it can help reduce the costs, if it can help make childcare more affordable, if it can find
a way to make housing more affordable, if it can find a way to lower energy costs. I think those are
things you can do there that cumulatively could provide relief or at least make it a little less burdensome
on these working families. And so I think that's what you're gonna see from the House Democrats is just
really kind of laser focus on these affordability issues.
Thank you, Matt. Shelly. Yeah, I opened with this. Amy, thank you for your question. Affordability and
the economy, utility costs, housing affordability, child care affordability, health care affordability,
and voting. It's not really about affordability, but has a high price. Thank you, Shelly. We have one
more in the queue. Julie Hardesty, would you like to unmute and ask your question, directing it first
to Shelly?
Hi, yes, thank you very much. This is Julie Hardesty. My question is regarding environmental concerns
and legislation around energy. How is the state inserting itself to encourage or block data centers
in the state? Data centers for large technology companies are like, my understanding is they're really
big energy stocks and they can impact water resources. And there seem to be some pretty significant
environmental concerns.
I also think I saw that there was an attempt by Google recently to build a data center in Indiana, and
that actually was blocked or didn't work somehow, and they ended up deciding not to. But are there other
data centers in place now in the state, and is that impacting the environment around those data centers
or raising utility bills already? Thank you. All right, I'll jump in on that. So there are probably
dozens of proposed data centers.
Part of the problem is a lot of these AI companies or the big tech companies, they might have three
or four or five potential places they want to put a data center and they're coming into each state just
like people trying to locate a manufacturing plant or something and they try to get incentives and things.
You may not, a lot of people have surmised that really they're not as many data centers gonna get built
as it appears to look like because it is true they use a tremendous amount of energy. So in the last
session, we had a big long debate about who's gonna bear the burden of those costs of a data center
when it comes in and they need power. So for example, there's a data center proposed for Morgan County.
It is forecast to use as much power as the entire city of Indianapolis.
That means that somebody is going to have to build a lot of power plants and the question is, who's
going to pay for that? Now, ostensibly, the answer in the bill we passed last session was that the data
centers would have to pay for at least 80 percent of that. It said 75, I got them pushed up to 80, which
matched a settlement agreement has been there. But the more disturbing thing is there is a loophole
in the bill. It created two fast tracks to get power plants approved, essentially.
and recognizing these data centers were going to need a lot of power and maybe kind of quickly. So they
wanted to shorten up the normal lengthy process of getting what's called a certificate of public need
or whatever. And they created two paths, one for if a data center is causing the sudden need for 5%
or more energy generation, then you would have this fast track process. And in that process, at least
there's a discussion about who's going to pay for it. And the theory is that mostly it's going to be
paid for by the data center.
but they created a second track where if just your energy is gonna go up 5% generally, you can go through
process and the data centers are out. And so I had an amendment on the House floor that closed that
loophole, raised the amount that the data centers would have to pay for this generation. And I was amazed
because the Republican chair of the utilities committee accepted my amendment and went into the bill.
The utilities lost their minds in the hallway and they convinced the Senate to
basically take most of that amendment out. And so what have we seen? It looks like one of the Northern
Indiana power companies has come in and they're utilizing that loophole to get the power without having
the data centers have to pay. So I think that's gonna be another discussion that gets raised in this
session, if I can find a vehicle to do it. It's like, we need to really close that loophole, which the
House at least tried to close up, but the Senate opened up again.
Thank you, Matt. Shelly, did you have anything you wanted to say on that? Well, Julie, I liked how you
said you said the state doing anything to protect Hoosiers. No, the state isn't. But citizens are,
for sure. It's been remarkable to see the pushback from these data centers coming in to the communities.
And I would just say,
I appreciate this is where it can get complicated. Our laborers and the trades, our unions, brothers
and sisters, they really do want these jobs because they come in with these promises of this is going
to bring so many good paying jobs. So being, you know,
standing up with union labor and our working families, I can appreciate their desire to have
these opportunities in Indiana. However, I think it's really important that the citizens that we organize
to make sure that we're asking the right questions, the environmental questions, very important. But
also what kind of labor are we talking? Show us the receipts. I wanna see, you know, in building these,
data centers and not just in the outcome of the jobs that are being promised after they build them,
but the building of the actual data centers. Will the jobs be filled by people from Indiana? Will they
have the protections on the jobs? Will these be union jobs? I think if we're going to go down this path,
the state should be requiring some protections for Hoosiers. If they're promising all of these,
great things in terms of the jobs and building them, and then in the jobs once they're here, show us
the receipts and put in some protections for actual working families in Indiana so that we know we're
not being sold a bill of goods, which I think is what we're realizing, what other states are saying
is happening. Thank you for those comments to both of you.
would like to have each of you have an opportunity to give some closing remarks at this point in time.
Shelly, would you like to start? I'm really glad that we did this pre-session. Thank you. It gives me
a better idea of where each of you are. Right now, we are in the process of requesting our bills and
filing the bills and just to put the realistic
spin on it, we're only given the ability to file five bills. So that really makes you think twice. Now,
if you are ranking minority member, the Senate does allow you an additional bill. So that helps. But
generally speaking, we've got five bills that we're working with. And so this has been really helpful,
like how to focus my energy and how to stay connected and communicating with you.
It's also good to know that when we talk about what are you hearing, it literally is hearsay. Just keep
that in mind. I mean, you hear things, but if somebody wants to have a conversation with you, like a
colleague across the aisle wants to talk to you about something that they're thinking about. But when
we work with the LSA, which is the nonpartisan body that helps us write these
pieces of legislation, it's confidential. They can't say, oh, you know what, so-and-so is working on
this or so-and-so is working on that. Let me show you this PD. I know that's not helpful, but it is
the truth that much of this is just you have to really be listening with what's not being said and with
what's being said and guess what people are thinking. Keep that in mind and then things can change.
Not only do I have a limit on my bills,
But so do my Republican colleagues. They are limited. So they'll be thinking about really what's the
message that they want to send and what are their constituents asking them to file. And that's where
you come in because, I mean, not only can we attract, what is it, 19 potential legislators to this call,
which I wish that we would have more so we could have a,
robust conversation. I think we can also attract those people to this call. Those districts, we could
have participation and grow the participation in these calls. So in the counties that we're including,
I really want to grow and expand the outreach and have the participation in these calls be increased.
Because I think it will just improve
the quality of the discussion, because I would actually benefit from hearing from where my Republican
colleagues are on some of these issues. And Matt Pierce, I love you so much. You're right about everything.
And you said something like, this is my one partisan comment on me. No, when it's just the two of us,
it's all partisan. I mean, it feels...
It's a struggle. I want more participation. I would love to hear and have a more robust discussion.
But I appreciate so much the fact that we have this. So thank you. And I look forward to hearing from
folks. I put my email in the chat.
Thanks for all your work that everyone has done. Thank you so much, Shelley. Matt, would you like to
have some closing remarks? Yeah, I totally agree that if we had some Republican legislators participating
in forums like this, you'd have a better dialogue back and forth. I think constituents could kind of
figure out better what each side is thinking. And, you know, it's a disappointment that, you know, we
don't have the participation of
both parties in this kind of thing, I wish it would happen. Because, you know, part of the fun of being
a legislator, in my opinion, is getting challenged. It's like, you know, Shelley and I teach in the
classroom. One of the biggest myths is that, like, professors are indoctrinated. We actually, like,
love it when a student actually asks a challenging question, because that means they're actually awake
and paying attention. It's a miracle, right?
I think that getting challenged, being forced to defend your ideas, that makes this system better. And
we just unfortunately don't have that. And so I just want to say generally, I know that people are extremely
frustrated. And you can kind of tell them the questions like, well, what are they going to do about
all these pressing environmental questions? What are they going to do about addressing the challenges
of everyday families? What do you think is going to happen here? Are these bad bills going to happen?
what do you legislators, our representatives gonna do about it? And I'm sure that our answers are not
very satisfying. And it's because we are using every tool we have at our disposal as much as we can
to try to bend the outcomes of these things. But the truth is we have limited tools because at this
moment in time, we have not as much political power as the other side. And so,
You know, I teach a class in policymaking and I ask the students like, so what's the difference between
politics and policy? Right. And and the answer is, at least from the political scientists, is that,
you know, politics is attempting to get the power and keeping the power so you can then affect the policies,
you can direct the policies. And so for all of those people out there who are just frustrated that they feel like
you know, not enough is getting done to address their issues. The answer is you have to redouble your
efforts and get involved to get more political power that then allows you to shape the policy agenda.
And I know a lot of you have been working a long time and in the trenches and doing it, but we have
to get more people involved. We have to make this more into a movement and less about electing one person
over another. And so I think that, you know, when you have that frustration,
try to see if you can channel it into more involvement, getting more people involved all around the
state and see if we can have a strong message from the electorate in the upcoming election about what
they want to see their legislature doing. And I think that's what will ultimately get us to a better
place in the legislature.
Thank you both so very much for taking the time from your busy, busy schedules and from trying to not
beat your head against a wall most of the time to come and talk to us. I can't tell you how much it
means to me personally. And I know for those who are able to participate and even those who can't be
here today, they know you're doing this and appreciate it very much. This is our first session for the 2020
make sure everyone to watch for the upcoming updates. And let's all encourage our representatives to
get involved, to participate, that this needs to be a conversation. And just want to thank
both of our legislators who did take the time to attend, for all of you who joined us, for CATS recording
and allowing us to post this session, and our team members and sponsors, the League of Bloomington Monroe
County and Brown County and Johnson County, as well as the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce,
the NAACP branch of Monroe County,
and the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Columbus. We can't do any of this without our sponsors.
So thank you again. I hope you all have a beautiful weekend and that you and Shelley get some rest after
having these long, hard conversations. Thank you.