>> RENEE: GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING u OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: THE 2023 KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THE STATE HOUSE AND SENATE RECONVENE ON FEBRUARY 7TH AFTER FOUR DAYS OF WORK LAST WEEK.

THE HOUSE PASSED HOUSE BILL 1, A BILL THAT WOULD REDUCE INDIVIDUAL STATE INCOME TAXES BY ANOTHER HALF A PERCENT NEXT JANUARY.

THAT'S AFTER A HALF PERCENT CUT ON JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR.

SUPPORTERS SAY THE CUTS PUT MOR MONEY IN KENTUCKIANS' POCKETS.

CRITICS SAY THE CUTS FAVOR THE WEALTHY AND MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE STATE TO PAY FOR CRITICAL S. TO DISCUSS THAT ISSUES AND A HOST OF OTHERS BEFORE THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT NEL CONSIDER THIS SESSION, WE'RE JOINED IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO STATE SENATOR ROBERT STIVERS, A REPUBLICAN FROM MANCHESTER AND SENATE PRESIDENT.

STATE SENATOR GERALD NEAL, A DEMOCRAT FROM LOUISVILLE AND SENATE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID MEADE, A REPUBLICAN FROM STANFORD AND HOUSE SPEAKER PRO-TEM.

AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE DERRICK GRAHAM, A DEMOCRAT FROM FRANKFORT AND HOUSE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SEND YOUS BY twitter @KYTONIGHTKET.

SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.ORG.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/.

OR YOU CAN JUST GIVES A CALL AT 1-800-494-7605.

WELCOME, GENTLEMEN.

GOOD TO HAVE YOU.

I DON'T THINK I OFFICIALLY SAID HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU.

SO HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> SO FOUR DAYS UNDERWAY LET'S TALK ABOUT I MENTIONED HOUSE BILL 1, AND YOU PASSED OTHER BILLS THIS FIRST FOUR DAYS OF THE SESSION, BUT LET'S START THERE.

AND I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU, REPRESENTATIVE MEADE, ABOUT HOUSE BILL 1.

AND IT DIDN'T PASS THE CINCINNATI JUST YET BUT FRET NOT, RIGHT, THAT'S GOING TO DO HAPPEN WHEN YOU GO BACK IN FEBRUARY.

TELL US MORE ABOUT HOUSE BILL 1 MAYBE THAT I DIDN'T SAY ABOUT IT.

>> WELL, THE FRAMEWORK WAS SET UP LAST YEAR IN HOUSE BILL 8 TO START LOWERING THE STATE INCOME TAX BASED ON FRESH REAND THE TRUST FUND.

THE FIRST LOWERED THE INCOME TAX FROM 5% TO 4% START, JANUARY 1 OF THIS YEAR.

WHAT WE DID IN HOUSE BILL 1 IS LOWER THAT FROM 4-1/2% TO 4 BY BOWING GOING AHEAD AND PASSING THAT LEGISLATION THIS YEAR FOR NEXT YEAR WHICH WILL BE JANUARY JANUARY 1 OF 2024 WE'LL SEE THAT REDUCTION.

I THINK THAT THE IMPACT STATEMENT SHOWED THAT ABOUT $625 MILLION TO $650 MILLION WILL STAY 2349 POCKETS OF KENTUCKIANS ACROSS THE STATE, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT SETTING UP THAT FRAMEWORK TO GOING DOWN THE PATH OF HOPEFULLY REACHING ZERO.

>> THE DEMOCRATS WERE ON THE FLOOR IN TWO HOURS OF DEBATE.

YOU AND OTHERS WERE RAILING AGAINST THIS MEASURE BECAUSE YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A RECESSION AND SAY IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA.

TELL US MORE ABOUT YOUR OPPOSITION TO IT.

>> WE KNOW FROM THE FACT OF WHAT HAPPENED IN KANSAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THEY PROCEEDED IN THIS MOTHER, AND UNIVERSITIES AND THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF KANSAS, THEY HAD TO COME BACK EVENTUALLY AND CHANGE THE LAW, AND SO WE DON'T WANT KENTUCKY TO GO DOWN THAT SAME PATH.

MY CONCERN IS OBVIOUSLY IS EDUCATION, BUT ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT ALSO PROVIDING THE NEEDS FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN -- WHO NEED THE HELP, WHETHER WE WILL HAVE THE TYPE OF ECONOMY AND THE TYPE OF MONEY THAT WE WILL NEED TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE IN WORKING CLASS POOR PEOPLE, BUT ALSO IN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A PERSON WITHIN OUR CAUCUS, LISA WILLNER, HAS PROPOSED A GRADUATED TAX IN TERMS OF ANYONE OVER $100,000 WOULD PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO PROPOSE THAT AND TO SEE WHERE WE CAN GO WITH IT AND TO WORK WITH THE REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE AISLE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME OF THOSE MEASURES YOU IMPLEMENTED.

>> SO MORE ON THAT.

THAT'S HOUSE BILL 111 AND THOSE EARNING THEN 2000K TO 125K 234-2024 WOULD SEE THEIR INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE RETURN TO 5% WHILE THOSE EARNING MORE THAN 125K WOULD MOVE INTO 6%, AND THEN ALL OF THOSE -- ALL INCOME OVER 150 WOULD BE TAXED AT 6%.

THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSAL DOES, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, SENATE PRESIDENT, ROBERT STIVERS, WHY DIDN'T HOUSE BILL 1 MAKE IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE THE FIRST FOUR DAYS?

DOES THAT SIGNAL SOMETHING THERE?

LET'S START THERE FIRST.

>> NOT AT ALL, RENEE, AND GOOD EVENING AND HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> NO, NOT AT ALL.

WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE READINGS FOR THREE DAYS AND THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT BASED ON VARIOUS COURT CASES.

WE KNEW THAT THE HOUSE WOULD SEND THIS TO US ON THE THIRD DAY.

WE RECEIVED IT.

WE GAVE IT A READING ON THE SENATE FLOOR ON THURSDAY.

WE GAVE IT A READING ON THE SENATE FLOOR FRIDAY.

AND WHEN WE COME BACK, WE PLAN TO MAKE IT ONE OF THE FIRST BILLS WE PASS, IF NOT THE FIRST BILL WE PASS AND SEND BACK FOR ENROLLMENT AND DELIVERY TO THE GOVERNOR.

>> SO I EXPECT THERE TO BE SIMILAR CONVERSATION THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WAGED AGAINST THIS MEASURE THAT THE SENATE DEMOCRATS, LEADER NEAL, WILL ALSO WAGER OBJECTIONS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HEARD ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

>> WE HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS.

I MEAN, CLEARLY THIS IS NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT GOING FROM 5 TO 4.5 OR 4.5 TO 4.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH TAX ALTOGETHER.

AND THEN SHIFTING THAT PIECE TO A SALES TAX OR A CONSUMPTION TAX OF SOME SORT WHICH ACTUALLY IS A REGRESSIVE TAX.

THE PROPORTION OF INCOME THAT INDIVIDUALS THAT EARN LESSER IS GOING TO BE GREATER AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO EARN MORE THAN THOSE WHO ARE WEALTHY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE REAL BENEFIT FROM THIS, I THINK.

SO THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE AND I THINK MANY HAVE VOICED IS THAT WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATION OF WHAT WE CAN SUSTAIN IN TERMS OF FUTURE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE.

WE DON'T WANT TO CUT THAT FROM UNDER US WITH PARTICULARLY IN THE TIME WHEN WE'RE DOING INVESTMENT THAT'S SHOWING POSITIVE RETURNS, AND 23409 WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WE RECEIVED THESE FEDERAL MONEYS, WHICH HAS BEEN A BLESSING FOR SURE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THOSE MONEYS ARE NOT GOING TO BE REPEATING SUMS OF MONEY, AND AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE PIEPER.

>> WELL, TO THAT POINT, AND LEADER GRAHAM, YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE SERVICE TAX THAT WE IMPLEMENTED THE FIRST ONE WE IMPLEMENTED IN 2018.

MANY OF THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES I KNOW MY VETERINARIAN, HE TALKED TO ME ABOUT HOW IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT IN TERMS OF TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THAT AND HIRING SOMEONE TO COME IN TO LOOK AT THE BOOKS TO TELL THEM AND TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEEDED, AND THEN AS YOU KNOW, IN 2022, 35 ADDITIONAL SERVICES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.

THAT MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES IN TERMS OF OPERATING AND UNDERSTANDING AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AND TO BE SUBMITTING THESE TAXES THAT THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE.

>> SO ON THIS SIDE I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

WE KNOW THAT THERE'S $45 BILLION THAT THE STATE GOT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN COVID AID, SO ARE THESE OVERINFLATED NUMBERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND ARE THEY TRUE NUMBERS THAT YOU CAN COUNT ON IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION ABOUT REDUCING THIS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX IN FUTURE YEARS?

>> SINCE YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME, RENEE, I GUESS YOU'RE POSING THAT QUESTION TO ME.

BUT, YEAH, WE THINK THEY ARE BECAUSE CONSENSUS FORECAST GROUP HAS COME BACK AND GIVEN US NUMBERS AS TO WHAT THEY THINK WE WILL HIT, AND WE FEEL, BASED ON THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT THE TRIGGERS, WHEN REPRESENTATIVE GRAHAM TALKS ABOUT KANSAS, I AGREE WITH HIM.

KANSAS WAS AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER BECAUSE THEY JUST LOOKED AT REVENUE INCREASES.

THEY DIDN'T LOOK AT INCREASES IN YOUR COSTS BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT -- LET'S EQUATE IT TO A HOUSEHOLD.

YOUR GAS BILL GOES UP WHY ARE YOUR WATER BILL GOES UP, YOUR TELEPHONE BILL GOES UP.

YOU HAVE COST INCREASES.

YOU THE ABOUT THESE TRIGGERS MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T DROP BELOW THAT.

KANSAS DIDN'T DO THAT.

THEY JUST BASED IT ON IF WE HIT THIS MUCH INCOME LEVEL, THEN WE'RE GOING TO DO A DECREASE, AND THEY GOT IN A DEFICIT SPENDING SITUATION.

SO WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS, AND IF YOU LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND I'M GOING TO SAY -- I'M NOT TRYING TO BE POLITICAL, BUT THIS WAS OUT THERE LAST YEAR.

PEOPLE KNEW IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY IS DIRECTION WE WERE GOING BECAUSE WE COOPERATED AMONG OURSELVES, AND IT WILL SEEMS LOOK IT GOT A PRETTY OVERWHELMINGLY STRONG RESPONSE AT THE POLLS THIS PAST YEAR.

>> REPRESENTATIVE MEADE, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE CHANCES OF REPRESENTATIVE WILLNER'S HOUSE BILL 11 THAT WOULD RETURN THAT TAX RATE TO 5 OR 6 PERCENT TO THOSE WHO MAKE CERTAIN INCOME OVER SIX FIGURES THAT HAVE A CHANCE AT ALL OR IS THAT DOA?

>> WE HAVEN'T EVEN DISCUSSED THAT AT ALL.

I WILL SAY THAT THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PROVEN SINCE 2018.

IN 2017 WE STARTED DOWN THIS PATH, AND IN 2018 WHEN REPRESENTATIVE RUDY WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE A&R COMMITTEE WE PASSED THAT FIRST INCOME TAX REDUCTION BILL, AND THE PLAN THAT WE PUT IN PLACE YOU SAW THE SAME ARGUMENTS ON THE FLOOR THEN AS WE SAW LAST WEEK, AND FROM THAT TIME PERIOD OF 2018 TO 2023, YOU HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN A LARGE AMOUNT OF REVENUE GROWTH, CLOSE TO AROUND $2,000,000,000.01 SOMEWHERE AROUND IN THERE, AND THE FEDERAL POINT MONEY THAT'S CONTINUED TO BE TALKED ABOUT WE BUDGETED THAT OVER TWO YEARS AGO, A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

THIS NEW BUDGET IS BUDGETING MONEY GOING FORWARD, SO THAT FEDERAL MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN MOVED OUT OUR BUDGET.

HAS NOT EVEN BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BUT YOU'RE STILL SEEING THAT REVENUE GROWTH, AND YOU'RE QUESTIONING TO CONTINUE TO SEE THAT WITH THIS PLAN AS WELL.

YOU'LL SEE THE CONTINUED GROWTH IN OUR REVENUE, AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT WE PASSED FROM 2017 UNTIL NO.

WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE COMPANIES COMING TO KENTUCKY, MORE JOBS CREATED AND MORE INVESTMENT HERE.

>> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT AN ISSUE WE DIDN'T GET TO IN DECEMBER BEFORE THE HOLIDAY BREAK WHEN WE DID A PREVIEW OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND THAT'S PRAISES FOR STATE EMPLOYEES, AND SO I'VE GOTTEN SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

FIRST OF ALL, WILL YOU SUPPORT A RAISE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES THAT WOOS REFLECTED IN THE MOST RECENT BUDGET.

IT WAS 8%, COULD BE AS MUCH AS 12% THIS TIME.

LET'S START THERE, AND THERE'S FOLLOWING LEGISLATION.

I WANT TO START WITH YOU.

I'M LOOKING AT YOU, PRESIDENT STIVERS BECAUSE AFTER THE STATE OF COMMONWEALTH ADDRESS LAST WEDNESDAY, BOTH YOU AND THE HOUSE SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR A COMPENSATION STUDY FROM THE PERSONNEL CABINET.

AND SO WHY I REACHED OUT TO THEM FOR COMMENT, HERE IS WHAT THEY SAID, AND WE'LL PUT THEIR REMARKS ON THE SCREEN.

SO IN THE BUDGET IT REFLECTED THE FACT THAT THE RAISES FOR THIS UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR WOULD BE CONTINGENT PONE THE PERSONNEL CABINET PROVIDING A COMPENSATION REPORT, AND IT SAYS HERE, THE PERSONNEL CABINET PROVIDED THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY A COMPREHENSIVE 44-PAGE COMPENSATION REPORT THAT INCLUDED A SPECIFIC PLAN ON HOW TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RAISES TO STATE EMPLOYEES.

IN THAT REPORT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL EXPLANATION OF THE JOBS CLASSIFICATION REVIEW PROCESS THAT IS UNDERWAY BY THE PERSONNEL CABINET.

AS THE CABINET HAS TESTIFIED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS WITH THE METHODOLOGY THAT IS USED IN KENTUCKY STATE GOVERNMENT AND IS SIMILARLY APPLIED IN MANY OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR JURISDICTIONS, ASSIGNS JOB WITH THE LABOR FORCE MARKETPLACE.

THE CABINET MET EACH AND EVERY REQUEST MADE BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THE PERSONNEL CABINET IS CHARGED WITH AND HAS NECESSARY EXPERTISE TO PROVIDE THE BEST RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE HOPE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WILL REVIEW AND ADOPT THE SUBMITTED PLAN.

DO YOU HAVE SAID SUBMITTED PLAN?

>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THIS PLAN THAT THE YOU BASIS, AND IT WAS FAIRLY SIMPLE, IS WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY A 6% ACROSS-THE-BOARD PAY INCREASE, AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT IN THE AGGREGATE WHAT'S LEFT, WHAT TO DO WITH THE OTHER PERSONNEL.

WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING THEM TO COME BACK, AND LET'S USE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, TO SAY IN THE AGGREGATE THERE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A 12% ACROSS-THE-BOARD RAISE, SO LET'S LOOK AT THIS IN THE AGGREGATE AND SAY, INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE SKILL LEVEL NOR THE RISK WILL GET MAYBE A 6%, AND THE PEOPLE LIKE THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS WOULD GET LIKE AN 18%, SO THEY DIFFERENTIATE, MUCH AS WE DID WITH THE SOCIAL WORKERS, THE STATE POLICE, AND LOOKING FOR AT THAT.

ALSO YOU WOULD APPLY IT TO LIKE THE TRANSPORTATION CABINET WHERE WE LOSE ENGINEERS BECAUSE WE CAN'T BE COMPETITIVE.

WE SAW NOTHING LIKE THAT COME BACK FROM THE PERSONNEL CABINET.

IT WAS JUST, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO DO 6%.

THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT THE REST OF IT.

>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

FROM THE LEGISLATION THERE WAS A FINE THAT WOULD BE LEVELED AGAINST THE CABINET OF $1 MILLION.

I'M NOT SURE OF THE FREQUENCY OF THAT.

DID THAT COME INTO PLAY HERE?

THEY SEEMED, TO THEIR FREQUENT H. PROTECT IS I HAVE, THEY HAD COMPLIED WITH WHAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REQUESTED THEM TO DO, AND I ASSUME NO FINES HAVE BEEN LEVELED AGAINST THEM.

>> WELL, THAT'S YET TO BE DECIDED.

>> SO WE WOULD BE RETROACTIVE FROM JULY OF 2022?

>> I THINK WE CAN TO DO A LOT ABOUT WHAT WE SET THE POLICY TO BE IN REDUCING BUDGETS IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE COME THROUGH WITH WHAT THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO DO.

>> SO YOU COULD REDUCE THEIR BUDGET BY WHATEVER FINE, A CUMULATIVE FINE THAT YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR NONCOMPLIANCE OF SUBMITTING THE REPORT THAT YOU ASKED FOR OR WANTED.

THEY SAY THEY SUBMITTED ONE BUT NOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> THAT'S THE PROGRESS TIFT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IS THE POWER OF THE PURSE.

>> YOU WOULD OPEN THE BUDGET TO DO THAT, CORRECT?

>> WE COULD, IF WE DEEM IT NECESSARY.

>> YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT, LEADER NEAL.

>> THEY SET THE AGENDA.

THEY'RE IN THE MAJORITY.

I THINK ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ON THE TABLE.

THOSE ISSUES NEED TO BE RESOLVED, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, AND WE SHOULD GO ABOUT THIS IN A VERY STUDIOUS WAY.

SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT IN THE AIR AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEFT IS DOING AS OPPOSED TO THE RIGHT.

THEY SAY IT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.

ON THIS HAND THEY DELIVERED HERE.

THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED.

>> SO, LEADER GRAHAM, YOU REPRESENT A LOT OF STATE EMPLOYEES IN YOUR DISTRICT.

WHAT HAVE YOU HEARD FROM THEM?

>> I WOULD HOPE THAT -- THEY'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THESE COST OF LIVING INCREASES, AND I WOULD APPEAL TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY WITH THEY'RE HARD WORKERS, AND I SAY THIS ALL THE TIME IN TERMS OF JUST LOOKING AT OUR LRC STAFF.

PEOPLE THAT WERE BEFORE THEM, TAUGHT THEM HOW TO BE EFFECTIVE.

OUR LRC EMPLOYEES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE BEST LRC SYSTEM IN THE WHOLE UNITED STATES.

STATE EMPLOYEES WORK VERY HARD.

THEY ARE COMMITTED TO THEIR JOBS.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE TO THEM WITH THIS 12%, WE HAVE SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO PROVIDE THAT 12% OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AND ALSO COME TO SOME CONCLUSION THAT WOULD PROVIDE THAT COST OF LIVING INCREASE TO OUR STATE EMPLOYEES.

>> SPEAKER PRO-TEM MEADE, WHAT SAY YOU?

AND PART 2 OF THAT QUESTION IS WILL THERE BE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD INCREASE THE CURRENT 30.5 HOUR WORK WEEK TO A 40 HOUR WORK WEEK?

>> THERE'S BEEN SOME VERY SLIGHT DISCUSSION ON THAT.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT'S GOING TO LEAD.

BUT AS FAR AS THE REPORTS I HAVE NOT SEEN THE REPORT.

WHAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT, THOUGH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THE CABINET HAS COME BACK WITH JUST A GENERAL REPORT.

WHEN WE WERE ACTUALLY EXPECTING THEM TO COME BACK WITH PERCENTAGES AND NUMBERS AND LEAD US IN THE DIRECTION OF THOSE RAISES AND HOW MUCH EACH INDIVIDUAL SECTOR SHOULD GET BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE'RE STRUGGLING IN SOME AREAS TO EMPLOY FOLKS IN AREAS WHERE WE MAY NOT BE.

SO OUR EXPECTATIONS WERE THAT THEY WOULD COME BACK WITH VERY SPECIFIC NUMBERS AND AMOUNTS FOR US TO BUDGET TO, AND I THINK THAT ALL OF US PREPARED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE MONEY IS THERE AND PREPARED -- WE'RE PREPARED TO USE IT ABOUT THE WE NEED THE INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

>> SO IF YOU DON'T GET THE INFORMATION IN THIS SHORT 20-SOMETHING DAYS REMAINING, DOES THAT MEAN STATE EMPLOYEES JUST WOULDN'T GET A PAY INCREASE?

>> I THINK AT THIS POINT WE PUSH VERY HARD TO HAVE THEM GO BACK AND GIVE US THOSE NUMBERS SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT BEFORE WE GET OUT.

>> LET ME DIRECT SOMETHING TO REPRESENTATIVE GRAHAM.

HE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WAS OUT THERE AS A COST OF LIVING.

IF I'M NOT BADLY MISTAKEN, THAT WHICH WAS PROPOSED IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET WAS WAY LESS THAN WHAT WE PROPOSED IN LETTING BUDGET BY FAR, AND WEED AND BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, THE LRC, BEING OUR BRANCH TO COME UP WITH COMPREHENSIVE YOU THE STUDIES AS WE DID WITH THE EXECUTIVE RANCH.

LRC DID IT, BUT NOT TO THE DETAIL, THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE DIDN'T COME UP NEARLY WITH THE DETAIL WE DID IN THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES.

>> LET'S MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC.

THIS IS KIND OF FUN, TO BREAK IT UP A LITTLE BIT.

SENATE BILL 20, PROHIBIT THE USE OR DOWNLOAD OF TIK TOK ON ANY STATE GOVERNMENT NETWORK OR ANY STATE GOVERNMENT ISSUED DEVICES.

WHAT'S THE BEEF WITH TIK TOK?

>> WELL, I'M GOING TO LOOK AT MY COUNTERPART SENATOR GERALD NEAL BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE THE TWO OLDEST PEOPLE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND I'M NOT TECH SAVVY, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON BECAUSE NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHO IS THE SERVICE PROVIDER FOR TIK TOK AND THAT ON GOVERNMENTAL, I GUESS, CELL PHONES, iPADS, THAT THEY FEEL, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPERTS IN TECHNOLOGY THINK BECAUSE WHO THE PROVIDER ARE, THAT TIK TOK WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO POTENTIALLY PIERCING OR MAKING THEM UNSAFE FOR USE.

>> I THINK THE PRIMARY PROBLEM IS THAT, AS REPORTED, THE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA HAS REQUIREMENTS PLACED UPON ENTITIES THAT FUNCTION, SUCH AS TIK TOK, WHERE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.

IF IT'S COMING INTO OUR BEING, DRAWN FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES, THAT GIVES THEM A VIEW INTO HOW WE FUNCTION AND PERHAPS INFORMATION THAT'S CRITICAL ON WHAT WE DO.

>> SO YOU WOULD SUPPORT THE MEASURE.

>> I THINK I WOULD SUPPORT THE MEASURE.

>> AFTER YOU EXPLAINED WHAT TIK TOK IS TO ALL OF THE MEMBERS.

>> IT JUST MEANS NO MORE MORGAN McGARVEY-DAMON THAYER RIDE ALONG SING ALONG.

>> HAVE YOU CHECKED WITH THE SPONSOR OF OF THIS LEGISLATION.

I JUST WANTED TO LIGHTEN IT UP A LITTLE BIT.

>> I WAS TRYING.

>> I DON'T DEAL WITH TIK TOK.

BUT I THINK IT'S RIGHT.

IT'S THE RIGHT THING SUSPECT.

>> SO WE HAVE SOME BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON THAT.

>> AH.

>> SCORE!

36 MINUTES LEFT AND WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN THERE.

Y WHERE WE MAY NOT HAVE IT SENATE AND HOUSE BILL 50.

THESE ARE BILLS THAT REQUIRE PARDONNAL LO OFFICE ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARDS.

I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU AS AN EDUCATOR.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE HOUSE BILL 50 BY REPRESENTATIVE MATT SPROCKET.

>> AND I HAVEN'T READ THE ENTIRE BILL BUT I'D SAY THIS.

I THINK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF THE LOCAL ELECTIONS, AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IN THE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW IS THAT PEOPLE SIGN UP, IT'S A COMMUNITY THING IN WHICH THEY SIGN UP TO RUN.

I WOULD ASK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY NOT TO PURSUE THIS CONCEPT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND THAT WE LEAVE IT ALONE AND LET PEOPLE DECIDE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WHO WANTS TO RUN FOR THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS.

AND THE ISSUE ALSO OF WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARDS ESTABLISH IN TERMS OF THE CURRICULUM, THAT SHOULD STILL STAY WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND WE SHOULD NOT BE ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS OF TELLING THEM WHAT TO TEACH AND HOW TO TEACH IT AND WHAT NOT TO TEACH.

SO I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD STAY WITHIN THE LOCAL CONFINES.

>> SO AS A PARTY OF LOCAL CONTROL AND HOME RULE, I WANT TO ASK, I MEAN, WHERE DID THIS COME ABOUT?

WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S NECESSARY?

REPRESENTATIVE MEADE, DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH THAT SIRS FIRST.

>> I THINK WE'VE SEEN FROM THE MEDIA THAT PARENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE DISPROVED IN THE SCHOOL PROCESS.

THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN DISPROVED IN EDUCATION OF THEIR WINNER THE CHILDREN AT HOME BUT THEY'RE REALLY BECOMING INVOLVED IN PROCESS OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVELL, ESPECIALLY SINCE COVID AND SOME OF THE NEWS OF WHAT SOME THINGS THAT ARE BEING TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION TO, THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.

AND SO WE TONIGHT AT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE BEING ELECTED ARE OF THEIR SAME IDEAS AND THEIR SAME BELIEFS.

THEY WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEY STAND AND BE MORE TRANSPARENT, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF IT.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT PARTISAN POLITICS ARE INVADING EVERY PIECE OF SOCIETY RIGHT NOW AND WE WANT TO KEEP PARDON POLITICS OUT OF IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO I ALSO SEE THAT SIDE OF IT.

WE HAVEN'T HAD MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT YET.

WANT TO TALK ABOUT TO MATT ABOUT AND GET HIS PERSPECTIVE ON THE BILL.

I HAVEN'T READ THE BILL BUT I WANT TO GET A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> LEADER DAMON THAYER, WHAT'S THE DISCUSSION IN YOUR CAUCUS ABOUT IT?

>> IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT REPRESENTATIVE MEADE TALKED ABOUT.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HAD INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE RUN ON THIS ISSUE AND BEEN ELECTED THAT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND IS GENERALLY BASED ON HOW YOUR AFFILIATION WITH PARTY IS, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW THAT AND THAT GENERALLY KIND OF DEFINES YOU TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.

BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WANT TO TRY TO GET, AS DAVE SAID, AWAY FROM PARTISAN POLITICS, BUT WHEN YOU SEE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT PARENTS HAVE SEEN DURING COVID THAT THEIR CHILDREN HAVE BROUGHT HOME THROUGH THEIR INTERNET CLASSES AND THEIR HOMEWORK, IT HAS REALLY RAISED CONCERN TO WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO BE MORE ENGAGED IN THIS EDUCATIONAL FORUM, AND HOW CRITICAL SCHOOL BOARDS, SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS ARE IN DETERMINING THE DIRECTION OF WHAT WAY A SCHOOL GOES.

>> SENATOR NEAL.

>> I THINK IT'S A CLEAR OVERREACH FROM THE STATE LEVEL.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN LOCAL ELECTIONS, THAT THAT SHOULD BE RESOLVED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

WHEN PEOPLE RUN, THEY MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE FOR SCRUTINY AT THE TOLD LEVEL, AND I'VE HEARD NO ONE SAY THAT THAT'S BEEN INSUFFICIENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY STAND FOR AND STAND AND PUT THEMSELVES BEFORE THE PEOPLE BEFORE THE ELECTION PROCESS, SO WHY WOULD WE FROM THE THE SAME COME BACK BECAUSE SOMEONE COMPLAINS?

>> DEMOCRACY IS A MESSY THING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE SO REACTIVE, AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH A REACTIONARY MOVE.

>> I'M GOING HOLD OFF ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

WE'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS ON THAT AND WE ARE GOING TO DO A SEPARATE SHOW ON JUVENILE JUSTICE ON THE 23rd, SO IF WE DON'T GET TO THAT TONIGHT, MAKE SURE YOU TUNE IN THEN.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE GAS TAX FREEZE BECAUSE IN JUNE OF 2022 GOVERNOR BESHEAR ISSUED THIS EMERGENCY REGULATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS CALLED, TO PREVENT THAT 2-CENT INCREASE PER GALLON ON THE GAS TAX.

IT WOULD HAVE GONE INTO EFFECT JULY OF THAT YEAR.

SO ANDREW McNEIL OF BLUEGRASS INSTITUTE ASKED THIS QUESTION.

LAST SUMMER GOVERNOR BESHEAR, A EMERGENCY REGULATION TO KEEP THE GAS TAX FROM INCREASING.

HIS EXECUTIVE EXPIRES THIS MONTH.

WILL IT FREEZE THE GAS TAX OR DOES THE LEGISLATURE PREFER A POTENTIAL GAS TAX INCREASE BASED UPON THE CURRENT FORMULA?

WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST?

>> YOU'RE STARING AT ME AGAIN, RENEE, SO I WILL CONTINUE OR START.

FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT THINK THE GOVERNOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, BUT HE DID IT.

HE DID SOMETHING THAT WE AGREE WITH, BUT THE PROCESS WAS WRONG.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE FELT THAT WE SHOULD PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO WHERE WE CAN COME IN ONE DAY AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT AT THIS POINT 234 TIME WHERE EVERYBODY IS GETTING HIT BY INFLATIONARY COSTS, I DON'T SEE US DEVIATING ON THAT OR AT LEAST SUSPENDING THIS TO INCREASE BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE ANY MORE COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BY THE ECONOMIC DYNAMICS IN PART OF A LOT OF THE MONEY THAT WAS FLUSHED INTO THE SYSTEM, AND THAT'S WHAT VIRTUALLY EVERY ECONOMIST WILL TELL YOU, IS THAT, YEAH, WE NEEDED MONEY IN THE SYSTEM BUT PROBABLY NOT TO THE EXTENT WE GOT IT PUT INTO THE SYSTEM BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT'S HIT THIS ALMOST HYPER-INFLATION MODE.

>> SPEAKER?

>> WELL, ROBERT HAS COVERED MOST OF IT.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED IT IN THE HOUSE AT ALL.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS ON THE LIST THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS BEFORE WE GO BACK INTO SESSION TO DETERMINE SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH WHEN WE GO BACK.

>> ON THIS ISSUE WHERE DO YOU ALL STAND?

AND THEN I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT REGRESSIVE TAXES THAT A VIEWER HAS ASKED ABOUT.

THE GAS TAX.

>> WELL, I SUPPORT WHAT THE GOVERNOR DID.

I THINK THAT WAS THE BEST THING WE -- HE COULD HAVE DONE.

AND I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH THE GOVERNOR TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING -- BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING THROUGH SOME TOUGH TIMES RIGHT NOW, BUT I SUPPORT WHAT HE DID.

>> BASICALLY, THE COMMENT THAT'S MADE ABOUT THIS IS DRIVING THE INFLATIONARY PIECE, I GUESS THAT'S DEBATABLE WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

IT'S A COMPLEX SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT'S GOTTEN US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE, AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE A POSITIVE IMPACT IN THE PERSON'S HOME, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO.

WE OUGHT TO SUPPORT THAT.

AND THERE'S NO REAL CONTROL, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN REALLY SPECULATE AS TO HOW THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO TURN OUT, BUT WE HAVE TO RACQUET TO THOSE THING THAT WE NEED TO REACT TO AS WE GO FORWARD BUT RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE AND THEY NEED THAT RELIEF.

>> AND WHEN THAT EMERGENCY ACTION WAS TAKEN, GAS WAS FLIRTING WITH $5 A GALLON AND WE ARE WELL BELOW THAT NOW.

>> LET ME GIVE YOU A FACT ABOUT OUR TRANSPORTATION BUDGET.

THIS IS MY 27th YEAR.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE 27 YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE THAT WE HAVE NOT OVERBUDGETED THE TRANSPORTATION BUDGET.

WE ARE ACTUALLY AT AROUND 98%, SO EVERY ROAD PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED TO EITHER BE DESIGNED, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND CONSTRUCTION, CAN GO FORWARD UNDER THE CURRENT REVENUE STREAM, AND THAT'S MAINLY DUE TO THE FACT OF THE BRENT SPENCE BRIDGE BEING TAKEN CARE OF BY FEDERAL DOLLARS.

>> SO THIS, GOING BACK TO OUR PREVIOUS TAX DISCUSSION I GUESS AS THE RELATES TO HOUSE BILL 1 AND HOUSE BILL 8, COULD THE PANEL EXPLAIN WHAT A AGGRESSIVE TAX IS AND COULD THEY ADDRESS HOW LOW WEALTH KENTUCKY CITIZENS WILL BE AFFECTED BY SPENDING A LARGER PORTION OF THEIR INCOME ON THESE CONSUMPTION TAXES.

THIS FROM A VIEWER FROM CALLOWAY COUNTY.

DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A CRACK AT THAT?

BECAUSE DEMOCRATS TEND TO TALK ABOUT THE A NATURE OF EXPANDING SALES TAXES TO SERVICES THAT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN TADD.

>> JUST TO STATE IN IT SIMPLE TERMS, IF I HAVE $1,000 AND I HAVE TO SPEND, LET'S SAY, 50% ON IT, OF IT ON CONSUMPTION TAXES, FOR INSTANCE, OR IF WE HAVE TO SPEND TAX IN SUCH WAY THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FOR PEOPLE THAT'S GOT $100,000, THEN THE PROPORTION THAT OF TAX IS VERY SIMPLE.

THEY GET THE SAME THING, BUT THE PORTION THAT THEY'RE USING IN TERMS OF THEIR INCOME THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO SUSTAIN AND DEAL WITH OTHER FACTORS IS DIMINISHED BY THIS A DIFFERENT PROPORTION IN TERMS OF ITS IMPACT.

SO IN THAT SENSE I WOULD CONSIDER THAT TO BE REGRESSIVE BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE SAME IMPACT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS INCOME AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHO HAVE GREATER INCOME.

>> SO DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS A REGRESSIVE TAX OF A REGRESSIVE TAX NATURE?

>> FIRST OF ALL, LET'S MAKE CLEAR WHAT WE DON'T TAX.

TWO NECESSARY ITEMS: DRUGS AND FOOD.

THEY ARE NOT TAXED.

>> AND THERE IS NO DESIRE TO DO THAT.

>> GROCERIES, RIGHT.

>> GROCERIES.

LET'S MAKE CLEAR WHEN WE SAY FOOD BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO TO -- I WON'T NAME ANY PARTICULAR RESTAURANT -- YOU'RE GOING TO GET A TAX.

BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT GENERATES JOBS, CREATES GROWTH, IT IS NOT THIS TYPE OF INCOME TAX STYLE MODEL OF A TAX CODE.

AND THAT'S WHERE YOU CREATE JOBS.

I ALWAYS FIND IT INTERESTING BECAUSE I THINK MOST ECONOMISTS WOULD AGREE THAT A GAMING SITUATION AND THEN GOING INTO GAMING AND TAXING THE PROCEEDS IS PROBABLY ABOUT AS REGRESSIVE AS YOU CAN GET, BUT THEY TEND TO SUPPORT THAT.

BUT WITH THAT, I THINK IF YOU WANT TO ASSUME IT THAT WAY, I LOOK AT IT AS BEING PROPORTIONAL BECAUSE WE EXEMPT SO MUCH INCOME TAX.

WE HAVE VARIOUS THINGS LIKE -- THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM SALES TAX.

IT IS NOT THE IMPACT THAT PEOPLE EXPECT IT TO BE.

AND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ON THE HIGH RANGE BECAUSE OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING WITH NOT MANDATORY SPENDING, WILL GET A HIGHER TAX BILL.

>> WELL, WE DO KNOW THAT TENNESSEE TAXES GROCERIES.

>> THEY DO.

>> AND I THINK THE COMMENT WAS MADE BY YOUR COLLEAGUE REPRESENTATIVE RUTH ANN PALUMBO THAT SHE COULD ENVISION A SCENARIO WHERE KENTUCKY EVENTUALLY PERHAPS TAXES GROCERIES AND MEDICINES THAT BE, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, SACRED COWS.

>> YOU CAN ENVISION A LOT.

WE CAN PRESUPPOSE A LOT.

WE CAN SPECULATE A LOT.

BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THING WE DISCUSSED THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE TO START TAXING THOSE TWO AREAS AND ITEMS.

I CAN THROW OUT AND SI, SPECULATE IT MAY SNOW THIS SUMMER IN JULY.

IT'S POSSIBLE BUT IT'S NOTE PROBABLE.

>> YOU KNOW WEEK I CAN AGREE, THERE ARE SOME EXEMPTIONS THAT I THINK ARE VERY RATIONALE LIKE FOOD AND SO FORTH, BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE STILL IS A DISPROPORTIONALITY THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, AND I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF JUST GETTING INTO THE ECONOMICS OF IT, AND WE CAN SHOW THAT OR DEMONSTRATE THAT ARE NOT, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN YOU FUNCTION THE WAY YOU JUST POSED THAT, THAT WOULD BE A DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT.

>> SO NOW I'M GOING TO GET INTO MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

I WANT TO GO TO -- I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU, SENATE PRESIDENT STIVERS, I REALLY AM NOT.

>> YOU'RE ALWAYS LOOKING AT ME.

>> THE KENTUCKY MOMS FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS CO-FOUNDER KRISTEN WILCOX SENT MY A MESSAGE TODAY SAYING THAT SHE HAD MET WITH -- HER GROUP HAD MET WITH YOU LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE, AND SHE FELT THAT IT WENT WELL.

>> FRIDAY, THURSDAY OR FRIDAY, YEAH.

>> SO IS THERE A CHANCE?

SHE WANTED ME TO PASS ALONG.

PERHAPS YOU DIDN'T GET A CHANCE FOR HER TO ASK YOU THIS.

IS THERE A CHANCE THAT THE SENATE WILL APPROVE A MEDICAL CANNABIS BILL?

>> LOOK, THIS TO ME IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX ISSUES, AND WITH MS. WILCOX AND GROUP, I TALKED ABOUT THIS.

I'VE SEEN FAMILY MEMBERS GO THROUGH CANCER TREATMENTS.

IN NO WAY DO I WANT TO BE UNSYMPATHETIC BECAUSE, IF YOU RECALL, IN AT ANY TIME 10 I WALKED OFF THE 123459 FLOOR TO HAVE FOUND OUT MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY FROM COLON CANCER.

I SAW WHAT SHE ENDURED.

I'VE SEEN WHAT OTHERS HAVE ENDURED, MY BROTHER-IN-LAW ENDURED WITH GLIOBLASTOMA.

BUT THERE ARE ALSO THINGS OUT THERE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO IT THE RIGHT WAY IF IT IS DONE.

AND THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION, PROBABLY BECAUSE OF POOR COMMUNICATIONS, THAT I WAS REFERENCING NORTON'S OVERDOSE HOTLINE.

I WAS REFERENCING THAT NORTON HAS AN OVERDOSE HOTLINE, ABOUT THE NATIONALLY THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE DUE TO AND RELATED TO MARIJUANA USE.

AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, AND I ACTUALLY WENT TO DENVER AND I WALKED AROUND KIND OF LIKE UNDERCOVER BOSS AND STARTED ASKING THEM, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO YOU DO FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

AND THE PERSON SAID, OH, WELL, WE DO THIS.

I SAID, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT REC CONFRONTATIONAL OH, WE OWN -- RECREATIONAL?

WE OWN BOTH SHOPS.

I FOUND IT'S INTERESTING.

THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, AND THERE ARE INDICATORS, THERE ARE INDICATORS BUT IT'S NOT PROVEN, AND THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT ABOUT THIS, THERE'S INDICATORS OUT THERE THAT CERTAIN THINGS ARE HELPED.

THERE ARE INDICATORS THAT THERE ARE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES.

AND SO UNTIL YOU GET THE RESEARCH BEHIND IT THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW -- I'VE HEARD EVERYBODY FOR TWO YEARS SAY LET'S FOLLOW THE RESEARCH, LET'S LISTEN TO THE RESEARCH.

NOW NOBODY WANTS TO PAY ATTENTION TO ANY RESEARCH, SO LET'S RESEARCH THE ISSUE.

IT MAY BE TOUGH, BUT I ALSO GIVE PEOPLE THIS ONE THING IN THE LAW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE.

IF YOU'RE SITTING THERE IN PALE ATIVE CARE USING THC, DO YOU THINK THE STATE POLICE GOING TO COME IN OR THE SHERIFF IS GOING TO COME IN AND RAID YOU?

FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE GOT A DEFENSE THAT HAS BEEN AROUND AS LONG AS OLD ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

A CHOICE OF EVILS.

I DON'T FIRST OF ALL THINK YOU WOULD BE ARRESTED.

TWO, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD EVER BE CONVICTED IN YOU'RE IN THOSE TYPES SITUATIONS.

BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS NOT ABUSED BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES.

BUT I AM WORKING ON IT WITH OTHERS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN GET TO A YES TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE AT END OF LIFE, WHO ARE NEEDING SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT THEY THINK, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A PLACEBO TYPE OF ATMOSPHERE, THAT IT WOULD HELP THEM.

>> WELL, LAST YEAR'S BILL THAT CAME FROM THE HOUSE, IT WAS PRETTY RESTRICTIVE ON THE AILMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THE USA, SO DO YOU WANT EVEN A MORE NARROW SCOPE?

>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MORE NARROW SCOPE BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO LOOK AT A COUPLE OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

ONE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN THE BILL BUT I'M ACTUALLY -- I HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED WITH SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROCESSED THIS IN OTHERRIST STATES.

SHOULD WE HAVE A CASPER STYLE SYSTEM FOR THE PRESCRIBING OF THESE AND WHAT IT IS BEING PRESCRIBED FOR AND THE WAY IT IS BEING INGESTED?

BECAUSE THERE'S 50% MORE CARNES CARNES NO JENNS IN SMOKED MARIJUANA THAN THERE IS TOBACCO.

SHOULD WE HAVE FULL DISCLOSURE OF WHO THE INDIVIDUALS ARE THAT ARE ACTUALLY THE GROUPS OR BUSINESS OR -- IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PHARMACY BECAUSE A PHARMACIST REALLY DON'T WANT TO TOUCH IT SO THE DISTRIBUTORS OR DISPENSERS AS TO WHO THE OWNERS ARE IN THOSE, AND MUCH LIKE WE DO IN ABC STORE AND A LIQUOR STORE, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE ALL OWNERS.

SO WE KNOW JUST EXACTLY HOW IT IS BEING DONE, THAT IT'S BEING REPORTED, AND IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED.

>> WHAT THE SENATE PRESIDENT IS SAYING, I CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST.

YOU WANT TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, AND I THINK YOU OUGHT TO LOOK AT IT IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN ELIMINATE THOSE THINGS THAT WOULD BE NEGATIVE IN DOING SO, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF EXAMPLES OUT THERE AND THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE CAN EXAMINE THAT WILL SHOW US WHAT IT CAN DO IN THIS, THAT OR ANOTHER SITUATION, AND WE SHOULD GET ON WITH IT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IT IS A BENEFIT TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THESE SITUATIONS WHERE IT RELIEVES THEIR PAIN OR DISCOMFORT, ET CETERA.

THE QUESTION IS MAKING SURE THAT IT'S NOT THE ABUSE.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT THE QUESTION -- BUT THERE ARE SYSTEMS THAT ARE OUT THERE TO DO THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S AS COMPLEX AS WE MIGHT MAKE IT, AND THAT BILL THAT WAS OUT THERE IS VERY RESTRICTIVE, AND MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN I WOULD THINK IT SHOULD BE, QUITE FRANKLY, BUT I THINK WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST GO DOWN THAT ROAD, LET'S EXAMINE THAT, LET'S REVIEW IT, AND MAKE CHANGES AS WE GO.

>> SO YOUR COLLEAGUE, THE HOUSE SPEAKER, DAVID OSBORNE SAID, WELL, IT'S THE SENATE'S TURN TO START THIS.

DO YOU FEEL THE SWAIM,RA MEADE?

>> EVERY TIME I'VE BEEN ON THIS SHOW WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, AND I HAVE VOTED BOTH WAYS ON THIS BILL, AND I THINK AGAIN IF IT'S TAILORED VERY SPECIFIC, IF THE DIAGNOSES ARE LAID OUT WITH IF WE HAVE THE ACTUAL DIAGNOSIS FROM PHYSICIANS IN THERE, YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE IT WOULD HAVE A ACCIDENT CHANCE AGAIN, BUT THE DVR DECENT CHANCE AGAIN.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE VOTED ON THIS TWICE, IT'S PASSED THE HOUSE AND I WOULD STICK BUT WITH THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTS.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENT ABOUT THAT?

SENATOR YATES HAS A BILL THAT I BELIEVE IS JUST MARIJUANA, STRAIGHT UP WIEDER WIEDER.

>> TALK ABOUT SENATOR YATES AND I GUESS WE CAN CHUCKLE ABOUT ALL THAT BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING ACROSS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN CANADA, THIS THING IS COMING, AND I WILL SAY THIS TOO.

ON A FEDERAL LEVEL YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN OFF OF CERTAIN SCHEDULES AND IT'S GOING TO BE CHANGE WHERE IT CAN BE UTILIZED.

THE IN FACT THERE'S A COUPLE BILLS IN THE HOUSE THAT HAVE BEEN FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE KULKARNI RELATED TO LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE, LET'S MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

>> AND DECRIMINALIZING.

>> AND DEC.F.L.IZING BILLS.

ONE STATUTORY APPROACH AND THE OTHER IS LET'S LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE AND, YOU KNOW, LET'S RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.

BUT IT'S A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.

OOH A CONTENTIOUS ISSUES.

IT'S GOT A LOT OF HISTORY BEHIND IT THAT IS GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE, AND A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE MIXED IN TERMS OF OTHER TYPES OF DRUGS THAT ARE UTILIZED HISTORICALLY IN SOCIETY AND NOW MARIJUANA HAS BEEN LUMPED IN THERE AND SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE IT LEASED TO THE USE OF THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER.

LEADS TO THE USE OF THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER.

THEN AGAIN WE HAVE GOT ALCOHOL ALL OVER THE PLACE.

WE CELEBRATE ALCOHOL.

E. CAN CELEBRATES BOURBON.

WE MAKE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY OFF OF THIS.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK.

WE'VE GOT TO BALANCE THAT SOMEWHAT, AND I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND TAKE A BROADER LOOK BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, ARE REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE MEADE.

>> I'LL TELL YOU A STORY.

I HAD A CONSTITUENT WHO BROUGHT MISS CHILD TO KENTUCKY.

WE WAS ORIGINALLY FROM THE NORTHEAST.

AND HE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE SCHOOL THAT WAS THERE IN FRANKFORT FOR KIDS WHO HAVE ISSUES IN TERMS OF DISABLED, DISABILITY.

AND HIS SON HAD MAJOR SEIZURES.

AND HE HAD A FRIEND OF HIS WHO LIVED OUT IN COLORADO, AND SO HE DECIDED TO TAKE HIS SON OUT THERE FOR A WEEK, AND WHEN HE ARRIVED IN COLORADO WITH HIS SON, HIS FRIEND GAVE HIS SON A GUMMY BEAR, AND IN THAT GUMMY BEAR WAS OBVIOUSLY CANNABIS.

FOR THAT WHOLE WEEK THAT THAT CHILD STAYED OUT THERE, HE HAD NO SEIZURES, AND THE FATHER WAS JUST COMPLETELY SO HAPPY ABOUT IT BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY, A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE THAT 1 HE HAD HAD SO MANY SEIZURES THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS BECOMING PRETTY DANGEROUS FOR THE CHILD, AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER THAT THIS PARTICULAR GUMMY BEAR EACH DAY KEPT HIM FROM DOING THAT, WE KNOW THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THAT CAN HELP IN AREAS IN THE MEDICAL AREAS THAT CANNABIS HAS SHOWN TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST AND HELP THOSE WHO ARE HAVING MEDICAL ISSUES.

>> AND SEIZURES SUCH AS THAT, AND I THINK THAT WAS INCLUDED IN HOUSE BILL 136 FROM LAST TIME.

OKAY.

GO AHEAD, PRESIDENT SIEVERS.

>> WE KIND OF CHUCKLE BUT THIS IS NOT A CHUCKLING SUBJECT MATTER.

IT IS DIFFICULT, AS SENATOR NEAL SAYS.

AND FOR ANYBODY TO MINIMIZE THE ISSUE, AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY IS HERE THINK THAT WE ARE MINIMIZING THE ISSUE I THINK IS TOTALLY WRONG BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I WAS DOING AT 9:00 SATURDAY.

I WAS READING ARTICLES ON THIS, READING STUDIES, STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS ABOUT SPASTICITY.

THOSE AREN'T WORDS I USE EVERY DAY BUT THAT'S WHAT INVESTIGATORS TALK ABOUT, AND I WAS READING ARTICLES AND SENDING OUT EMAIL ABOUT GET ME PEOPLE WHO CAN TELL ME ABOUT THIS OR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU GET INTO NAUSEA SUPPRESSION, APPETITE ENHANCEMENT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN CANCER TREATMENTS.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS, AND I KNOW I'VE BECOME KIND OF THE PORT OF BOY FOR THIS -- POSTER BOY FOR IN TO THROW DARTS AT BUT I THINK A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE IN SIMILARLY SITUATED CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THEY WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND THERE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS, BUT IS THAT THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS?

AND EVERYBODY FEELS THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION AND ARE TAKING IT VERY SERIOUSLY GOING THROUGH ALL THE THING WE'RE DOING EVEN ON SATURDAY NIGHTS AT 9:00.

>> AND I THINK ROBERT IS RIGHT.

THE FIRST TIME HE SPOKE, HE HIT ON THE DATA ISSUE, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF MEMBERS WHO ARE VERY DATA-DRIVEN.

THEY'RE IN THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY.

THEY'RE ATTORNEYS, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

AND THEY WANT TO SEAL THAT DATA LAID OUT AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE MAKING THE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT DECISION WHEN IT COMES TO THIS.

>> LET ME JUST SAY THIS, FILL.

WHEN WE FUNCTION IN THE SENATE, THAT'S WHAT I KNOW MOST IN TERMS OF THE HOUSE, THE APPROACHES ARE PRETTY STUDIOUS.

THAT'S WHY I DON'T QUESTION.

WHEN WE HAVE DEBATES OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THESE MATTERS, EVERYBODY IS SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.

WE HAVE DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS SOMETIMES, BUT ACTUALLY MOST OF THE TIME WE AGREE ON VARIOUS ISSUES THAT WE DEAL WITH.

BUT FROM THE OUTSIDE PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT AND THEY INTERPRET THAT A DIFFERENT SORT OF WAY.

I JUST HAPPEN TO FEEL THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND BECAUSE THE SENATE PRESIDENT OR OTHERS IN THE SENATE THINK THAT HASN'T SATISFIED WHAT THEY THINK IS NECESSARY, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NECESSARILY BAD.

IN FACT, I THINK THE PROCESS IS GOOD BECAUSE WE -- WE CAN SCRUTINIZE IT CAREFULLY INSTEAD OF JUST JUMPING OFF A LEDGE.

>> SO WHAT ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

WHAT ABOUT WHAT REPRESENTATIVE MEADE AND KULKARNI ARE PROPOSING?

>> I DON'T THINK A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS THE DIRECTION TO GO BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, ONE, WE APPROPRIATED MONEY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY TO DO RESEARCH ON THIS.

THEIR RESEARCH WILL BE BACK BEFORE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT COULD EVEN GO ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.

THILL EV WE'LL HAVE DEFINITIVE ANSWERS FROM INDIVIDUALS LIKE DR. WARBLE AND PEOPLE LIKE THAT WHO HAVE BEEN AT JOHNS HOPKINS AND DOESN'T THIS TYPES OF STUDY, THE NIH, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH HAS GIVEN $80 MILLION OVER FOUR YEARS DO TO LOOK AT THE OPIOID PROBLEM.

THEY'LL COME BACK IN THE NEXT YEAR WITH HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE FOUND, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK IT CAN BE USED FOR OR NOT USED FOR.

>> SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A PIVOT HERE AND TALK ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET IN A MINORITY BILL TONIGHT.

SENATE BILL 45, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, YOU ARE A COSPONSOR.

>> I AM.

>> LEADER NEAL WITH SENATOR STEVE MEREDITH AND JULIE RAQUE ADAMS WHO IS IN MAJORITY LEADERSHIP, TO ABOLISH THE IF DEATH PENALTY AND REPLACE WITH IT LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

IS THAT UNDERSTAND ANY AND ALL SITUATIONS?

>> WELL, LET ME SAY THIS.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTED THE DEATH PENALTY AT ONE TIME WHILE I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND THEN I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT AFTER I BEGAN TO REALLY SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THAT FROM EVERY ANGLE, I CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT THE PROPER WAY FOR US TO PROCEED WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE THAT TAKE EXTREME MEASURES OR DISREGARD SOMEBODY ELSE'S LIFE, THEN WE ARE GOING TO DISREGARD THEIR LIFE BECAUSE THEY DID THAT.

NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

I THINK THAT WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT AS A SOCIETY, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD MANAGE THOSE KIND OF SITUATIONS, BUT I THINK THAT THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION IN OUR SOCIETY.

>> IN ANY KIND OF MASS MURDER?

>> I DON'T ANY THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE AN OPTION IN OUR SOCIETY.

>> PERIOD?

>> PERIOD.

WE SHOULD EXTRACT THE THREAT.

WE SHOULD BEEF UP OUR ABILITY TO DEAL WITH MENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THOSE WHO ARE VULNERABLE, TO THOSE TO WHO DON'T HAVE ALL THEIR MENTAL FACULTIES TOGETHER.

WE SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE WHO DO THINGS BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET SOME TYPE OF ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF ECONOMICS, BUT THEY OFF THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW THEY DON'T PLAY BY THE RULES AND SOMEBODY ENDS UP BEING KILLED IN THE SITUATION.

LIFE IS NOT A PROMISED THING, BUT I THINK WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT.

WE ARE BETTER THAN THOSE WHO STOOP THAT FAR.

AND WHEN A SOCIETY BEGINS TO DO THIS, THIS IS WHAT I'M CONCLUDING, WHEN A SOCIETY DINS TO DO THAT, THEN THE STEP, INTO MY VIEW, THEY'RE STEPPING INTO THE SAME EARN AS ARENA WHO WOULD PERPETRATE IT BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TAKING SOMEBODY'S LIFE.

WE'RE TAKING SOMEBODY'S LIFE.

THERE'S NO IFS, ANSWERED AND BUTS.

>> I WANT TO GO TO THE HOUSE SIDE BECAUSE THERE IS ABOUT A COLLEAGUE DAVID FLOYD WHO HAD SOME DEATH PENALTY ABOLISHMENT MEASURES WHEN HE SERVED IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THIS ISSUE?

>> I'M GOING TO BE HONEST, I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

WHEN I CAME TO THE LEGISLATURE, I WAS, AS GERALD JUST SAID, AS YOU FOR THE DEATH PENALTY 100%, BUT AFTER I'VE BEEN IN AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF GROUPS COME IN AND TALK TO ME AND A LOT OF FOLKS -- I ACTUALLY TALKED TO A GUY WHO WAS ON DEATH ROW AT ONE POINT AND GOT HIS SENTENCE OVERTURNED.

TO SEE SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT HE PRESENTED, IT RAISES QUESTIONS FOR ME AND IN TALKING TO SOME OTHERS.

I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS.

SO I AM VERY -- I'M A LITTLE TORN ON IT JUST BECAUSE THIS ONE WEIGHS QUITE HEAVY ON ME BECAUSE IT'S A BIG DECISION.

AS A LAWMAKER YOU WOULD BE MAKING THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO TAKE SOMEONE'S LIFE, AND IT'S NOT AN EASY DECISION TO MAKE.

>> REPRESENTATIVE GRAHAM.

>> I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE HOUSE.

I'M OPPOSED TO IT.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'M OPPOSED TO IT, MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY, AND THEY WERE CHARGED WITH A MURDER OR A CRIME THAT THEY FOUND OUT LATER THAT THEY HAD NOT COMMITTED THAT CRIME, AND AS A RESULT THEY WENT TO THE DEATH PENALTY.

IT WAS IMPOSED UPON THEM.

AND SO I THINK THE MAIN THING IS THAT IF A PERSON COMMITS A CRIME, IF THEY STAY IN JAIL, THAT'S A PUNISHMENT IN ITSELF, AND I -- I HAVE ALSO TAKEN THE STEPS THAT I AM NOT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY ANYMORE.

>> PRESIDENT STIVERS.

>> I MAY BE OUTNUMBERED, BUT, NO, LOOK, THIS IS -- THIS IS WHERE THE LEGISLATORS EARN THEIR MONEY BECAUSE THIS IS A TOUGH ISSUE.

I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN DEATH PENALTY CASES AT VARIOUS LEVELS, TO THE TRIAL POINT TO POST JUDGMENT.

I'M OF A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT OPINION, AND IN KENTUCKY WE ARE VERY STRINGENT IN OUR REVIEWS OF DEATH PENALTY CASES, AND IF YOU GO BACK, I THINK THERE'S MAYBE 38, 30, SOMEWHERE IN THE 30s -- I'VE LOST COUNT -- YOU, GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT THEY'RE LIKE.

THERE WAS ONE JUVENILE WHO WAS RAPING A YOUNG LADY AT THE TIME HE SHOT HER.

THE TRINITY MURDERS WHICH ERNIE JASMINE PROSECUTED IN LOUISVILLE, THE ACRA MURDERS TIED WITH THE MORRIS MURDERS WHERE THE JUNG COLLEGE STUDENT WAS STABBED SO HARD, THE KNIFE WENT THROUGH HER CHEST AND WAS BURIED INTO THE WOOD FLOOR IN LETCHER COUNTY.

YOU KNOW, THESE ARE PRETTY HEINOUS SETS OF FACTS THAT UPON CONCLUSION, AND I AGREE WITH SENATOR NEAL, THAT THESE I SAID SLIDING GLASS HAVE TO BE FOUND TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND CONFORMED UNDER SOCIETAL NORMS AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS, AND YOU GO THROUGH ALL TYPES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCEDURES DURING A TRIAL LIKE THAT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DISPROVED IN MULTIPLE ONES.

AND SO IT'S REALLY TOUGH TO QUALIFY A JURY.

SO I THINK THERE ARE SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS, WHICH THERE SHOULD BE, BECAUSE THIS IS THE ULTIMATE PENALTY FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS DONE SOMETHING SO HEINOUS THAT THÈ FORFEITED THEIR RIGHT BASED ON TAKING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

>> AS I SAID, WE WILL TALK ABOUT JUVENILE JUSTICE ON THE 23rd.

WE WON'T BE ON THE AIR NEXT WEEK BECAUSE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING OBSERVANCE.

SO WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT FOR AN HOUR NEXT WEEK, SO PARDON US IF WE DON'T GET TO IT TONIGHT.

I WANT TO IN THE TIME REMAINING TAKE A REALLY TOUGH PIVOT FROM THAT CONVERSATION JUST TO ASK YOU WHEN YOU COME BACK IN FEBRUARY, I'LL START WITH YOU, REPRESENTATIVE GRAHAM, WHAT IS ON YOUR MUST TO-DO LIST BEFORE YOU SINE DIE ON MARCH 30th?

>> I THINK OBVIOUSLY IS EDUCATION, MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING PUBLIC EDUCATION.

I THINK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO ON THERE AS WELL.

AS YOU KNOW, OUR GOVERNOR HAS BROUGHT IN OVER 44,000 NEW JOBS, AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE DOWN THAT PATH.

I ALSO THINK THAT WE HAVE JUVENILE JUSTICE, WHICH YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ADDRESSING AS WE COME BACK IN FEBRUARY.

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PRE-K?

>> PRE-K, YES.

>> LEADER NEAL.

>> I AGREE WITH HIM.

I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT THAT.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER LITTLE THINGS THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO ME.

ONE IS WE JUST DID SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST TREMENDOUS IN TERMS OF THAT BRENT SPENCE BRIDGE UP IN NORTHERN KENTUCKY.

IT GAVE US A CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE SOME BARNESSHIP, WHAT WE CAN DO TOGETHER.

I'D LIKE FOR US TO DO OTHER THINGS TOGETHER AS OPPOSED TO THOSE THINGS THAT WE CAN'T.

WHAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND, AND I'LL SAY THIS AGAIN, IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THINGS WE DO, WE AGREE ON.

I'LL PULL THIS OUT OF THE AIR, 90, 95 PERCENT.

WE SHOULD LOOK FOR THOSE THINGS AND LET PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE DO IN THE LEGISLATURE, IS NOT JUST THE HINGES WE DISAGREE ON.

THEN THE OTHER THING IS THERE'S A LITTLE MUSIC, A THERAPY BILL THAT I FILED, AND I'D LIKE TO GET FOLKS INTERESTED IN THIS.

IT'S JUST SIMILAR TO THE ARTS BILL THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AND IT'S POSITIVE.

THIS IS A GOOD BIPARTISAN BILL, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME INTEREST IN THAT.

AND THERE ARE OTHER MATTERS.

I'LL LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE.

>> YOU USED TO SAY IT'S A GOOD BILL, MR. SPEAKER?

>> BARBARA COULTER.

IT'S A GOOD BILL.

>> TWO MINUTES REMAINING.

I WANT TO SPLIT THE TIME BETWEEN YOU BOTH.

WHAT WHOSE TO GET DONE?

>> JUVENILE JUSTICE, TAX CODE.

WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE VETERANS CENTER IN BOWLING GREEN SO WE DON'T FORCE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE FEDERAL ANDREW.

AND I'LL SAY THIS.

SENATOR MALLEY NEAL AND I WILL TALKED.

HE'S TALKED TO ME ABOUT HIS THERAPY BILL.

WHAT I WANT TO DO PROBABLY MOST OF ALL BESIDES THE POLICY, I THINK WE NEED TO GET TAKEN CARE OF, IS SHOW THAT WE CAN HAVE DISAGREEMENT BUT HAVE DECORUM AND RESPECT FOR PEOPLE THROUGH THE THE PROCESS.

>> HEAR HEAR.

>> WE AGREE ON THAT.

>> LAST WORD TO YOU.

>> WELL, WE HAVE DONE TWO OF THE THREE THINGS THAT ROBERT HAS SAID ALREADY.

[LAUGHTER] WE WILL BE LOOKING A JUVENILE JUSTICE.

THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT WE STILL NEED TO GET CLEANED UP AND GET OFF THE TABLE.

OTHER THAN THAT I'LL RITTER WHAT THE SPEAKER HAS SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

REITERATE.

WE'RE TRYING TO THIS YEAR GO BACK TO THE WAY THE SHORT SESSIONS YOU'D TO BE WHERE YOU BE USED TO BE WHERE YOU DO YOUR CLEANUP WORK, YOU GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING YOU LEFT OUT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE PREVIOUS BUDGET OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, AND JUST DO SOME WORK FROM THAT ASPECT OF IT AND NOT HAD THE RAT RACE WE HAVE HAD THE LAST FIVE OR SIX SECTIONS.

>> WON'T HAVE ANY COMPLAINT HERE ON THAT ONE.

I THINK EVERYBODY CAN AGREE ON THAT.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT JUVENILE JUSTICE 23rd.

REPRESENTATIVE NEMES WILL BE HERE WITH US, AND I DO BELIEVE SENATOR WHITNEY WESTERFIELD WITH US AND OTHERS WILL BE WITH US TO TALK ABOUT THAT ISSUE AS WELL.

I HOPE YOU'LL JOIN US IN IN TWO WEEKS.

YOU CAN CHECK US OUT NIGHT AT 6:30 EASTERN, 5:30 CENTRAL FOR "KENTUCKY EDITION."

ITEM BE WITH YOU TOMORROW NIGHT AND EVERY NIGHT thereafter.

AND JOIN BILL BRYANT AND A TEAM OF WORKING JOURNALISTS TO DISCUSS THE NEWS OF THE WEEK ON "COMMENT" FRIDAY AT 8:00 EASTERN, 7:00 CENTRAL ON KET.

THANKS SO VERY MUCH FOR WATCHING.