>> Renee: GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

UH SO MUCH FOR JOINING US tonig A 2023 LEGISLATIVE SESSION PREVIEW IS WHAT WE'VE GOT ON TA LAWMAKERS RETURN TO FRANKFORT TWO WEEKS FROM TOMORROW TO BEGI THE 2023 SESSION.

REPUBLICANS ARE READY, HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY IN BOTH THE KENTUCKY HOUSE AND SENATE, AND THEY ADDED TO THOSE IN LAST MONTH'S MIDTERM ELECTION, SO WHAT'S ON THEIR AGENDA AND WHAT CAN THE DEMOCRATS DO?

AND, OF COURSE, ALL OF THIS COMES AS A BIG FIEL CANDIDATES PREPARE FOR THE 2023 RACE FOR GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATEWIDE OFFICES.

TO DISCUSS ALL OF THIS WE'RE JOINED BY SENATOR DAMON THAYER, A REPUBLICAN FROM GEORGETOWN AND SENATE MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER.

REPRESENTATIVE CEREL LYNN STEVENSON, A LEXINGTON Democrat HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS CHAIR.

AND REPRESENTATIVE DAVID OSBORNE, A REPUBLICAN FROM PROSPECT AND KENTUCKY HOUSE SPE.

JOINING US BY SKYPE TONIGHT is SENATOR REGGIE THOMAS, A LEXINGTON DEMOCRAT AND SENATE MINORITY CAUCUS CHAIR.

WE DO WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU SO SEND JUST QUESTIONS BY BY TWITTER AT TWITTER @KYTONIGHTKE OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/ OR YOU CAN CALL 1-800-494-7605.

WELL, WELCOME, EVERYONE.

HAPPY EARLY HOLIDAYS.

WE'RE APPROACHING THOSE, AND THE SESSION, WHICH IS LARD TO BELIEVE IT'S TWO WEEKS AWAY.

SO JUST SOME PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURAL STUFF TO TALK ABOUT FIRST.

THESE ODD YEAR SESSIONS IN THE LAST FEW CYCLES HAVE BEEN PRETTY ROBUST, SPEAKER OSBORNE, WITH A FLEET OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES THAT YOU ALL HAVE PASSED.

TRADITIONALLY IT'S ORGANIZATIONAL IN SESSION AND NATURE WHEN YOU'RE GOING YOUR CHAIRMANMANSHIPS TOGETHER AND GETTING COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM YOUR CAUCUS TO DO THAT FIRST WEEK?

>> I THINK IT'S OFTEN STRATEGY CATED BUT I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING IS ON SEE US TAKE A MUCH MORE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO A SHORT SESSION.

WE'VE HAD AN INCREDIBLY AGGRESSIVE AGENDA REALLY FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS, BUT PARTICULARLY THE LAST THREE YEARS.

IT'S BEEN DOMINATED BY THREE EXECUTIVE YEARS OF BUDGETS, PANDEMIC, THINGS THAT WE ABSOLUTELY HAD TO ADDRESS THOSE EARLY DAYS OF SESSION.

THERE'S NOT THAT BURNING ISSUE OUT HERE THAT IS INCREDIBLY TIME SENSITIVE THIS SESSION, SO I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE US TAKE A MORE TRADITIONAL LOOK A HOW A SHORT SESSION WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AND ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE DONE.

I'M SURE THAT THERE WILL BE SOMETHING THROUGHOUT THE SESSION THAT WILL CAUSE CALAMITY AND PEOPLE WILL BE SETTING THEIR HAIR ON FIRE, BUT -- >> WE LIVE FOR THOSE MOMENTS.

>> WE DO.

WE DO.

BUT I THINK THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A MUCH MORE DELIBERATE SESSION, A MUCH MORE DELIBERATE PACE WHERE WE TRULY DOE TAKE A LOOK BACK AT THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE PASSED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, MAKE THOSE NECESSARY CHANGES THAT HAVE TO BE MADE, LITTLE TWEAKS HERE AND THERE THAT WE NEED TO BUT TRY TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE POLICIES THAT WE PASSED.

>> DO YOU AGREE, LEADER THAYER?

THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT'S GOING TO ROLL?

>> I AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE'VE MET HOUSE AND SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP, AND WE ALL ARE PRETTY MUCH COMING FROM THE SAME PLACE.

WE WANT TO GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE 30-DAY SESSION, WHICH WAS ADDED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT A LITTLE OVER 20 YEARS AGO.

AS THE SPEAKER SAID, WE'VE DEALT WITH COVID, BUDGET, REDISTRICTING, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

I'D BE HAPPY IF WE DIDN'T DEAL WITH ANY OF THOSE FOUR THINGS DURING THIS 30-DAY SESSION.

AND THIS SESSION'S ABOUT BILLS THAT MAYBE MADE IT PART OF THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS AND JUST HAVEN'T HAD THE SUPPORT, BUT MAYBE NOW WITH A BUNCH OF NEW MEMBERS WE CAN GET SOME OF THESE THINGS GOING.

ALSO, BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED WHERE MAYBE WE NEED A NEW IMPLEMENTATION DATE.

I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A RESTAURANT OWNER WINCHELL'S HERE IN LEXINGTON WHERE I ATE BEFORE THE SHOW TONIGHT, AND HE SAID THIS THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE TAX STATUS OF RESTAURANTS WHO TOOK PPP LOBES DURING COVID.

THEY NEED A NEW DATE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT HIT WITH A TAX PAYMENT, WHICH WASN'T THE ORIGINAL INTENT.

THERE'S A BILL RELATED TO EMPLOYERS WHO WANT TO SUB OUT THEIR HR OR THEIR PAYROLL AND THERE'S AN IMPLEMENTATION DATE THAT THE BESHEAR ADMINISTRATION AND THE CABINET CAN'T MAKE, SO WE NEED TO GO BACK IN AND FIX THAT DATE.

SO I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE -- >> TECHNICAL IN NATURE IT SEEMS.

>> YEAH, VERY TECHNICAL.

MAYBE SOME WILL BECOME CONTROVERSIAL, MAYBE THEY WON'T PI NEVER TRY TO PREDICT THAT.

RENEE, AS YOU KNOW EVERY SESSION TAKES ON A LIFE OF ITS OWN.

IT HAS ITS OWN CHARACTER.

AS THE SPEAKER SAID, THERE WILL BE SOME ISSUE THAT EVERYBODY GETS THEIR HAIR ON FIRE AND THEN WE'VE GOT PUT THE FIRE OUT.

SO I THINK WE THAN THE WA TO BE A LITTLE MORE CONTEMPLATIVE, AND TO WHAT WHAT THE SPEAKER SAID, THE LAST SIX YEARS, THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA SINCE THE REPUBLICANS TOOK OVER CONTROL OF THE HOUSE IN 2017, WE HIT THE UNT GROUND RUNNING, WE'VE PASSED NOT ALL BUT ALMOST ALL OF OUR MAJOR CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN POLICIES.

>> SO WHAT'S LEFT?

>> WELL, I THINK THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO ON CHARTER SCHOOLS, EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS.

>> WE'LL GET TO THAT.

>> THERE WILL BE -- THERE WILL BE CLEANUP TO DO ON BIG TAX CUT THAT'S -- THAT'S COMING YOUR WAY.

ON JANUARY 1st.

BASED ON WHAT THE COURT SAYS, THERE MAY BE MORE WORK TO DO ON ABORTION, THERE MAY NOT BE.

SO THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS.

WE'VE HAD MAJOR POLICY WINS ON TAXES AND BUSINESS REFORM.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, RIGHT TO WORK, PRO-LIFE, ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE GONE INTO EFFECT, AND SOME OF THEM WILL NEED SOME TWEAKS AND ADJUSTMENTS, AND THAT'S 2 A 30-DAY SESSION IS FOR.

>> REAL QUICKLY SPEAKER OS PORN BECAUSE WE WERE AT AT EVENT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS YOU TO ALLUDE THERE MAY BE A SATURDAY WORK SESSION.

ARE YOU THINKING THAT STILL MAY HOLD?

>> WE WILL CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY THAT WE DO AS WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE BOWLING GREEN VETERANS NURSING HOME THAT MAY PROMPT US TO HAVE TO COME IN ON SATURDAY, BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS BEING URGENT THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT COMING SATURDAY, BUT WE SHOULD KNOW WITHIN THE NEXT FEW DAYS FOR SURE.

>> SO THE TRIGGER FOR THE INCOME TAX REDUCTION HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY, RIGHT?

DO YOU HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, CODIFY ANYTHING TO MAKE THAT -- >> WE DO.

AS PART OF HOUSE BILL 8, THE TRIGGERS THAT ARE MET PURELY BY NUMBERS, WE DO HAVE TO AFFIRM THOSE.

WE HAVE TO TAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO JUST SAY, YES, WE IN FACT WANT THAT POLICY TO TAKE EFFECT.

THIS IS THE CASE IN CASE THERE'S SOME DRAMATIC WORLD EVENT THAT TAKES PLACE BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR AND THE BEGINNING OF OUR SESSION THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO WANT TO GO BACK AND SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, WE'VE GOT HIT THE PAUSE BUTTON JUST TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO WASH OUT, SO WE BUT THAT SAFEGUARD IN PLACE IN HOUSE BILL 8 THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THAT WE TAKE THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

>> RIGHT.

AND THAT WILL STILL HAVE TO HAVE SUPER MAJORITY?

>> NO.

JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

>> JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY EVEN THOUGH IT'S A TAX ISSUE, IT'S NO REALLY APPROPRIATING THINKING.

>> IT IS AFFIRMING A POLICY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PASSED.

>> SO THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE AM WHETHER, REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME ON THE PROGRAM.

>> IT IS AND WE'LL GET TO YOUR SENATE COUNTERPART IN JUST A MOMENT.

YOU HEAR WHAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE IN STORE.

WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS GOING TO DO?

WHAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR POSITION IN 2023?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT FIRST OF ALL THEM SAYING THAT WE MAY HAVE A BIT OF A SLOWER APPROACH AND TECHNICAL APPROACH IS GOOD.

OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS WE'VE PASSED ON AVERAGE ABOUT 190 LAWS EACH SESSION.

SO I THINK BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE DELIBERATE IN NATURE IS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR US.

AND I THINK THAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO WORK TOGETHER.

MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT WE WORK ON ARE BIPARTISAN.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING AND CONTINUE TO WORK ACROSS THE AISLE ON THINGS LIKE LOWERING INSULIN COSTS, IMPROVING MATERNAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE, HOPEFULLY LEGALIZING MEDICAL CANNABIS, EARLY VOTING, RESPONDING TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND ANY FOLLOW-UP THAT WE NEED TO DO FOR WESTERN OR EASTERN KENTUCKY, C.F.L.

JUSTICE REFORM -- CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AROUND SUB ABUSE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> SENATOR THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US BY SKYPE.

WHAT WOULD YOU ADD TO THE TOAD LIST FOR THE 2023 SECTION?

TO-DO LIST.

>> I'M GLAD TO HEAR SENATOR THAYER TALKING ABOUT US BEING MORE DELIBERATIVE.

YOU KNOW, RENEE, I HAVE SAID SINCE NON-EVER NOVEMBER 8th THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELECTION RESULTS HERE IN KENTUCKY AND ACROSS THE NATION, THAT THE VOTERS SPOKE ALLOWED, THAT WHAT THEY REALLY WANT ARE THE TWO PARTIES TO WORK TOGETHER.

THEY'RE TIRED OF THE EXTREMISM.

THEY'RE TIRED OF ALL THE BICKERING AND FIGHTING THAT THEY HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS HERE IN AMERICAN POLITICS AND THEY SENT A CLEAR SIGNAL THAT THEY WANT A GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS AND WORKS TOGETHER AND REALLY WORKS WITH THEM RATHER THAN ALL THAT -- THAT -- THAT PARTY CROSS FIGHTING THAT THEY HAVE SEEN.

AND I HOPE WE CAN -- WE CAN HONOR THAT AS WE MOVE INTO 2023.

I DO THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE DELIBERATIVE.

YES, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE RFPs A SUPER MAJORITY.

THAT'S A FACT.

BUT I THINK THEY STILL WANT TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES.

PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR BOTH SIDES WORKING TOGETHER.

I THINK REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON HIGHLIGHTED SOME THINGS WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE WORKED TOGETHER AND WORKED TOGETHER SUCCESSFUL, HER DISCUSSION ABOUT INSULIN AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM.

SO THAT'S WHAT I REALLY HOPE WE DO IN THE 2023 SESSION, IS THAT WE HONOR WHAT THE VOTERS SAID IN THEIR VOTING IN NOVEMBER, AND WE DO WORK TOGETHER, AND I THINK IF WE DO THAT, WE CAN WORK TOGETHER SUCCESSFULLY AND ACHIEVE WHAT THE VOTERS WANT.

>> LEADER THAYER?

>> WELL, IT'S GREAT TO SEE MY GOOD FRIEND REGGIE THOMAS.

WE ALWAYS WORK WELL TOGETHER.

BUT I THINK I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE ELECTION.

MAYBE HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTION IN PENNSYLVANIA OR ARIZONA OR MICHIGAN.

BUT HERE IN KENTUCKY WE HAD ANOTHER RED WAVE.

I CONGRATULATE REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON ON HER LEADERSHIP POSITION, BUT LET'S BE CLEAR.

WHEN WE GET BACK IN JANUARY, THERE WILL BE MORE REPUBLICANS AND FEWER DEMOCRATS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAN IN ANY OTHER TIME IN KENTUCKY HISTORY.

WHEN WE CONVENE JANUARY 3rd DUE TO THE RESIGNATION OF LEADER McGARVEY WHO WILL BECOME A CONGRESSMAN, I CONGRATULATE HIM FOR THAT, THERE ARE ONLY GOING TO BE SIX DEMOCRATS IN THE KENTUCKY STATE SENATE TO GO WITH 31 REPUBLICANS.

WHEN I JOINED THE SENATE ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO, I WAS NUMBER 22.

THAT WAS A BIG DEAL BACK THEN.

STILL GOT THE JERSEYS THEY MADE FOR ME WITH THE NUMBER 22 ACROSS MY CHEST.

SO I THINK HERE IN KENTUCKY THE VOTERS CONTINUE TO AFFIRM THAT THEY LIKE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS WITH THE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES THAT WE'VE PASSED.

SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT.

BUT, YES, IT'S VERY LIKELY WE'RE GOING TO BE DELIBERATE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO CUT DOWN ON THE SHEER VOLUME OF BILLS.

WE ARE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT SMALL GOVERNMENT AND WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE OUR MEMBERS TO FILE FEWER BILLS.

>> ENCOURAGE.

YOU CAN'T MANDATE, RIGHT?

>> NO, WE CAN'T.

I WOULD NEVER TRY TO DO THAT.

DO YOU KNOW OUR CAUCUS?

[LAUGHTER] 31!

IT'S JUST AMAZING.

I REMEMBER WHEN SOON-TO-BE SENATOR JAY WILLIAMS HELPED ORCHESTRATE A COUP THAT IN THE STATE SENATE WHEN WE WERE IN THE MINORITY THAT CAVE THE REPUBLICANS SORT OF A WORKING MAJORITY WITH THE DEMOCRATS.

IT WAS 28 TO 18D TO R, AND THEN DAN SIMON AND BOB LEEPER SWITCHED BEEP WENT TO 20 REPUBLICANS, 18 DEMOCRATS AND WE HAVEN'T LOOKED BACK.

>> MAYBE PERHAPS WHAT SENATOR THOMAS, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN HIS MOUTH, IS TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT FAILED, THAT KENTUCKY VOTERS SOUNDLY DEFEATED BOTH OF THOSE MEASURES, ONE DEALING WITH ABORTION AND ONE DEALING WITH YOU ALL BEING ABLE TO CALL YOURSELF INTO SPECIAL SESSION.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ABORTION ONE FIRST, AND YOU KIND OF ALLUDE TO THIS, LEADER THAYER.

WILL THERE BE DISCUSSION ABOUT EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE AND INCEST WHEN IT COMES TO ABORTION?

AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE WAITING FOR KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT TO RULE BECAUSE THEY WERE WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED ON NOVEMBER 8TH AND THEY'VE GOT THATY IS WE'LL WAIT FOR THEIR DECISION BUT HOW DOES THAT IMPACT WHEN YOU MAY ORE MAY NOT DO NOT GENERAL ASSEMBLY?

>> ITALY WE WILL BE REACTIVE ON WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS CONFIRMING TO WHAT I THINK THEY SAY.

BUT BOTH OF OUR CAUCUSES ARE STILL PRETTY CONSERVATIVE, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ADD EXCEPTIONS IN MY CAUCUS AT LEAST.

WE HAVEN'T TAKEN A POLL.

>> WHY?

>> BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERY CONSERVATIVE GROUP WHO BELIEVE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION AND THAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE BABY SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THE HIDEOUS WAY IN WHICH IT WAS CONCEIVED.

>> SO ONE OF THE NEW LEADERS IN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, RACHEL ROBERTS, WAS THE ONE WHO HAD PROPOSED TO THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSITION ABOUT EXCEPTION FOR RAPE OR INCEST, AND THAT DID NOT SUCCEED.

IS THIS SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO TRY TO PUSH FOR IN THIS SESSION?

>> WELL, THAT AMENDMENT DID FAIL AND FAILED EPCLY, AND I THINK SINCE 2017 WE HAVE TRIED TO PUT CARVE-OUTS IN ALL OF THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN MOVING THROUGH, AND THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT HESITATED AND HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT, AND THEY HAVE SAID NO TO EXEMPTIONS EVERY TIME.

AND SO I THINK AS WE GO INTO THE NEW YEAR, WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT HEALTH CARE IS ACCESSIBLE TO WOMEN, PERIOD.

AN EXEMPTIONS BILL IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THAT.

I THINK DOCTORS NEED TO BE ABLE TO TREAT WOMEN WITHOUT LEGISLATORS GETTING IN THE WAY.

>> SPEAKER OSBORNE, WHAT SAY YOU ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR POSITION?

>> HIT THE DOES DEPEND ON THE WHAT THE COURT END UP YOU DOING.

THILL THEY'LL DRIVE ANY POLICY THAT WE SHOULD PASS GOING THROUGH.

THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A ROBUST CONVERSATION BOTH WITHIN OUR CAUCUS AND WITHIN THE ENTIRE HOUSE ABOUT EXCEPTIONS AND WHAT THOSE EXCEPTIONS SHOULD BE, AT WHAT WEEK THEY SHOULD BE, AND THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO BE ROBUST.

AND AT THIS JUNCTURE, UNTIL THE COURT RULES, I CAN'T SPECULATE AS TO WHAT -- WHAT THE ACTION, THE OVERWHELMING REACTION OF THE CAUCUS WILL BE.

>> AND THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF WEEKS LEFT IN THIS YEAR, AND WE THINK THEY DID WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT BEFORE THE NEW COURT WOULD ASSEMBLE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

SENATOR THOMAS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT EXEMPTIONS FOR RAPE AND INCEST WHEN IT COMES DO ABORTION, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT WE'RE WAITING FOR.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD DO IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUE?

>> WELL, I APPRECIATE YOU, BECAUSE YOU READ MY MIND EXACTLY WHEN YOU POINTED OUT TO SENATOR THAYER THAT, YES, YOU CAN'T OVERLOOK THE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PUT FORWARD BY THE REPUBLICAN SUPER MAJORITY, AND BOTH OF WHICH WERE DEFEATED.

THERE'S JUST NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

AGAIN, THAT SENT A CLEAR SIGNAL THAT I THINK ALL OF US, WHETHER YOU'RE A D OR AN R, TO PICK UP ON, THAT AGAIN KENTUCKIANS WANT US TO WORK TOGETHER AND TO COME UP WITH POLICIES THAT WE ALL CAN AGREE ON AND THAT ARE GOOD FOR KENTUCKIANS.

CURRENTLY, RENEE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH HAD NO EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE, FOR INCEST, FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE EXTREME, AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY GOT DEFEATED, YOU THE ABOUT I THINK THERE WAS MORE TO IT.

I THINK KENTUCKY GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT AT SOME POINT, AT SOME POINT THAT A WOMAN DOES HAVE A RIGHT OVER HER HEALTH CARE DECISIONS.

NOW, WHAT THAT POINT IS, IS UP FOR DEBATE.

SHOULD BE DEBATED.

BUT, YES, TO HAVE NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HAD PROPOSED WAS REALLY EXTREME AND WAS CLEARLY REJECTED BY KENTUCKIANS.

>> SENATOR THAYER.

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SAID.

, QUITE FRANKLY, QUITE FRANKLY, THE OPPOSITION OUTSPENT AND OUTWORKED THE PRO-LIFE SIDE ON THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

THEY PUT OUT A LOT OF LIES AND DECEPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE DONE.

HAVING SAID THAT, BOTH AMENDMENTS DID WELL IN MY DISTRICT, AND A LOT OF MEMBERS COME FROM DISTRICTS WHERE BOTH AMENDMENTS DID WELL, SO THAT'S GOING TO COLOR THEIR OPINION ON THIS.

AND ALSO, WE HAVE MEMBERS WHO HAVE DEEPLY HELD PERSONAL BELIEFS ON THIS, AND NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION OR THE RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE LIKELY TO CHANGE THEIR OPINIONS ON IT.

>> SO LET'S MOVE TO ANOTHER ISSUE BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING LOTS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

THIS FROM ROBERT CUMMINGS FROM RUSSELL COUNTY.

REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA GETTING PASSED IN THE STATE, SENATOR THAYER HAS VOICED HE IS AGAINST IT.

WHAT DOES THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THINK?

WILL THEY BE FOR OR AGAINST IT DURING THIS SESSION?

SPEAKER OSBORNE, I WILL BEGIN WITH YOU BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR NEW LEADERS REPRESENTATIVE JASON NEMES HAD GOTTEN 24 THROUGH THE HOUSE BEFORE AND IT STALLED IS IN THE SENATE BUT HE HAS SAID IT NOW NEEDS TO START IN THE SENATE.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH?

>> I'M NOTE GOING TO SAY WHERE IT NEEDS TO START.

I THINK THAT CLEARLY IT'S AN ISSUE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF KENTUCKIANS SUPPORT, TO CEREL LYNN SHERYL LANES POINT EARLIER.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT MAY GET CONTROVERSIAL THAT NO LONGER CRACK ALONG PARTY LINES, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

THESE ARE POLICIES THAT I THINK THAT PEOPLE WANT.

WE PASSED IT OUT OF THE HOUSE TWICE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.

IT IS NOT AN EASY ISSUE EVEN WITHIN OUR OWN CAUCUS.

BUT IT'S ONE THAT WE FELT LIKE IS IMPORTANT TO PUT FORTH BEFORE THE BODY.

YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S -- IT'S A REAL HONOR TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THINGS, AND I THINK WE'VE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON SOME CONTROVERSIAL MEASURES THAT DIDN'T NECESSARILY BREAK ALONG PARTY LINES, AND I THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR US AS A BODY.

I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMONWEALTH.

>> SO YOU THINK IT'S BETTER FOR THE SENATE TO PUT SOME SKIN IN THE GAME ON THIS INSTEAD OF HOUSE, RIGHT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME I BELIEVE THAT THE VOTERS WILL GET WHAT THEY WANT THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT THEY WANT.

AND THEY WILL EITHER -- THEY WILL EITHER GET IT BY GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE OR THEY WILL GET IT -- THEY WILL SEEK THE RELIEF AT THE BALLOT BOX.

AND FOR PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE OVERWHELMING WILL OF THE VOTERS, NOT JUST ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA, ON LOTS OF ISSUES, I THINK THAT PEOPLE WILL SEEK RELIEF SOME WAY, AND I HOSPITAL THAT THEY DON'T DO THAT BY MOVING OUT OF THE STATE.

I HOPE THAT THEY DON'T DO THAT BY MOVING OUT OF STATE BUT I THINK UNFORTUNATELY SOME PEOPLE WILL.

>> THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN BY SEEKING RELIEF.

THEY DO IT BY THEIR VOTE OR BY THEIR FEET AND RELOCATE.

>> WE CONTINUE TO MAKE SICK PEOPLE CRIMINALS, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS IN ANYBODY'S BASS INTEREST.

>> SENATOR THAYER.

>> I'M NOTE FOR MEDICAL CARE MARIJUANA.

I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND.

I ASK FOR PEOPLE TO RESPECT MY OPINION ON THAT.

IT'S FORE A DEEPLY HELD PERSONAL REASONS AND I BELIEVE THERE IS ALSO SCIENCE THAT BACKS UP MY OPINION.

I RESPECT THOSE WHO ARE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT WILL HELP PEOPLE.

I RESPECT THEM.

I WONT STAND IN THE WAY IF WE HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS IT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WILL.

I KNOW SENATOR STEVE WEST IS COMING WITH A BILL.

I DON'T KNOW THAT SAYING THE SENATE NEEDS TO START THE BILL IS THE BEST STRATEGY.

FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT STRATEGY BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IN OUR CAUCUS FEELS STRONGLY ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO MUSCLE IT THROUGH.

I STILL THINK THAT REPRESENTATIVE NEMES OUGHT TO RUN HIS BILL AND TRY TO PASS AND IT PUT THE PRESSURE ON US AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

BUT THAT'S ALL GOING TO PLAY ITSELF OUT.

>> WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SENATOR STEVEN WEST'S BILL?

THINKING AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT?

>> NO.

I JUST KNOW THAT HE'S GOING TO FILE ONE, AND MY GUESS IS IT WILL PROBABLY BE SOMEWHAT LIKE REPRESENTATIVE NEMES' BILL.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER STRONG OPPONENTS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN MY CAUCUS AND IN MY LEADERSHIP GROUP, AND THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS TOO.

>> SO YOU WILL BRING IT UP FOR THE CAUCUS TO TALK ABOUT, RIGHTSOME.

>> WE'VE BARKED TALKED ABOUT IT.

>> AND THERE'S OVERWHELMING DESENSE AGAINST IT.

>> NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

>> WHAT IS THE OPINION ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

>> IT'S TO BE DETERMINED.

IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE.

>> TO DAMON'S CREDIT, I WILL SAY THAT DAMON IS NOT AFRAID TO VOTE ON ANYTHING.

I HAVE SEEN HIM IN MANY JOYNER JOINT LEADERSHIP MEETINGS WHERE HE IS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO SOMETHING BUT ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN HAPPY TO LET HIS VOTE BE HIS VOICE.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH LEGISLATION.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT -- THAT WE NEED TO ALLOW OUR VOTES TO BE OUR VOICES AND BE OUR OPINIONS, AND I GIVE DAMON CREDIT FOR ALWAYS BEING WILLING TO NOT HIDE BEHIND SOME PROCEDURAL MATTER TO NOT TAKE A VOTE ON SOMETHING.

>> ARE LAWMAKERS IN THE SENATE REPUBLICAN CAULK AFRAID TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE?

>> NO, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE, BUT I'M ALSO NOT GOING YOU ABOUT THE PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE IN OUR CAUCUS RETREAT.

IT'S ALL OVER THE BOARD.

WE HAVE PEOPLE STRONGLY OPPOSED.

WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO FAVOR IT STRONGLY.

IS AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE AMBIVALENT.

I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT.

I WILL NOT STAND IN THE WAY.

I WILL NOT MAKE AN OVERT ATTEMPT TO KILL THE BILL.

AND I CAN DO TO THAT.

I'VE KILLED A LOT OF BILLION IN MY TIME.

IET TAKE REBATE CAN PLEASURE IN KILLING BAD BILLS.

SOMETIMES I ENJOY WEARING A BLACK HAT.

BUT I WILL NOT DO SO ON THIS, AND I ASK FOR PEOPLE TO RESPECT THAT AND RESPECT MY DEEPLY HELD OPPOSITION TO THIS, AND THERE IS SIGNS THAT BACKS UP MY OPINION THAT SAYS MARIJUANA CAN BE A GATEWAY DRUG TO OTHER THINGS MUCH WORSE AND MORE ADDICTIVE.

>> SENATOR THOMAS, I'LL LET YOU ENTER THIS CONVERSATION.

>> WELL, RENEE, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME WEIGH IN ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE ABOUT HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS.

LET ME FIRST SAY THIS.

I DISAGREE WITH SENATOR THAYER ON THIS MEASURE.

I AM A STRONG SUPPORTIVE MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

36 STATES HAVE PASSED IT.

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE PASSED IT.

WHERE IT PASSED IN THOSE STATES THEY HAVE NEVER COME BACK AND SAID WE MADE A BAD DECISION.

THEY'VE GONE FORWARD WITH IT.

IT'S GOOD.

IT MEPs AREAS LIKE GLAUCOMA.

IT HELPS IN AREAS LIKE DIABETES.

I CERTAINLY HELPS WITH CANCER PATIENTS.

THAT'S PROVEN.

THAT'S PART OF SCIENCE.

BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I WANT -- I WITH AN THIS TO BE A LESSON FOR VIEWERS ABOUT GOVERNMENT.

SENATOR THAYER IS CERTAINLY RIGHT TO HAVE HIS OPINION.

IF HE VOTES NO ON THIS, THAT'S CERTAINLY HIS RIGHT.

AND THE ONLY PERSON HE HAS TO ANSWER TO IS TO HIMSELF AND TO HIS GOD AND TO HIS VOTERS.

AND SO I HONOR THAT.

I WILL SAY THIS, WE KNOW THE HOUSE IS GOING TO PASS IT.

IT'S PASSED THE HOUSE TWICE ALREADY.

I DO THINK IT MUST START IN THE SENATE.

LET'S PUT THE SENATE -- LET'S PUT THE SPOTLIGHT ON THE SENATE AND SAY, LOOK, THIS TIME YOU GUYS HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU WITH AN IT OR NOT BECAUSE IF IT PASSES THE SENATE, I WILL WILL PASS THE HOUSE, IT WILL BECOME LAW.

KENTUCKIANS DO WANT THIS BILL, THEY DO WANT MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

THE GOVERNOR HAS ACTED AS BEST AS HE COULD BUT HE'S LIMITED BASS HE'S AN EXECUTIVE, ON WHAT HE CAN DO, SO DO I THINK IT OUGHT TO START IS IN THE SENATE BUT I DO THINK THAT AGAIN SENATOR THAYER HAS A RIGHT TO HIS OPINION AND WE MUST RESPECT THAT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON, WHAT DO YOUR CONSTITUENTS TELL YOU ABOUT THIS ISSUE?

?

APPLY CONSTITUENTS OVERWHELMINGLY WANT THINK BILL WITH, I TAKE THE JOB BEING A REPRESENTATIVE AND BEING THEIR VOICE VERY SERIOUSLY, AND SO I BELIEVE THAT IT IS MY DUTY TO BRING THEIR VOICE HERE AND THEIR-- >> REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE TELLING THAT YOU?

>> REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE TELLING ME.

THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE.

IT POLLS IN MY DISTRICT AROUND 88%, FUNNY BECAUSE IT'S THE 88th DISTRICT.

BUT IT'S TREMENDOUSLY POPULAR.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND SPORTS BETTING ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT I GET THE MOST COMMUNICATION ABOUT FROM MY DISTRICT, AND IS THE SUPPORT IS OVERWHELMING.

>> SO THAT BRINGS UP IS ON THE TOPIC, SPORTS BETTING AND I WANT TO GET TO GRAY MACHINES BECAUSE I DON'T THINK A OF LO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT SPORTS BETTING.

THIS ISSUE HAD BEEN HELLMOND BY SOMEONE WHO IS NO LONGER IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, WON'T RETURN IN '23.

WHAT DO YOU THINK, SPEAKER OSBORNE, ABOUT THIS RENURSING THIS TIME AROUNDSOME.

>> IT'S SOMETHING WE PASSED OUT OF THE HOUSE WITH A PRETTY STRONG BIPARTISAN VOTE.

I THINK THERE IS STRONG SUPPORT FOR IT.

IT UNFORTUNATELY DIDN'T GET TAKEN UP IN THE SENATE.

BUT I THINK THERE REMAINS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT IN THE HOUSE.

AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR IT.

EVEN WITHIN OUR OWN CAUCUS OR EVEN WITHIN THE MINORITY CAUCUS.

>> AND WITH YOUR NEW, IN HAVE YOU BEEN ACHE ABLE IS TO TAKE THE TEMPERATURE OFWHERE THEY CALL ON SOME OF THIS STUFF?

>> THAT IS ONE OF THINGS, IS THAT WE LOOK AT ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE 25 NEW MEMBERS COMING IN, EVEN MORE SHOCKING THAN THAT IS WE HAVE 82 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, 82 OF 100 MEMBERS THAT HAVE LESS THAN SIX YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS DRAMATIC.

AND IT DOES TAKE SOME TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW -- YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU CHANGE 25% OF A BODY TO, TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT DOES CHANGE OVERALL OPINIONS.

WE'D E. WOOD GREAT CAUCUS RETREAT BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH AND GOT TO LEARN A LOT ABOUT THOSE NEW MEMBERS.

BUT THERE'S STILL A LOT WE DON'T KNOW.

AND SO TO TRY TO SPECULATE AS TO WHERE THOSE NEW OPINIONS ARE GOING TO COME IS DIFFICULT.

>> SO YOU DON'T TAKE LIKE A SHOW OF HANDS ON THESE ISSUES.

YOU DON'T AT YOUR RETREAT SAY WHO IS FOR MED POT?

WHO IS FOR SPORTS ♪ ♪ >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE WILL BUT WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS THAT THEY POSSIBLY CAN FOR THEM AS WELL AS THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

WE DON'T PRESSURE MEMBERS INTO DOING -- OR FOLLOWING ON A CERTAIN SIDE OF THINGS.

WE TRY TO GIVE THEM THE BEST INFORMATION WE CAN.

AND IT'S A LEARNING PROCESS FOR THEM.

IT'S VERY EASY TO READ HEADLINES AND DECIDE WHAT YOUR POSITION IS ON IT, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE TO GET BEYOND THE HEADLINES AND GET INTO WHAT IS GOOD POLICY VERSUS BAD POLICY, IT'S A LOT OF WORK, AND THESE NEW MEMBERS, AS WELL AS THE EXISTING MEMBERS, TAKE THAT WORK VERY SERIOUSLY AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FULLY INFORMED.

>> YOUR VIEW, LEADER THAYER.

>> I'M A STRONG SUPPORTIVE OF SPORTS BETTING.

I THINK IT'S AN EXTENSION OF THE HISTORY AND TRADITION THAT WE HAVE IN KENTUCKY OF BETTING ON HORSES.

WE'RE A SPORTS CRAZY STATE.

I THINK PEOPLE IN KENTUCKY OUGHT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO THE RED MILE OR CHURCHILL DOWNS OR YOU ARE THE COULD I PARK OR ON THEIR PHONES AND MAKE A BET ON A SPORTS CONTEST SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO OHIO OR INDIANA OR TENNESSEE.

BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ME ON THAT, AND I RESPECT THEIR POSITION.

WE DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS IT LAST YEAR, DESPITE OTHERS WITH BIG MEGAPHONES WHO THOUGHT THAT I COULD JUST RAM IT THROUGH.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS IN A REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATURE.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES.

EVEN IF ALL THE DEMOCRATS HAD JOINED WITH US TO VOTE FOR IT, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES.

NOW, WE HAVE SIX NEW MEMBERS.

SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT WERE STRONG NO VOTES.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT SOME OF THE NEW MEMBERS WILL BE YES VOTES.

AND I'M ALSO HOMING THAT MAYBE A COUPLE OF OUR MEMBERS WILL CHANGE THEIR MIND.

I THINK IT'S BECOMING MORE SOCIETALLY ACCEPTED AND I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BRING GREAT HARM TO THE POPULACE IF WE ALLOW TO IT HAPPEN.

AND I WILL CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR IT WITHIN MY CAUCUS.

BUT I'M ONE VOTE, AND I -- DESPITE SOME PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION, LEADERS LIKE THE SPEAKER AND I CAN'T JUST FORCE THINGS THROUGH BECAUSE WE WANT THEM TO BE FORCED THROUGH.

>> WELL, BONNIE HUGHES HUBER ASKS THE QUESTION ABOUT NOT JUST SPORTS BETTING BUT ABOUT CASINO GAMBLING.

IS THERE ANY INCLINATION FOR THAT?

>> NO.

THERE'S NO NEED.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR CASINOS IN KENTUCKY.

WE HAVE HISTORICAL HORSE RACING AT OUR RACETRACKS AND IT'S DOING A GREAT JOB MAKING OUR RAINS AND BREEDING INDUSTRY THE NUMBER ONE IN THE COUNTRY.

RACING AND BREEDING INDUSTRY.

>> SENATOR THOMAS, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS AND YOU CAN ALSO SEGUE TO GRAY MACHINES BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE WAS A COUPLE OF INTEREST OFFING LEGISLATIVE HEARING ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO.

AND SO I'M CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.

AND HOW DOES THAT FIT INTO THIS WHOLE GAMING ISSUE OR EXPANSION OF IT?

>> WELL, BEFORE I GET TO THAT LET ME SAY TWO THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, RENEE, I WANT TO PUT A PIN IN CASINO GAMBLING.

THAT'S ANOTHER SUBJECT FOR ANOTHER DAY, AND IS AS I SAID BEFORE LET'S TAKE CARE OF FIRST THINGS FIRST.

I AM A STRONG PROPONENT OF SPORTS GAMING.

THE WE'VE GOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT KENTUCKY HAS HAD SPORTS GAMING FOR TWO CENTURIES NOW.

IT HAS WORK WELL HERE IN THE STATE.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN NOTED WHAT A SPORTS CRAZY STATE WE ARE.

WE LOVE OUR CATS.

WE LOVE OUR CARDINAL.

WE LOVE OUR HILLTOPPERS.

WE LOVE SPORTS HERE.

SPORTS GAMING IS EVERYWHERE ELSE AND DOING WELL.

CERTAINLY THERE'S SOME HARMS THAT COME WITH ANY KIND OF GAMING.

WE OUGHT TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND TRY TO PROVIDE RELIEF AND MEASURES TO ADDRESS THAT WHERE POSSIBLE, BUT, YES, SPORTS GAMING SHOULD BE APPROVED IN THIS STATE IN 2023.

AS FOR THE GRAY MACHINES, RENEE, I AM STAUNCHLY AGAINST THAT.

I SPOKE UP VERY FORCEFULLY TO OPPOSE THAT IN 2022.

I WILL DO THE SAME IN 2023.

I DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT FROM THAT.

THEY DO HURT OUR LOTTERY WHICH PROVIDES A LOT OF -- DOES A LOT OF GOOD THINGS HERE IN KENTUCKY, AND SO I AM A STRONG OPPONENT OF GRAY MACHINES AND WILL VOTE AGAINST IT IF IT COMES BACK TO THE SENATE IN 2023.

>> SO REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON, GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON EXPANSION OF GAMING AND THEN WE CAN TALK SOME ABOUT THE GRAY MACHINES.

>> SURE.

AGAIN, AS I SAID BEFORE, SPORTS BETTING IS SOMETHING THAT I GET A LOT OF COMMUNICATION ABOUT, AND I VOTED FOR IT.

I HAVE COSPONSORED THAT BILL.

I THINK E. THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE IT.

FOR ME IT JUST BLOWS MY MINE A LITTLE BIT THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE THERE YET.

AND AS FAR AS THE GRAY MACHINES, IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE WHERE WE FALL.

AS THE SPEAKER NOTED, WE HAD ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT IT LAST YEAR, AND BOTH CAUCUSES HAD PEOPLE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT IT'S A THREAT TO THE HORSE INDUSTRY AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, FEEL LIKE IT'S A BIG THREAT TO THE LOTTERY AND IT TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT THAT PROVIDES.

BUT THEN YOU'VE ALSO GOT SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE REALLY ENJOYING THE MONEY THAT'S COMING IN FROM THAT.

THE FOP IS REAPING IN THE REWARDS OF THAT.

AND I THINK THE LONGER THAN THEY'RE IN PLACE THE HARDER IT IS TO PULL THOSE BACK.

IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS THIS YEAR.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THOSE GRAY MACHINES.

THE KENTUCKY MERCHANTS AND AMUSEMENT COALITION, INC.

PUT OUT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THESE SKILL GAMES ARE WHICH THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT GAMES OF CHANCE.

THEY REQUIRE A PLAYER TO USE THEIR SKILL, THEIR PATIENCE AND HAND-EYE DEXTERITY TO, AND I THEY LAY OUT SOME OF THAT.

THEY AREN'T LEGAL RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?

SHOULD THEY JUST NOT BE REGULATED, SPEAKER OSBORNE?

>> THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, RENEE, WE DON'T REALLY WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT BECAUSE THERE'S NO TESTING OF THEM, THERE'S NO REGULATION OR REGISTRATION OF THEM.

WE DON'T KNOW FOR SHOWER HOW MANY ARE OPERATING AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEY ARE GAMBLING DEVICES AND THEY ARE OPERATING IN A COMPLETELY UNREGULATED MARKET, SO WHETHER YOU ARE FOR THEM OR AGAINST THEM, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY'RE UNREGULATED AND THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM WITH HAVING UNREGULATED GAMBLING IN KENTUCKY.

WHETHER YOU'RE FOR GAMBLING FOR AGAINST GAMBLING, WHICH IT DID EVOLVE INTO A VERY INTERESTING DYNAMIC.

LAST YEAR WE TOOK THIS UP BECAUSE WE HAD SOME TRADITIONALLY VERY -- PEOPLE THAT WERE VERY OPPOSED TO GAMBLING THAT WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THESE MACHINES.

THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT WERE TRADITIONALLY VERY LARGE PROPONENTS OF EXPANDED GAMBLING THAT WERE AGAINST THEM.

SO IT TAKES ON A DIFFERENT DYNAMIC.

BUT THE ONE THING THAT YOU CANNOT AGAIN IS THEY ARE OPERATING IN AN UNREGULATED ENVIRONMENT.

AND AS SLOW AS KENTUCKY HAS BEEN TO ADOPT AND ENDORSE ADDITIONAL GAMING METHODS, ONE THING WE'VE ALWAYS DONE REALLY WELL IS REGULATE GAMBLING, WHETHER IT BE THE LOTTERY, HORSE RACING, CHARITABLE GAMING.

WE'VE HAD A VERY, VERY WELL-REGULATED GAYE GAMBLING ENVIRONMENT, WHICH HAS BY AND LARGE KEPT A CRIMINAL ELEMENT THAT IS PREVALENT IN SO MANY OTHER AREAS OUT OF KENTUCKY.

AND SO I THINK AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER -- WHICH SIDE OF THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE LEGAL OR SHOULDN'T BE LEGAL YOU COME DOWN ON, WE'VE GOT TO CAN BE WE'VE GOT TO GET THEM IN A LEGISLATOR STRUCTURE, AND THAT WILL EITHER MEAN WE EITHER OUTLAW THEM ALTOGETHER OR THAT WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO REGULATE THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE OPERATING RESPONSIBLY.

>> SO WHAT ARE YOU -- WHAT ARE YOU HEARING IN YOUR CAUCUS ABOUT THAT?

IS THERE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM LEXINGTON WHO HAD PROPOSED THE BILL TO REGULATE THEM, CORRECT?

TIMONEY'S BILL.

>> TO OUTLAW THEM, YES, REPRESENTATIVE TIMONEY AND IT'S STILL A VERY ROBUST CONVERSATION, AND ULTIMATELY I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO FALL ON IT.

I THINK THAT YOU SAW IN THE LAST SESSION WE PASSED A BILL OUT OF THE HOUSE THAT WOULD MAKE THEM ILLEGAL.

THE SENATE ALSO PASSED A BILL OUTED OF THE SENATE THAT WOULD MAKE THEM ILLEGAL.

SO I THINK YOU KIND OF SEE -- >> WHERE YOU'RE GOING.

>> -- WHERE THE OVERALL THOUGHT PROCESS IS BUT CERTAINLY WE COULDN'T PASS A BILL THAT WE DIDN'T AGREE ON.

SO I DON'T KNOW, TO COIN A PHRASE OF SENATE PRO-TEM, PRESIDENT PRO-TEM GIVENS, I'M NOTE SCRIPTURE WE'VE HAD A WHOLE THOUGHT ON IT.

SO I THINK THAT WE MAY -- IT'S YET TO BE SEEN, BUT I THINK BY AND LARGE THERE IS A REALIZATION THAT -- THAT THESE MACHINES ARE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF WHAT SHOULD BE THE LAW, AND SO I THINK THAT THE ONE THING THAT IS NOT AN OPTION IS NO ACTION.

>> RIGHT.

NO ACTION IN '23.

SO THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO GET DONE.

>> RIGHT.

>> SENATOR THAYER, TO REPRESENTATIVE EXTENSIVE MANY STEINSON'S POINT ABOUT HOW SOME OF THOSE MOM AND POP, C STORTS, CONVENIENT STORES ARE SEEING A BOON FROM THESE, AND I'M SURE THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION WITH OWNERS OF THESE CONVENIENCE STORES, HEY, THIS IS GOOD MONEY FOR US SO DON'T ROB US OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GENERATE THIS KIND OF REVENUE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING?

>> SURE.

BUT IF YOU'RE OPERATING GRAY MACHINES IN THE BACK OF YOUR CONVENIENCE STORE, YOU'RE RUNNING AN ILLEGAL CASINO.

NOW, THERE'S A LOT REALLY GOOD THINGS THAT I AGREE WITH THAT HAVE BEEN SAID BY ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PANEL.

AND AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT, I HAVE A VERY STRONG OPINION ON THESE GRAY GAMES.

THEY ARE ILLEGAL.

I BELIEVE THEY'RE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE LAW.

I BELIEVE THE OPERATORS GOT A FAVORABLE OPINION FROM A LAWYER THAT WORKED FOR THEM AND SET UP SHOP, AND THEIR BUSINESS MODEL IN OTHER STATES IS TO COME INTO STATES, SET UP SHOP, GET IN GOOD WITH THE FOP, INGRATIATE THEMSELF WITH CONVENIENCE STORE OWNERS WHO WILL THEN LOBBY THEIR, IN MANY CASES, ANTI-GAMBLING LEGISLATORS TO BE FOR THE BILL.

AND I THINK IF WE LEGALIZE THEM, WE'RE REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR.

I SUPPORT REPRESENTATIVE KILLIAN TIMONEY'S BILL TO OUTLAW THEM EXPLICITLY.

WE HAVE THREE FORMS OF LEGALIZED GAMBLING IN KENTUCKYFUL.

CHARITABLE GAMING, WHICH SUPPORTS THE CHARITIES THAT RUN THE GAMES, THE LOT I. LOITER WHICH SUPPORTS HIGHER EDUCATION, COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR KENTUCKY KIDS, AND PARI-MUTUEL WAGER WHICH SUPPORTS OUR SIGNATURE INDUSTRY, HORSE RACING AND BREEDING, AND THE TOURISM AND GREEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE THAT IT SUPPORTS.

GRAY GAMES HAS NO HIGHER PURPOSE.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR BY LEGALIZING THEM AND REGULATING THEM.

IF YOU EVER BEEN BEHIND SCENES AT ONE OF OUR RACETRACKS TO SEE THE SECURITY MEASURES IN PLACE, SOME YOU CAN SEE OUT FRONT, SOME YOU CAN'T SEE BECAUSE THEY ARE BEHIND THE SCENES IN AN AMAZING TV SURVEILLANCE SETUP THAT EVERY ONE OF OUR RACETRACKS AND TRACK EXTENSIONS HAS IN KENTUCKY TO WHAT THE SPEAKER SAID, THAT'S WHY WE HAVEN'T HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT.

THESE MACHINES ARE RUNNING RAMPANT.

THEY'RE NOT BEING TESTED BY THE RACING COMMISSION LIKE HHR MACHINES ARE.

THERE'S NO TAX BEING PAID.

THERE'S NO COMMISSION THAT OVERSEES THEM.

AND NOW THEY WANT TO COME IN HERE AND SET UP ALL THESE MACHINES AND ASK NOW FOR TO US LEGALIZE THEM?

THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE RED MILE THAT WANTS SPORTS GAMBLING SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO START TAKING BETS ON NFL FOOTBALL GAMES AND HOPE THAT THE LEGISLATURE LEGALIZES IT.

WELL, THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC OUTCRY IF THAT HAPPENED WITHOUT ACTION OF THE LEGISLATURE.

SO THAT'S MY POSITION, BUT THE SPEAKER'S RIGHT.

THERE ARE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE MAP OOH THIS.

THE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WERE FOR HHR WHO ARE -- THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR HHR WHO ARE ALSO FOR MAKING THE GRAY GAMES ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT JENS SHORE STONERS AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST HHR BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT CONVENIENCE STORE OWNERS, AND THEN THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO BELIEVE IT'S A THREAT TO CHARITABLE LOITER AND PARA MEW TULE WAGERING.

>> WE KNOW THAT PACE-O-MATIC WHO APPEARED BEFORE A REPRESENTATIVE HEARING, THEY OPERATE 3,000 OF THESE IN 850 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, AND SO TO THE POINT ABOUT FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, I MEAN, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY REALLY WELCOMES COLLABORATION AND THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE FOP.

IS THIS NOT A SLAP IN THEIR FACE?

>> OF COURSE WE ARE STRONG ON LAW ENFORCEMENT.

BUT DO I NOT LIKE THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THESE GRAY GAME OPERATORS COMING IN, PUTTING A STICKER AND AUTHENTICATING, VALIDATING STICKER ON THEIR MACHINES SAYING WE SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FOP.

I DON'T LIKE IT.

I THINK IT GIVES A SENSE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT GIVING A WINK AND A NOD AND NOT WANTING TO ENFORCE THESE GAMES.

SO IN THIS CASE I DISAGREE WITH THE FOP TAKING THE MONEY.

>> SO SHOULD THIS BE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT COMES BEFORE THE KENTUCKY VOTERS TO DECIDE?

GUST IT RISE TO THERE'LL, SPEAKER OSBORNE?

>> YOU KNOW WAS THIS IS ONE PLACE WHERE I'M GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF EXCEPTION WITH DAMON.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TRULY EVER GOING TO PUT AN END TO THIS CONTINUAL CONVERSATION UNTIL WE DO TAKE UP THE BROADER CONVERSATION ABOUT GAMBLING.

AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE ANY POLICY, BUT UNTIL WE HAVE THE COMPLETE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW, EVEN IF WE CONTAIN IT TO THE EXISTING OPERATORS, UNTIL WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM PUT A BLACKJACK TABLE NEXT TO THEIR HHR MACHINE, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE TYPES CONVERSATIONS WHERE WE HAVE UNCERTAINTY.

THERE'S A REASON THEY'RE CALLED GRAY BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A GRAY AREA THAT WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW.

AND SO I THINK IT MAY NOT BE THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR.

IT MAY NOT ANYBODY TEN YEARS.

BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME THE CONVERSATION IS GOING TO CONTINUE UNTIL, YES, IT IS EITHER, I'VE HEARD LOTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS THAT WILL MAINTAIN THAT WE DON'T NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR ANY OF THIS.

BUT I THINK THAT WE TEND TO RETREAT TO THAT POSITION EVERY TIME IT'S GOTTEN REALLY DIFFICULT AND CONVINCED OURSELVES THAT MAYBE WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

I THINK ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION AS TO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE CAN ACTUALLY ENABLE AND ENACT, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE WILL CHANGE ANYTHING, BUT I THINK THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT SOME GUARDRAIL ON IT.

>> THE LAST QUESTION ON THIS.

SENATOR THOMAS, MANY PEOPLE WOULD SAY, WAHL HHR MACHINES LOOK LIKE SLOT MACHINES.

WHAT'S THE INCHES DID BETWEEN A GRAYMAN AND HHR MACHINE THAT LOOK LIKE A SLOT MACHINE BE WITH SOUND LIKE A SLOT MACHINE?

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

>> RENEE, TO BE HONEST AND CANDID I VOTED FOR HHR AND I DRIVE BY THE RED MILE PROBABLY FIVE DAYS OUT OF SEVEN IN MY DISTRICT AND I SEE HOW BUSY IT IS, HOW ACTIVE IT IS.

LOOK, RENEE, SPEAKER OSBORNE IS RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GAMING FOR YEARS TO COME UNTIL WE FINALLY RESOLVE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

I HOPE WE PASS SPORTS GAMING IN 2023.

WE CERTAINLY NEED TO.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE -- I DON'T HAVE MY HEAD IN THE SAND.

I REALIZE THAT ONCE WE PASS IT AND IT BECOMES LAW, CASINO GAMBLING IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER WAITING TO BE DISCUSSED.

AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE OTHER FORMS OF GAMING THAT COME -- THAT SURFACE TO THE FRONT LIKE THAT I'M AGAINST.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT SPEAKER OSBORNE SAID.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RESOLVE THIS PROBABLY THE NEXT TEN YEARS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE OTHER GAMING ISSUES THAT COME AFTER WE PASS SPORTS GAMING WHICH AGAIN WE SHOULD DO IN 2023.

>> SO LEADER THAYER, I MEAN, TALK ABOUT GAIT.

SPORTS BETTING IS SEEMS TO BE WHAT SENATOR THOMAS IS SAYING WITH A GAIT TO LARGER GAMING EXPANSION WITH MAYBE CASINOS.

DO YOU SEE THAT TRAJECTORY?

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

I'M FOR SPORTS BETTING FOR THE SAKE OF SPORTS BETTING.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY OUGHT TOFF A CHANCE TO DO.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ONLY PERSON EVER TO BRING A CASINO GAMBLING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOR OF THE KENTUCKY STATE SENATE FOR A VOTE.

DID I SO BACK IN 2012.

IT WAS A BIPARTISAN BILL.

I WORK WITH THEN GOVERNOR STEVE BESHEAR ON IT.

AND IT WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED PURSES AT THE RACETRACKS.

NOW WE HAVE HHR SUPPORTING PURCHASES.

I'M GOOD.

MY MAIN -- PURSES.

MY MAIN GOAL HERE IS TO SUPPORT OUR SIGNATURE INDUSTRIES, WHICH IN KENTUCKY ARE HORSES AND BOURBON.

NOW, BACK TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION, THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN HHR MACHINE, WHICH IS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND PARI-MUTUEL AND IS BASED ON THE RESULTS OF PREVIOUSLY RUN HORSE RACE.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT.

THEY ARE HEAVILY REGULATED, SUPERVISED, AVAILABLED LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, TESTED REGULARLY BY THE RACING COMMISSION TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO CHEATING GOING ON.

THESE GRAY GAMES, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PUSH A BUTTON ON A SCREEN.

THERE'S NO SKILL IN THAT.

THERE'S NO TIE-IN TO HORSE RACING ON THAT.

IF THEY WANT TO BE REGULATED AND TAXED, IF THAT'S THE I WILL WILL OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THEY'D BETTER BE READY TO PAY AT LEAST THE TAXATION LEVEL PAID BY THE HORSE RACING HAVE INDUSTRY, AND I'LL HAVE THAT AMENDMENT IF THAT'S THE CASE.

>> NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON AND TALK ABOUT, WE'VE GOTTEN A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WILL THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR THE SENATE IN PARTICULAR TAKE UP RESTRICTIONS ON VACCINE AND MASK MANDATES OR OTHER EXECUTIVE POWER TYPE THINGS.

SO I'LL START WITH YOU, LEADER THAYER.

>> I THINK WE'VE PRETTY MUCH TAKEN -- >> NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO, RIGHT?

>> I THINK WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF THAT WITH THE MATTERS THAT WE PASSED IN 2021 AND THEN WERE BACKED UP BY THE SUPREME COURT, AND I THINK -- I THINK WE PRETTY MUCH SENT A MESSAGE IN STATUTE NOW FOR THIS GOVERNOR AND FUTURE GOVERNORS THAT THE ABUSES OF POWER, THE ABUSES OF POWER THAT ANDY BESHEAR ENACTED DURING THE EARLY AND MIDDLE DAYS OF THE COVID PANDEMIC ARE NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

>> ANY OTHER FOLLOW-UP COMMENT ON THAT?

THEN I'LL ASK FOR REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON.

WHAT DO YOU THINKSOME.

>> I DON'T SEE THIS PARTICULAR GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKING ANY MEASURES ON VACCINES AS FAR AS TRYING TO MAKE THEM -- I'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF MEALS ABOUT ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THE COVID VACCINE MANDATORY, AND I DON'T SEE THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKING THAT VOTE AT ALL.

>> WHAT'S YOUR INDICATION?

HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT THAT.

>> I THINK WITH ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT COVID AND MASK AND EVERYTHING LEADING UP TO THAT, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S AN APPETITE FOR THAT WHATSOEVER.

>> WE'RE NOT PASSING ANY MANDATES ON ANY VACCINES OR HEALTH CARE DECISIONS LIKE THAT.

BEEN THERE.

DONE THAT.

WE'RE NO GOING BACK.

>> THERE ARE HEALTH CARE MANDATES.

JUST NOT IS THAT.

>> BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABORTING A BABY AND MAKING SOMEBODY TAKE A VACCINE.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

YOUR PARTY LIKES TO TRY TO GET AWAY WITH THAT, BUT THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABORTING AN UNBORN BABY AND TELLING SOMEONE THEY'VE GOT TO TAKE THE JAB.

AND YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT DEBATE ON THIS SHOW?

JUST SIGN ME P, RENEE.

I'LL BE HERE.

>> SENATOR THOMAS.

>> YES, THANK YOU, RENEE.

LOOK, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE SENATOR THAYER, WHILE WE'RE NOT PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE UP ANY VACCINE MANDATES THIS SESSION, I THINK WHAT GOVERNOR BESHEAR DID TO SAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES HERE IN KENTUCKY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS SHOULD BE COMMENDED, HAS BEEN COMMEND, AND ALL ONE HAS TO DO IS LOOK AT HIS APPROVAL RATING AND SEE HOW POPULAR HE IS, HOW SUCCESSFUL HE IS, HOW PEOPLE HAVE APPROVED OF HIS FIREWORKS THAT SPEAKS FOR -- DECISIONS AND THAT SPEAKS FOR GIST OF.

IF ADDITION, RENEE, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE LET AT LEAST THE SOUTHERN REGION IN TERMS OF -- LED THE SOUTHERN REGE IN TERMS FEWER LIVES LOST, IN TERMS OF PEOPLE GETTING VACCINATED, AGAIN, I THINK GOVERNOR BESHEAR DESERVES A LOT OF CREDIT AND HAS RECEIVED A LOT OF CREDIT IN HIS LEADERSHIP ON THE COVID VACCINE.

PEOPLE BELIEVE WE'RE PAST THAT NOW.

THAT'S IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.

I DON'T REALLY SEE US DEALING WITH COVID MANDATES IN 2023.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS GOVERNOR BESHEAR DID A GREAT JOB IN GETTING THIS STATE OF KENTUCKIANS THROUGH THE COVID -- THROUGH THE COVID PANDEMIC.

>> SO IN THE SEVEN MINUTES AND A HALF WE HAVE REMAINING A COUPLE OF OTHER TOPICS I WANT TO GET TO.

LOCAL TAX OPTIONS.

WE KNOW THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP IN THE HOUSE MANY SESSIONS.

SO IS THERE AN APPETITE TO PUT THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE VOTERS?

AND I HAVE TO MAKE A LARGER QUESTION HERE.

CONSIDERING YOUR TRACK RECORD ON THESE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, ARE YOU A LITTLE GUN SHY ON PERHAPS PUTTING ONE A YEAR OUT BEFORE IT WOULD GO ON THE BALLOT?

>> WELL, I DON'T WANT TO UNDER SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD HERE.

WE PASSED THE OUT OF THE HOUSE AND OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING IT TO THE SENATE.

WHEN IT GOT DOWN TO THEM.

BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR 2018 AMENDMENTS ON TAX REFORM WHERE WE REDUCED THE INCOME TAX FROM 6% TO 5% AND NOW FROM 5 FIRST TO 4.5%, THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX REFORM IS A VERY KEY ISSUE IN THE OVERALL TAX PICTURE TO GIVE THEM THE REFLECT THAT THEY NEED TO -- REFLECT THAT THEY NEED TO RAISE THE APPROVES THAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THEIR GOVERNMENTS BELIEVE ARE BEST, AND I TYPICALLY THINK THAT THOSE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE, THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE INDIVIDUAL ARE BETTER DECISIONS AS OPPOSED TO THOSE OF US AT A STATE LEVEL MAKING THOSE DECISIONS OR CONVERSELY THOSE AT A FEDERAL LEVEL MAKING DECISIONS FOR US AT A STATE LEVEL.

YOU GET MORE EFFICIENT AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE PUBLIC.

I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A CONTINUED INTEREST AND NEED TO HAVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX REFORM.

I THINK IT IS A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT MESSAGE TO DELIVER.

IT'S SO EASY TO HEAR THAT AS TAX INCREASE.

>> SO WHAT IS IT EXACTLY?

WHAT IS AT THIS TIME LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WANT?

THEY WANT TO RAISE HOR MORE MONEY?

>> ACTUALLY THEY WANT REFLECT IN HOW THEY RAISE MONEY, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MORE MONEY.

RIGHT NOW THE STATE CONSTITUTION IS VERY, VERY RESTRICTIVE ON WHAT AND WHO IT ALLOWS TO TAX, AND IT ONLY GIVES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS A VERY, VERY LIMITED -- IT GIVES SOME GOVERNMENTS THE ABILITY TO TAX INCOME.

IT GIVES OTHER GOVERNMENTS THE ONLY ABILITY TO TAX PROPERTY.

AND SO THERE MAY BE CERTAIN THINGS IN SOME AREAS IN DOOLING SALES TAX THAT MAY WORK VERY WELL.

IN AREAS OF HIGH COMMERCE THOSE THINGS MAY WORK VERY WELL.

THEY MAY NOT WORK AT ALL IN OTHER AREAS BUT SOMETHING ELSE MIGHT WORK VERY, VERY WELL FOR THEM, AND FOR US TO CONTINUE TO TREAT THIS AS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL I THINK IS A VERY INEFFICIENT MECHANISM FOR TAXATION.

THAT SAID, I'M NOT NAIVE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE EASY TO MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE AT LARGE BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY EASY TO SAY IT'S A TAX INCREASE, AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT BY SAYING, YES, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO ALLOW YOUR LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DEVELOP A TAX SYSTEM THAT IS MORE RESPONSIBLE AND EFFICIENT FOR YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL, YOU JUST LOST THAT ARGUMENT.

>>UR YOU'RE GETTING GLOSSY-EYED.

>> I'M IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO.

I DON'T THINK YOU'LL SEE US TAKE ACTION ON THAT MEASURE THIS YEAR.

I THINK THAT THERE'S LOTS OF MESSAGING TO BE DONE, LOTS OF WORK TO BE DONE IN ADVANCE OF US PUTTING THAT ON THE BALLOT, AND WE'LL SEE IN 2024 WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR IT STATEWIDE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

>> THERE WERE SOME ILL ITERATIONS OF THIS BILL THAT NOT ONLY WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PASS ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BUT THEN THEY, TOO, WOULD PUT THE QUOTE BALLOT ABOUT LOCAL REVENUE OPTIONS TO GO MAYBE TOWARD A SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT MIGHT SUNSET AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME.

>> THOSE ARE IN THE EARLY ITERATIONS OF THE LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD SOME SUPPORT, BUT I ALWAYS -- IAL THOUGHT IT WAS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE, AGAIN, A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX MAY WORK PERFECTLY WELL FOR SOME COMMUNITIES.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE FOR SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO TRULY ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES, AND LOCAL VOTERS WILL HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY DO, IF WE'RE TRULY GOING TO LET LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAKE THOSE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR THEM, LET'S NOT JUST DO IT FOR THE THE ONES THAT IT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM TO HAVE A LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX.

SO I THINK THAT THE ENABLING LEGISLATION THAT WENT ALONG WITH THIS MOST RECENT AMENDMENT ACTUALLY PUT A MORATORIUM ON ANY NEW TAXATION UNTIL AFTER WE ARE ABLE TO COME BACK IN AND MAKE THOSE TAILORED ACTIONS THAT WERE APPROPRIATE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT.

>> FIRST OF ALL, RENEE, I WISH WE HAD TIME SO I COULD RESPOND TO SENATOR THOMAS' GLOWING ENDORSEMENT OF GOVERNOR ANDY BESHEAR AREA RELEASING.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK HE DID A GREAT JOB DURING CURVED TO SENDING POLICE TO CITE PEOPLE WHEN THEY WENT TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY.

PING WINNERS AND LANCERS IN THE LOCKDOWNS AND ESSENTIALLY DERIVING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SCHOOLKIDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO IN-PERSON SCHOOL, BUT THAT'S A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER DAY AND I'M HAPPY TO HAVE IT AND COME BACK ON AND TALK ABOUT IT ANY TIME BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT FALL'S GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.

ON THE LOCAL TAXATION ISSUE, LOOK, WE'RE NOT THERE YET, AND I APPRECIATE MY FRIEND REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MEREDITH'S WORK ON THIS ISSUE.

BUT UNTIL WE CAN GET SOME GUARANTEES THAT THERE WILL BE OFFSETS, LOOK, PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE THE WAY WE LOOK AT THE CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE IN KENTUCKY IS IT'S NON-PARTNER.

I STILL BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS IN THE CITY POSITIONS, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF TAX RAISERS THERE, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING CITY COUNCILS ACROSS THE STATE TO INCREASE THE TAX BURDEN ON KENTUCKIANS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN LEXINGTON AND LOUISVILLE THEY WOULD RAISE IT RIGHT NOW.

THE.

THEY COULD GET MORE REVENUE OUT OF THE PEOPLE, THEY WOULD DO IT.

SO I DON'T HAVE FAITH IN THEM.

AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T LOOK AT THE IN A PARTISAN WAY.

I'M ORGANIZING ON A BILL WITH REPRESENTATIVE MATT LOCKETT TO CHANGE THAT FOR SCHOOL BOARDS AND CITY COUNCIL.

>> WHAT WOULD THAT BILL DO QUICKLY?

>> WOULD IT MAKE SCHROEDER AND CITY COUNCIL RACES PARTISAN PRAISES I BELIEVE THE VOTERS NEED TO BE INFORMED AND THE BEST WAY YOU CAN INFORM THEM IS TELL A PERSON WHAT PARTY YOU'RE A MEMBER OF WHEN YOU'RE ON THE BALLOT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

SENATOR THOMAS OR REPRESENTATIVE STEINSON.

I'LL GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD HERE WITH A MINUTE RAPING.

>> I'LL DEFER TO YOU.

>> THANKS.

REMAINING.

>> I THINK THEY SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL.

I THINK A LOT OF THE JUDICIAL RACES WHERE WE SAW CONSERVATIVES COMING OUT AND SAYING THEY WERE VERY CONSERVATIVE, A LOT OF THOSE JUDGES JUST LOST THOSE RACES.

>> THEY SHOULD BE PARTISAN TOO.

>> BUT WITH THE SUPREME COURT, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT, I DO WANT TO TALK VERY QUICKLY ABOUT -- >> 15 SECOND.

>> -- THE D. BUT SUPREME COURT'S DECISION ABOUT PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC MONEY GOING TO HOSE, AND YOU'LL SEE US KEEPING -- KEEP FIGHTING FOR THAT THIS SESSION.

>> WE 20 EVEN GET TO EDUCATION ACCOUNTS AND SO WE'LL HAVE A PART TWO ON THIS, FEAR NOT MEMBER WOO WE COME BACK ON JANUARY 9th.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT FIRST WEEK OF THE SESSION.

WE'RE GOING TO BE AWAY FOR TWO WEEKS.

"KENTUCKY EDITION" WILL STILL BE ON AT 6:30 EASTERN, 5:30 CENTRAL SO YOU CAN STILL KEEP TRACK OF WHAT'S GOING ON ACROSS YOUR GREAT COMMONWEALTH, BUT I'LL SEE YOU FOR "KENTUCKY TONIGHT" ON JANUARY 9th IN 2023.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY HAD AN, A KWANZAAA.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

I'LL SEE IN YOU 2023.

GOOD NIGHT.