GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO KENTUCKY TONIGHT.

I'M RENEE SHA OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: THE 2025 KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THE SESSION BEGAN LAST TUESDAY.

LAWMAKERS HEARD GOVERNOR ANDY BESHEAR’S STATE OF THE COMMONWEALTH ADDRESS ON WEDNESD AND THERE’S BEEN ACTION ON HOUS BILL 1, A BILL TO CUT THE STATE INCOME TAX FROM FOUR PERCENT TO THREE AND A HALF NEXT YEAR.

THAT BILL PASSED THE HOUSE THURSDAY, 90 TO SEVEN AND NOW WAITS FOR SENATE ACTION WHEN LAWMAKERS RETURN NEXT MONTH.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT THOSE DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS LIKELY TO CONSIDER WHEN IT RECO FEBRUARY FOURTH.

OUR GUESTS, IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO, ARE: STATE SENATOR ROBERT STIVERS, KENTUCKY SENATE PRESIDENT AND A REPUBLICAN FROM MANCHESTER; STATE SENATOR GERALD NEAL, SENATE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER AN A DEMOCRAT FROM LOUISVILLE; STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID OSBORNE, KENTUCKY HOUSE SPEAKER AND A REPUBLICAN FROM PROSPECT; AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE PAMELA STEVENSON, HOUSE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER AND A DEMOCRAT FROM LOUI WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

YOU CAN SEND YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY X — FORMERLY TWITTE -- AT PUB AFFAIRS KET.

SEND AN EMAIL TO K-Y TONIGHT AT K-E-T DOT O-R-G. OR USE THE WEB FORM AT K-E-T DOT O-R-G SLASH K-Y TO OR YOU CAN CALL 1-800-494-7605.

WELCOME TO ALL OUR GUESTS.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN LIKE OUR FOURTH TIME IN FIVE DAYS OR SOMETHING.

>> HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> Renee: SESSION IS OFF AND RUNNING AND YOU HAVE THE BREAK BEFORE YOU GO BACK ON FEBRUARY.

FIRST QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED SO FAR THIS SESSION.

THERE'S AT LEAST 200 IN THE HOUSE.

50 OR SO BUT NOT THE PRIORITY BILLS AND I WANT TO ASK YOU WHY THEY ARE NOT THERE YET.

HOUSE SPEAKER, TELL US ABOUT THE NUMBER OF BILLS FILED AND THE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS CONSTITUENTS AND MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO GET DONE.

>> I AM ALWAYS AMAZED BY THE NUMBER OF BILLS THAT ARE FILED.

BY AND LARGE, OUR STATE'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR 230 SOME YEARS AND YOU WOULD THINK WE HAVE GONE A LONGTIME WITHOUT NEEDING A LOT OF THESE LAWS BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE LEGISLATORS GET CREATIVE AND THEY LOVE TO PASS LAWS.

LOVE TO PASS BILLS.

BUT I THINK BY AND LARGE THIS IS A SHORT SESSION, I THINK THAT STEVE RUDY SETS THE OVER UNDERLINE AND HAS GOTTEN GOOD ABOUT ESTABLISHING THAT LINE.

>> Renee: WHAT HAS HE SAID SO FAR?

>> HE WILL SET IT BEFORE WE COME BACK.

I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A RELATIVELY SLOW PACE.

I DO BELIEVE THAT.

WE HAVE HISTORICALLY SINCE WE'VE TAKEN THE MAJORITY WE HAVE USED THE SHORT SESSION PRETTY ACTIVELY.

AS A POLICY SESSION.

AND, I THINK, YOU WILL SEE A SLOWDOWN THIS YEAR.

I REALLY DO.

USE IT FOR -- >> Renee: YOU SAY THAT EVERY YEAR.

>> YOU THINK YOU HEAR ME SAY THAT EVERY YEAR.

BUT WHAT YOU ARE OFTEN CONFUSED WITH IS THE FACT THAT I'VE SAID IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO COVER NEW TERRITORY BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE WON'T BE VERY ACTIVE.

I REALLY THINK THIS WILL BE A CLEAN UP SESSION ONE THAT WHERE WE SPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE SESSION MAKING TWEAKS AND SMALL CHANGES TO THINGS WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

>> Renee: FAIR ENOUGH PARDON ME FOR ANY APERSIONS YOU THOUGHT I WAS CASTING.

IN THE SENATE THERE ARE CLOSE TO 50 BILLS BUT THERE'S MISSING SENATE BILLS 1-10 LIKE THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE SENATE G.O.P.

CAUCUS.

WHERE ARE THOSE BILLS AND WHAT ARE THE TOPIC AREAS THAT MAYBE ADDRESSED?

>> WELL, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SPEAKER ABOUT A COORDINATED EFFORT ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO TRY TO DO AS LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES OF BOTH CHAMBERS.

WE'RE STILL HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO RUSH IT.

WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME.

I AGREE I DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE A FAST-PACED SESSION.

NOTHING COMPARES TO THAT WHICH IS RELATED TO A SINGLE BIG FOCUS OF THE BUDGET THE ULTIMATE POLICY DOCUMENT.

MOST OF THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED A THIRD OF THEM WERE BY CASSY CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG SHE FILED 10 OR 12 THE LAST DAY.

WE WILL BE DELIBERATE AND WITHIN MY CAUCUS WE'VE ASKED PEOPLE THEY SAY WE WANT A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, WE WANT TO SLOW THE PACE DOWN.

THEN DON'T FILE 20 BILLS.

WE'RE TRYING TO TELL OUR MEMBERS IF YOU WANT MORE DELIBERATION, YOU WANT MORE OPPORTUNITY THEN LET'S GL AT A SLOWER PACE.

LET'S WELCOME PAMELA STEVENSON THE FRESHMAN OF THE LEADERSHIP.

>> Renee: AND YOU WILL BE EXTRA NICE TO HER THIS TIME AROUND.

>> ALWAYS.

>> Renee: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP THE NUMBERS OR LIMIT THE NUMBERS OF BILLS THAT COULD BE FILED.

>> ONLY ASK YOUR COLLEAGUES TO -- BECAUSE YOU WILL GET INTO THIS AT THE END OF THE SESSION THERE'S SO MANY ISSUES AND SO MANY BILLS FLYING AROUND.

WELL, THE WAY YOU STOP SO MANY BILLS AND SO MANY ISSUES IS TO NOT HAVE AS MANY BILLS AND ISSUES.

AND REALLY, AND DAVID'S RIGHT THE SPEAKER IS RIGHT, THIS SESSION WASN'T MEANT TO BE HALF OF A REGULAR FULL-BLOWN 60-DAY BUDGETARY SESSION.

IT WAS TO LOOK AT BIGGER ISSUES AND FOCUS ON THOSE AND CLEAN UP SOME OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED IN-BETWEEN THIS SESSION AND THE PRIOR SESSION.

>> Renee: LEADER NEAL TO YOU FIRST ABOUT HOW MANY AMENDMENTS OR HOW MANY BILLS HAS CASSY CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG FILED AND YOU FILED SOME ALREADY AND SENATOR THOMAS WHAT ARE YOUR EXPECTATIONS FOR THIS SESSION AND HOW DO YOU SEE THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE TRYING TO LEVERAGE YOUR POWER OR YOUR NUMBERS OR YOUR INFLUENCE?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US AND I THINK WE'VE SET THE BASIS FOR US OPERATING IN A BIPARTISAN WAY.

WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE LAST SESSION AND MADE OVERTURES THAT WAY STARTING INTO THIS PARTICULAR SESSION.

I THINK AS IT RELATES TO BILLS WE DON'T TELEPHONINGS HOW MANY BILLS TO FILE.

BUT THERE IS THE REALITY OF THE SENATE, WHICH IS USUALLY DOES A LOT LESS THAN THE HOUSE DOES IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THIS IS A DIFFERENT TONE IT SEEMS AS TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH RESPECT TO THE THIS PARTICULAR SESSION BEING THE SHORT SESSION.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO SEE IT'S UNFOLDING NOW.

NOT EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE YET.

WE HAVE TO SEE HOW THAT WORKS WHEN WE COME BACK FEBRUARY THE FIFTH, WE WILL HAVE THE 07 TO GET A CLEARER VIEW OF IT.

>> Renee: WHAT ARE YOUR EXPECTATIONS LEADER STEVENSON.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS I TELL MY CAUCUS IS DON'T COMPLAIN IF YOU GOT A BETTER IDEA A BETTER WAY OF DOING SOMETHING DO THE RESEARCH AND FILE A BILL.

NOW, THE CHANCES OF A BILL BEING HEARD IN THE SHORT SESSION MIGHT BE SMALLER.

>> Renee: ESPECIALLY FROM THE MINORITY CAUCUS.

>> I WASN'T GOING TO ADD THAT PART.

BUT YOU STILL CAN FILE IT AND DO THE RESEARCH AND DO THE TALKING WITH THE MAJORITY TO GET IT PASSED OR HEARD OR SEEN.

DON'T BACK UP BECAUSE YOUR MIND TELLS YOU THAT YOU CAN'T GET IT PASSED.

IF THERE IS A NEED IN YOUR DISTRICT AND YOU CAN DOCUMENT THAT NEED, THEN START DOING THE WORK THEY SENT YOU HERE TO DO.

>> Renee: LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE DOMINANT ISSUES, IF YOU WILL, THE FIRST DAY OF THE SESSION.

I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY THE LEADERSHIP'S FAVORITE TOPIC AND THAT IS OVER THE RULES.

THE RAUCOUS OVER THE RULES AND THE CHANGES THERE.

I WANT TO ASK YOU Mr. PRESIDENT DO THE RULES IN THE SENATE THAT WERE CHANGED DO YOU BELIEVE THEY WILL FOSTER A MORE INFORMED AND ENGAGED CITIZENRY AND CONSTITUENCY ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE STATE HOUSE AND THE DECISIONS THAT YOU'RE MAKING?

>> SEE, I'VE COME TO LEARN THIS STARTING MY 29TH YEAR ANYBODY IS GOING TO APPLY THE NARRATIVE SO THEY WANT TO WHAT WE DO.

WHAT I SAID, WE WANT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF BILLS WE CONSIDER OVERALL.

HAVE MORE DEBATE.

SLOW THE PACE DOWN.

THAT'S OUR MOTIVATION.

AND IT WAS CLEAR WE ALL HAVE CAUCUS RETREATS THAT THAT'S WHAT MY CAUCUS WANTED TO DO.

SO WE LOOKED AT HOW DO WE CONTROL THAT?

SO THAT'S WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE RULES CHANGES WERE.

THEY ARE NOT TO DO SOMETHING IN THE DARK OR WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY.

BUT I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GIVING THAT THEIR NARRATIVE THOUGH THEY HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THE RULES ARE JUST THAT TO CONTROL THE FLOW.

BUT NOT DO ANYTHING NEFARIOUS.

IT IS TO HAVE BETTER, LONGER, MORE INDEPTH DEBATE ABOUT THE ISSUES WE TAKE UP.

>> Renee: LEADER NEAL DO YOU SEE IT THAT WAY?

>> LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY... WHY ARE WE CHANGING THE RULES?

THE RULES WE HAD WORKED VERY WELL.

BUT IF THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE WHAT THEY ARE AND WE HAVE BEEN ASSURED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AT LEAST IN SOME EXCHANGES WE'VE HAD THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAMPER OUR ABILITY TO DEBATE.

WE WILL HAVE TO SEE HOW IT UNFOLDS.

YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED WHEN YOU CHANGE RULES THAT ELIMINATES APPEARS TO ELIMINATE A RESTRICTS YOUR BILL TO GIVE THE LEVERAGE TO THE OTHER SIDE NOT TO GIVE YOU THE TIME YOU THINK IS NEEDED FOR DEBATE.

WHETHER IT'S PERCEIVED MAYBE IT'S INACCURATE WE HAVE TO SEE HOW IT UNFOLDS.

WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH IT.

THEY WANT TO SLOW DOWN THE SENATE I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT MEANS, BECAUSE THE SENATE IS ALWAYS SLOWED DOWN WHAT THE HOUSE DOES AT LEAST HISTORICALLY.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT ON THE FLOOR WE WOULD EXPECT AND WE SUSPECT THAT WE'LL HAVE THE ADEQUATE TIME PROVIDED TO GET THAT DONE.

>> Renee: GO AHEAD.

>> AND LET ME SAY THIS... WHERE PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULES IF THERE ARE 20 VOTES ON THE SENATE FLOOR WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT, THAT BILL WHETHER THE RULES WERE CHANGED THIS YEAR OR NOT THERE IS THE RULE YOU CAN BRING IT TO THE FLOOR BECAUSE OF SOME CONFUSION LAST YEAR, WE CLARIFIED THAT RULE IN OUR RULES CHANGES THIS YEAR SO IF YOU HAVE 20 VOTES, YOU PETITION TO HAVE A DISCHARGE PETITION AND YOU CAN BRING IT TO THE FLOOR.

AND SO THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

>> WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IF WE COMMUNICATE BETTER I'M NOT SAYING SOMEONE INC.

TENSION ALI WAS TRYING TO DO THINGS IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATING IF THAT WAS COMMUNICATED AND DISCUSSED PERHAPS THAT ISSUE WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH LIKE IT WAS DEALT WITH.

BUT BE IT AS IT MAY, YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY'S SHOWED US ON THE FLOOR AND PRIVATELY IN SOME REGARD SAID THINGS SHOULD WORK NATURALLY AND I HOPE THAT IS THE OUTCOME.

>> Renee: VIEWER COMMENT THAT I WILL GET TO ALONG THESE LINES WE KNOW MR. SPEAKER THAT THE RULES CAME AFTER WHEN YOU CAME INTO SESSION BUT THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS HAD DONE A REPORT THAT ANALYZED 70 SESSIONS OVER 25-YEAR PERIOD AND FOUND THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN MANEUVERS THEY SAY MAKE CIVIC PARTICIPATION MORE DIFFICULT.

THIS FROM A VIEWER NAME UNKNOWN LOCATION UNKNOWN WHO SAYS WHY SHOULD THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY BE SATISFIED WITH THE SUPER MAJORITY IN OUR LEGISLATURE THAT HIDES WHAT IT IS DOING?

ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

ISN'T IT TIME FOR KENTUCKIANS TO RETURN TO HOMEGROWN DEMOCRAT ROOTS AND I WILL STOP RIGHT THERE?

>> I THINK THAT THE VOTERS OF KENTUCKY HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR OPINION ON THAT MATTER.

THEY HAVE GIVEN US THE SUPER MAJORITY.

AND CONTINUE TO ALLOW US TO GROW THAT MAJORITY.

I THINK TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THAT PERSON WHO WANTS A DEMOCRATIC VOICE WE HAVE HAD AN OVERWHELMING DEMOCRATIC VOICE THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE POLICIES THAT WE PASS.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT EVERY YEAR THERE'S LOTS OF DEBATE OVER THE RULES.

AND THAT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE I WAS IN THE MINORITY AND THERE WERE SEVERAL YEARS WHEN WE DIDN'T ADOPT RULES IN THE HOUSE.

AND OVER OUR PROTEST TO DO SO.

IT'S BY AND LARGE IT'S MORE POLITICAL THEATER THAN IT IS TRUE POLICY.

WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF DEBATE OVER THE RULE FOR PREVIOUS QUESTION, WHICH IS A MOTION THAT BRINGS AN END TO DEBATE AND BRINGS ABOUT AN IMMEDIATE VOTE ON THE BILL.

AND WE DON'T JUST MAKEUP THESE RULES.

OUR RULES ARE PROCEDURE ARE GUIDED BY MASON'S MANUAL MASON'S LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE.

EVERYTHING WE DO IS ROOTED IN MASON'S.

AND THE RULE THAT WE WROTE THIS YEAR IS IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH MASON'S.

AND FOR THE ENTIRE TIME WE'VE BEEN IN THE MAJORITY I ONLY RECALL AND I MAY BE WRONG I CAN ONLY RECALL THREE TIMES THAT THE PREVIOUS QUESTION HAS BEEN USED SINCE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE MAJORITY.

ONE OF THOSE TIMES WHEN JEFF HOOVER WAS PRESIDING HE ASKED THEN KENNY IMS STATE REPRESENTATIVE TO WITHDRAW THAT MOTION AND IT WAS RESTATED AS A MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE.

AND THEN THAT ONLY MEANS TWO TIMES IN EIGHT YEARS I DON'T THINK IS AN ABUSE OF IT.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL MOTIONS OVER THE YEARS TO LIMIT DEBATE, BUT AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE TIMES THOSE ARE VETO OVERRIDES WHERE WE ARE AT THE END OF SESSION AND IN MANY CASES WE HAVE DEBATED AND VOTED ON THE BILLS THREE OR FOUR TIMES.

AND I THINK A MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE IS IN ORDER.

MUCH OF WHAT THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS REPORT FOCUSED ON WAS THE USE OF SHELL BILLS AND THAT HAS GOTTEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF COMMENTARY.

AND I THINK THERE IS A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF SHELL BILLS FILED AND THE AMOUNT OF SHELL BILLS PASSED.

AND THAT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF A SUPREME COURT RULING SIX OR EIGHT YEARS AGO THAT CHANGED THE WAY WE HAD TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

AT THE END OF A SESSION.

IT USED TO BE COMMONPLACE TO TAKE BILLS THAT WERE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPICS AND REPACKAGE THOSE AT THE END OF SESSION.

SUPREME COURT RULED THAT WAS NO LONGER -- NOT APPROPRIATE.

IN TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THAT TO MAKE SURE WE DO HAVE OPTIONS AVAILABLE SHOULD SOMETHING ARISE AT THE END OF SESSION WE HAVE LOTS OF SHELL BILLS WITH EVERY IMAGINABLE TITLE KNOWN TO MAN IT SEEMS.

AND RARELY DO THEY GET USED.

AND SO THERE ARE VERY FEW IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF SHELL BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED YOU WOULD SEE THAT PROBABLY NO MORE THAN THE REPLACES THAT WERE DONE 15, 20 YEARS AGO.

>> Renee: WE KNOW ONE OF YOUR FELLOW LEADERSHIP IN YOUR CAUCUS LINDSEY BURKE HAD TO TRY TO AMEND SOME OF THOSE RULES, AND THAT PROPOSAL LAST WEEK.

WHERE DO YOU GO FROM HERE?

NOW THAT THE RULES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IS THIS SOMETHING Y'ALL WILL CONTINUE TO HARP ON OR GO ALONG AND SEE WHERE YOU CAN BE EFFECTIVE?

>> EACH ONE OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTS 45,000 PEOPLE.

THEY ARE THE VOICE OF 45,000 PEOPLE.

AND ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE IS SPEAKING UP ON THE FLOOR ABOUT HOW BILLS AFFECT THEIR CONSTITUENCY.

SO WE HAD OUR SAY AND THE SPEAKER EXPLAINED HOW WERE GOING TO WORK AND WE WOULD STILL HAVE OUR SAY.

SO WE ARE GOING TO WORK WE FILED OUR BILL AND IT DID NOT PASS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND GET ON WITH THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.

I AM REALLY IN SPEAKING WITH THE SPEAKER, HE'S MADE ALL TYPES AFTER SURE RENSES THAT OUR VOICES WON'T BE SILENCE I REST WITH THAT AND WE'LL WORK WITH THE RULES.

>> AND WHAT IS EVIDENCE OF THAT WE DID SPEND TWO HOURS DEBATING THE RULES AND ANOTHER HOUR THE NEXT DAY DEBATING THE RULES.

AND WE SPENT PROBABLY TWO HOURS DEBATING HOUSE BILL ONE WHICH WAS THE TAX BILL, INCOME TAX CUT BILL THE FOLLOWING DAY.

NOBODY'S VOICE WAS CUT SHORT IN THOSE THINGS.

AND I THINK LIKE I SAID, VERY RARELY HAS IT EVER BEEN.

>> Renee: LET'S TALK ABOUT HOUSE BILL ONE.

THIS AS I'VE SAID TAKE IT IS FROM 4% TO 3.5% NEXT YEAR, SO THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AS SOON AS IT PASSES.

ALONG THE WAY TO ZERO, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE KENTUCKY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC POLICY ABOUT HOW MUCH THE GENERAL FUND WILL SUFFER $2.2 BILLION.

IS THAT CORRECT FROM YOUR ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS OF IT?

AND WHEN DO YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE THESE CUTS CAN NO LONGER HOLD HARMLESS STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO REDUCE THEM?

>> LOOK IT'S NOT GOING TO COME AS A SHOCK I DON'T PUT CREDENCE IN THE KENTUCKY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC POLICY'S WORK PRODUCT.

THEY HAVE CLEVERLY WORDED NAME THAT INDICATES THEY ARE ECONOMISTS WHEN THEY ARE NOT.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THIS IS A VERY SOUND TAX REDUCTION PLAN.

AND FORMULA THAT I THINK IS VERY FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE CUTS IN THE INCOME TAX AS THE BUDGET ALLOWS.

WE DO NOT BUDGET TO HIT TRIGGERS.

WE DO NOT BUDGET TO MAKE CUTS.

WE BUDGET TO OUR NEEDS.

AND THAT HAS BEEN THE PHILOSOPHY WE HAVE STUCK TO SINCE WE'VE BEEN WRITING THE BUDGET IT IS VERY EFFECTIVE.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF THAT WE'VE WRITTEN FOUR CONSECUTIVE BUDGETS THAT DON'T SPEND EVERY DOLLAR WE TAKE IN.

THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE RECOIL IN HORROR OVER THAT THOUGHT.

BUT THE FACT IS WE'RE TRYING TO BE BETTER STEWARDS OF THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, TAKING CARE OF THE MANY NEEDS THAT KENTUCKY HAS.

>> Renee: THERE ARE SOME REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO GET TO ZERO MUCH FASTER THAN THE LAW WAS CREATED AND INTENDED TO DO AND CHAIRMAN McDANIEL, THE HOUSE -- THE SENATE A AND RSM CHAIR SAID IT'S DELIBERATE AND ON PURPOSE TALK TO US HOW MAYBE THERE'S SOME DISSENTION AMONG REPUBLICANS HOW FAST YOU SHOULD GET THERE?

>> I THINK YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PROCESS AND DAVID'S RIGHT.

ACTUALLY I THINK DAVID'S UNDERGRAD WAS IN ECONOMICS.

JUST SAYING THAT HE MAY HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE OF ECONOMICS THAN SOME PEOPLE WRITING ABOUT THIS.

>> I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO MAKE A LIVING DOING IT.

>> HERE I WANT TO SAY THIS ABOUT THE TAX PLAN.

I HAVE SPOKEN ON MANY OCCASIONS ABOUT THE PRUDENCE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AND HOW IT'S BEEN RECOGNIZED EVEN BY THE RATING AGENCIES WHICH EVEN THE GOVERNOR CALLED OUT HOW MUCH THE RATING AGENCIES ARE LOOKING AT US AND ONE OF THE BULLET POINTS IS WE ARE DOING RESPONSIBLE REDUCTION IN OUR INCOME TAX.

>> Renee: KENTUCKY WON'T BE A KANSAS?

>> NO.

SEE WE PUT THOSE MECHANISMS YOU JUST CUT IT BASED ON A FACTOR OF REVENUE GROWTH.

NO.

THERE'S TWO OTHER THINGS IN THERE.

ONE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 10% BUDGET RESERVE TRUST FUND OF WHAT YOUR GENERATED REVENUES ARE.

AND THEN THERE IS A DELTA THAT YOU CAN NEVER CUT TO WHERE WE WOULD PUT OURSELVES IN A PLACE OF BEING AT DEFICITS.

THAT'S TRIGGER NUMBER TWO.

PEOPLE WHO TALK ABOUT THIS, IF WE FOLLOW THE LAW AS ENACTED WE CAN NEVER DO THAT.

IT MAY TAKE US A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO GET TO ZERO WHICH GETS TO YOUR QUESTION.

WE HAVE TO DO THIS RESPONSIBLY.

IF YOU START DROPPING IT 1%, 2%, AND I'M SAYING THAT 1% FROM 5 TO 4 OR 4 TO 3, 3 TO 2 YEARLY THEN YOU WILL BE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING ABOUT A BILLION AND A QUARTER EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO START TALKING ABOUT WAIT A MINUTE, DO WE HAVE TO START CUTTING BACK ON STATE POLICE?

DO WE START HAVING TO CUT BACK ON PER DIEMS FOR THE JAILS?

DO WE START CUTTING BACK ON DOLLARS THAT DRAWDOWN FEDERAL DOLLARS TO WHERE HOSPITALS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO GET REIMBURSED FOR MEDICAID HAVE TO START TAKING MAJOR CUTS?

THAT'S NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE.

BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO TAKE THIS IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, YOU WOULD TAKE A HALF OR $5 BILLION OUT OF THE SYSTEM MUCH OF WHICH HAS FEDERAL DRAWDOWN IMPACT.

AND SO WITH THAT, YOU BETTER START TALKING TO YOUR JAILERS YOUR MAGISTRATES YOUR JUDGES YOUR COURT SYSTEM, YOUR NURSES YOUR HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL PROVIDERS BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO CATASTROPHIC CUTS IF WE TRY TO TAKE TOO FAST OF AN APPROACH.

>> Renee: LEADER NEAL ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT CATASTROPHIC CUTS COULD BE ON THE HORIZON GOING THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN WITH THE TRIGGERS IN PLACE?

>> WELL, I THINK THE TRIGGERS AND THOSE WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF THE POLICY PROCESS CAN STOP IT AT 3.5 FOR INSTANCE.

AND LIVE WITH THAT OR THEY CAN GO BEYOND THAT AND WE MAY HAVE A SITUATION LIKE WE ARE ENJOYING RIGHT NOW A FLUSH OF MONEY, ECONOMIC GROWTH IS TAKING PLACE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO NECESSARILY IF HISTORY TELLS US ANYTHING SUSTAIN ITSELF THROUGHOUT EVERYTHING GOING FORWARD.

>> Renee: AND THE COVID MONEY IS DRYING UP.

>> THE COVID MONEY IS DRYING UP.

AND NOT ONLY IS THE COVID MONEY DRYING UP IF YOU JUST TAKE THIS TO THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IF YOU GO TO ZERO, IF, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THERE.

WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TAKEN ABOUT $2 BILLION AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO RECOVER THAT.

YES WE HAVE A FLUSH OF MONEY THAT IS THERE NOW BUT THE DYNAMICS THAT ENABLED THAT TO HAPPEN DO NOT MEAN THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE IN THE FUTURE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU THINK THROUGH THIS PIECE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THERE IF YOU GO TO ZERO THAT MEANS THAT THOSE MONIES AT LEAST THEORETICALLY AND MAYBE A REALITY WILL NOT BE THERE TO CONTINUE SERVICES AT THE LEVEL WE ARE DOING THEM NOW AND OR THERE ARE THOSE THAT ARE SAYING WE HAVE UNDERFUNDED SOME ASPECTS IN AREAS OF EDUCATION ET CETERA AND WHY ARE WE NOT INVESTING IN THESE THINGS AND THAT IS A DISCUSSION WE CAN GET INTO.

BUT THE FACT IS IF YOU GO TO ZERO, THOSE FUNDS ARE NO LONGER THERE.

YOU WILL EITHER HAVE TO USE WHAT YOU HAVE WHAT I CALL WE USED TO CALL A BUDGET RESERVE FUND BUT MY POINT IS IS THAT EITHER YOU ARE GOING TO CUT SERVICES DOWN OR YOU ARE GOING TO FIND ANOTHER SOURCE OF INCOME.

AND THAT SUGGESTS TO ME IN LOOKING AT HISTORY THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT REVENUES THAT COME FROM SALES TAX OR MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS.

YOU LOOK AT TENNESSEE THAT IS WHAT TENNESSEE DID TO A DEGREE FROM MY OBSERVATION AND WHAT DO THEY DO?

THEY COME OVER TO KENTUCKY TO GET A BETTER SHAKE ON SALES TAXES.

WE'RE GOING TO CUT SERVICES OR FIND ANOTHER SOURCE OF INCOME TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE THINGS AND MAINTAIN STATE SERVICES THAT WE NEED AND WE EXPECT.

>> Renee: HOUSE BILL ONE DOES NOT ADDRESS EXPANSION OF THE SALES TAX TO OTHER SERVICES.

>> IT DOES NOT.

>> LEADER STEVENSON YOU HAVE MADE SOME OF THE SAME ARGUMENTS AND IN THE REACTION TO THE STATE OF COMMONWEALTH AND ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AND MADE SIMILAR COMMENTS ABOUT CONTINUING REDUCTION OF THE INCOME TAX.

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO DO THE THINKING FOR THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY VOTED US IN.

AND IF WE LOOK AT THE PROGRAM, YES, RIGHT NOW AND IN THIS MOMENT GOING TO 3.5 ALLOWS THEM, ALLOWS KENTUCKIANS TO HAVE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATES WE COMPARE OURSELVES TO, TEXAS, TENNESSEE AND FLORIDA, THOSE THREE STATES HAVE ALTERNATE SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT JUST COME INTO THE STATE.

I'D LIKE TO SAY WE ARE NOT TEXAS.

WE DON'T HAVE OIL.

WE ARE NOT TENNESSEE WE DON'T HAVE COUNTRY MUSIC OR DOLLY AND WE ARE NOT FLORIDA AND WE DON'T HAVE MICKEY.

SO IF YOU GO DOWN TO ZERO AND TODAY WE CAN'T PAY FOR THE THINGS WE NEED TO PAY FOR, HOW WILL PEOPLE GET THE BASICS?

EDUCATION, FOOD, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS THAT THEY RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR.

AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY ABOUT THAT, IS TAXES SERVE THE COMMON GOOD.

NO ONE FAMILY CAN BUILD A ROAD.

NO ONE FAMILY CAN BUILD AN EDUCATION SYSTEM.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT.

AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO STAND UP AND SAY FOR THE COMMON GOOD WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE EDUCATION, ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE THINGS THAT WE NEED ARE TAKEN CARE OF.

AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE ABLE TO VOTE YES FOR THIS YEAR'S BILL.

BUT GOING DOWN TO ZERO, I DON'T SEE AN INFLUX OF REVENUE COMING IN.

HOW WILL WE PAY FOR THE THINGS WE CAN'T PAY FOR NOW AT 4.0 AT ZERO?

IF WE GET TO ZERO AND WE CAN'T PAY FOR THINGS WE'RE GOING TO START CUTTING.

>> Renee: YOU DID VOTE LAST WEEK FOR HOUSE BILL ONE?

>> YES.

>> Renee: SENATOR NEAL WILL YOU SUPPORT HOUSE BILL ONE?

>> WELL, WE'RE GOING TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT.

WE HAVEN'T HAD THE DISCUSSION YET.

BUT I HAVE MAINTAINED THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE AND AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS WE WILL BE MAKING DECISIONS.

I SUSPECT THAT WE WILL HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT WILL SUPPORT THAT AND SOME PEOPLE WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT AND THEY ARE FREE TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S SPECULATIVE AS 0 TO HOW THAT POLICY IS GOING TO UNFOLD BECAUSE WE CANNOT PREDICT ASPECTS OF THE FUTURE.

THAT'S AN ANALYSIS AND A DISCUSSION WE WILL HAVE.

>> Renee: A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ALONG THIS LINE.

FROM HOWARD FITZGERALD FROM LANCASTER REDUCING STATE INCOME TAX IS NOT GOOD FOR RETIREES WE HAVE TO PAY TAX ON SERVICES WE HAVE NOT BEFORE AND I HAVE NOT HAD TO PAY STATE INCOME TAX ON MY SOCIAL SECURITY BUT WITH VET SERVICES I HAVE HAD TO PAY.

END QUOTE.

>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME SO I WILL TAKE IT THIS IS DIRECTED.

WE EXEMPT THE FIRST $31,500 IN RETIREMENT FROM STATE INCOME TAXES.

RIGHT THERE IS A HUGE EXEMPTION ONE OF THE BIGGEST WE DO.

WE ARE VERY GOOD AS A STATE FOR BEING RECEPTIVE AND A GOOD PLACE FOR RETIREES TO RETIRE TO.

SECOND THING IS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE IS WE DO NOT TAX SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS IN THIS STATE.

SO IF YOU ARE MAKING $25,000 OR RECEIVING $25,000 IN SOCIAL SECURITY, AND 31,500 IN A PENSION, THAT'S 56,500 THAT IS NOT TAXED BY THE STATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BECAUSE WE DON'T WE EXEMPT THOSE IN THE TAX PLANS.

SO THERE IS SOMETHING THAT FROM A RETIREE THEY DON'T FOCUS ON THAT.

TO BE ABLE TO DO THOSE TYPES OF EXEMPTIONS, YES, YOU MAY HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR DOG TO GET GROOMED.

>> Renee: THIS QUESTION ABOUT HOUSE BILL ONE THAT HAD AN AMENDMENT 6 THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN VETERANS A STATE TAX EXEMPTION.

FURTHER COMMENT ON THAT MR. SPEAKER?

>> IT WAS NOT GERMAINE TO THE BILL BECAUSE IT HAD TO DO WITH TAX EXEMPTIONS.

BUT THAT BILL HAS BEEN FILED SEVERAL TIMES BY WALKER THOMAS WHO'S' GREAT CHAMPION FOR OUR VETERANS.

AND IT'S RECEIVED A LOT OF CONVERSATION QUITE FRANKLY.

AND THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR IT AND A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT SO FOR IT.

AND ULTIMATELY THE PREVAILING THOUGHT HAS BEEN WE'RE TRYING TO GET INCOME TAX TO ZERO FOR EVERYBODY.

BY CONTINUING TO LOOK FOR ONE OFF EXEMPTIONS IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO LOWER IT FOR ALL TAXPAYERS.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE GENTLEMAN TALKING ABOUT RETIREES IN ADDITION TO ROBERT'S COMMENTS, OUR SALES TAX IS NOT NEARLY AS BROAD AS IT IS IN INDIANA OR IN TENNESSEE.

AND WE'RE AT 6% VERSUS 7% IN INDIANA 9% IN TENNESSEE.

AND I THINK BY AND LARGE YOU SEE OUR STANDARD OF LIVING FOR RETIREES OR COST OF LIVE SOMETHING FAR LOWER THAN OUR SURROUNDING STATES.

>> Renee: DO YOU ENVISION MAYBE NEXT BUDGET SESSION EXPANDING THE SALES TAX TO OTHER SERVICES OR CREATIVE WAYS OF GENERATING?

>> THERE'S ALWAYS CONVERSATIONS.

AND WE TALK FREQUENTLY WITH THE MEMBERS OF OUR CAUCUS THAT DO WANT TO GET TO ZERO QUICKER.

THE ONES THAT WANT TO STOP WHERE WE ARE.

THAT THIS IS A BILL THAT WE'VE PASSED THREE YEARS AGO.

IT IS NOT A PERFECT DOCUMENT.

IT WILL NOT LIVE INTO PERPETUITY.

I'M SURE AT SOME POINT IN TIME THERE WILL BE SOME TWEAKS TO IT AND SOME CHANGES TO IT.

I CAN'T FORESEE WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE.

BUT CERTAINLY THERE WILL BE I'M CERTAIN THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGE BEFORE WE GET TO ZERO THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGE IN THE BILLION WHAT IT MIGHT BE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO PAM'S COMMENTS ABOUT IF WE GET TO ZERO WITHOUT A HUGE INFLUX OF NEW DOLLARS, THAT STATEMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE AN INFLUX OF NEW DOLLARS WE WILL NEVER MEET THE TRIGGERS TO GET TO ZERO WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO GROW THOSE REVENUES BECAUSE OUR EXPENSES CONTINUE TO GROW BEYOND OUR CONTROL IN MANY AREAS LIKE MEDICAID, PENSIONS CONTINUE TO SKYROCKET SO THOSE EXPENSE DRIVERS ARE PRETTY MUCH AS LONG AS WE DON'T DO WHAT PREVIOUS LEGISLATURES HAVE DONE AND IGNORE OUR PENSIONS WHICH IS WHAT GOT US INTO THIS SHAPE THOSE NUMBERS WILL CONTINUE TO ESCALATE FOR THE NEXT, GOSH, UNTIL 2041 THAT WE GET TO A LEVELING OUT OF OUR PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS.

SO WITHOUT GROWING OUR REVENUES, WITHOUT GROWING THE ECONOMY, WE WON'T GET TO ZERO.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THAT INCREASE IN REVENUES.

>> Renee: LEADER NEAL?

>> STEPPING OUTSIDE OF THE PENSION DISCUSSION, I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THE SPEAKER FOR HIS CANDOR HE CANNOT FORESEE THE FUTURE.

WE CANNOT FORESEE IT AND THERE IN LIES THE CONCERN AND WE AROUND THE TABLE AND IN THE LEGISLATURE ARE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WHAT THE FUTURE LEGISLATORS ARE FACED WITH AND THE FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO UNDERTAKE THEN ARE GOING TO DICTATE WHAT THEY DO.

SO WHEN WE MAKE STRUCTURAL CHANGES LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAVE $2 BILLION IF YOU JUST LOOK WHERE WE CAME FROM, THAT $2 BILLION IS GONE IN THAT PROCESS.

AND AS WE CONTINUE DOWN THAT ROAD MORE IS GONE.

SO THE CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

LET'S SAY THE ECONOMY DOESN'T PROJECT WHAT OTHERS ARE HOPEFUL THAT WILL PROJECT.

THESE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY EXPECT TO TAKE PLACE EVEN IF WE STOPPED AT 3.5 WHICH WE'VE LOST $2 BILLION AND WE'LL LOSE MORE IS GOING TO LOOK FOR POLICY CHANGES TO TAKE CARE OF DEFICITS WE HAVE GOING FORWARD.

I'M TALKING GENERALLY.

I CAN'T FORESEE THE FUTURE EITHER.

THAT IS LIES THE CONCERN.

I HAVE TO PUT IT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF CONCERN BECAUSE EXACTLY WHAT THE SPEAKER SAID.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT.

BUT IF I PROJECT MY THINKING THROUGH THAT AND LOOK AT HISTORY IN TERMS OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IF I LOOK AT OTHER STATES AND I TRY TO JUDGE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE ON THE BASIS OF THEM, I THINK WE ARE RUNNING INTO SOME AREAS OF CONCERN THAT ARE WARRANTED.

>> IF THIS WERE A STATIC MODEL, I AGREE WITH SENATOR NEAL.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHERE A FLORIDA OR A TEXAS OR TENNESSEE WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS NOT STAGNANT POPULATION GROWTH.

YOU ARE SEEING THOSE STATES EXPANDING THE BASE.

THEREFORE MORE PEOPLE SPENDING MONEY, MORE PEOPLE GENERATING TAXES.

BUT THE INDIVIDUAL IS PAYING NO MORE TAXES.

I WILL GO BACK TO WHAT I THINK IS THE BEST EXAMPLE WHERE WE CHANGE THE TAX RATE LOWERED IT, AND CHANGED THE REGULATORY SYSTEM WE TOOK AN IMMEDIATE HIT OF $12 MILLION.

BUT NOW THAT INDUSTRY IS ONE OF OUR BIGGEST, BEST AND BRIGHTEST.

AND WE DO HAVE BOURBON AND THE BOURBON TRAIL WHICH IS NOW BASED ON ECONOMISTS, ECONOMISTS CALCULATIONS GENERATING OVER $150 MILLION FROM WHERE WE WERE BEFORE WE CUT THE TAXES.

>> Renee: TO GET TO YOUR POINT AND I THINK REPRESENTATIVE AL GENTRY MADE THIS POINT LAST WEEK BEFORE THE FLOOR VOTE HOW DO WE KNOW THIS IS WORKING AND HOW DO WE KNOW THIS TAX POLICY IS BRINGING IN MORE PEOPLE, EXPANDING THE POPULATION, THEREFORE YOU HAVE MORE TAXPAYERS ETD SET RA.

DO WE HAVE EMPIRICAL INFORMATION THAT THIS IS A RESULT OF IT?

>> I DO THINK WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASE IN THE WORKFORCE.

WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASE IN WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION.

>> Renee: EVEN THOUGH WE ARE STILL NEAR THE BOTTOM.

>> EVEN THOUGH WE ARE STILL NEAR THE BOTTOM.

AND I THINK THOSE NUMBERS ARE COMPELLING.

WE KNOW THERE IS AN INCREASE IN NET INFLOWS OF VENTURE CAPITAL INTO KENTUCKY.

AND ONE OF THE HIGHEST OUTSIDE INVESTMENTS IN KENTUCKY OF ANY STATE IN THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS PER CAPITA.

I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A POINT TO POINT CONNECTION OF THOSE DOTS.

BUT THE EVIDENCE IS PRETTY COMPELLING.

>> Renee: ALL RIGHT.

ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON HOUSE BILL ONE?

AND WE HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS COMING IN ABOUT THAT.

I THINK WE COVERED MOST OF THAT TERRITORY.

THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT COLA.

SO THIS FROM DENISE BRIAN WHAT ARE THE CHANCES HAD BEEN 146 TO RESTORE THE EXCLUSION TO 41,110, GETS A HEARING AND A VOTE?

STATE RETIREES HAVE NOT RECEIVED A COLA IN MANY YEARS AND RESTORING THE EXCLUSION WOULD BE HELPFUL?

>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH HOUSE BILL 146.

>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFIC BILL.

I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE TOPIC.

WHEN WE DID OUR TAX CUT IN 2018 WE REDUCED THE RETIREE EXCLUSION FROM 41 TO 319.

I THINK IT IS UNLIKELY THAT WILL PASS AGAIN.

FOR THE SAME REASON AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IT IS OUR HOPE TO CONTINUE TO REDUCE INCOME TAXES ON ALL KENTUCKIANS.

AND NOT SPECIFIC GROUPS.

>> Renee: LAST ONE ON THIS DREW FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY, WILL PEOPLE WHO GET STATE RETIREMENT SEE A 13TH PAYMENT COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT OR WAIT UNTIL 2026 WHEN A NEW BUDGET IS ESTABLISHED?

>> IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION WHERE SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT ONE OFFS YOU BUDGET IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE.

YOU DON'T DO A LOT OF ONE OFFS DURING A SHORT SESSION.

AND THAT'S THE WAY CONSTITUTIONALLY IT WAS SETUP.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE SUPER MAJORITIES TO BE ABLE TO OPEN UP A BUDGET FOR EITHER APPROPRIATION OR TAXATION THIS YEAR.

SO THE WRATHS AL BEING BUDGET OR TAX IN THE CONCEPT TAX POLICY BE SET IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE.

AND RENEE, I WANT TO DIGRESS A MINUTE.

WHERE YOU HAVE $50,000 OF TAXABLE INCOME YOU WILL PAY $1750.

ON THAT INCOME.

WHEN IT'S EXEMPT WHICH FOR RETIREES THAT IS THEY ARE NOT PAYING $1750.

WHERE EIGHT YEARS AGO ANYTHING ABOVE THE $50,000 WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED IT WAS HIGHER THAN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED AT 6% NOW 3.5.

SO THEY ARE GETTING A BROAD-BASED EXEMPTION FOR ANYTHING OVER THOSE EXEMPTED REVENUES THEY HAVE COMING INTO THEIR HOUSEHOLD THEY WILL BE PAYING A LESSER RATE.

THEY ARE BENEFITING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION.

>> Renee: WE WILL MAKE A TOUGH PIVOT FROM THAT CONVERSATION TO TALK ABOUT MR. SPEAKER YOU MENTIONED THIS IS THE SESSION AND A 30-DAY SESSION WHERE YOU TWEAK EXISTING LAWS.

CONSIDERING A REPORT THAT HAPPENED A FEW WEEKS BACK, THE LOUISVILLE POLICE CHIEF PAUL HUMPHREY HAS SAID AND APOLOGIZING THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE IN CITING A HOMELESS WOMAN IN LABOR CAMPING OUTSIDE AND KENTUCKY PUBLIC RADIO RELEASED SOME FOOTAGE THAT SHOWED HER IN THIS SITUATION.

WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE AUTHORITIES ARE RESPONDING TO HOUSE BILL 5 WHICH WAS THE SWEEPING SAFER KENTUCKY ACT THAT TALKED ABOUT UNLAWFUL CAMPING.

GIVEN THAT INSTANCE DO YOU THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE TWEAKING TO HOUSE BILL 5 TO ADDRESS CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL VERY UNFORTUNATE.

I DIDN'T SEE THE TV REPORTS OF IT.

BUT I THINK AS THE CHIEF ADMITTED THAT WAS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE LAW ITSELF IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE LAW WAS ENFORCED.

AND THERE'S -- AGAIN THERE'S ALWAYS TWEAKS TO EVERY PIECE OF MAJOR POLICY.

I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED ON HOUSE BILL 5.

BY AND LARGE MOST OF THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN HAS BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE.

BUT, AGAIN, WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE THINGS.

TAKE THAT FEEDBACK AND MAKE CHANGES WHEN APPROPRIATE.

>> Renee: LEADER STEVENSON THIS IS IN YOUR COUNTY YOUR RESPONSE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS INSTANCE?

>> IT IS A PROBLEM WITH THE LAW.

BECAUSE WHEN WE PASSED THAT LAW WE DIDN'T SAY ARREST HOMELESS PEOPLE AND THEN PROVIDE SERVICES.

WE JUST SAID ARREST THEM.

AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

WE HAVE THE MONEY IN THE RAINY DAY FUND, IN THE REVENUE TO DO THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE SO PEOPLE AREN'T SLEEPING WITH SNOW AS A BLANKET AND WE DIDN'T DO IT.

WE SAID ARREST THEM.

ANYTIME YOU HAVE A LAW THAT JUST SAYS ARREST THEM, YOU ARE AT THE -- YOU'RE SUBJECT TO HOWEVER THAT POLICE OFFICER DECIDES TO DO IT.

BUT IF WE HAD WRITTEN IN THE LAW YOU CAN'T DETAIN THEM AND TAKE THEM HERE AND PROVIDE THESE SERVICES AND FIND OUT WHY THEY ARE ON THE STREET TO GET RID OF THE PROBLEM FINALLY.

THAT IS A DIFFERENT LAW.

WE DIDN'T DO THAT.

WE JUST GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST.

>> CAN I DISAGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON.

>> YOU CAN'T DO THAT I'M THE ONLY GIRL.

>> WE DID APPROPRIATEIATE 22.5 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WAS CALLED A COMMUNITY CARE CAMPUS WHICH WAS LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SPECIFIC.

PERIOD.

THAT IS TO HAVE HOUSING, THAT IS TO HAVE SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT, THAT IS TO DEAL WITH MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT OR A DUEL DIAGNOSIS.

NOW IT TAKES TIME TO IMPLEMENT THAT.

AND I KNOW THE MAYOR IS WORKING HARD ON IT.

I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ABOUT IT.

WE WANT TO SEE HOW THAT WORKS, BECAUSE WE MAY WANT TO EMULATE THAT IN OTHER PLACES.

BUT THERE IS A RESPONSE TO THAT HOMELESS PERSON THAT IS COMING IN JEFFERSON COUNTY.

IT JUST TAKES TIME TO BUILD THAT OUT AND PUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.

>> Renee: DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT LEADER NEAL?

>> NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT PRESIDENT STIVERS IS SAYING THERE.

AND AGAIN I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WILL UNFOLD.

BUT I THINK THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE'S ADEQUATE HOUSING OR NOT GENERALLY, IS A PROBLEM.

IT'S NOT JUST THE PERSON YOU MEET ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY HAVE.

THE QUESTIONS OF WHAT ARE THE DYNAMICS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND ADMITTED AND I AGREE, THAT IT TAKES TIME TO DEAL WITH THE HOUSING QUESTION OF ITSELF.

WE GO AND CRIMINALIZE THE PROCESS OR SOME PEOPLE WILL ARGUE THAT FOR THE THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE MOST WEAKEST POSITIONS YOU CAN GET INTO.

WE DO NOT CORRELATE WITH THE HOUSING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT BUT WE HAVE A POLICY WHERE WE WILL GO IN AND EXTRACT THEM IN A CRIMINALIZE THEM BASICALLY.

BUT THE OTHER POINT IS HAVING THE SERVICES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY LEADER STEVENSON AND THAT IS DO IF YOU GOT TO TIE THE SERVICES TO THE HOUSING WHAT KINDS OF HOUSING.

WE HAVE AN OVERALL PROBLEM IN HOUSING RIGHT NOW.

A HUGE PROBLEM IN HOUSING RIGHT NOW.

AND I JUST THINK TO BE AGGRESSIVE ON THIS FRONT AND NOT DO THIS PROPERLY AND HUMANELY SOME WILL ARGUE AND WE'LL HAVE MORE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS PERHAPS, I SUSPECT WE WILL, THEN WE MAY HAVE ASKED OURSELVES WE'VE BEEN DISMISSIVE OF WHAT THE CONCERNS AND WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN OUR OBLIGATION TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO FIND THEMSELVES IN A WEAKER POSITION.

THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT I CAN MAKE.

SOMEONE ELSE CAN MAKE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT I CAN'T TELL YOU.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN TERMS OF THAT ENFORCEMENT ISSUE IS INDICATION OF THE INCON GREW ENSY THAT TAKES PLACE WITH THE LACK OF HOUSING AND TRAINING FOR POLICE AND WE HAVE LESS POLICE THAN WE NEED.

WE LOST PARTS OF THE TOP PART OF THE FORCE ALL THOSE THINGS ARE IMPACTING THIS.

IT'S NOT JUST HOUSING OR JUST THE SERVICES, IT'S ALSO THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT DEAL WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SAFETY AND SECURITY AND HOW WE MANAGE OUR SPACE IN THIS CITY AND ACROSS KENTUCKY.

SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I'M FRUSTRATED BY IT WHEN I LOOK AT IT BECAUSE I KNOW IT IS A HEAVY LIFT IT IS A HEAVY LIFT AND THE PEOPLE THAT GET CRUNCHED ARE GOING TO BE THOSE PEOPLE IN THE WEAKEST POSITION IN OUR SOCIETY AND OUT ON OUR STREETS.

>> Renee: ANY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS HOW TO DEAL WITH HOUSING AND WOULD THAT COME FORTH IN THE 26 DAYS OF THIS SESSION?

>> PUT MORE MONEY IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS BE REDUCING THE TAX RATE FROM 4 TO 3.5%.

IT WOULD HELP THEM MAKE A BETTER MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE WHAT IS PROBABLY MORE DESCRIBED AS A MIDDLE INCOME SQUEEZE.

THAT'S A REALLY TOUGH AREA WHEN NURSING HOME'S THE MIDDLE INCOME AREA AND YOU EITHER HAVE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ON ONE AREA WHICH WE UNDERSTAND AND WE APPROPRIATED IN THREE INSTANCES ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT DID NOT COME OUT OF THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET.

WE DID THE TRANSFER PROJECT AND WE PUT $10 MILLION MORE IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.

SO YOU HAVE THAT BUT IT TAKES TIME TO GET THOSE HOUSES ON THE GROUND.

YOU CAN'T BUILD IT OVERNIGHT.

BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT HOUSING IS AN ISSUE.

A LOT OF IT SOMETIMES CAN BE LAND USE POLICY.

OTHER THINGS CAN BE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS OUT THERE IT TAKES TIME TO WORK THROUGH IT.

BUT I COULD GIVE YOU A BILLION DOLLARS TODAY A BILLION, YOU CAN'T GET ALL THE HOUSES BUILT AT ONE TIME SO IT'S BEST TO PHASE IT IN BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO IT.

AND WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT.

AND I'VE GIVEN YOU THREE EXAMPLES HOW WE DID IN THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE.

>> Renee: LET'S -- GO AHEAD.

>> BUT THEN IT GETS BACK TO THIS QUESTION OF WHAT DO WE DO IN THE MEANTIME TO GET TO THAT POINT WHERE EVERYTHING IS PERFECT?

SO WE PUT A POLICY INTO PLACE THAT ACTUALLY IS AIMED AT THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THAT TENDS TO CRIMINALIZE OR PUT THEM IN AWKWARD CIRCUMSTANCES AND SOME WOULD ARGUE AND THEY HAVE ARGUED TO ME IN MY DISTRICT AND OUTSIDE OF IT AS OPPOSED TO UPLIFTING AND ACCOMMODATING THEM APPROPRIATELY.

DIGNITY GOES ALONG WITH THIS PROCESS HOW YOU HANDLE HUMAN BEINGS ALL LEVELS WHETHER THEY ARE HIGH OR ECONOMICALLY LOW MATTERS.

THAT'S WHAT WE ALL ARE ALL ABOUT.

AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUES ARE ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

THE QUESTION IS WE DISAGREE HOW THIS IS DONE AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE TO SET POLICY FOR.

>> Renee: BEFORE I GET TO EDUCATION WE'VE HAD SEVERAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT ABORTION AND ABORTION EXCEPTIONS THIS IS A BIPARTISAN EFFORT.

WE HAVE REPUBLICAN KEN FLEMING WHO FILED AN EXCEPTIONS BILL TO KENTUCKY'S ABORTION BAN AND SENATOR YATES HAS DONE THAT ON THE UPPER CHAMBER.

BECAUSE OF THE TRIGGER LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT AFTER THE DOBBS DECISION WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT BILL WILL BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED AND VOTED ON ON THE FLOOR IN THE HOUSE?

>> IT CONTINUES TO BE A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION ACTIVE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AMONGST OUR CAUCUS AND PROBABLY IN THE SENATE CAUCUS AS WELL.

I THINK THAT AS LONG AS THERE IS A PENDING LAWSUIT, IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE VERY DIFFICULT UNTIL THAT LAWSUIT PLAYS ITS WAY OUT TO REPLACE A LAW THAT IS BEING LITIGATED IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.

>> Renee: LEADER STEVENSON YOUR RESPONSE.

WE KNOW MEMBERS OF CAUCUS HAVE ALSO FILED MEASURES, PERHAPS THERE'S OTHERS WHO FILED SIMILARLY?

>> HERE IS THE REALLY BIG ISSUE IS THAT WOMEN ARE DYING BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING SO SLOWLY.

AND IT WAS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T -- WOMEN WHO CAN'T GET TREATMENT FOR PREGNANCIES THAT END UP EITHER GOING OUT OF STATE OR END UP IN A BAD POSITION BECAUSE OF THE LAWS WE'VE MADE.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE CAN DO WE SHOULD DO TO MAKE THIS RIGHT.

AND WE JUST HAVE TO BE BRAVE ENOUGH TO DO IT.

>> Renee: I SHOULD SAY THAT FOR REPRESENTATIVE FLEMING'S BILL IT ADDS EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE, INCEST, LETHAL ANOMALIES AND ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES.

FURTHER COMMENT FROM LEADER NEAL?

>> I APPLAUD SENATOR YATES FOR GOING DOWN THIS ROAD RAISING THIS QUESTION.

OBVIOUSLY THE MANY PEOPLE IN KENTUCKY THINK THAT A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OF HER BODY AND SHOULD MAKE THOSE KINDS OF DECISIONS IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE IN CONTENTION IN KENTUCKY GOING FORWARD LIKE IT IS IN OTHER STATES.

AND I THINK THAT HOW THAT PLAYS OUT WE'LL SEE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ELEMENTS ARE THAT WE CAN GET TO TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS GOING TO PLAY OUT.

>> Renee: WHAT'S THE TEMPERATURE IN YOUR CAUCUS PRESIDENT STIVERS ABOUT EXCEPTIONS TO KENTUCKY'S ABORTION BAN.

>> FIRST LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE LAW THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS AN EXCEPTION.

THAT'S IN THE LAW.

SO ECTOPIC PREGNANCY AND I HAVE HAD THAT EXPERIENCE WITH ONE OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS.

THAT IS ONE THAT CANNOT BE GO TO FULL TERM WITHOUT TOTAL RISK OF THE MOTHER.

AND SO THAT IS AN EXCEPTION ANYBODY THAT SAYS OTHERWISE CANNOT READ THE BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW.

SECONDLY, ANYBODY WHO COMMITS AN ACT OF RAPE OR INCEST NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH HARSHLY AND SWIFTLY.

THEN IT GETS DOWN TO AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE ONE OF THE MOST EMOTIONAL ISSUES YOU WILL SEE AND TOUGHEST ISSUES IN THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE OF PERSONAL BELIEFS.

I WILL NOT CRITICIZE NOR CHASTISE ANYBODY FOR ANY BELIEF THEY HAVE.

BECAUSE IT IS A BELIEF ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF LIFE.

AND SO IF YOU HAVE JUST THE ONE EXCEPTION OR YOU HAVE THE OTHER TWO WHICH FOR A TOTAL OF THREE EXCEPTIONS I'M NOT GOING TO BE CRITICAL.

I HAVE MY PERSONAL BELIEFS AND OPINIONS.

BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND ANYBODY'S ARGUMENT THAT HAS EITHER ONE.

AND I SAY ARGUMENT NOT BEING VISIT OBVIOUSLYIC BUT BEING COLLEGIAL IN THE DISCUSSION I DO NOT CRITICIZE PEOPLE FOR HAVING THOSE POSITIONS.

>> Renee: FINAL TOPIC WITH FIVE MINUTES REMAINING.

WE ALL HAVE A SHOW ABOUT EDUCATION AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER IN FEBRUARY.

IN HIGHER-ED WHEN WE LEFT OFF THE LAST SESSION THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUTDAY.

POLICIES 2K5E6789 POLICIES IN HIGHER D.E.I.

POLICIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND WHAT IS THE HOUSE AND MAJORITY CAUCUS WE NEED TO PICK UP WHERE YOU LEFT OFF?

>> ONGOING CONVERSATIONS.

I DO THINK BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME HERE.

I DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MENTION THAT THESE TYPES OF ISSUES IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE DIVIDED THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION WE DIVIDED IT INTO HIGHER-ED COMMITTEE AND.

THEY HIT VASTLY DIFFERENT TOPICS AND BOTH DESERVE THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL TO GET THINGS RIGHT.

THERE'S ONGOING CONVERSATION ABOUT D.E.I.

THERE IS AN ACTIVE CONVERSATION BETWEEN HOUSE AND SENATE MEMBERS TO TRY TO ARRIVE AT COMMON LANGUAGE ON THAT.

AND I THINK IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT CLEARLY A LOT OF THE UNIVERSITIES HAVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS ON THEIR OWN.

THEY HAVE VERY WILLINGLY MADE SOME CHANGES.

I KNOW THAT I HAD A MEETING THIS SUMMER WITH PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY AND HE WAS SURPRISED INTO THE POLICIES THEY HAD IN PLACE AND THERE WERE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS THAT THEY WERE UNDERTAKING THEMSELVES.

WHAT THAT ULTIMATELY LOOKS LIKE IN THE FORM OF LEGISLATION, I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE SOME.

MY SUSPICION IS WILL LARGELY CODIFY THE THINGS THAT THE UNIVERSITIES HAVE SAID THE CHANGES THEY ARE MAKING ON THEIR OWN.

BUT AS FAR AS THE EXACT DETAILS IT'S PREMATURE.

>> Renee: LEADER NEAL YOUR RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU THINK COULD BE COMING AND WHAT YOUR FEAR PERHAPS COULD BE?

>> I'M SURE THOSE THAT WILL COME FULL SQUARE ON THE ISSUE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO WHETHER IT SUCCEEDS OR NOT, THE CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG.

I THINK YOU CAN'T SUPPRESS THIS AREA.

ALTHOUGH YOU MAY DO IT INSTITUTIONALLY.

WHAT DISTURBS ME ABOUT THIS FRANKLY IS THAT IF YOU'VE GONE LISTENED TO THOSE WHO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE DEAL AUTOS WITH THIS SUBJECT MATTER THAT YOU WILL FIND THAT THE UNIVERSITIES BASICALLY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT IS OBJECTIONABLE THAT I'VE SEEN A REACTION TO OTHER THAN SOME OF THE POINTS THAT SPEAKER HAS INDICATED AS IT RELATES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY WHICH UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY STEPPED AWAY FROM.

I'M QUESTIONING WHY ARE WE GOING IN THIS DIRECTION RIGHT NOW?

AND I'M WAITING TO SEE WHAT THIS IS.

I LOOK AT IT IN A LARGER HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

I LOOK AT IT AS REACTION AN ATTEMPT TO DO CENSORSHIP WHERE IT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

I LOOK AT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE TRYING TO BRING ABOUT THIS POLICY CHANGE ON PICKING ON CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY THINK THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT BE OPPOSED TO.

MAYBE I'M OPPOSED TO SOMETHING IN THERE AND EXTRAPOLATING ALL AROUND ALL THE UNIVERSITIES AND CALLING THIS THING AND DEFINING IT IN THOSE TERMS SO THAT THEY CAN CREATE A WHOLE PIECE OF REACTION THAT IS UNWARRANTED.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BRING.

I SUSPECT THEY WILL COME I'M SURE THEY WILL.

AND I HOPE WE USE COMMON SENSE WHEN WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD.

BECAUSE I THINK IF WE DON'T, I THINK WE MAYBE REPEATING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HISTORY HAS TAUGHT US SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

>> Renee: QUICKLY PRESIDENT STIVERS NOW LEADER MAX WISE SPONSORED A MEASURE LAST YEAR THAT DEALT WITH THIS IS HE GOING TO CARRY THE WATER THIS TIME AROUND?

>> I DON'T SAY THAT IN A JOVIAL WAY LAUGH, MAX HAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ROLE THIS YEAR.

HIS TIME CONSTRAINTS WILL BE LIMITED.

I DOUBT HE WILL IF THERE IS SUCH A BILL.

BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HERE IS YOU BASE DECISIONS ON QUALIFICATIONS.

AND IF INDIVIDUALS DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO GET TO THE POINT OF BETTER EDUCATIONAL OR ECONOMIC TRAJECTORIES THEN WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS -- >> Renee: QUICKLY SIR.

>> WE DID THIS AND WENT INTO THE WEST END OPPORTUNITY PARTNERSHIP TO CHANGE ECONOMIC AND EDUCATIONAL TRAJECTORIES WITH LETTING THE INDIVIDUALS OF LOUISVILLE DETERMINE HOW THEY DO THAT.

>> MORE ON THAT TO COME.

>> THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM WE ARE ADDRESSING HERE.

>> Renee: MORE TO COME.

WE THANK YOU FOR WATCHING TONIGHT.

WE'LL HAVE MORE IN A COUPLE WEEKS.

WE ARE OFF NEXT MONDAY NIGHT IN OBSERVANCE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY AND SPECIAL PBS PROGRAMMING AND "KENTUCKY TONIGHT" WILL RETURN THE WEEK AFTER AND TALK WITH ANOTHER SET OF LEADERS ABOUT WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING IN THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT FOR KENTUCKY EDITION AT 6:30.

UNTIL THEN TAKE GOOD CARE.