[♪♪] >> Renee: GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT".

WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING U'SELLIS AS WE RECAP THE WORK IN THE REGULAR SESSION.

I'M RENEE SHAW.

LEGISLATORS ARE ON A 10-DAYBREAK TO LET THE GOVERNOR TO REVIEW WHAT THEY PASSED.

THE GOVERNOR HAS QUITE THE INBOX WITH 100 PIECES OF LEGISLATION TO SIGN, VETOED OR LET GO INTO LAW WITHOUT HIS SIGNATURE.

BEFORE MIDNIGHT LAST FRIDAY NIGHT, THERE WAS A DASH TO BEAT THE CLOCK TO MAKE VETO PROOF MEASURES ON MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY, AND DENIAL OF PUBLIC DOLLARS TO TRANSGENDER INMATES.

EXEMPT CERTAIN MEDICAL EMERGENCIES FROM KENTUCKY'S NEAR TOTAL ABORTION BAN AND PROVIDE RELIEF TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS SEEKING REPRIEVE ON MISSED SCHOOL DAYS DUE TO WINTER WEATHER AND FLOODING AND REDEFINING KENTUCKY'S WATERWAYS TO ALIGN WITH FEDERAL STANDARDS TO NAME A FEW.

TONIGHT WE WILL REVIEW WHAT WAS PASSED AND WHAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY COULD ACT ON WHEN THEY GRAVEL BACK IN AT THE END OF NEXT WEEK.

JOINING ME CONDITION ARE STATE REPRESENTATIVE KIMBERLY POORE MOSER A REPUBLICAN FROM TAYLOR MILL AND CHAIR OF THE HOUSE SERVICES COMMITTEE.

LINDSEY BURKE A DEMOCRAT FROM LEXINGTON AND HOUSE MINORITY WHIP.

STATE SENATOR PHILLIP WHEELER CHAIR OF THE SENATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM COMMITTEE.

AND ROBIN WEBB A DEMOCRAT FROM GREYSON.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SEND YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY X FORMALLY TWITTER AT PUB APAIRS KET.

SEND AN E-MAIL TO KET.ORG OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/KY TONIGHT OR CALL 1-800-494-7605.

WELCOME TO OUR GUESTS.

I HOPE YOU'VE HAD A GOOD WEEKEND.

YOU'VE EARNED IT.

WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE EASY THINGS AND WORK OUR WAY UP.

HOW ABOUT THAT?

AND WE'LL GAY WAY UP PRETTY QUICK.

SENATE BILL 1 THIS IS PROBABLY A FAN FAVORITE OF A LOT OF PEOPLE.

THIS ESTABLISHES THE KENTUCKY FILM OFFICE.

TELL US WHY THAT BILL IS NEEDED AND WHY IT WAS THE SENATE REPUBLICAN'S NUMBER ONE PRIORITY?

>> WELL, I THINK, RENEE WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR THIS TIME IS SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE A POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT IN KENTUCKY THAT OUR COMMONWEALTH COULD RALLY AROUND.

WHAT SENATE BILL 1 DOES IT CREATES THE KENTUCKY FILM OFFICE WHICH WHOSE PRIMARY JOB IS GOING TO BE TO ADVERTISE KENTUCKY TO THE WORLD AND SHOW THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND BEYOND WHAT TYPE OF BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPES OUR COMMONWEALTH HAS AND SOME OF THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE OFFER AS A STATE FOR PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO PRODUCTION IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.

WE'VE HAD SOME FILM TAX CREDITS OUT THERE FOR A WHILE NOW.

HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY UTILIZED.

I THINK ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WHEN WE FOCUSED AND LOOKED AT THIS BILL, WAS THAT KENTUCKY JUST DOESN'T DO A GOOD JOB AT SELLING ITSELF.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER STATES THAT HAVE HAD SUCCESS THEY HAVE A WEBSITE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHOSE FULL-TIME JOB IS TO SHOW WHAT OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE STATE HAS TO OFFER.

WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE THAT IN KENTUCKY.

AND NO OFFENSE TO THE CABINET FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUT THIS WASN'T THEIR THING.

WE WERE LOOKING AT A WAY TO WORK WITH THEM TO TAKE THIS TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

EXAMPLE I USE, IN ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS OR PERHAPS INFAMOUS STORIES WATT THE HATFIELDS AND THE McCOYS.

THEY DID ASERIES THAT WAS FILMED IN ROMANIA.

AND NOTHING AGAINST THE ROMANNIANS BUT THAT IS KENTUCKY HISTORY AND SPECIFICALLY EASTERN KENTUCKY HISTORY.

AND I THINK WITH THE RIGHT TYPE OF ADVERTISEMENT AND THE RIGHT TYPE OF INCENTIVES THOSE PRODUCTIONS COULD BE BROUGHT HERE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.

>> Renee: WHERE WOULD THE EXECUTIVE FILM OFFICE WHERE WOULD THEY BE HOUSED AND HOW MUCH IS THE SALARY AND HOW MUCH WOULD THIS EXPANSION OF HELPING TO ELEVATE THE FILM INDUSTRY IN KENTUCKY COST THE GENERAL FUND?

>> WELL, WHERE HE WILL BE HOUSED.

CLEARLY THAT IS PART THERE WOULD BE A COUNCIL THAT WOULD HIRE THIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

RIGHT NOW THEY ARE HOUSED IN THE THEY HAVE AN OFFICE IN THE KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET BUILDING.

WHERE THAT WILL BE IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE CABINET FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ON.

THERE IS A SALARY CAP OF NO MORE THAN $225,000 PER YEAR.

THE FILM OFFICE IS GOING TO BE FUNDED FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS WITH $500,000 THROUGH THE KENTUCKY TRANSIT TAX.

THAT IS TAKEN IN BY THE DON'T OF TOURISM.

WE WORKED WITH THE CABINET OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE TOURISM UFS THEY ARE BEHIND THIS INITIATIVE.

THERE ARE $75 MILLION IN THE FILM TAX CREDITS ALLOTTED HOWEVER NOT ALL HAVE BEEN UTILIZED.

AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS BECAUSE THE TAX CREDITS ARE AWARDED THE PRODUCTION COMPANY DOESN'T NECESSARILY GET THEM UNLESS THEY START FILMING WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

THERE IS AN APPLICATION PROCESS, THE COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT KENTUCKIANS WILL GET A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT.

>> Renee: ANYBODY DISAGREE WITH THIS?

>> I SUPPORT TO DO FOR YEARS SINCE I WAS IN THE HOUSE AND WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE FILM TAX CREDITS THEN.

I'M GLAD THEY HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO -- BACK IN THE DAY THE CONVERSATION WAS MORE LIKE THESE FOLKS DON'T NEED TAX BREAKS AND LET'S NOT FUND HOLLYWOOD.

WITH THE HISTORY THAT WE ARE IN KENTUCKY, I WAS ON THE SET OF NEXT OF KIN IN HAZARD, AND THEY ARE MY FORMER CONSTITUENTS.

WE DO HAVE A RICH HISTORY AND OPPORTUNITY HERE.

AND I'VE SUPPORTED THAT MEASURE WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

>> I LOVE THE IDEA.

I'M EXCITED.

I, OF COURSE, LIVE IN NORTHERN KENTUCKY AND OHIO HAS LONG HAD A COORDINATED EFFORT BEHIND THEIR FILM INDUSTRY.

AND SO WE'VE HAD THINGS LIKE RAIN MAN FILMED IN NORTHERN KENTUCKY.

THE AVENGERS IN CINCINNATI.

WE'VE SEEN HOW OHIO HAS REALLY REAPED THE BENEFIT OF THIS.

AND I'M EXCITED ABOUT NORTHERN KENTUCKY HAVING THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES.

IT'S HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT THEY ARE SEEING IN THESE TAX REVENUES THAT COME IN.

AND JOB PRODUCTION IS A WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE AS WELL.

SO I'M VERY EXCITED.

>> Renee: AND EVEN GIVING SOME OF THE TALENT GOING TO AS BURY UNIVERSITY PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO SHINE AS WELL.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

YOU WAS GOING TO BRING UP ASBURY AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS, THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM THEY ARE ALL ANXIOUS TO TRY TO DEVELOP THESE PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE THE WORKERS FOR THESE PRODUCTIONS IF THEY HAPPEN IN KENTUCKY.

I THINK THIS WAS A UNIFYING BILL THAT HAS GREAT ECONOMIC POTENTIAL THAT I THINK PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

I KNOW IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY IN THE SENATE AND I BELIEVE OUT OF THE HOUSE AS WELL.

>> Renee: ARE YOU BEHIND THIS?

>> I'M HAPPY TO SEE WE ARE LOOKING AT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES SO WE CAN GROW OUR TAX BASE AND PASS ALONG THE DOLLARS TO BRING IN LIKE EDUCATORS AND SCHOOL PERSONNEL.

>> Renee: SPEAKING OF TAXES HOUSE BILL 775 THAT BLOSSOMED INTO A LOT OF THINGS AND THAT HAPPENS THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONGTIME.

THIS IS NOW 107 PAGE BILL THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO HIT THE BUDGET TRIGGERS TO CUT THE INCOME TAX AND IT'S COMPLICATED.

IT WAS COMPLICATED BEFORE SENATOR WHEELER AND IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN I CAN DECIPHER BUT IT ALLOWS YOU TO GET THERE IN SMALLER INCREMENTS NOT THE .5% THAT HAS BEEN STANDARD HERETOFORE.

I WANT TO START SENATOR WEBB ABOUT WHY THIS IS A GOOD IDEA OR A BAD IDEA NIVMENTD THERE'S TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT AND IT CAME UP IN EACH CAUCUS.

BUT WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT NOW WITH THE SHORTER INCREMENT, I THINK, THERE IS A LOT OF MAYBE UNCERTAINTY.

I KNOW TO ME ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO FILL ANY BUDGET HOLES AND THAT A CONCERN.

AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE CLARITY ON THAT BEFORE THE FULL BUDGET CYCLE.

I THINK THIS MEASURE ALLOWS YOU TO BE CONSISTENT, NOT GO TOO FAR.

I LIKE THE SLOW PACE WHEN IT COMES TO THAT JUST THE SAME PROGRAMS AND DO THAT.

BUT, A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT IT TO HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY.

>> Renee: AND THAT IS WHAT THIS WOULD DO ACCELERATE THE POINT WHICH YOU CAN GET TO ZERO PERCENT?

>> THE INCREMENT HAVING A KNOWN INCREMENT WILL ALLOW YOU BUDGET CONTINUITY.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE HERE EVERY YEAR NOW.

AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS GOES.

BUT I THINK IT'S NOT A BAD APPROACH.

>> Renee: WE KNOW THAT CUTTING IT A HALF PERCENTAGE POINT WOULD COST THE GENERAL FUND $718 MILLION.

REPRESENTATIVE BURKE HOW DOES THIS STRIKE YOU?

WAS IT A WISE MOVE?

>> IT FELT TO ME IT CAME OUT OF LEFT FIELD BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN SO DEDICATED AND DISCIPLINED WITH THE PROCEDURE THAT THE MAJORITY HAD PUT INTO PLACE.

I REALLY RESPECTED THAT DISCIPLINE THAT WE WERE MEETING THE BENCHMARKS AND NOW THE GOALPOST HAS CHANGED.

SO I WILL BE CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT IN THE COMING FISCAL YEAR TO SEE WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO WITH THAT.

I HOPE THAT IT'S NOT A SIGNAL THAT WE'RE FORECASTING DIRE TIMINGS WHERE WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO BIG THINGS FOR KENTUCKY.

BUT PERHAPS IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO STILL MAKE PROGRESS WHILE HOLDING OUR BREATH AND SEEING WHAT HAPPENS.

>> Renee: ARE YOU CONCERNED THERE WILL BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDING NECESSARY GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES AND OPERATIONS AND AGENCIES BECAUSE OF THE TAX CUTS?

>> I WOULD SAY I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE SEEING FEDERAL FUNDS BE RESTRICTED AND PULLED BACK.

KENTUCKY'S PEOPLE DESERVE GREAT SERVICES AND THEY DESERVE A FULLY FUNDED GOVERNMENT AND WE HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW TO BLEFT ACHIEVE THAT OUTCOME.

>> Renee: THAT WAS A CONCERN WE HEARD A LOT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS COMING FROM WASHINGTON AND IS THIS TOO FAST, TOO SOON, TOO FAST, TOO MUCH?

>> I THINK IT REALLY WILL FORCE US TO HAVE FIND A BALANCING ACT BETWEEN HOW MUCH WE TAX OUR CITIZENS AND THOSE SERVICES THAT WE DO NEED TO PROVIDE.

I THINK WHAT'S GOING ON ON A FEDERAL LEVEL, IS ALSO HAPPENING ON A STATE LEVEL IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THOSE THINGS THAT WE FUND WHETHER IT'S MEDICAID OR MEDICARE, ON A FEDERAL LEVEL, AND IN MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FUNDING THINGS THAT WORK AND WE'RE BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.

CERTAINLY, ELIMINATING ANY SORT OF FRAUD OR WASTE.

JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO REALLY AUDIT WHAT WE ARE FUNDING NOW.

AND SO I THINK THIS WILL ALL PLAY INTO THIS.

AND IT'S REALLY KIND OF A BIG PICTURE LOOK AT HOW WE FUND WHAT WE NEED TO FUND IN THE STATE.

AND ALSO, HOW WE REALLY TRY TO ELIMINATE MORE OF THE DIRECT TAXATION.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS STILL HAS US LOOKING AT TRIGGERS AND MEETING REF THROUGH METRICS.

I HAVE OF I'M WITH YOU I WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS AND CAREFUL.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET OUR TAXES DOWN FOR OUR PEOPLE.

>> Renee: DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY IN SAYING THAT THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT A KENTUCKY VERSION OF DOGE WHICH I BELIEVE DID PASS.

THERE COULD BE SAVINGS THAT ARE FOUND THROUGH THE STATE AUDITOR'S PROCESS OF INVESTIGATING WHICH PEOPLE WOULD SAY WHEN SHE RAN FOR AUDITOR SHE WAS TO BE THE WATCHDOG AND PEOPLE ASSUMED SHE WAS LOOKING FOR GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCIES.

HOW DOES THAT BILL MAKE THAT PROCESS BETTER OR QUICKER THAN WHAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH DOING?

>> I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT.

SHE IS THE WATCHDOG AND ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT BEING THE WATCHDOG FOR KENTUCKY.

AND I THINK MAYBE IT WILL BRING SOME STRUCTURE TO WHAT SHE'S ALREADY DOING.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

BUT WE ALSO PASSED WE HAVE REFERRED TO IT AS MOAB, MEDICAID OVERSIGHT AND ADVISORY BOARD.

WE FINALLY GOT THAT PASSED WE WORKED ON THAT LAST YEAR.

AND, AGAIN, IT'S FINDING A WAY TO AUDIT OUR MEDICAID SYSTEM AND THIS IS A BUDGET WHICH HAS BALLOONED.

IT IS NEARLY $16 BILLION NOW IN KENTUCKY.

THAT I BELIEVE STARTED AT ABOUT $11 BILLION WHEN I CAME IN IN 2017.

SO THIS IS ON A REALLY KIND OF SPEEDY TRAJECTORY.

AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHY.

AND SO WE'RE ALL KIND OF WATCHING CAREFULLY WHAT HAPPENS ON A FEDERAL LEVEL.

BUT ON A STATE LEVEL, THERE ARE ALSO THINGS WE CAN DO.

AND IT'S REALLY LIKE I SAID, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A WAY TO REALLY AUDIT MEDICAID, MAKE SURE THAT WE AREN'T PAYING FOR DUPLICATIVE SERVICES OR ANYTHING THAT'S ANTIQUATED AND DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE.

AND WHAT ARE THOSE OUTCOMES WE ARE LOOKING AT?

WHAT ARE THE -- HOW ARE IS MEDICAID IMPROVING THE LIVES OF THOSE WE SERVE?

AND WE NEED A SAFETY NET.

I WOULD NEVER ADVOCATE THAT WE DO AWAY WITH ANY CERTAINLY NOT MEDICAID.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING AT ALL.

IT'S JUST MAKING SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR IS ACTUALLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE WE SERVE.

>> Renee: I WANT TO TALK ABOUT MEDICAID BECAUSE THERE WERE MEASURES AND GET OUR VIEWER QUESTIONS IN.

AND THIS IS A DIVERSION FROM OUR TOPIC.

THIS IS FROM ANTHONY FROM LEWIS COUNTY WHY WAS THERE NO DISCUSSION OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR KENTUCKY RETIREES?

THIS QUESTION CAME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SESSION AND HERE WE ARE WITH TWO DAYS LEFT AND WE'VE GOT IT AGAIN.

WAS THERE EVER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT OR INCREASE FOR KENTUCKY PUBLIC RETIREES?

>> THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS RELATING TO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR STATE EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES.

BUT WE WERE TOLD THIS IS NOT A BUDGET YEAR SO THIS IS NOT THE TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT ON.

AND IN SPITE OF OUR EFFORTS TO THE CONTRARY, PRETTY MUCH STOPPED WHERE IT STARTED.

>> HE IS A FRIEND OF MINE AND A CONSTITUENT, I'VE ALWAYS ADVOCATED FOR COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR STATE EMPLOYEES.

WE'VE REACHED A LULL IN THE ACTION SO TO SPEAK AND THE COST OF LIVING IS HIGH.

>> Renee: IT'S BEEN 14 YEARS OR SOMETHING?

>> OVER A DECADE.

AND CERTAINLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND IT'S NOT A BUDGET SESSION EVEN THOUGH WE DID DO THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES.

I HOPE THERE WILL BE A REVIVED CONVERSATION.

THERE IS A CONSTANT CONVERSATION.

BUT WE HOPE TO EXPAND ON THAT.

>> FROM THIS SIDE ANY CONVERSATION FROM THE REPUBLICANS THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE?

>> I AM NOT ON THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE I WILL DEFER TO ROBIN.

I SYMPATHIZE WITH OUR RETIREES IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN WE SAW INFLATION GO RAMPANT.

AND THE COST OF LIVING FOR ORDINARY PEOPLE JUST BECAME UNLIVABLE ESPECIALLY FOR FOLKS ON A FIXED INCOME.

I HAVE THOUSANDS OF THESE THAT LIVE IN MY DISTRICT.

I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE ARGUMENT.

HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE A HEALTHY BUDGET WITH A HEALY RESERVE TRUST FUND.

I THINK YOU'VE SEEN THAT UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP.

SO AND I THINK YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SEE THAT BALANCING ACT BETWEEN MAKING SURE THAT KENTUCKIANS HAVE THE SERVICES THEY WANT INCLUDING PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES AND AT THE SAME TIME MAKING SURE THAT THE TAXPAYER DOES HAVE A RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT THAT DOESN'T SPEND US INTO A HOLE LIKE THEY DID WITH THE PENSION CRISIS AND SOME OF THE SINS OF THE PAST THAT WE'RE DIGGING OUT OF.

>> I AM NOT ON A AND R EITHER.

SO I'M NOT ALWAYS ON THE GROUND LEVEL AT THOSE CONVERSATIONS.

BUT I DO KNOW WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR FIRE FIGHTERS AND FIRST-RESPONDERS ABOUT SOME OF THEIR PENSION ISSUES.

LARGELY I HEAR MOSTLY ABOUT HEALTHCARE AND THIS IS A BIG CONCERN FOR OUR FIRE FIGHTERS AND OUR FIRST-RESPONDERS.

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER THE BILL NUMBER BUT I BELIEVE WE PASSED LEGISLATION THIS SESSION, I THINK, TO ASSIST SOME OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WITH THEIR HEALTHCARE AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT.

I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY HAVE A, I THINK, A GENERALLY AN OPEN MIND.

>> AND SOME CALLED FOR GOING BACK TO THE DEFINED BENEFIT NOT THE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION SCHEME.

THIS QUESTION ALONG THE LINES OF STATE WORKERS, ANONYMOUS PERSON HERE WE WILL SAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THEIR INFORMATION BUT ANOTHER SESSION WITH NO ACTION ON SALARY COMPRESSION MEANWHILE NEW EMPLOYEES ARE STARTING AT THE SAME SALARY AT 20-YEAR PLUS EMPLOYEES.

AND A COMPLIMENT THANKING US FOR DOING WHAT WE DO.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

BUT THE QUESTION STANDS.

NO ACTION ON SALARY COMPRESSION THIS WAS A BIG ISSUE AND THERE WAS A STUDY COMMISSIONED BY THE PERSONNEL CABINET.

THERE WAS A LOT OF ADMONISH.

NOT DELIVERING WHAT THEY WERE COMMANDED TO DELIVER ON TIME.

IF THEY HAD DONE IT THERE'S NO ACTION BY STATE LAWMAKERS.

>> THAT IS A CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD MEETINGS ON.

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON.

AND IT'S JUST NOT EQUITABLE FOR OUR LONG TIME STATE EMPLOYEES.

THE DIFFERENCES ARE GREAT.

I MEAN WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THOSE ENTRY SALARIES TO ATTRACT AND COMPETE WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

AND TO BE COMPETITIVE BUT CERTAINLY IT IS NOT FAIR TO THE LONG TIME STATE EMPLOYEE TO HAVE A DISPARITY OF SALARY.

THOSE ARE GOING ON.

I DO -- OWE I ANTICIPATE THERE WILL BE REMEDIATION TO THAT PLIGHT.

>> Renee: IN THE 26TH SESSION.

>> I HOPE SO.

WE'RE GOING TO START LOSING EMPLOYEES.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING I HEAR FROM MY DISTRICT VERY OFTEN AND THOSE OF US NOT ON A AND R HAVE A PROCESS BY WHICH WE CAN BRING UP ISSUES TO THE APPROPRIATIONS ECONOMY AND THAT IS ONE I HEARD A LOT TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION AND I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE STUDY IN HAND, THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT BECAUSE IT IS UNFAIR.

ONE THING YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE NEWER EMPLOYEES, THEY ARE CLEARLY THEY ARE IN A DIFFERENT PENSION PLAN THAT IS NOT AS GENEROUS AS SOME OF THE OLDER ONES AND A LOT OF LOOKED AT AS DEFERRED SALARY IN THE PAST.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO COMPARE APPLES AND ORANGES IN THAT SENSE.

>> Renee: FURTHER COMMENT ON THAT?

>> IT'S SOMETHING WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS.

AND CERTAINLY STATE WORKERS.

AND I AGREE THAT THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON IN THE BUDGET YEAR.

>> Renee: ANOTHER QUESTION WHILE WE'RE TALKING YOUR QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE APPRECIATE THE VIEWERS BEING ENGAGED FROM JOHN TURNER FROM HARDY, KENTUCKY I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND THE LEGISLATURE FOR VOTING TO RETURN THE 10 COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT TO THE CAPITOL GROUNDS WHERE DO THE PANELISTS STAND ON THIS AND WHEN WILL THE MONUMENT BE RETURNED?

DO WE HAVE A DATE WHEN THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE RETURNED?

>> DOES THE PANEL THINK ABOUT THAT?

>> WELL, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE THE LEGISLATION, I THINK IT WAS A RESOLUTION THAT WE PASSED BE MORE EXPANSIVE TO CLEAR COUNTRY STATE THAT ANY MONUMENT WITH HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE EVEN IF THAT IS A RELIGIOUS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE IS WELCOME.

BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS TARGETED AT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF ART BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF ART'S SIGNIFICANCE.

SO I WOULDN'T SAY THAT I'M COMPLETELY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT IT.

BUT I AM OPEN TO IT PROVIDED THAT WE CONTINUE TO ACCEPT ART AND HISTORICAL PIECES FROM DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS TO ME THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

>> Renee: THAT WASN'T PART OF THE LEGISLATION THAT PASSED?

>> IT WAS NOT.

>> AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS.

AS YOU KNOW, HISTORICAL PIECE OF ART.

THAT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE CAPITOL GROUNDS.

I'M FULLY IN FAVOR OF IT.

I DO UNDERSTAND REPRESENTATIVE BURKE'S CONCERNS.

WE HAD A PRETTY HEALTHY DEBATE ABOUT THIS.

AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH OTHER MARKERS.

BUT, THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A GIFT TO KENTUCKY.

AND THERE WERE A LOT OF US WHO REALLY WANTED TO SEE IT BACK ON THE GROUND.

>> Renee: AND THIS WILL GO IN MONUMENT PARK.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> Renee: ANY OTHER COMMENT?

>> IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE.

I MEAN, I SUPPORTED IT.

MY FRIENDS FORMER REPRESENTATIVE RHYNERS SPEARHEADED THE EFFORT AND I SIGNED THE ORIGINAL PETITION.

I JUST THINK THE 10 COMMANDMENTS A LOTS OF OUR GOVERNMENT LAWS FORMER GOVERNMENT ARE BUILT ON THE TENETS OF THAT.

IT WOULD NOT BE OFFENSIVE IT IS A WELCOME ADDITION TO HAVE IT BACK AND THE EAGLES ARE HAPPY ABOUT THAT, TOO.

>> I AGREE.

IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF LEGAL THEORY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK IN THE CENTRAL MOTIF ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF KENTUCKY IS A STATUE OF MOSES HOLDING THE 10 COMMAND.

IT IS BELONGS ON THE CAPITOL WHERE IT WAS MEANT TO STAND AND PROBABLY NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

SO I THINK IT RECTIFIED A PASTOR RECORD.

>> Renee: MARK FROM BOON COUNTY ASKED, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE PANELISTS SPEAK ABOUT ELAME NATURING REAL ESTATE TAXES-FOR-DISABILITIED PEOPLE, THE ELDERLY, RETIRED AND DISABLED VETERANS.

IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN?

WAS THERE DISCUSSION?

>> THERE WERE SEVERAL PROPOSALS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE RELATING TO HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THOSE.

THERE ARE CHALLENGES IN DOING THAT.

PRIMARILY IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE.

AND SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WITHOUT TURNING INTO A BALLOT MEASURE.

THAT BEING SAID, THERE WERE AT LEAST THREE PROPOSALS THAT I KNOW ABOUT THAT MANAGED TO THREAD THE NEEDLE.

AND MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS WITHOUT GOING AS FAR AS NEEDING A BALLOT INITIATIVE.

I THINK WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS THAT LEGISLATORS ARE INTERESTED IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

SO THAT PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES.

AND MAINTAIN THAT INVESTMENT THAT THEY'VE MADE.

AND HAVE THAT SECURITY AND PEACE OF MIND AS THEY GROW OLDER AND WANT TO BE ABLE TO STAY AT HOME.

>> I THINK IT'S PART OF THE HOUSING CONVERSATION.

I TRULY DO WE'RE SPENDING TIME AND EFFORT ON THAT EVERYWHERE.

FROM URBAN TO RURAL.

AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE HOUSING SOLUTION IF YOU WILL, FOR THAT DEMOGRAPHIC AND I THINK YOU MIGHT SEE SHIFT THERE.

BUT YOU HAVE TO ALSO, YOU KNOW, I'M THE A AND R WONK HERE BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE WHAT YOUR WHOLE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THOSE STREAMS OF REVENUE WHERE THEY GO.

AS WE CONTINUE TO LOWER INCOME TAX AND NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FEDERAL FUTURE HOLDS, AGAIN, WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC.

BUT I THINK THERE SHOULD BE RELIEF AND PART OF THE HOUSING ISSUE.

>> Renee: AND THAT BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT WHEN WE STARTED THIS QUESTION 30 WORKING DAYS AGO, BACK IN JANUARY, IT SEEMS JUST LIKE YESTERDAY, THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH HOUSING.

AND THE REPRESENTATIVE HAD BILLS THAT DEALT WITH THAT.

AND BUT, I THINK PEOPLE WERE EXPECTING SOME BIG SWEEPING BILL THAT WAS GOING TO SAVE THE DAY AND LOWER MORTGAGE RATES AND MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MORE ACCESSIBLE AND START PRICES OF HOMES MORE REACHABLE.

THAT WAS NOT REALISTIC.

BUT WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING?

AND WHAT IS STILL TO BE DONE?

>> SUSAN WHITTEN DID HAVE A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER IT.

IT WAS 30 DAYS AGO IT SEEMS WE -- I'M NOT GREAT WITH THE NUMBERS.

BUT IT ALLOWED FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING TO BE UTILIZED IN NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THERE WERE STIPULATIONS THEY HAVE TO BE ON A FOUNDATION AND MEET ALL OF THE SAME STANDARDS FOR HOUSING.

BUT AND I GUESS THAT GOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH?

IT'S HARD TO KNOW.

BUT AS FAR AS A BIG HOUSING OMNIBUS BILL, I'M NOT REALLY SEEING THAT HAPPEN.

BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY THINGS IT'S LIKE SQUEEZING A BALLOON.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN DO IT ALL AT ONCE.

I THINK IF WE ESPECIALLY AROUND TAXES AND PROPERTY TAXES, HOMESTEAD, EXEMPTIONS, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN HOW WE IMPLEMENT THESE SORTS OF THINGS SO WE DON'T NEGATIVELY AFFECT OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS WELL.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS THAT WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT HOUSING AND I WOULD LOVE TO GET THOSE FIRST TIME HOMEOWNERS SOME RELIEF OR OUR OLDER FOLKS TO ALLOW FOLKS TO STAY IN THE HOMES THAT THEY HAVE OWNED FOR SO LONG.

I THINK THAT WE ARE NOT FINISHED HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS.

IT WAS A SHORT SESSION.

NEXT YEAR, IS OUR LONG SESSION AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN TACKLE SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

>> .

>> Renee: AND THE HOUSING TASK FORCE WILL CONTINUE ITS WORK AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SOLUTIONS THAT COME FORTH BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY.

I'M GOING TO TAKE A PIVOT AND WE'LL WATCH FOR VIEWER CALLS.

LET'S TALK ABOUT MEDICAID.

THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS THAT HAPPENED WITH MEDICAID.

AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ELIGIBILITY.

HOUSE BILL 695 FOR THOSE THAT HOME WHO HAVE THEIR BINGO CARD THIS WOULD MANDATE THAT ADULTS WITHOUT CHILDREN AND WITHOUT A DISABILITY WORK AT LEAST 20 HOURS A WEEK OR WORK WITH A JOB PLACEMENT AGENCY TO MAINTAIN THEIR HEALTH COVERAGE.

WORK REQUIREMENTS DATE BEFORE MATT BEVIN THE LEAVE 15 WAIVER ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO.

REPRESENTATIVE BURKE THIS BILL AND IT DID INSIGHT A LOT OF CONVERSATION WAS THAT FRIDAY OR THURSDAY?

BUT WHEN IT CAME UP THERE WAS PASSIONATE DISCOURSE ABOUT THIS.

>> YES.

THAT WAS FRIDAY NIGHT.

AND I THINK IT CAME TO THE HOUSE FLOOR CLOSE TO 11:00 P.M. ONE OF THE LAST PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT WE CONSIDERED.

AND I THINK THE DEBATE COULD HAVE RAGED ON FOR HOURS.

AND SO IT WAS DISAPPOINTING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO CONTINUE THAT DEBATE AND DISCUSSION ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE AFFECTED.

FOR ME, WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHO COULD BE AFFECTED, I'M THINKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO A LOT OF AVAILABLE JOBS.

THERE ARE LOTS OF PLACES IN KENTUCKY WHERE THE RATE OF EMPLOYMENT IS LOW AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING A LOT OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE HIRING.

YOU YOU COMPOUND THAT CAN TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE HEALTH ISSUES AND THEN YOU FIND PEOPLE WHO AREN'T CONTRIBUTING AT THE LEVEL THAT PERHAPS THEY WANT TO OR NOW WE ARE REQUIRING THEM TO.

IT MAKES ME CONCERNED THAT WE MAY SEE INCREASING HEALTH ISSUES FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE OR NOT WILLING, WHICHEVER IT MAYBE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THIS NEW REQUIREMENT.

AND I'M CURIOUS TO SEE IF THIS WILL WITHSTAND THE LEGAL CHALLENGES THAT IT FAILED TO WITHSTAND IN THE PAST.

DID WE CRAFT SOMETHING DIFFERENT ENOUGH THAT IT CAN SURVIVE THE COURTS?

UNDER GOVERNOR BEVIN IT FAILED IN COURT TWICE.

THE MAKEUP OF THE COURT HAS CHANGED AND PERHAPS THAT IS ENOUGH.

BUT WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.

I REALLY WISH WE COULD HAVE COME TO THE DISCUSSION EARLIER SO THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE BIPARTISAN APPROACH.

BUT IT WAS A PRIORITY AND IT CAME THROUGH AT THE VERY LAST-MINUTE IN SPITE OF US.

>> Renee: SENATOR WHEELER, WHY IS THIS A GOOD IDEA RIGHT NOW?

>> WELL, AGAIN, I'VE GOT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE BENEFICIARIES OF MEDICAID IN MICE DISTRICT.

IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PROGRAM AND BECAUSE OF THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FISCAL STABILITY OF MEDICAID CONTINUES SO THAT THAT PROGRAM WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR THOSE THAT NEED IT, PARTICULARLY THE DISABLED.

THE WORKING POOR.

CHILDREN.

I MEAN, SINGLE MOTHERS THAT PREGNANT MOTHERS THOSE TYPE OF FOLKS.

AND IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS, I THINK, WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT PEOPLE ABLE-BODIED THESE ARE NOT DISABLED PEOPLE AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES THESE ARE NOT ELDERLY PEOPLE OR SICK PEOPLE THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAPPEN TO BE OUT OF A JOB AT THE PRESENT TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, WORK IS ONE THING BUT ALSO CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOLUNTEER WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

I MEAN, I THINK IF YOU ARE GETTING A BENEFIT FROM THE GOVERNMENT THIS IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK.

AND IT IS A VALUABLE BENEFIT.

IT'S PAYING FOR ALL OF THEIR HEALTHCARE.

AND I THINK THE OTHER THING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, ROBIN MENTIONED THIS SEVERAL TIMES, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS COMING DOWN FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THIS PROGRAM WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT HAS ABSOLUTELY BALLOONED IN COSTS TO THE POINT THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT IF THE FORMULA IS ADJUSTED ON I AFEDERAL LEVEL WE HAVE TWO MEDICAID POPULATIONS THE 70-30 POPULATION A TRADITIONAL POPULATION.

IF THAT FEDERAL FORMULA IS ADJUSTED RIGHT NOW IT'S COSTING THE GENERAL FUNDABLE $15 BILLION A YEAR.

>> 16.

>> AND THE 9010 LEVEL IF THAT IS ADJUSTED IT WOULD BLOW A HOLE IN THE BUDGET TO WHERE, I WOULD BE AFRAID THAT EXPANDING MEDICAID WOULD GO AWAY AND THAT COULD BE HARMFUL TO HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN OUR DISTRICTS.

>> I THINK SOME PEOPLE ARE ASKING IS THAT THE GOAL?

TO UNDO EXPANDED MEDICAID?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

IT IS NOT MY GOAL OUR GOAL IS TO SAVE EXPANDED MEDICAID AND MAKE IT WORK THE BEST FOR THE VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.

>> Renee: KENTUCKY VOICES FOR HEALTH ISSUED THIS STATEMENT, 96% OF KENTUCKIAN ADULTS WORK FULL- OR PART-TIME.

THEY CARE GIVE THEY ARE LIVING WITH A DISABILITY OR ILLNESS THEY ARE IN SCHOOL OR RETIRED AND THIS EFFORT ULTIMATELY SWINGS A POLICY SLEDGEHAMMER WHEN ATTEMPTED IN 2018 MANDATORY WORK REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE ESTIMATED TO COST KENTUCKY TONIGHT 17.5 MILLION IN STATE FUNDS AND 170 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS.

>> THEY TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH.

>> Renee: TO COVER FEWER PEOPLE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

WE KNOW THAT.

WE BARELY GOT TO READ THE BILL BEFORE WE HAD TO VOTE ON IT.

WE HAD NO REAL DISCUSSION ON IT, NO STAKEHOLDERS.

AND WE'VE SEEN THOSE OF US, THE OTHER STATES EXPERIENCE WHETHER IT'S ARKANSAS OR GEORGIA, THE BALLOONING COSTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WHEN YOU HAVE MOST OF THE POPULATION ALREADY WORKING, AND NO WAIVERS FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AREAS LIKE EAST KENTUCKY LIKE OUR AREA AND SNAP'S GOT THAT PROVISION IN IT.

WHERE THERE'S HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT YOU GET A BREAK ON THAT.

THEY IMPACT THE DEMOGRAPHIC FOR PREVENTATIVE, IT'S HARD TO QUANTIFY THE PREVENTATIVE DOLLARS AGAINST WHAT YOU WOULD PAY OUT.

HARD TO BUDGET THAT FOR HEALTHCARE AND RURAL HOSPITALS ARE WE MET WITH THEM DURING THE SESSION THEY ARE ON THE CUSP IN A LOT OF AREAS.

AND YOU KNOW, I JUST THINK WE'RE -- WE MIGHT HAVE MOVED TOO QUICKLY ON THIS WITH SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE TALKED MORE ABOUT AND COME UP WITH A MORE WORKABLE SOLUTION IN THE NEXT SESSION.

>> Renee: WAS IT NOT DISCUSSED DURING THE INTERIM AND THE CONCERN IS AT THE TIME THIS WAS DISCUSSED A FEW YEARS AGO 95,000 KENTUCKIANS WERE BE HANGING IN THE BALANCE WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESS TO HEALTH COVERAGE AND THAT WAS NUMBERS BACK THEN.

ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE PACE AT WHICH THIS MOVES AND IT'S HAPPENED SO THERE'S NO TURNING BACK?

>> RIGHT.

IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

WE DID TALK ABOUT IT DURING THE INTERIM.

DLFS A SMALL GROUP AND I DID MY BEST TO BRING STAKEHOLDERS TO THE GROUP TO HELP INFORM THE POLICY DECISIONS WE WERE LOOKING AT.

IT SEEMED TO PICK UP SPEED A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THE REST OF THE SESSION WHEN EVERYTHING WAS GOING ON AT ONCE.

BUT THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT I HAD A HARD TIME WITH.

THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PIECE OF IT, AND REINSTATING PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR EXAMPLE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ANSWER.

BUT ALL OF THIS BEING SAID AND I WOULD SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID HERE BECAUSE IT'S BIG AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

WHICH IS WHY I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE MOAB.

THAT IS PART TWO OF THIS.

AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE BIG PIECE OF ALL OF THIS.

WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE DECISIONS.

I THINK THE WORK REQUIREMENT PROBABLY THE FOLKS IT WOULD MOST AFFECT ARE ALREADY WORKING.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A BOX THAT FOLKS NEED TO CHECK I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK.

I DON'T DISAGREE THAT ABLE-BODIED INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A BENEFIT FROM THE STATE SHOULD PARTICIPATE AND WORK AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

THERE ARE WAYS TO JUST LOOK AT THE EFFECTIVENESS AND THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING.

IT'S NOT A PERFECT BILL.

IT WAS BIG.

I THINK THERE WERE NINE SECTIONS THEY SAID AT THE END.

AND IT TWEAKED THINGS IN NINE SECTIONS.

I WOULDN'T SAY IT DID ANYTHING THAT OVERHAULED THE SYSTEM BUT THERE WERE THINGS THAT REALLY WERE MEANT TO TRIAGE AND REPRESENTATIVE AND CHAIR PETRY WOULD SAY THIS IS A STAY SIS BILL TO STOP THE BLEEDING.

NOW THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY DIGEST THIS.

BUT I THINK WE DO THAT IN THE MEDICAID OVERSIGHT.

>> Renee: SOME WOULD ASK WHY NOT LET THE MEDICAID OVERSIGHT BOARD DO ITS WORK AND THEN COMEBACK AND EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF WORK REQUIREMENTS.

SOME PEOPLE ARE WONDERING IS THE CART PUT BEFORE THE HORSE THERE.

AND SENATOR CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG MADE THE POINT THAT MANY PEOPLE MAY LOSE COVERAGE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK RIGHT?

>> THAT HAS BEEN THE EXPERIENCE IN OTHER STATES.

>> Renee: BUT YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS A WAY TO COMBAT THAT?

>> WE HAVE CONNECTORS.

WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO CONNECT INDIVIDUALS TO HELP FILL OUT PAPERWORK, TO DIRECT THEM TO THE SERVICES THAT THEY NEED.

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL IT WORKS.

>> IT WORKS BETTER THAN OUR DRIVER'S LICENSE.

>> Renee: YOU TOOK CARE OF THAT, RIGHT?

AND THAT IS THE QUESTION DOES THIS WORK IN OTHER STATES?

ARE THEY SAVING MONEY?

IS IT IMPROVING WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION?

DOES IT LEAD TO BETTER PAYING JOBS AND EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE PEOPLE BEING ENROLLED IN THAT?

>> AND IT'S VALUABLE TO LOOK AT OTHER STATES AND REALLY SEE WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT ISN'T.

>> Renee: THIS IS FLYING BY.

I LOOK AT THIS PHONE CALL HERE.

I THINK WE'VE GOT THAT ABOUT THE DIRECT TAXPAYER RELIEF FOR REAL ESTATE TAXES.

I HOPE YOU GOT THAT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT CAME TO MEDICAID.

AND THAT'S CONVERSION THERAPY IN TRANSGENDER INMATES.

HOUSE BILL 495 WOULD UNDO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING CONVERSION THERAPY AND IT GOT ADDITIONAL PROHIBITIONS FOR MEDICAID PAYING FOR GENDER AFFIRMING MEDICAL CARE.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS.

SENATOR DANNY CARROLL WAS A NO ON THIS.

HE IS A REPUBLICAN WHO DIVERTED FROM THE PARTY LINE AND VOTED AGAINST THE BILL.

SENATOR WHEELER I WILL START WITH YOU WHY THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MEASURE TO GO TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE GOVERNOR DID THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS A POLICY CHANGE.

AND AS YOU WELL KNOW, THE LEGISLATURE UNDER THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION IS THE POLICY MAKING BODY.

IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL POLICY CHANGE IN FACT ONE THAT COULD ENDANGER THE LICENSES OF SOME PRACTITIONERS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY WHO MAY DISAGREE WITH HIM.

SO I THINK AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED, WHETHER OR NOT THAT TYPE OF THERAPY IS EFFICACIOUS FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THE GOVERNOR NEEDS TO BRING BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OR THE ADVOCATES FOR OR AGAINST THAT MEASURE NEED TO BRING BEFORE THE BODY.

IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE DONE THROUGH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.

AND AS FAR AS IT'S CONCERNED, GENDER AFFIRMING CARE FOR PRISON INMATES, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY THAT IS JUST NOT GOING TO FLY WITH ME AND IT'S NOT GOING TO FLY WITH THE MAJORITY OF KENTUCKIANS AND THAT IS ANOTHER THING IT IS A POLICY DECISION.

AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY TRIED TO SNEAK IT THROUGH IN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION BEFORE BRING TO GO BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.

COME OUT IN THE OPEN AND WHY NOT COME TO THE LEGISLATURE AND ARGUE THE MERITS OF THIS POLICY.

INSTEAD HE TRIED TO TAKE IT THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION, THAT WAS CAUGHT MY THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS COMMITTEE HEADED BY SENATOR WEST, AND AT THAT POINT WHEN WE REALIZED THIS POLICY WAS GOING TO BE GOING ON, THE LEGISLATURE TOOK APPROPRIATE ACTION TO REIN IN THE GOVERNOR AND HIS INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS.

>> Renee: REPRESENTATIVE BURKE WHY NOT HAVE THE GOVERNOR GO THAT ROUTE AND ADVISE THE GOVERNOR TO DO IT THAT WAY?

TO TO AVERT THIS RESULT THAT YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH?

>> WELL, IT'S REALLY EASY TO CONFLATE SENATE BILL 2.

AND HOUSE BILL 495 BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDRESSING SIMILAR POPULATIONS.

BUT I THINK THERE IS DANGER IN DOING THAT.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RESULTS.

SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSE BILL 495, THE ORIGINAL VERSION THAT PASSED THROUGH THE HOUSE JUST OVERRODE THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER.

AND WHILE THERE WERE MEMBERS OF MY CAUCUS WHO WERE EXTREMELY DISHEARTENED BY THAT, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WORK AROUND IN THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

WHICH GAVE CARTE BLANCHE TO PEOPLE TO OFFER WHAT CAN BE DANGEROUS AND HARMFUL THERAPIES AND GIVE THEM PROTECTIONS.

SO THAT EVEN IF THEY DID HURT SOMEONE AND SOMEONE WAS SUICIDAL OR COMPLETED A SUICIDE THAT PRACTITIONER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE.

SO WE MANAGED TO REIN THAT BACK IN.

AND I WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTED WHAT CAME BACK FROM THE SENATE INCLUDED THE ELIMINATION OF MEDICAID GENDER AFFIRMING CARE.

BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A KENTUCKY POLICY.

THIS IS IN LINE WITH FEDERAL POLICY AND KENTUCKY IS REINING IT IN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ACROSS KENTUCKY MAY NOT KNOW ANYONE WHO IS TRANSGENDER.

THEY MAY FIND IT OBJECTIONABLE MORALLY OR ETHICALLY IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS.

PEOPLE ARE NOT RECEIVING A TREATMENT WITHOUT ENGAGING WITH A DOCTOR WHO DECIDED IT IS A MEDICALLY NECESSARY TREATMENT.

FOR US TO SAY THAT THEY MUST IMMEDIATELY CEASE THOSE TREATMENTS WHICH IS HAZARDOUS, IS REALLY PROPER PARTICULAR TO ME.

AND THAT'S WHY I APPRECIATED REPRESENTATIVE MOSER'S VERSIONS OF THIS.

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WENT THROUGH AND 495.

BECAUSE THAT IMMEDIATE CESSATION OF HORMONE THERAPY IS DANGEROUS.

>> Renee: EVEN IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN ON THESE HORMONAL THERAPIES BEFORE THEIR INCARCERATION THEY COULD BE STOPPED ONCE THEY ARE AN INMATE?

>> WELL, I BELIEVE THAT THE SENATE BILL.

>> THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

>> HAS A TAPER PROGRAM WHICH WILL BE LESS DAMAGING EVEN THOUGH THERE'S STILL WILL BE DAMAGE.

WHEREAS THE HOUSE BILL WITH THE SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE HAS AN IMMEDIATE CESSATION.

AND IT IS COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS TO ASK SOMEONE TO JUST STOP THIS MEDICATION.

IT HARMS THEIR BODIES IN MANY WAYS.

AND WE, THE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK UP THE MEDICAL BILL WHEN THEY START HAVING NEUROLOGICAL OR OTHER PHYSICAL ISSUES.

SO IF WE NEEDED TO GO IN THIS POLICY DIRECTION WE COULD HAVE DONE IT IN A WAY THAT WAS MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND MORE COMPASSIONATE.

I THINK WE MISSED THE MARK IN BOTH REGARDS THERE.

AND I WAS DISHEARTENED BY BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE BILLS BUT PARTICULARLY THE DAMAGE THAT WAS DONE BY THE SENATE TO THE HOUSE BILL FOR ME, THAT WAS JUST INEXCUSABLE.

>> Renee: SENATOR WEBB SOME OF THE CONVERSATION BOILS DOWN TO MEDICALLY NECESSARY SOME BELIEVE THIS IS ELECTIVE OR SET OF THERAPIES?

>> THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES ON HORMONE THERAPY ACROSS THE BOARD.

BUT AS TO THE INMATES, I'VE SEEN THIS SINCE I WAS A YOUNG LAWYER.

SOMEONE WHO GOES THROUGH CONVERSION AND THEY GET PICKED UP IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND PLACED IN THE STATE SYSTEM, SO WHAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IS HOW OUR CORRECTION FACILITIES CAN DEAL WITH THIS FROM A HUMANITARIAN STANDPOINT AS WELL AS A PHYSICAL STANDPOINT.

THIS IS GOING TO END UP IN COURT.

AND I KNOW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ONE LAWSUIT FOR BEING MISCLASSIFIED AND MISHANDLED WHILE IN THE CORRECTION SYSTEM.

WE ARE THEIR CARETAKERS JUST LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ON THE FEDERAL SIDE.

WHAT I JUST LIKE TO SEE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION ON HOW CORRECTIONS CAN DEAL WITH THESE POPULATIONS AS FAR AS SEGREGATION OR CLASSIFICATION OR SOME BASIS TO KEEP US OUT OF COURT AND TO PROVIDE A HUMANITARIAN SOLUTION WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

WE ARE CUSTODIANS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND THAT'S OUR OBLIGATION.

>> Renee: REPRESENTATIVE MOSER?

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT BILLS AND A FEW OTHERS THAT ADD OTHER THINGS.

AS FAR AS HOUSE BILL 495, THE OVERTURNING OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WAS SIMPLY A SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE.

IT WAS YOU KNOW JUST BRINGING BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE WHAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING AND TALKING ABOUT.

AND IT RETURNED THE COUNSELING ISSUE BACK TO THE LICENSURE BOARDS WHO SHOULD BE DICTATING THIS.

THEY SHOULD BE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SOME SORT OF MALPRACTICE AND PENALIZING THEIR PRACTITIONERS IF THERE IS MALPRACTICE.

THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY STANCE ON THIS.

AND NOT IN FAVOR OF ANYONE BEING HARMED BY THIS SO-CALLED CONVERSION THERAPY.

IF SOMEBODY IS BEING HARMED, THOUGH, I THINK THE LICENSURE BOARDS NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.

AS FAR AS THE MEDICAID PIECE OF THIS, I WAS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED THIS WAS ADDED.

I WASN'T ENTIRELY CLEAR UNTIL I HAD A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT MEDICAID ACTUALLY COVERS.

I KNOW THAT MEDICAID DOESN'T COVER ELECTIVE PROCEDURES OR COSMETIC SURGERIES SO I DID MORE DIGGING AND YOU SEE I BROUGHT SOME STACKS OF PAPER IT LOOKS LIKE BUT THESE ARE MCO CONTRACTS.

AND WHAT I DISCOVERED IS THAT ON DECEMBER 31, 2024.

THE MEDICAID MCO CONTRACTS INCLUDED -- IT OUTLINES WHAT IS NOT COVERED.

AND IN THAT WAS IS STILL COSMETIC SURGERIES AND TREATMENTS BUT ALSO THE TRANSGENDER SURGERY WAS NOT ALLOWED.

BUT ON JANUARY FIRST, IT WAS STRICKEN.

AND SO IT IS ALLOWED.

SO THAT WAS A SURPRISE.

NO ONE CAME TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS.

WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS WAS HAPPENING.

SO I WAS KNOWING THIS AND THEN SEEING THIS, I THOUGHT OKAY ARE WE ALIGNING THEN WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT ORIGINAL PROVISIONS IN MEDICAID THAT WE DO NOT COVER ELECTIVE SURGERY AND SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT THE TRANSGENDER SURGERY IS ELECTIVE.

BUT WE ALSO DON'T COVER AND THIS GOES FOR THE INCARCERATION PIECE, TOO, WE DON'T COVER LIPOSUCTION OR TUMMY TUCKS WE DON'T DO PLASTIC SURGERY.

WE DON'T PROVIDE SPA TREATMENTS OR I MEAN, IT MUST BE MEDICALLY NECESSARY.

AND THE OTHER PIECE OF THE INCARCERATION IS THESE ARE NOT -- THERE IS A SEPARATION THEY ARE NOT MEDICAID DOLLARS.

SO EVERYTHING THAT IS PAID FOR MEDICALLY, IS ON THE BACKS OF YOUR CITIES AND COUNTIES IF IT IS A LOCAL JAIL AND THE STATE IF IT IS A STATE PRISON.

THAT IS 100% TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

SO THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE WITH THIS.

THIS IS A DIRECT PAYMENT FOR ALL MEDICAL CARE IF AN INMATE HAS A SERIOUS CHRONIC DISEASE, IT'S MANAGED DURING INCARCERATION.

IF SOMEONE HAS A HEART ATTACK, IT'S MANAGED DURING INCARCERATION BUT THE CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE PAYING FOR THAT AND THE STATE.

THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.

AND I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF PAYING FOR ELECTIVE PROCEDURES.

AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN ELECTIVE PROCEDURE IN MANY CASES.

NOW, THE HORMONE TREATMENT, I DID HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE ON.

IN THE BILL THAT I CRAFTED.

I SAID IF AN INMATE COMES IN ON THE HORMONE THERAPY THAT THEY CANNOT BE MADE TO STOP IT IF IT WOULD BE MEDICALLY HARMFUL.

AND SO IT GAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE JURISDICTION TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE OVERSEEING THE HEALTHCARE DECISIONS.

>> Renee: OKAY.

WE KNOW PROBABLY WHAT THE GOVERNOR WILL DO BUT WE KNOW WHAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO WHEN YOU GO BACK.

SO MUCH TO GET TO.

AND FIVE MINUTES AND CHANGE.

AND I WANTED TO GET TO THE DLFS THE WATERWAYS BILL WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT.

I THINK WE MIGHT PICK UP ON THAT NEXT WEEK, TOO.

SENATE BILL 89 THAT REDEFINED NAVIGABLE WATERS IN KENTUCKY.

I WANT TO START WITH YOU REPRESENTATIVE BURKE YOU ARE EAGER TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

THIS WOULD ALIGN THE STATE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS TO FEDS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

>> I WILL TELL YOU OF ALL THE PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT WENT THROUGH THE BODY THIS SESSION, I GOT ABOUT FIVE TIMES MORE E-MAILS ABOUT SENATE BILL 89 THAN ANY OTHER TOPIC.

THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT WE ARE GOING TO LOSE THE ABILITY TO ENJOY AND BENEFIT FROM OUR NATURAL BEAUTY INCLUDING OUR WATER SOURCES.

AND I'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND THIS BILL MORE DEEPLY THROUGH CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE LIKE MY SEATMATE ON THE FLOOR WHO TALKED TO ME ABOUT THE EFFECT IN HIS LIFE AS A FARMER.

BUT WHEN I PULL THE CAMERA BACK AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS TO ME AS A MOTHER, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE IDYLLIC KENTUCKY CHILDHOOD I HAD.

SPLASHING IN CREEKS IN THE BACKYARD CHASING CRAWDADS.

REPRESENTATIVE AULL TALKED ABOUT CATCHING FROGS AND EATING THEM.

I'M WORRIED WHAT WE'VE DONE MEANS THAT MY CHILDREN WON'T GET TO ENJOY THE SAME THING.

MY HUSBAND GREW UP DOWN RIVER FROM DOW CHEMICAL IN MICHIGAN.

AND THEY HAVE REGULATIONS THAT ARE MUCH CLOSER TO WHAT WE JUST PASSED.

THE CANCER RATES ARE SKY HIGH.

YOU CAN'T EAT FISH OUT OF THE RIVER.

YOU DON'T SWIM IN THE RIVER.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I HOPE FOR THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY.

SO I WAS VERY DISHEARTENED AND VERY FRUSTRATED THAT WE'VE CHOSEN TO GIVE AWAY SOME OF OUR PROTECTIONS, AS YOU LOOK AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THE EPA IS SLASHING THEIR CONTROL RIGHT NOW.

SO NOT ONLY DID WE GO TO A LOWER STANDARD WE WENT TO A LOWER STANDARD SET BY AGENCIES THAT ARE LOWERING THEIR STANDARDS EVEN FURTHER.

I FEAR WE WENT TOO FAR WITH THIS AND THE ATTEMPTS TO BRING IT BACK TO THE MIDDLE DID NOT MAKE THE DIFFERENCE THAT WAS NECESSARY.

>> Renee: SENATOR WEBB?

>> A FORMER COCOUNSEL AND THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE STRUCK.

CERTAINLY, THERE WAS A NEED FOR THIS.

THERE WAS AGENCY OVERREACH WHETHER YOU ARE A RANCHER OR COAL COMPANY OR DEVELOPER THERE WAS AGENCY OVERREACH IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS LAW.

THINGS WERE GETTING HELD UP IN PERMITS AND SHUT DOWN.

SO IT WAS NEEDED TO RECONCILIATION WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND FEDERAL LAW.

BUT IN SO DOING WE ARE THE ONLY STATE THAT IS GIVING UP EVERYTHING.

AND THE CORRECTIONS THAT WERE MADE DO NOT PROTECT GROUND WATER LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE GROUND WATER PROTECTED.

I'VE GOT UTILITIES THAT RELY ON GROUND WATER SOURCES IN MY DISTRICT AND THERE ARE MANY LET ALONE THE DOMESTIC WELLS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

THE CHANGES WE NEED THOSE, TOO.

BUT MOST OF THE CHANGES ARE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OR GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS AND NOT PROTECTING GROUND WATER FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND DOMESTIC AND UTILITY USE.

SO I THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS.

AND I THINK WE COULD HAVE THERE WAS A LOT OF LANGUAGE FLOATING AROUND.

I WORK ON SOME MYSELF.

AND CERTAINLY I THINK WE MISSED THE MARK FOR RATIONAL MIDDLE OF THE GROUND ENFORCEMENT PROTOCOL.

>> Renee: DO YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY?

I HEARD IT IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUE THIS WOULD AFFECT HOUSING IF NOT CORRECTED AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

YOU FELT THIS WAS THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

>> I DO.

I AGREE WITH MOST OF ROBIN SAID.

I VOTED FOR THE BILL.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS A PERFECT BILL BY ANY MEANS BUT I DO THINK IT DID STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION OF RESOURCES THAT WE ALL LOVE AND ENJOY.

YOU KNOW, THIS BILL WAS AND FRANKLY, I THINK SOMETIMES THESE BILLS ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BY REACTIONS AND WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE CABINET ISSUING THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS AND TRYING TO ACT LIKE CALIFORNIA RATHER THAN KENTUCKY.

AND YOU KNOW THIS BILL, I THINK WAS WORKED ON OR STARTED BY MY COLLEAGUE THE LATE SENATOR JOHNNY TURNER AND THEN PICKED UP BY HIS SUCCESSOR SCOTT MADEN AND I DO THINK THE BILL WAS MADE BETTER WITH THE ADDITIONS OF THE HOUSE EVERYBODY GOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A SWEET SPOT THAT STRIKES A BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ALLOWING BUILDERS AND FARMERS AND COAL COMPANIES TO BE ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE.

THAT'S HOW I GOT THE YES ON IT.

>> Renee: A LOT MORE BILLS TO STILL DISSECT AND WE'RE READING THROUGH THEM ACTUALLY TO SEE WHAT WAS PASSED AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT FOR YOU ON KENTUCKY EDITION EACH WEEK 6:30 EASTERN AND WE WILL BE THERE NEXT THURSDAY AND FRIDAY.

YOU CAN SEE IT GAVEL TO GAVEL ON-LINE AND ON AIR WHEN LAWMAKERS CURRENT TO FRANKFORT AND YOU CAN WATCH IT ON-LINE AT KET.ORG.

FRIDAY NIGHT BILL BRYANT AND JOURNALISTS WILL BE HERE TO DISSECT THE PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND WHAT THE GOVERNOR MAY HAVE VETOED AND WE WILL BE ON TOP OF IT AS WELL WHEN I SEE YOU NEXT MONDAY NIGHT ON "KENTUCKY TONIGHT".

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

AND I'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW.

[♪♪]