WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY RETURNS FOR THE SECOND PART OF THE 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO TONIGHT, WE GET SOME PERSPECTIV ON BILLS ALREADY PASSED, INCLUDING SOME LIMITING GOVERNOR ANDY BESHEAR'S EXECUTIVE POWERS AND WHAT'S EXPECTED THE REST OF THE SESSION.

TO TALK ALL ABOUT THIS WE HAVE FOUR NEW MEMBERS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE JOINING US TONIGHT.

IN OUR ELECTRICS STUDIO WE WELCOME SENATOR BRANDON STORM, REPUBLICAN FROM LONDON WHO REPRESENTS KENTUCKY SENATE DISTRICT 21 THAT INCLUDES BATH, ES TILL, JACKSON, LAUREL, MENIFEE AND POWELL COUNTIES.

IN FRANKFORT WE have REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER DECKER, A REPUBLICAN FROM WADDY WHO REPRESENTS SHELBY COUNTY IN KENTUCKY HOUSE DISTRICT 58.

AND JOINING US FROM OUR LOUISVILLE studio: REPRESENTATIVE PAMELA STEVENSON A LOUISVILLE DEMOCRAT WHO REPRESENTS PARTS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY IN KENTUCKY HOUSE DISTRICT 43.

AND SENATOR KAREN BERG, A LOUISVILLE DEMOCRAT WHO REPRESENTS OLDHAM AND PART OF JEFFERSON COUNTY IN KENTUCKY SENATE DISTRICT 26.

WE WANT YOU AT HOME TO JOIN IF CONVERSATION TONIGHT.

YOU CAN SEND US QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON twitter @KYTONIGHTK SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.

OR USE THE WEB FORM AT KET.ORG/ MAKE SURE TO CHECK THE BOX THAT SAYS YOU'RE NOT A ROBOT.

OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT 1-800-494 PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU'RE FROM ON ALL MESSAG.

SO WELCOME IS TO ALL OF OUR GUESTS.

WE HAVE ONE SOWL NECESSITY LEXINGTON AND REPRESENTATIVE DECKER IS THERE IN FRANKFORT AND WE'VE GOT TWO, REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON AND SENATOR BERG THERE IN LOUISVILLE.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL NEAR AND FAR.

I HOPE YOU'RE ENJOYING THE SESSION SO FAR.

I AM GOING TO START WITH STUDIO MATE FIRST.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE'LL ALLOW TO YOU U.

INTRODUCE YOURSELF TOUTERS VIDEO OF COMMONWEALTH WHO MAY NOT KNOW AS WELL AS.

>> I'M BRANDON STORM I'M FROM LONDON, KENTUCKY AND I'M MARRIED TO JACK PLIN WE HAVE THREE CHILDREN'S, AND I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE AND GET TO WORK FOR THE COMMONWEALTH.

>> AND YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN WORKING.

EIGHT DAYS UNDER YOUR BELT.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE EIGHT DAYS IN JUST A MOMENT.

LET'S TO GO OUR FRANKFORT STUDIO REPRESENTATIVE DECKER.

IF YOU WANT TO GIVE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF YOURSELF TO OUR VIEWERS TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU.

I REALLY APPRECIATE BEING HERE AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING MY NAME IS JENNIFER DECKER.

I AM FROM WADDY, KENTUCKY, WHICH IS IN SHELBY COUNTY.

I'M MARRIED TO BILL DECKER.

WE I LOVE A SHEEP FARM.

AND I HAVE TWO CHILDREN, TWO WONDERFUL IN-LAW CHILDREN, AND TWO GRANDCHILDREN HIM ADORE.

>> I IMAGINE.

NOT SPOILED A BIT, I WOULD SAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

>> IN YOUR LOUISVILLE STUDIO I'LL START WITH SENATOR KAREN BERG.

FIRST A QUICK INTRODUCTION ABOUT YOURSELF.

TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROFESSION.

>> HELLO.

THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH FOR INVITING ME TONIGHT.

I AM KAREN BERG SENATE DISTRICT 26 WHICH IS NORTHEAST JEFFERSON COUNTY, THE ENTIRETY OF OLDHAM COUNTY.

I'M ALSO A PRACTICING PHYSICIAN.

I WORK DOING EMERGENCY RADIOLOGIST AT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL.

>> AND FINALLY YOUR SEATMATE IN THE LOUISVILLE STUDIO, REPRESENTATIVE COLONEL PAMELA STEVENSON.

WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU.

I AM A NATIVE KENTUCKIAN, MARRIED FOR 39 WONDERFUL YEARS, TWO CHILDREN, AND SERVED AMERICA IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.

AND THEN CAME HOME TO SERVE MY KENTUCKY.

>> WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW YOU ALL HAVE BEEN SERVING YOUR KENTUCKY IN THE LAST -- THE FIRST PART OF THE SESSION THAT WENT A LITTLE INTO OVERTIME, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN USUAL ON THE FIRST PART OF THE SESSION THAT'S USUALLY ORGANIZATIONAL, SENATOR STORM, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF SUBSTANTIVE LEGISLATION THAT PASSED, AND THE DISCUSSION ON SOME OF THOSE BILLS IS NOT OVER.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT IF LIMITS ON EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, AND WE LEARNED TODAY THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS SAID, YOU KNOW, IF YOU VETO THOSE BILLS AND YOU'RE PREPARED TO GO TO COURT.

AS AN ATTORNEY, DO YOU THINK -- I WON'T ASK YOU TO PREDICT ABOUT WHAT THE REST OF YOUR CAUCUS AND THE SENATE WILL DO TOMORROW, BUT DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNOR HAS A LEG TO STAND ON SHOULD HE CHALLENGE YOUR OVERRIDES?

>> WELL, I THINK THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE THOSE VETOES, NUMBER ONE.

AND NUMBER TWO, I THINK WHEN AND IF WE DO, THEN HE'S GOT -- THERE'S 20 MORE DAYS LEFT THAT WE CAN NEGOTIATE.

WE CAN HAVE DIALOGUE.

AND WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANY COMMON GROUND THAT CAN BE REACHED.

>> DO YOU THINK -- DO YOU GET A SENSE THAT THERE IS SOME COMMON GROUND?

ARE THERE DISCUSSIONS GOING ON THAT YOU HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF?

>> I'VE NEVER BEEN PARTY TO ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT I DO THINK THAT OUR LEADERSHIP IS OPEN TO DIALOGUE.

>> RIGHT.

SO WHERE ARE THOSE EXECUTIVE POWER LIMITATIONS NOW STAND?

THEY MAY NOT STAND BY THE TIME WE ADJOURN ON MARCH 30th, CORRECT?

THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.

>> WELL, I THINK AGAIN THERE'S GOT TO BE DIALOGUE.

I THINK THE FIRST EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS MARCH HAVE 2020 AND NOW IT'S BEEN ALMOST A YEAR.

WE'RE JUST NOW HAVING SOME DIALOGUE.

SO I THINK OUR LEADERSHIP IS INTERESTED IN HAVING THAT DIALOGUE.

>> I'LL GO TO ANOTHER ATTORNEY AMONGST US, AND THAT'S IN LOUISVILLE, REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON.

YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE LIMITATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY EXECUTIVE POWERS WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH THE PANDEMICS AND OTHER EMERGENCIES DOWN THE ROAD.

I'M SURE THAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THOSE VETOES SHOULD BE OVERRIDDEN.

WHAT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON ANY LEGAL GROUNDS THAT THE GOVERNOR MIGHT HAVE IN CHALLENGING SHOULD IT COME TO THAT?

>> WELL, ANY LEGAL GROUNDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT HAVE IN CHALLENGING THAT, IF IT COMES TO THAT, IS BASED ON THE FACTS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS BASED ON THREE DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

AND EACH HAVE CHECKS AND BALANCES.

AND THAT'S WHY AMERICA WORKS.

SO IF YOU HAVE ONE BRANCH TRYING TO TELL THE THE OTHER BRANCH HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS, THEN IT DOESN'T WORK.

IT NULLIFIES THE CHECKS AND THE BALANCES.

SO I AM A BIG BELIEVER IN HAVING CONVERSATIONS.

AND I'M ALSO A BIG BELIEVER IN DEMOCRACY WORKING THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO.

>> AND SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS ISEAU SORPTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AUTHORITY, AEAU SORPTION, THAT IT'S TOO FAR OVERREACHING, THE LEGISLATURE IS MEDDLING IN THE BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNOR?

IS THAT HOW YOU SEE IT?

>> ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE A PART-TIME LEGISLATURE, AND THE GOVERNOR IS FULL-TIME, VOTED IN BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS TO RUN THIS GOVERNMENT FULL-TIME.

KENTUCKY WAS THE NUMBER ONE -- WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE TOP AS A MODEL OF HOW WE HANDLED THE COVID CRISIS BACK IN 2019.

WE DID EVERYTHING TO SAVE LIVES, AND WE HAD TO CALL 138 PEOPLE BACK AFTER 30 DAYS, GET THEIR OPINION, GET THEM TO AGREE ON WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT, WE WOULD BE NO FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD THAN WE ARE.

SO I VERY MUCH BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNOR WAS ELECTED GOVERNOR FOR A TIME SUCH AS THIS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, I WANT TO COME TO YOU NOW AND ASK YOU YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON ALL THIS.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS IN SOME WAYS ABUSED HIS EXECUTIVE POWER AND SHOULD BE REASONED IN IN THE WAY THAT YOU WILL YOU U.

ALL VOTED TO DO IN.

>> I'M AN ATTORNEY, TOO, SO I HAVE A PERSPECTIVE OF HAVING STUDIED THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL.

AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DISAGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON WHO, BY THE WAY, I.

ENJOYED MEETING AND REALLY ENJOYED TALKING WITH.

I THINK SHE HAS A GREAT SPIRIT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH HER AGAIN.

BUT I JUST DISAGREE WITH HER ON THIS POINT.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS A STRIPPING OF EXECUTIVE POWER OR THE FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE PROPER BALANCE OF POWER.

I THINK WHAT THIS IS IS THE CORRECTION OF A BILL OR A LAW WHICH WAS 39A THAT GAVE TOO BROAD OF POWERS AND THAT WAS MEANT FOR A VERY SHORT-TERM EMERGENCY BUT THAT HAS TURNED INTO A THE EMERGENCY WE'RE IN IS MUCH LONGER TERM.

SO THE POWERS THAT WERE GIVEN HAVE NOW BEEN EXTENDED TO REALLY CREATING POLICY OVER A LONG TERM, AND THAT IS THE ROLE, PROPERLY RESOLVE A LEGISLATURE.

SO THIS BILL, AS I SEE IT, RESTORES THE BALANCE OF POWER, PROTECTS THE BALANCE OF POWER FOR THIS POINT FORWARD SO THAT IN THE FUTURE WE WILL BE READY FOR ANY TYPE OF EMERGENCY.

THERE WOULDN'T BE THIS NEED TO BALANCE THIS TYPE OF AUTHORITY IF THE ONLY TYPES OF EMERGENCY WE EVER HAD WERE SHORT TERM.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE NOW.

AND THIS ISN'T -- THIS ALSO SHOULD NOT BE SEEN, IN MY OPINION, AS A PARTISAN ISSUE.

ABOUT HALF THE STATES IN OUR NATION ARE NOW LOOKING INTO THE EMERGENCY POWERS, AND EVEN OUR NEIGHBOR, INDIANA, WHERE BOTH THE EXECUTIVE AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE WITH THE SAME PARTY, STILL THE LEGISLATURE IS LOOKING INTO RESTORING THE BALANCE OF POWER SO THAT WHEN LONG-TERM POLICY NEEDS TO BE SET, IT IS WITH THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH IS THE PROPER BODY.

>> AND, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, AS AN ATTORNEY AND AS A SITTING STATE LAWMAKER, THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS SAID THAT THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY SETTLED THIS MATTER BECAUSE THAT WAS DONE BACK IN THE FALL, THAT THEY UPHELD HIS ACTIONS AND HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER.

YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT.

>> WELL, THEY COULDN'T -- I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS DONE.

AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND EFFECTIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY MAKE EFFECTIVE LONG-TERM POLICIES.

I THINK THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THEY'RE LEGAL IS NOT THE SAME AS TO WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE EXTENDED.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT MATTER.

WHETHER THEY'RE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TIME IS A DIFFERENT MATTER AS TO WHETHER THEY'RE LEGAL.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

SENATOR BERG, COMING TO YOU, YOU'RE A PHYSICIAN, AS I MENTIONED AT THE TOP OF THE PROGRAM, AND YOU GAVE MANY FLOOR SPEECHES ABOUT THIS ON THE SENATE FLOOR WHEN THE DISCUSSION HAPPENED AT THE FIRST PART OF THE SESSION IN JANUARY.

YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT POSSIBLE ACTION TO OVERRIDE THE GOVERNOR'S VETO AND THEN MAYBE THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A COMPROMISE DOWN THE ROAD, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE LEADERSHIP, REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS SIGNALING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ACT SOON, POSSIBLY EVEN THIS WEEK ON THOSE VETOES.

>> I HONESTLY THINK THIS IS A POLITICAL BALANCE TO MAXIMIZE THE POWER OF THE REPUBLICANS THAT THEY CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW, AND SO THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PANDEMIC TO DO THIS.

I DO NOT THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY BEING DONE IN RESPONSE TO WHAT WE HAVE DONE AS A STATE IN THIS PANDEMIC.

KENTUCKY HAS DONE AMAZINGLY WELL IN THIS PANDEMIC.

ANDY BESHEAR HAS SAVED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF LIVES WITH HIS ACTIONS AND HIS THINKING.

I HAVE BEEN IN THE INTERIM DURING THIS, I HAVE LISTENED TO STEVEN STACK.

I HAVE LISTENED TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

THEIR DATA IS GOOD.

THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE GOOD.

THEY ARE WORKING.

AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME KENTUCKY IS LEADING, LEADING THE COUNTRY IN OUR RESPONSE TO COVID, LEADING.

WE ARE IN THE TOP, NOT THE BOTTOM.

AND IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION THAT WAS SET UP, THAT WAS PREPARED, THAT DID RESPOND.

AND IN A CRISIS -- AND MY CONCERN IS NOT HOW LONG THIS CRISIS GOES OR WHAT THE NEXT CRISIS IS.

WHEN YOU HAVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT POWERS LIKE THIS, THEY ARE NOT FOR THIS EXPERIENCE OR THAT EXPERIENCE.

THEY NEED TO BE DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT THEY WILL APPLY AND THEY WILL WORK REGARDLESS OF THE CRISIS.

SO WE HAVE A DIRTY BOMB.

WE HAVE ANOTHER PANDEMIC.

WE HAVE A MASSIVE FLOOD, A TORNADO, A HURRICANE.

YOU NEED YOUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO RESPOND AND RESPOND QUICKLY.

AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, NOT POSSIBLE, NOR IS IT SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO TRY TO ACHIEVE, TO GET 138 ELECTED LEGISLATOR FROM AROUND THE STATE TO TEACH THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW AND THEN ASK THEM, HOW DO WE RESPOND TO A NATIONAL HEALTH CRISIS?

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

IT WILL PUT US SO FAR BEHIND BEING ABLE TO RESPOND NEXT TIME.

HONESTLY IT SCARES ME THAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARD DOING THIS AT THIS POINT.

I HOPE, I HOPE THAT COMMON SENSE PREVAILS.

>> AND WE'LL BE FOLLOWING THAT TO SEE IF THERE'S A COMPROMISE REACHED EVEN IF THERE ARE VETOES OVERRIDDEN THIS WEEK OR IN THE COMING DAYS.

I'M GOING TO SHIFT NOW, WE'LL TALK ABOUT GAMBLING, SPORTS BETTING, AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT'S COME TO US FROM ERIC CRAWFORD WHO HAS BEEN A VALIANT ADVOCATE FOR THIS EFFORT FOR MANY YEARS IN FRANKFORT.

HE ASKS, "HOW DO THE NEW MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT MEDICAL CANNABIS HOUSE BILL 136 AND SENATE BILL 192?"

AND I'LL TO GO SENATOR STORM AND ASK YOU, PERHAPS YOU DO NOT TO HAVE GREAT FAMILIARITY WITH THE DETAILS OF THOSE BILLS, BUT ON THE PREMISE OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT LEGALIZING MEDICINAL MARIJUANA IN KENTUCKY?

>> I THINK THE FIRST THING IS I THINK PRESIDENT STIVERS MENTION THIS HAD A FEW WEEKS AGO, RIGHT NOW IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A SCHEDULE 1 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SO UNTIL THAT ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE SHOULD REALLY TAKE A STEP INTO THAT AREA.

THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.

>> SO JUST WAIT IN THE THE FEDS ACT FIRST AND THEN COME BEHIND AND DO WHAT PERHAPS CONSTITUENTS ARE SAYING.

THERE DOES SEEM TO BE AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF KENTUCKIANS WHO SUPPORT THAT.

I DON'T REMEMBER RECENT POLLS, ABOUT IT SEEMS TO BE A PLURALITY, A MAJORITY WHO BELIEVE THAT THE TIME HAS NOW COME.

DO YOU HEAR THAT FROM CONSTITUENTS IN YOUR DISTRICT, THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND KNOW FOLKS WHO WOULD BENEFIT MEDICINALLY FROM THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

>> I HAVE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT SAY THOSE THINGS, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT I PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURT ON A DAILY BASIS, AND I SEE A LOT OF CASES, IN FACT, TODAY WHERE A GENTLEMAN WAS SENT BACK TO PRISON FOR MARIJUANA.

AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM WITH TISSUE BEING A FEDERALLY REGULATED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE RIGHT NOW.

>> DO YOU VIEW IT AS PERHAPS EVEN A GATEWAY DRUG?

A SIDE FROM THE LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS OF IT AT THIS CURRENT STATE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OPPOSITION BASED ON OTHERS WHO HAVE SAID THAT THIS IS A GATEWAY TO OTHER MORE HARMFUL, ABUSIVE, ADDICTIVE DRUGS?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY PERSONAL VIEWS ON THAT AT THIS TIME.

I KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN A LOT OF CLIENTS THAT HAVE WENT TO PRISON OVER THAT ISSUE, BUT AGAIN, I'VE HEARD FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT SAY THAT THEY'VE HAD SEIZURE ISSUES OR EPILEPTIC ISSUES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE TREATED BY MEDICAL MARIJUANA, SO AGAIN, I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATES IT OR DEREGULATES IT.

>> AND TO YOUR EARLIER POINT, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LEGISLATORS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WHO SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE KENTUCKY DOES DO THIS, THEN WE HAVE TO WORRY -- YOU HAVE TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH THE SENTENCING OF MARIJUANA THAT EVEN THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN AS THE NEXT STEP TO DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA AT THAT PARTICULAR STAGE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT ACTION?

>> I THINK -- NOT NECESSARILY, I DON'T.

I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE AGAIN GOES BACK TO WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO REGULATE THIS AS A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OR NOT.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE PINNACLE ISSUE.

>> SENATOR BERG, I'LL COME TO YOU AS A PHYSICIAN.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS FROM A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE OR NOT ABOUT THE MEDICINAL PURPOSES OF MARIJUANA BEING USED IN THIS WAY AS A THERAPEUTIC.

DO YOU BELIEVE, AND SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT SAY THAT IT HAS THERAPEUTIC BENEFITS OR HAVE YOU ALSO ENGAGED YOURSELF IN LEARNING ABOUT THE OTHER PSYCHOTROPIC EFFECTS THAT IT COULD HAVE AND OTHER HARMFUL EFFECTS TO THE BRAIN DEVELOPMENT YOUTH, ET CETERA?

WHERE DO YOU FALL OUT ON THIS ISSUE?

>> YOU KNOW, THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING ISSUE.

FIRST OF ALL, SENATOR STORM, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU AND LET OUR VIEWERS KNOW THAT THE REASON MARIJUANA IS A SCHEDULE 1 DRUG IS ACTUALLY A SHAME ON OUR HISTORY.

THESE WERE INTENTIONALLY RACIST LAWS THAT WERE MADE TO -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS.

THE HISTORY OF THESE LAWS IS SHAMEFUL FOR OUR COUNTRY.

AND I KNOW OF MANY, MANY CONSTITUENTS WHO WANT US TO LEGALIZE MEDICINAL MARIJUANA IN THIS STATE.

I PERSONALLY AM IN FAVOR OF THAT.

WE KNOW THAT IT IS HELPFUL FOR THE SUBSET OF EPILEPSY, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH CHRONIC PAIN FIND IT EXTREMELY HELPFUL, AND PARTICULARLY HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE IN RECOVERY, PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER ALCOHOLICS OR OPIOID ADDICTS WILL SAY UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT IT HELPS THEM TO NOT FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE TO USE.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE GROWING MARIJUANA.

WE ARE BUYING MARIJUANA.

AND WE ARE SELLING MARIJUANA IN THIS STATE PROBABLY NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER TWO IN THE COUNTRY.

BUT WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING IS ALLOWING OUR CITIZENS WHO FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO HAVE ACCESS, ACCESS TO IT.

NOR ARE WE GAINING ANY REVENUE OFF THIS PRODUCT, WHICH MANY, MANY OTHER STATES ALREADY ARE.

>> SO I WANT TO -- >> THE HISTORY OF -- >> I DO WANT TO ASK YOU RIGHT THERE JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS, SENATOR BERG.

LET ME ASK YOU FIRST ABOUT TAXING MARIJUANA.

DO YOU SUPPORT THAT IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS LEGALIZED IN KENTUCKY?

DO YOU SUPPORT IT BEING A REVENUE GENERATING MEASURE?

AND DO YOU HAVE FIGURES THAT WOULD SHOW HOW MUCH IT WOULD ACTUALLY RAISE AND PUT INTO THE STATE COFFERS?

>> WE ACTUALLY DON'T TAX MEDICINES IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, SO IF WE PASSED MEDICINAL MARIJUANA, THAT WOULD NOT BE A REVENUE STREAM FOR THE STATE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO LEGALIZE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA AND THEN THAT COULD BE A MAJOR REVENUE STREAM FOR THE STATE.

NOT ONLY IS IT A HUGE REVENUE STREAM, BUT IT ALSO -- ONCE YOU LEGALIZE IT, IT ACTUALLY MAKES IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR MINOR CHILDREN TO GET AHOLD OF THIS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW EVERYTHING IS ON A BLACK MARKET, AND THAT MARKET IS THRIVING.

WE ARE -- LIKE I SAY, WE'RE GROWING IT.

WE'RE USING IT.

AND WE'RE SELLING IT.

THIS IS A HUGE MARKET FOR THIS DRUG.

AND SO MANY OTHER STATES HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS.

I WOULD HONESTLY LIKE TO SEE KENTUCKY NOT LAG BEHIND OTHER STATES.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US UP FRONT MOVING FORWARD, BEING PROGRESSIVE, USING THIS MONEY SPECIFICALLY, EARMARKING IT FOR OUR TEACHERS' RETIREMENT PROGRAM, AND LET'S -- LET'S MOVE ON.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, SENATOR BERG, WHILE I HAVE YOU RIGHT HERE, YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO ABOUT POSSIBLY THIS BEING A DIVERSION DRUG PERHAPS, THAT THAT WOULD MAYBE EVEN REDUCE THE OPIOID ADDICTION DILEMMA AND PLIGHT THAT THIS STATE HAS.

EXPLAIN TO US YOUR RATIONALE THERE WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY STUDIES AND OTHERS WHO HAVE PROCLAIMED THAT IT WOULD IN ESSENCE BE A GAIT DRUG AND EVEN MAKE THAT -- A GAIT DRUG AND EXACERBATE THE DRUG ADDICTION ISSUE IN THIS STATE.

WHICH ONE IS IT?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT MARIJUANA, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A SCHEDULE 1 DRUG, WE HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED IN THIS COUNTRY FROM DOING ADEQUATE MEDICAL RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY 1 THE EFFICACY, THE DOSING.

NONE OF THAT RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE UNITED STATES.

THERE IS RESEARCH FROM OTHER COUNTRIES.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT DOES HELP IS PEOPLE IN RECOVERY SHOW LESS PROPENSITY FOR RELAPSE WITH MEDICINAL MARIJUANA.

TO ME WHEN WE HAVE THIS TREMENDOUS OPIOID CRISIS GOING ON, THIS IS SOMETHING SIMPLE THAT EVEN -- EVEN HONESTLY IF IT'S A PLACEBO, IT WORKS.

AND THE HARM THAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR AND WHAT THE REAL STUDIES OF OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE SHOWN IS THAT IT IS SO MUCH SAFER THAN ALCOHOL.

UNEQUIVOCALLY SO MUCH SAFER.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DEATH ATTRIBUTABLE TO MARIJUANA OVERDOSE.

IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

>> I WANT TO GO TO REPRESENTATIVE -- >> SO WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE -- >> LET ME GO TO REPRESENTATIVE DECKER AND ASK HER BECAUSE I THINK I UNDER FROM YOUR BACKGROUND, REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, THAT YOU HAVE WORKED WITH FOLKS IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING WHO MAY HAVE EVEN DEALT WITH DRUG ADDICTION ISSUES, HOMELESS, OTHER THINGS.

CAN YOU TALK TO US ABOUT THAT AND HOW YOU VIEW THIS MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROPOSITION THAT ARE ON THE TABLE.

>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, I DON'T HAVE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD VOTE ON IT.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THE TESTIMONY.

I WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM THAT.

I DO HAVE CONCERNS, MANY OF WHICH WERE ADDRESSED JUST NOW, THAT LEAD NEE TO EVEN FURTHER QUESTION -- ME TO EVEN FURTHER QUIT BY WHAT SENATOR BERG SAID.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THE TESTIMONY, THERE HAVE BEEN HAVE THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATE MEDICAL STUDIES.

THAT'S WHAT THE SENATOR JUST SAID, NO PROPER DOSING, ET CETERA.

I EVEN HAD A PHYSICIAN FRIENDCH MINE TELL ME THAT HE BELIEVES UNDER THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH, HE COULD NOT PRESCRIBE IT BECAUSE HE DID NOT KNOW IF IT WOULD DO HARM.

SO THAT POINT IS VERY TROUBLING TO ME.

SECONDLY, I THINK THE DISCUSSION QUICKLY TURNED TO THE NEED TO LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.

I THINK THIS IS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THIS BILL.

I THINK IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND THAT IT'S KIND OF A GAIT GATEWAY TO THAT.

ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT ALL OF THE MEDICAL BENEFITS THAT I'VE HEARD TALKED ABOUT ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE IN CBD OIL, WHICH IS LEGAL IN KENTUCKY.

I HAVE A FRIEND WHOSE SON HAD SEVERE EPILEPSY, AND IT HAS STOPPED WITH THE USE OF CBD OIL.

I HAVE A FRIEND WHO HAS BEEN THROUGH 13 SURGERIES WITHOUT ANY PAIN MEDICATION.

HE WAS FEARFUL OF ADDICTION.

HE HAS USED CBD OIL, AND THIS IS MAJOR, MAJOR SURGERY, SO I'M NOT CLEAR WHY WE NEED MEDICAL MARIJUANA WHEN WE HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES IN AN ALREADY LEGAL DRUG.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS I'M CONCERNED, BUT I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY.

>> RIGHT.

AND WE'LL SEE IF THAT COMES TO FRUITION.

REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON -- GO AHEAD.

>> YOU DID ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION, AND THAT WAS MY EXPERIENCE.

I DO OPERATE -- I'M AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF A CHARITY, AND WE DO HAVE HOMELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN SHELTERS.

WE MOSTLY DEAL WITH ABUSED WOMEN.

IN FACT, WE TAKE NO PEOPLE WHO ARE ADDICTED TO DRUGS BECAUSE WE HAVE CHILDREN, AND WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.

BUT WE DO TAKE WOMEN, IF THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH A PROGRAM AND ARE ONE YEAR CLEAN, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT IS VERY HARD TO FIND WOMEN WHO CAN KICK THE HABIT OF MARIJUANA.

THEY STRUGGLE IN THEIR LIFE FOR MANY OTHER REASONS, AND THEY GO BACK TO MARIJUANA, AND WE CAN'T HAVE THEM IN OUR SHELTER IF THEY'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN.

BUT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE SOMETHING -- AND THAT THEN STOPS THEM FROM BEING EMPLOYABLE BECAUSE OF THE DRUG TESTS AT EMPLOYMENT.

SO I DON'T SEE IT AS A GOOD THING.

TO HELP PEOPLE BECOME SELF-STUFF.

IN FACT, IT WORKS TO THE OPPOSITE FOR THEM.

SO I HAVE SEEN FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT HINDER PEOPLE FROM BECOMING SELF-RELIANT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON, THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

AND AS REPRESENTATIVE DECKER JUST POINTED OUT, THERE ARE SIMILAR PROPERTIES AVAILABLE, THERAPEUTIC IN CBD OIL, SO PERHAPS THAT'S ALREADY LEGAL 1 THAT'S ALREADY AVAILABLE.

THAT SHOULD BE, IN HER VIEW AND OTHERS, SENATOR STORM, PERHAPS GOOD ENOUGH FOR RIGHT NOW.

>> IF IT WORKS FOR YOU.

WE ALL KNOW THAT MEDICINES HAVE DIFFERENT -- WORK DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT BODIES, AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF DRUGS THAT ARE SCHEDULE 1 DRUGS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL WITH MEDICAL MARIJUANA, THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS INTERFERING WITH A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOCTOR AND PATIENT.

IF THE DOCTOR HAS ENOUGH STUDIES, IF HE'S DONE THE RESEARCH, AND WE KNOW THAT THIS MEDICAL -- THE MARIJUANA WILL BENEFIT A PATIENT, THEN WHY IS IT ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OF THE OTHER DRUGS ON SCHEDULE 1?

IT'S NOT.

WE NEED TO GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF TELLING DOCTORS HOW TO ADVISE THEIR PATIENTS.

AND WE NEED TO PROVIDE THEM THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE THEY WANT TO MAKE WITH THEIR PARENTS.

>> SO LET'S -- >> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST JUMP IN AND ADD REAL QUICKLY, EVEN THOUGH THESE STUDIES HAVEN'T BEEN DONE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THEY HAVE BEEN DONE IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

ISRAEL IN PARTICULAR HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK ON THIS DRUG.

IT IS NOT THE DANGER THAT PEOPLE THINK IT IS.

AND FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

>> SO WE KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IN A BILL THAT MOVED FORWARD IN THE HOUSE LAST YEAR, AND THIS QUESTION, SENATOR STORM, COMES IN FROM TIM CANTWELL OF -- SAYS, HE ASKS HOW CAN WE CONVINCE SENATOR STIVERS TO ALLOW A HEARING ON SB 92, MILK MARIJUANA IN THE SENATE DURING THE '21 SESSION?

DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE YOU WOULD LEND TO MR. CANTWELL ABOUT THAT?

AND DO YOU THINK THERE THAT THERE'S A TEMPERATURE IN THE CAUCUS -- AND I KNOW YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING FOR SENATOR ROBERT STIVERS -- TO ACTUALLY HEAR THIS BILL, THEY TESTIMONY AS REPRESENTATIVE DECKER SAID SHE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR.

PERHAPS IT MAY NOT CHANGE HER MIND, BUT JUST THE DISCUSSION FOR AND DEPENDENCY IT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR PRESIDENT STIVERS.

OBVIOUSLY I WANT HIM TO SPEAK FOR HIMSELF.

BUT I DID WANT TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, AND THEN IT QUICKLY PHASED IN, AS REPRESENTATIVE DECKER POINTED OUT, LEGALIZING MARIJUANA, AND THEN THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT THERE I WAS HUGE BLACK MARKET.

SO AGAIN, THOSE ARE CONCERNS.

IF IT'S A SCHEDULE 1, BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEN THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR ME.

>> RIGHT.

AND DO YOU SEE IT AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD QUICKLY ACCELERATE HAD TO THEN THE FULL-OUT LEGALIZATION OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA?

BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE ALREADY MOVEMENTS IN THE STATE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN ALONGSIDE THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROPOSES?

>> I THINK SO.

WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION GOING ON FOR A FEW MINUTES NOW AND IT WENT TO THE LEGALIZATION AND THEN THE BLACK MARKET AND HUGE REVENUE STREAM.

SO THOSE WERE MY CONCERNED.

>> ANDY GAMBLIN' FROM OWENSBORO SAID, INSTEAD OF BRINGING MORE SIN TO THE STATE BY LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA, WHAT CAN WE DO TO CUT TAXES FOR BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS?

NOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A PRETTY SHARP PIVOT, SENATOR STORM, TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND IT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET, AND IT'S BEEN ALLUDED TO ABOUT HOW PERHAPS RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA COULD BE A BIG BOON FOR THE STATE COFFERS, BUT $20 BILLION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN THIS ONE-YEAR BUDGET, SINGLE-YEAR BUDGET THAT THE LAWMAKERS, YOU ALL WILL DEAL WITH IN THE DRAMSING, AND PERHAPS YOU MAY NOTING INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN SOME OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD REALLY RISE TO THE TOP AS PRIORITY NUMBER ONE?

BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW AB WBKO A BUDGET IS A REFLECTION OF YOUR VALUES AND YOUR PRIORITIES.

>> WELL, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO INVEST IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE HERE IN OUR COUNTRY -- OR OUR STATE, PRIMARILY IN ALL THE COUNTIES I REPRESENT, AGAIN, THEIR DECIMATED THE ROADS ARE FALLING AWAY.

IF YOU WANT GET PATIENTS TO HOSPITALS BECAUSE THE ROADWAYS ARE FALLING AWAY OR THE BRIDGES ARE WASHED OUT, THAT'S A MAJOR ISSUE FOR ME.

I ALSO WANT TO LOOK AT THE EDUCATIONAL SITUATION AND 9 THERE'S GOT TO BE A SUSTAINING RESTRUCTURING OF THE PENSION SYSTEM.

AND AGAIN, I THINK -- >> FOR TEACHERS OR -- >> WELL, YES.

I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN UP.

I THINK THAT, AGAIN, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS GOING TO FUND THE EDUCATIONAL AREA AS NECESSARY AND AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT IN THE SAME SENSE, I THINK IF WE BUILT ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND WE BUILT ON GETTING PEOPLE BACK TO WORK AS BEST WE CAN, THOSE ARE THE MAIN ISSUES.

>> HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT A GAS TAX TO HELP WITH THE ROAD FUND AND THE FACT THAT MANY OF KENTUCKY'S ROADS AND BRIDGES ARE IN DIRE NEED OF REPAIR AND IN DISREPAIR?

YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.

>> THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.

I HAVEN'T HAD ANY ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE ABOUT THAT.

I HAVE HEARD THAT KIND OF TALKED ABOUT BUT NOTHING FROM ANY LEADERSHIP OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.

>> AND IN THE GRAND SEEM SCHEME OF TAX, THIS IS A SHORT SESSION, LESSEES THAT DAYS GOING INTO FEBRUARY, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH BANDWIDTH THAT YOU ALL CAN HOLD AND CONTAIN TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

DO YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME IN THIS SESSION TO TALK ABOUT TAX REFORM EVEN IF IT'S A FEW PIECES OF TAX REFORM IN.

>> I THINK SO.

AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE EXCELLENT LEADERSHIP AND I THINK THAT THEY WILL STEER THE CAUCUS IN A DIRECTION TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON THE PINNACLE ISSUES.

>> RIGHT.

REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, I WANTED TO COME TO YOU AND ASK YOU ABOUT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE PANDEMIC CERTAINLY HAS TAKEN ITS TOLL ON BUSINESSES, AND WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT RELIEF FOR BUSINESSES, AND WE CAN EVEN TALK ABOUT HOPEFULLY MAYBE BEFORE WE END THE PROGRAM ABOUT LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR SCHOOLS AND BUSINESSES WHICH MANY ARE SAYING IS DESPERATELY NEEDED.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE, SHOULD THAT BE A PIVOTAL FOCUS OF THIS SESSION?

>> I THINK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS ALWAYS ONE OF THE TOP PRIORITIES IN ANY SESSION, INCLUDING -- AND AS YOU MENTIONED, THE BUDGET IS A POLICY DOCUMENT TOO.

SO THE PRIORITIES OF SPENDING THERE DO REFLECT THE NEEDS THAT WE FEEL ARE IMPORTANT.

I THINK EDUCATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND INFRASTRUCTURE ARE THE TOP THREE MOST IMPORTANT ITEMS TO DEAL WITH IN THE BUDGET AND IN THE LEGISLATURE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COULD HELP SOLVE ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS IN THAT THE REVENUE THAT'S NEEDED NEEDS TO COME NOT FROM RAISED TAXES BUT FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

YOU MENTIONED THE GAS TAX.

I DON'T KNOW -- I'M NOT CONVINCED AND WOULD LIKE TO HEAR TESTIMONY ABOUT THE NEED FOR A GAS TAX RISE.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, BUT ARE THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS -- IS THERE ENOUGH IN THE GAS TAX FOR THAT PURPOSE?

ARE THERE OTHER THINGS TAKEN OUT OF THE GAS TAX FUNDED BY THE GAS TAX THAT COULD BE FUND IN A SEPARATE LINE ITEM THAT THE TAXPAYERS DON'T KNOW ARE FUNDED BY THE GAS TAX?

AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE REALLY, I BELIEVE, EVERY REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATOR NEEDS TO HEAR FROM THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT THEY BELIEVE THE GAS TAX NEEDS TO BE RAISED BUT THAT THAT IS A PRIORITY FOR WHAT IS NEEDED IN THEIR DISTRICT.

I HAVEN'T -- I WILL TALK TO MY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT THAT.

THEY'RE VERY RESPONSIVE TO TALKING WITH ME.

AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE A PRIORITY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DIRECT WHAT WE SHOULD DO.

>> SENATOR BERG, COMING TO YOU AND ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT HOW HIGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SHOULD RANK AND WHAT IS ACCOMPLISHED THIS LEGISLATION SESSION.

WE EVEN HAD A QUESTION THAT KIND OF CONFLATES THIS.

GERALD WALKER ASKS, "WANTS THERE BE TAX BENEFITS TO RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $10 AN HOUR FOR THE 600,000 KENTUCKIANS WHO MAKE THE MINIMUM WAGE?"

DO YOU SEE THAT AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY, RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE IN KENTUCKY?

>> ACTUALLY, LET ME GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION AND THEN I'LL GET TO THAT.

AS FAR AS WHAT NEEDS TO BE PRIORITIZED IN THIS BUDGET, I HONESTLY THINK OUR GOVERNOR HAS DONE AN AMAZING JOB, HAS GIVEN US A REALLY, REALLY GOOD BUDGET TO WORK OFF OF.

FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE TOP THREE ITEMS FOR ME WOULD BE COVID RELIEF FOR FAMILIES AND GETTING OUR KIDS BACK IN SCHOOL, INVESTING IN EDUCATION, INVESTING IN EDUCATION.

KENTUCKY HAS NOT INVESTED MON IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN FOREVER.

AND THE TRUTH IS IF WE WANT TO DEVELOP THE ECONOMY OF THIS STATE, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS DEVELOP AN EDUCATED WORKFORCE.

THAT IS PRIME DIRECTIVE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW BUSINESSES AREN'T GOING TO LOOK AT A STATE WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE AN ADEQUATELY EDUCATED WORKFORCE TO SUPPORT THEIR NEEDS.

>> SO SPECIFICALLY SENATOR BERG, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE?

SPECIFICALLY WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE IN ELEVATING, WHETHER IT'S HIGHER EDUCATION ATTAINMENT OR OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM?

WHAT SPECIFIC POLICY DO YOU THINK WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCESOME.

>> THAT'S A VERY LONG QUESTION.

THERE IS SO MUCH WORK TO BE DONE.

TO BEGIN WITH, SPECIFICALLY HONESTLY WE HAVE TO SAFELY GET OUR KIDS BACK IN SCHOOL.

IN THE LONG TERM, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AS A STATE IS SUPPORT EDUCATION.

WE HAVE TO MAKE IT A PRIORITY THAT WE EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN AND WE KEEP THEM HERE IN THIS STATE SO THAT THEY CAN GROW THE REVENUE THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD AND COMPETE ON A NATIONAL LEVEL.

I REALLY THINK THAT IS SOMETHING KENTUCKY HAS LET OURSELVES FALL BEHIND IN, AND WE HAVE GOT TO CATCH BACK UP WITH THE REST OF THE NATION.

I ALSO THINK ONE OF MY TOP PRIORITIES, AND IT'S IN THE BUDGET AND I HOPE IT STAYS IN THE BUDGET, I THINK THIS PANDEMIC HAS BROUGHT OUT -- HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE NEED BOTH IN URBAN AND IN RURAL SETTINGS FOR ADEQUATE BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE.

AGAIN, IF WE WANT TO DO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THIS STATE, WHICH IS EVERYBODY'S GOAL BECAUSE YOU NEED THE REVENUE, YOU NEED THE GROWTH, WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE THIS STATE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE FROM OTHER STATES ARE GOING TO LOOK AND SAY, OH, LOOK AT KENTUCKY.

THERE'S LOTS OF LAND.

THE PEOPLE ARE NICE.

THE SCHOOLING IS GOOD.

THE HOUSINGS EVERRING IS NOT EXPENSIVE.

-- THE HOUSING IS NOT EXPENSIVE AND WE CAN WORK FROM HOME.

WE'RE NOT OFFERING THAT TO PEOPLE.

THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THING IF WE ARE TO LOOK FORWARD WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT DO WE NEED TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE, AND I HOPE THIS BUDGET ENDS UP REFLECTING THOSE VALUES.

>> REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON, THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

WHAT DO YOU HOPE WILL BE REFLECTED IN THIS BUDGET THAT PASSES AT THE END OF THE SPRING OR MARCH 30th, WE SHOULD SAY?

>> I THINK THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY SENT US HERE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM.

SO FAMILIES.

FIRST OF ALL WANT WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH COVID.

WE MUST DEAL WITH COVID.

THAT'S THE SUREST WAY TO GET THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK.

SECONDLY, FAMILIES NEED HELP.

THEY NEED HELP.

>> WHAT DOES THE HELP LOOKING, REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON?

WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE FOR FAMILIES.

>> THERE ARE FOOD LINES.

THERE ARE FOOD LINES, PEOPLE THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN IN FOOD LINES BEFORE.

IT'S ALL SORT OF INTERCONNECTED.

SMALL BUSINESSES NEED HELP SO THAT THEY CAN KEEP THEIR DOORS OPEN, THEY CAN KEEP THEIR EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED, AND THAT'S WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET DID.

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO BE REALLY GOOD AT THIS, CREATING A BOLD FUTURE, WHICH I AGREE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE STUDIO.

WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE DON'T -- NOW WE NEED TO PAY NOW OR YOU PAY LATER.

SINCE WE DIDN'T PAY THEN, WE'VE GOT TO PAY NOW.

AND WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INFRASTRUCTURE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE NOT ONLY WITH THE ROADS, I'D LIKE TO SEE KENTUCKY BECOME ONE OF THE FIRST STATES TO HAVE STATEWIDE BROADBAND, FREE FOR ANYBODY THAT LIVES IN THIS STATE SO THAT OUR KIDS CAN LEARN, WE CAN HAVE MORE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN THE RURAL AREAS, THEY CAN HAVE DOCTORS.

IT WILL BE SUCH A HUGE BENEFIT FOR FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN KENTUCKY TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET SO THEY CAN GET THE THINGS THEY NEED THAT MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THEIR LOCALITY.

>> SO THAT SOUNDS MORE THAN A $12 BILLION BILL THAN WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE RIGHT NOW ON THE TABLE.

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF TAX INCREASES THAT WOULD MAKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLE?

>> WHAT I'M IN FAVOR OF IS HAVING THE CONVERSATION SO WE CAN CREATE WHERE WE CAN GET THAT MONEY FROM.

RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO PLAN THAT I KNOW OF.

THE LEADERS MIGHT HAVE A PLAN.

BUT THERE'S NO PLAN THAT I KNOW OF THAT SAYS WE NEED THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY TO HAVE BROADBAND AND WATER AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S MISSING FOR FAMILIES FOR THE WHOLE STATE OF KENTUCKY.

NOT JUST THE URBAN AREAS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, A QUESTION TO YOU.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE STATE NEEDS MORE REVENUE TO DO ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR CAUCUS WOULD LIKE TO SEE COME TO FRUITION OR DO YOU BELIEVE IT CAN ALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE MONEY THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, IN THE REVENUE STREAM CURRENTLY AVAILABLE?

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH REVENUE.

WE CAN'T GO INTO DEBT.

WE CAN'T PRINT MONEY.

BUT I THINK USING TAXATION, RISING TAX RATES OR NEW REVENUE SOURCES THROUGH TAXATION, I WILL NOT GET THIS QUOTE RIGHT, BUT A FRIEND OF MINE HAS A PERFECT QUOTE SAYING THAT THAT'S LIKE A MAN STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A STREAM AND WITH A BUCKET AND ATTEMPTING TO HULL PULL HIMSELF OF THE STREAM BY PULLING UP ON THE HANDLES OF THE BUCK.

IT WILL NOT WORK.

WE CANNOT TAX OURSELVES INTO PROSPERITY.

SO I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GROW OUR ECONOMY THROUGH -- I THINK WE DID A WONDERFUL JOB IN STARTING TOWARD THE CORRECT TAX REFORM TO GROW THE ECONOMY.

WE HAD WONDERFUL REVENUES, NEW REVENUES, NOT FROM RISING TAX RATES BUT THROUGH THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO DO IT.

AND CURRENTLY WE HAVE TO GET OUR ECONOMY OPEN SAFELY.

WE HAVE TO GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK.

WE HAVE TO DO SUCH THINGS AS YOU MENTIONED, THE BILL THAT WOULD CREATE SOME TYPE OF LIABILITY, INSURANCE AGAINST LIABILITY, NOT INSURANCE THAT -- PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL REOPEN SAFELY.

WE HAVE GOT TO GET OUR ECONOMY REOPENED.

AND THAT'S WHY OUR -- THE REPUBLICAN AIM FOR ALL THAT WE DO IS TO RESTORE THE ECONOMY, TO REOPEN AND RESTORE THE ECONOMY SAFELY SO THAT FROM NOW ON, FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, WE CAN MOVE OUT OF THIS PROBLEM THAT WE'RE IN.

WITH GROWTH, ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

AND SO I THINK THOSE TYPES OF FOCUS, NOT NEW TAXES, ARE MUCH BETTER.

>> I DO WANT TO ASK YOU, REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, IS IT A BIFURCATED PROPOSITION THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE A GOOD ECONOMY, YOU HAVE TO IGNORE THE PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT COVID?

ARE THOSE EITHER/OR?

IS IT A BOTH AND?

>> NO.

NO.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THE CONVERSATION IS SOMEWHAT BIEVER H. BIFURCATED, THAT IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THE GOVERNOR IS DOING, THAT'S WHY THE ECONOMY IS TANKING AND BUSINESSES ARE SHUTTERING AND THE KIDS AREN'T LEARNING, BUT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.

WOULD YOU AGREE?

>> I THINK IT IS COMPLICATED BUT DO I THINK THAT THE ORDERS TO SHUT DOWN ON AN EXTENDED TERM ARE NOT HELPFUL.

I THINK THAT -- I KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHARITY I RUN DOES HAVE A STORE, A THRIFT STORE.

AND WE WANT OUR CUSTOMERS TO BE SAFE.

WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE ILL. WE DON'T WANT OUR WORKERS TO BE ILL. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY BY CREATING A PLAN, WHICH WE HAVE DONE, TO KEEP THEM SAFE.

I THINK ALL BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD DO THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A ONE SIZE FITS ALL PLAN, AND I THINK THAT ANY TIME YOU ALLOW THE FREEDOM, FREEDOM FOR YOUR PEOPLE TO WORK TOWARD THEIR OWN GOOD, KNOWING THAT WE ALL WANT THE BEST FOR EACH OTHER, YOU WILL UNLEASH THE CREATIVITY THAT THAT TYPE OF AN ENVIRONMENT BRINGS.

NO ONE WANTS TO HELP ANYONE ELSE BECOME SICK.

AND I THINK WE CAN TRUST OUR CITIZENS TO REOPEN SAFELY.

THAT IS A GOAL.

I DO NOT THINK IT'S AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION.

SHUTDOWN OR OPEN UNSAFELY.

THAT'S A FALSE NARRATIVE.

>> AND I'LL POSE THIS QUESTION TO YOU, REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, FIRST.

THE IMPEACHMENT PETITION THAT IS UP AGAINST THE GOVERNOR AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND A SITTING STATE REPRESENTATIVE.

I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE GOVERNOR FIRST BECAUSE THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION RIGHT NOW.

DO YOU THINK THAT THAT IS PROPER AND IN ORDER AND THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS OVERSTEPPED HIS BOUNDS AS SUCH, THAT THOSE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, ABUSE OF POWER?

>> WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE AN OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE IMPEACHMENT.

I HAVE NOT HEARD THE GOVERNOR'S FULL RESPONSE.

AND I MAY BE CALLED UPON TO VOTE ON IT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE THAT JUDGMENT UNTIL IT'S TIME.

AND IT MAY NOT BECOME TIME.

I TRUST THIS COMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN SET UP.

AND, YES, THIS PETITION WAS NOT FILED BY THE LEGISLATURE OR ANYONE IN IT.

IT WAS FILED BY INDIVIDUALS, CITIZEN.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A REFLECTION ON ANYONE IN THE LEGISLATURE WANTING TO IMPEACH THE GOVERNOR OR WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T.

IT IS A STA MATERIAL REQUIRED.

SO THERE IS A STATUTE -- STATUTORILY ROYAL.

IT REQUIRES THE SETTING UP OF A COMMITTEE.

I'M A NENT OF THE RULE OF LAW, SO I THINK WE SHOULD FOLLOW THAT, AND THAT IS ALSO THE REASON I WON'T EXPRESS AN OPINION, IS I BELIEVE IN DUE PROCESS, AND I WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE MATTER, IF IT EVER COMES TO THE FULL HOUSE, THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

AND ON THE OTHER -- I'M SORRY.

>> NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, SO I ASSUME YOU HAVE THE EXACT SAME FEELINGS ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL CAMERON AND THE PETITION THAT IS ALSO LEVELED AGAINST HIM AS WELL.

>> I THINK THE PROCESS NEEDS TO PLAY OUT PURSUANT TO LAW.

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD FIRST AND FOREMOST FIND OUT WHAT THE LAW IS FOR IMPEACHING.

AND IF THE SAME PROCESS IS TO APPLY, WHICH I THINK IT IS, I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE -- IT SHOULD POLITE THE SAME WAY.

>> REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON, I'LL GO TO YOU FIRST.

ON THE ATTORNEY.

WE HAVE A ROOM FULL OF THEM OR STUDIO FULL OF THEM TONIGHT.

YOUR POSITION ON THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE AND THE PROCESS THAT IS UNFOLDING.

>> WELL, LET ME JUST SAY THIS.

IF I -- I HAVE TO ASK MYSELF THE QUESTION.

IF PEOPLE WERE BEING RESPONSIBLE CONSISTENTLY WITH -- WOULD THE COVID NUMBERS BE GOING UP AND UP AND UP?

I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF PEOPLE WANTING OTHERS TO BE SICK.

IT'S JUST THEY INTERPRET DO I WEAR THE MASK ABOVE MY NOSE?

IS WEARING THE MASK ONE A DAY ENOUGH?

OUR INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT IS REQUIRED ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT ONCE YOU GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO SAY, THAT DIFFERENCE IS OKAY STIN SAID STEAD ONE STANDARD, THE NUMBERS WILL CONTINUE TO RISE.

NOW, SECONDLY, THE QUESTION I HAVE ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT IS WHY -- I BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW TOO!

I THINK WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULE CONSISTENTLY.

AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE NOT.

WHENEVER THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, IT NEVER GOT THIS FAR.

IT WAS GIVEN TO A COMMITTEE, AND THE COMMITTEE LOOKED AT IT AND ALLOWED I IT TO DIE.

SO WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT OF A MAN WHO HAS SAVED THIS STATE FROM MANY DEATHS OF COVID AND IS DOING THE BEST HE CAN FOR ALL KENTUCKIANS?

THAT WOULD SAY IMPEACH HIM BECAUSE HE'S DOING THE WORK OF GOD.

>> SO LET ME-- >> THAT'S THE QUESTION I WANT ANSWERED.

>> SENATOR STORM, LET ME ASK YOU YOUR THOUGHTS.

IT'S NOTE IN YOUR CHAMBER AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT BUT JUST YOUR THOUGHTS SO FAR.

>> IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE HOUSE AS YOU POINTED OUT.

AND I WOULD BE A POTENTIAL JUROR MEMBER IN THE EVENT IT DOES COME TO THE SENATE AND I HAVE TO REMAIN UNBIASED AND I WANT COMMENT ON THIS MATTER.

>> SURE.

SENATOR BERG?

>> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD REALLY LIKE THE CHANCE TO RESPOND TO OUR LAST DISCUSSION.

IF PEOPLE KNEW UNEQUIVOCALLY HOW -- WHAT IT TOOK TO OPEN YOUR BUSINESS SAFELY, I AGREE THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY BE WILLING TO DO IT.

WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC WITH A NOVEL VIRUS.

THIS IS A VIRUS WE HAVE NOT AS A MEDICAL COMMUNITY, HAVE NOT DEALT WITH IN THE PASS.

SO FOR JUST SOMEBODY TO CAVALIERLY SAY PEOPLE WANT THEIR WORKERS TO BE SAFE, THEY WANT THEIR PATRONS TO BE SAFE AND WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP THEM SAFE TO ME IS LIKE THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, AND THE DETAILS ARE VERY COMPLICATED.

AND IF ALL OF THESE EMPLOYERS WERE WORKING SO HARD TO KEEP THEIR EMPLOYEES SAFE, WHY HAVE WE HAD SO MANY DEATHS IN FOOD PACKING INDUSTRIES?

WHY HAVE WE HAD SO MANY POLICE OFFICERS?

WE HAVE HAD FRONTLINE WORKERS ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY DYING FROM THIS PANDEMIC.

AND, GUYS, I DON'T WANT TO SCARE PEOPLE, BUT WE'VE GOT THREE NEW STRAINS THAT ARE NOW IN THIS COUNTRY, AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S ABILITY TO RESPOND TO A CRISIS, IF THIS SOUTH AFRICAN VARIANT GETS HERE AND BECOMES THE PRIMARY VIRUS IN THIS STATE, AGAIN, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

EVERY 30 DAYS WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE LEGISLATURE BACK TO FRANKFORT TO AGREE THAT, YES, WE ARE STILL IN A CRISIS AND, YES, WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE REGULATIONS AND RULES THAT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.

I JUST THINK YOU'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR YOU.

REALLY HAVE TO THING LONG AND HARD WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE STUCK WITH THE RESULTS OF THIS LEGISLATION.

>> SO SENATOR BERG -- >> AND IT'S GOING TO BE DANGER.

>> SENATOR BERG, YOU HAVE THAT SAME CONSISTENT POSITION IF THE GOVERNOR I WAS REPUBLICAN, CORRECT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, DURING THE CHRISTS, ANYTHING WE DO AT THIS POINT IS REACTIONARY.

WE ARE -- DURING THE CRISIS.

WE ARE REACTING TO A COVID PANDEMIC.

THESE RULERS NOT FOR ONE CRISIS OR ANOTHER CRISIS OR ANOTHER CRISIS.

THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SPAN HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND HUNDREDS OF CRISES.

SO TO CHANGE THEM BECAUSE THIS CRISIS HAPPENED TO LAST LONGER THAN YOU THOUGHT IT SHOULD AND YOU THINK THE GOVERNOR'S OVERSTEPPING HIS BORDERS, EVEN THOUGH EVERYTHING HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURTS, EVERY DECISION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURTS, TO ME, AGAIN, IF WE -- IF PEOPLE KNEW HOW TO KEEP EVERYBODY SAFE, I BELIEVE THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD BE DOING IT.

DO I BELIEVE THAT EVERYBODY WOULD BE DOING IT?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I GET AT LEAST NOW STILL TEN EMAILS A DAY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THESE REGULATIONS.

GUYS, IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.

THERE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN FROM THE TOP OF THIS COUNTRY TO THE BOTTOM.

PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE, AND PEOPLE ARE SCARED, AND YOU CAN'T BLAME THEM.

THE MESSAGING HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT.

THE ANSWERS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSISTENTLY IN PART BECAUSE THE ANSWERS HAVE CHANGED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PANDEMIC.

AND PEOPLE NEED GUIDANCE.

>> OKAY.

>> SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT OUT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING I FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT.

>> WE GOT YOU.

>> I REALLY THINK THAT -- >> THANK YOU.

LET ME GET -- >> AGAIN -- >> ANSWER THAT QUESTION VERY QUICKLY.

>> I FEEL WE HAVE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE WORKING ON.

MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE WORKING ON.

>> WE'LL STOP RIGHT THERE.

SENATOR STORM, YES.

>> I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN ONE MOMENT AND ADDRESS THE SENATOR'S COMMENTS.

I THINK ALL THE BILLS, IF YOU GO BOOK AND LOOK AT YOU WILL ALL THOSE BILLS, I THINK THEY ALL WORK TOGETHER, IN UNISON, AND IT AFFORDS TRANSPARENCY WEB IT AFFORDS CHECKS AND BALANCES, AND IT AFFORDS THE PEOPLE'S BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TO HAVE EQUAL FOOTING AND EQUAL STAY IN WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR LIVES.

SO WHAT MAY BE GOOD FOR PADUCAH MAY NOT BE GOOD FOR PIKEVILLE.

WHAT MAY BE GOOD FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY MAY NOT BE GOOD FOR ESTILL CONTY AND VICE VERSA.

AGAIN THIS GIVES THE PEOPLE'S BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT EQUAL FOOTING.

>> SO I WANT TO -- WE'VE GOT LESS TIME THAN I WOULD LIKE -- BUT TO TALK ABOUT A WAY THAT COULD ALLOW YOU FLEXIBILITY TO DEAL WITH GRAVE ISSUES LIKE COVID, AND THAT'S A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO GIVE YOU SOME FLEXIBILITY IN YOUR LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE.

SENATOR STORM, THIS IS I THINK SENATOR SKYDIVERS HAS HAD ITERATIONS OF THIS BILL THAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY HOUSE SPEAKER AVID ODD BORNE THAT COULD STRIKE YOUR TERMINATION DATES.

IN THE ODD YEAR THERE WOULD NOT BE A MARCH 30th DEADLINE AND THE EVEN YEAR NOT BE A APRIL 15th DEADLINE AND YOU WOULD HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO COME OUT OF SESSION TEN EXTRA DAYS IN YOU NEEDED THEM.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROVED TO DO SO.

DO YOU THINK THAT SEEMS LIKE A RATIONALE WAY TO GO ABOUT THESE OCCURRENCES THAT ARE UNPREDICTABLE AND UNPRECEDENTED?

>> SHULTE.

THE REASON IS LIKE YOU SAID IT GETS -- ABSOLUTELY.

IT GIVES US FLEXIBILITY.

ISSUES IN OUR LIVES DON'T JUST OCCUR DURING THE-ESQUE SESSION, SO WE NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE, WE HAVE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE COMMONWEALTHY P.1 WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA.

>> THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT THIS WOULD IN FACT CREATE MORE OF AN ELITIST BODY OF LEGISLATURE, THAT ONLY THOSE WHO COULD AFFORD AND ARE INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY OR HAD MEANS TO TAKE OFF TIME.

IT WOULD RULE OUT A BIG SECTION OF THE POPULATION THAT'S THE EVER WOMAN, EVERY MAN, DO YOU THINK IN.

>> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, NO.

>> RIGHT.

SO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE HAVING THE FLEXIBILITY FLEXIBILITY WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO -- >> ABSOLUTELY, YEAH,.

>> -- WORK IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

>> IF YOU CAN'T WORK HERE DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, YOU CAN BE FLEXIBLE.

YOU CAN TALK TO LEADERSHIP AND SAY, LISTEN, I CAN'T BE HERE THAT WEEK.

IF IT'S AN EMERGENCY SITUATION OBVIOUSLY THEY'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH THE EMERGENCY, BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN BE FLEXIBLE ABOUT, THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE.

FLEXIBILITY.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DECKER, WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON HAVING THIS FLEXIBILITY?

OF COURSE, IT'S SEVERAL MILES TO GO ON THIS PARTICULAR BILL BECAUSE, AS I MENTIONED, IT IS A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

IT HAS TO PASS BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RATIFIED BY WORTS IN 2022.

BUT WHERE DO YOU STAND?

>> I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA IN THAT FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT SENATOR STORM HAS TALKED ABOUT.

BUT ON THE E LETTIST ISSUE, I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY HARD FOR MOST PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE THEIR JOB FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT CANNOT BE BROKEN UP SO THAT THEY COULD COME AND GO WITH THEIR WORK.

II THINK IT ACTUALLY WOULD FREE MORE PEOPLE TO SERVE IF IT WEREN'T SUCH A LONG STRETCH OF TIME.

I THINK IT WOULD IMPROVE THE ATMOSPHERE WHERE WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK IF NEEDED.

IT WOULD ALLOW US TO ADDRESS EMERGENCIES BETTER.

SO I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.

>> THERE IS A CONCERN, REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON, THAT IT WEBSITE YEAR-ROUND LEGISLATURE IN MANY WAYS BECAUSE OF THE ROBUST INTERIM SCHEDULE IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS.

BEFORE YOU ALL ARRIVED, IT HAS BEEN MORE OF A NON-CITIZEN LEGISLATURE IN THE FACTS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY YEAR ROUND.

REAL QUICKLY IN ABOUT 45 SECOND TELL ME WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS.

>> NO.

BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE HOURLY WORKERS THAT ARE SMART CITIZENS THAT WANT TO BE LEGISLATORS RIGHT NOW WEI WE'RE MEETING OVER THE NEXT TWO MONTHS FOR THREE DAYS A WEEK AND COULD MANAGE THAT PERHAPS.

BUT IF IT'S AT THE WHIM, AT THE CALL THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE A LOT OF WORKING CLASS PEOPLE WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO SERVE.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WORKING CLASS PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND THAT'S SOMETHING PERHAPS WE SHOULD TAKE STOCK OF, BUT I'LL GIVE YOU THE FINAL WORD IN ABOUT 30 SECONDS, SENATOR BERG, ON THIS ISSUE.

>> MY CONCERN IS HONESTLY THE COST.

THEY'RE ESTIMATING IT AT $60,000 TO $65,000 PER DAY.

FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO BE ABLE TO CALL THEMSELVES INTO SESSION.

THAT'S PER DAY.

$65,000 A DAY.

AND THE OTHER THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THE LEGISLATION AS WRITTEN, IF YOU HAVE THE POWER TO BASICALLY CALL YOURSELF INTO SESSION, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER TO PAY YOURSELF.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU CALL YOURSELF INTO INVESTIGATION YOU'RE GETTING PAID FOR THAT.

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS ON THAT?

WHAT IS TO STOP US.

FROM ABUSING THAT?

>> SENATOR BERG, WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE FOR TIME'S SAKE.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

WE'LL HAVE TO PICK UP THIS CONVERSATION SOME OTHER TIME BEE WE HOPE TO VIEWERS GOT TO LEARN ABOUT YOU AND THAT YOU'LL ENGAGE WITH THEM.

YOU CAN KEEP ON TOP OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN FOR TOMORROW NIGHT.

I'LL BE ON WITH YOU TOMORROW NIGHT 11:00 P.M. EASTERN, 10 CENTRAL RIGHT HERE ON KET.

TUNE IN NEXT WEEK.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT HISTORICAL HORSE RACING RIGHT HERE ON "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."