WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

HAPPY NEW year I'M RENEE SHAW.

THEIR H.THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING us LAWMAKERS HEAD BACK TO FRANKFORT TOMORROW TO BEGIN A SHORT SESSION OF THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA: A ONE-YEAR STATE BUDGET AND REPUBLICAN PLANS TO LIMIT THE GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY POWERS, AS THE STATE CONTINUES TO DEAL WIT THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

HOW WILL COVID AFFECT HOW LEGISLATORS DO AND WHAT ARE OTHER POLICY PRIORITIES DURING THIS 30-DAY S?

TO DISCUSS ALL THIS AND MORE IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO WE'RE GLADS TO have STATE SENATOR ROBERT ST PRESIDENT OF THE KENTUCKY SENATE, A REPUBLICAN FROM MANCHESTER, AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID OSBORNE, SPEAKER OF THE KENTUCKY HOUSE O REPRESENTATIVES, A REPUBLICAN FROM PROSPECT.

IN OUR FRANKFORT STUDIO, STATE SENATOR MORGAN MC SENATE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER, A DEMOCRAT FROM LOUISVILLE, AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE JONI JENKINS, HOUSE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER, A DEMOCRAT FROM SHIVELY WE WANT YOU TO JOIN THE CONVERSATION.

SENT SEND US JURY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON TWITTER @KYTONIGHT SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.

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

OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT 1-.

PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND WHERE YOU'RE FROM ON ALL YOUR MESSAGES.

WELCOME TO OFF THE OUR GUESTS WHETHER YOU'RE IN LONGER IN OUR FRANKFORT STUDIO.

IT'S GOOD YOU HAVE TO YOU ALL.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>> GOOD TO BE HERE.

>> I WANT START OFF PERHAPS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT ON A PERSONAL NOTE HERE.

ELEVEN SOME LEGISLATIVE LEADERS GOT THE COVID-19 VACCINATION TODAY FROM MODERNA IN THE CAPITOL ROTUNDA AND OUR LEADERS IN OUR FRANKFORT STUDIO, LEADERS McGARVEY AND JENKINS WERE AMONG THEM.

I WANT TO ASK LEADER GINS FIRST, HOW ARE YOU FEELING AND WHY WAS IT SO FOREIGN IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE PUBLICALLY VACCINATED TODAY?

>> I FEEL GREAT.

NO SIDE EFFECTS PLAME SORENESS IN THE ARM.

BUT WAS VERY HAPPY TO DO THIS IN A VERY PUBLIC WAY TO LET KENTUCKIANS KNOW IT IS VERY SAFE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND IT IS OUR SHOT FOR GETTING BACK TO NORMAL.

TO OPENING OUR SCHOOLS, TO OPENING OUR BUSINESSES AND OPENING OUR CHURCHES.

SO I HOPE THAT EVERY -- I HOPE THAT EVERY KENTUCKIAN WHEN AT THE THEY GET THE OPPORTUNITY WILL TAKE.

>> IT SAME QUESTION TO YOU, LEADER McGARVEY.

HOW ARE YOU FEELING?

>> YEAH, I ECHO THE SENTIMENTS OF LEADER JENKINS, A LITTLE BIT OF SORENESS IN THE ARM.

I'LL ADMIT IT.

I AM NOT A FAN OF NEEDLES, AND UNIT EVEN FEEL THE SHOT, SO I WAS GLAD.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR TO US SET THAT TONE THAT THIS IS A VACCINE.

WE BELIEVE IT IS SAFE.

WE WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE IT.

WE WANT OUR SCHOOLS.

WE WANT OUR BUSINESSES OPEN.

WE THINK THIS IS THE FASTEST WAY TO DO IT.

I THINK IT WAS IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, THAT YOU HAD THE LEADERS FROM BOTH PARTIES THERE TODAY, AND I HOPE THAT ALSO SETS A GOOD TONE AS WE GO INTO THE SESSION.

>> AND FORMER GOVERNORS AND THEIR SPOUSES WERE ALSO VACCINATED TODAY SAVE ONE LIVING GOVERNOR HOE DID NOT CHOOSE HAD TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

I DO WANT TO ASK SENATE PRESIDENT STRIVE STIVERS AND YOU OSBORNE WERE EVACUATION NATED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

HOW DID IT GO FOR YOU?

>> SAME WITH JONI AND MORGAN.

IT IS A GOOD BIPARTISAN SHOW.

HAD A LITTLE SORENESS ONLY UPON MOVEMENT BUT NO SIDE FEDEX.

I HAVE FELT WELL SINCE THE TIME I TOOK THE VIRUS.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR MORGAN, THOUGH, DOES HE REALLY KNOW ANYBODY THAT LIKES NEEDLES?

>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT SHOW, RIGHT, DIFFERENT TOPIC.

AS SPEAKER OSBORNE, FINALLY TO YOU, SIR.

>> SURE.

THE SAME.

SORENESS IN THE INJECTION SITE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT NO CONSEQUENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS AS THE ALL.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO KID YOU.

IT WAS -- I THINK ALL OF US BATTLED A LITTLE BIT OF INTERNAL CONFLICT OVER IT.

JUST TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE VACCINE, I HAD HAD MY PHYSICAL AND I., KNOCK ON WOOD, PRONOUNCED HEALTHY, SO THAT REPRESENTS A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFLICT TO THINK ABOUT AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY PERSON, MAYBE GETTING ONE PRIOR TO SOMEBODY ELSE MORE DESERVING, BUT I HAD SO MANY CONSTITUENTS THAT WERE EXPRESSING CONCERNS, THAT IT DID SEEM TO BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO SHOW THAT WE BELIEVED IT WAS SAFE AND AN IMPORTANT THING TO DO.

>> WILL YOU GET THE SECOND DOSE IN A PUBLIC FASHION LIKE YOU DID THE FIRST OR WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL BE PUBLIC.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN SCHEDULED YET OR NOT.

>> RIGHT.

ARE THERE PLANS TO VACCINATE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE LAWMAKERS?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OVERARCHING PLAN TO DO THAT.

BUT I'M NOT SURE.

THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS PRETTY MUCH ROLLED THAT OUT, SO I'M NOT REAL SURE WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE FOR THAT.

>> RIGHT.

DID I MENTION ABOUT THE FORMER GOVERNORS AND OTHER POLITICIANS THAT HAVE BEEN VACCINATED, AND I'VE AHEAD, SOME CRITICISM KIND OF TO WHAT YOU WERE SPEAKING ABOUT, SPEAKER, OSBORNE, THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE WERE OLDER, IN WORSE CONDITION, WHO ARE IN WAIT TO HAVE HAD A VACCINE, AND THERE ARE THE ONES WHO GOT THE VACCINE, SOME OF THEM HAVE REBUFFED SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS, AND SO THEY'RE A LITTLE RANGELED BY THAT.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE IN.

>> AGAIN, IT WAS A CONFLICT.

I DON'T -- IT WAS ONE THAT I STRUGGLED WITH QUITE A BIT ACTUALLY.

BUT ULTIMATELY IN TALKING TO CONSTITUENTS THAT HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS, DOUBTS ABOUT THE VIRUS WEEK SEEING THAT ALL AROUND THE STATE REALLY, I DO THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE THAT STEP, AND IT'S CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THERE WILL BE CRITICISM ON ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT EQUATION SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WERE IMMUNE TO AND CERTAINLY USED TO.

>> I DO WANT TO ASK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, HAVE YOU HEARD FROM THOSE WHO DO FEEL MORE CONFIDENT ABOUT TAKING THE VACCINE WHEN IT'S THEIR TURN BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU DID IT?

>> AND I AGREE WITH DAVID AND I THINK ALL OF US HEAR THAT SAME VEIN.

I THINK THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THAT WOULD FOLLOW THE CRITERIA, THE ONES THAT ARE MORE AT RISK PROBABLY SHOULD TAKE IT AND SHOULD BE OFFERED IT, BUT I HAD NUMEROUS PEOPLE CALL AND SAY, WE SAW IT REMEMBER HOW ARE YOU FEELING?

ANY SIDE EFFECTS?

I TOLD THEM WHAT I TOLD YOU EARLIER.

THEY SAID, GOOD, THAT MAKES ME FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT TAKING THE SHOT.

AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE.

YOU KNOW, YES, WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE OTHER PEOPLE THERE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM THAT PURE STANDPOINT OF NEED, BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE PR AND THE PUBLIC RELATIONS THAT WAS SET BY THAT IMAGERY OF ALL OF US TAKING IT, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, SERVED ITS PURPOSE.

>> SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE START TOMORROW.

YAY.

12:00 NOON YOU GAVEL IN.

IT WAS REPORTED TODAY THAT MASKS WILL BE RECOMMENDED, NOT REQUIRED.

SO I WANT TO ASK THE TWO LEADERS HERE AND THEN I'LL GET A RESPONSE TO OUR LEADERS IN FRANKFORT.

WHY ENCOURAGED AND NOT MAN DATED OR REQUIRED, SPEAKER, OSBORNE?

>> WE ARE REQUIRING MEMBERS TO WEAR THEM WHEN THEY'RE ON THE FLOOR AND WHEN THEY'RE IN PUBLIC SPACES DEALING WITH STAFF.

BEYOND THAT, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO SOCIALLY DISTANCE, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO CONFINE THEMSELVES HAD TO OFFICES, THEN CERTAINLY WE WOULD LIKE TOWS HAD RESTRICTIONS.

>> SO WHAT'S THE REPERCUSSIONS IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES?

>> WE WILL SEE.

>> WE WILL SEE.

OKAY.

SO THIS IS ACROSS THE BOARD P YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING AS THE LOWER CHAMBER?

>> WE ARE.

AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.

WE HOPE THERE IS COMPLIANCE BECAUSE IN BOTH CHAMBERS, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT, WE DO HAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE AT RISK, AND WE DON'T WANT THEM TO GET INFECTED AND HAVE LONG-TERM COMPLICATIONS, BUT WE CAN'T UNELECT A PERSON.

SO WE WILL DO THE BEST WE CAN TO ENCOURAGE IT AND POLICE IT.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE?

>> WELL, WE HAVE A LOT OF TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US, BUT HOPEFULLY, OUT OF CONSIDERATION AND RESPECT FOR ALL THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED, NOT JUST THE ELECTS BUT 5 UN HUNDRED STAFF PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE THE LRC, THAT INDIVIDUALS WILL RESPECT THEIR HEALTH AND THEY ARE DESIRE TO NOT BE EXPOSED.

>> I WANT TO GO TO FRANKFORT NOW.

LEADER JENKINS, YOU WERE QUOTED AS SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TOMORROW.

EXACTLY WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING ON DOING TOMORROW?

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A CORRECT QUOTE.

I HAVE FILED A RESOLUTION TO REQUIRE MASK WEARING ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND IN COMMON AREAS.

I'M VERY HEARTENED TO HEAR THE SPEAKER'S WORDS THAT MASKS WILL BE REQUIRED, AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE SPEAKER FOR GOING AHEAD AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, IF THEY CHOOSE, CAN VOTE REMOTELY FROM THEIR ANNEX OFFICES.

I THINK PUTTING 100 PEOPLE IN THAT ROOM, MASKS OR NOT, IS AN IFFY SITUATION.

SO I AM VERY, VERY HARDEN THE TONIGHT HEARTENED THE HEAR THE SPEAKER TALK ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT OF MASKS AND I'M VERY THANKFUL THAT WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT OUR MEMBERS CAN VOTE FROM THEIR OFFICES AND THE ANNEX.

>> AND THIS EXPERIMENT PLAYED OUT AT THE LAST FEW WEEKS OF THE 2020 SESSION, RIGHT?

THERE WAS REMOTE VOTING AND PARTICIPATION.

SO IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE THAT AGAIN?

>> NO, IT'S GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

BEFORE THE MEMBERS HAD TO GO THROUGH THEIR LEADERSHIP AND WE ANNOUNCED THEIR VOTES ON THE FLOOR, WHICH WAS VERY, VERY TEDIOUS, TOOK A LONG TIME.

THEY ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY VOTE THROUGH AN APP ON THEIR LRC COMPUTERS IN THEIR OFFICE, SO IT WILL SPEED THINGS UP QUITE A BIT.

>> THAT'S GOOD.

THAT'S GOOD.

ANYTHING ELSE YOU CARE TO ADD TO THAT, SPEAKER OSBORNE?

>> I WANT TO GIVE A HUGE SHOUT-OUT TO OUR I.T.

STAFF.

THEY DID YEOMAN'S WORK.

WHEN WE DID IT AT THE END OF SESSION IT WAS RUDIMENTARY AND TEED JUST AND TIME-CONSUMING BUT THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB IN MODIFYING OUR TECHNOLOGY AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO VOTE IN REALTIME FROM THEIR DENSE THEY WILL BE TO BE IN FRANKFORT, THEY WILL HAVE TO BE AT THEIR DESK, BUT IT WILL GIVE PEOPLE I THINK A LITTLE MORE COMFORT.

>> AND I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK YOU THAT AND YOU CLARIFIED THEY DO HAVE TO BE TO THE CAPITOL GROUNDS.

THEY CAN'T BE ELSEWHERE.

SO IN THE SENATE CANNY PARTICIPATE REMOTELY OR ARE THEY TO BE PRESENT PHYSICALLY?

>> IN COMMITTEE THEY CAN BE REMOTE.

TO VOTE, THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE FLOOR.

BUT WE'RE REDUCING OUR STAFF AND WE HAVE 38 VERSUS 100.

I AGREE WITH WHAT THE SPEAKER HAS TALKED ABOUT.

IT'S A TOTAL DIFFERENT SCENARIO.

AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE ROOM AND ROOMS TO THE SIDE, AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE PROTOCOLS WE'RE DOING JUST LIKE WE DID LAST YEAR, AND I WANT TO SAY THIS.

IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE REPORTED CASE OF EITHER STAFF OR LEGISLATOR RELATED TO THEIR DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS THERE ON THE CAMPUS OF STATE GOVERNMENT.

>> EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT SENATOR MAX WISE HAD CONTRACTED COVID, THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES OF LAWMAKERS OR STAFF HAVING CONTRACTED COVID, SO YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT, BUT IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO THEIR -- >> THEIR DUTIES THERE AS A LEGISLATOR OR AS A LRC BLEE.

>> SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOUR SAFETY PROTOCOLS ARE PROOF THAT THEY'RE WORKING BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T HAD AN INCIDENT THAT COULD BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO BUSINESS THERE.

>> I CAN'T SAY IT'S PROOF, BUT I CAN JUST SAY I THINK IT'S A GOOD CAUSAL CONNECTION TO SHOW THAT WE'RE TAKE IT SERIOUSLY AND WE ARE PUTTING FORTH THE BEST EFFORTS WE KNOW BUT STILL WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO BE THERE TOMORROW THROUGH MARCH 30TH.

>> LEADER McGARVEY, ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH WHAT YOU'RE HEARING THE SAFETY PROTOCOLS WILL BE WHEN YOU RETURN TO BUSINESS TOMORROW?

>> I AM.

AND I'M REALLY GLAD TO KNOW THAT MASKS ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED IN THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND ON THE FLOOR.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FROM SEVERAL STANDPOINTS.

FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE VACCINES, AND IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE IN OFFICE TO SHOW THAT THE VACCINE IS SAFE AND THAT PEOPLE NEED TO DO IT.

I THINK THIS IS ALSO HOW WE MODEL BEHAVIOR, THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE WEARING MASKS BECAUSE WE KNOW IT PREVENTS THE SPREAD OF THIS SPEAKERS IT'S A GOOD THING FOR US TO DO.

IT'S ALSO THE SAFE AND THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

WE HAVE TO BE HERE, AS PRESIDENT STIVERS SAID.

AGREE WHEN I AM ON THAT.

WE NEED TO BE HERE TO FULFILL OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY BUT WE ARE ALSO BRINGING PEOPLE SETTING FROM LITERALLY EVERY CORNER OF THE COMMONWEALTH, PUTTING THEM TOGETHER WITH STAFF AND PEOPLE WHO WORK HERE AND THEN GOING BACK TO OUR COMMUNITIES ON THE WEEKENDS, AND SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THOSE MASKS IN PLACE.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE.

THE SENATE IS SMALLER, AS ROBERT ALLUDE TO.

THERE'S ONLY 38 OF US.

ROBERT WITH I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE FIRMED THE LANCE UP FOR THIS BUT LAST YEAR MEMBERS WERE EVERYONE UNCOMFORTABLE VOTING FLOOR THAT A LITTLE EXTRA TIME WOULD BE ALLOWED SO THEY DON'T TO HAVE COME TO THE FLOOR TO VOTE.

YOU'RE SAYING EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT IN THE SAME SPACE RIGHT NOW, THE LEADERS REALLY ARE WORKING TOGETHER.

BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY WE WANT THE SAME THING.

WOULDN'T TO LEAD ON THIS ISSUE.

WE WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE.

WOULDN'T TO KEEP OUR NBC AND THEIR FAMILIES AND THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN BUILDING SAFE.

>> AND TO THAT, 327 WHICH YOU ARE FAMILIAR WHICH IS NEXT TO US WHICH IS A LARGE ROOM, THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT ACCESS, AND WE ARE GOING TEAK TIME IN THE VOTES.

WE'LL ANNOUNCE THEM.

YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE COMMITTEE ROOMS.

WE SEPARATED THEM.

THE LARGE COMMITTEE ROOMS ARE GOING TO BE FOR THE HOUSE, THE SMALLER ONES FOR THE SENATE.

WE ONLY HAVE 11-PERSON COMMITTEES.

WE HAVE SEPARATED THE CHAIRS OUT SO WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE A GOOD 6 TO 8 FEET APART.

THE PROTOCOLS.

WE'RE TAKING ALL THE NECESSARY STEPS THAT WE KNOW HOW BASED ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.

>> SO I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THE LOGISTICS BUT BUT I'M A GEEK THIS WAY.

I LOVE KNOWING HOW ALL ARE GOING TO FUNCTION.

I'M CURIOUS, I THINK YOU HEARD YOU BOTH SAY, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE IT WAS IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS WHERE THERE'S HUNDREDS OF BILLS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CONSIDER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOING TO EFFECT HOW MANY COMMITTEES YOU DO IN ONE DAY.

CAN YOU BREAK THAT DOWN.

NOT HOW YOU ENVISION DAY ONE, 2 TWO, THREE OR FOUR BUT MAYBE IN FEBRUARY WHEN YOU ARE IN EARNEST DOING BUSINESS WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

>> WE'RE CHANGING THE PRESUMES IT WILL BE A ONE-TIME DEAL, THAT WE'VE ALWAYS REFERRED BILLS TO A COMMITTEE.

THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN THIS YEAR.

THEY JUST MAY SIT AND NOT BE REFERRED.

SO WE WANT TO CONTROL THE FLOW.

WOULDN'T TO LIMIT OUR COMMITTEES IN THE SENATE TO ONE HOUR.

SO PEOPLE CAN COME IN, THEY CAN CLEAN.

THE NEXT GROUPS CAN COME IN.

AS I SAID EARLIER, WE HAVE DESIGNATED ROOMS SO IF SOMEBODY DOES CONTRACT COVID, THEN WE KNOW FOR TRACING WHICH ARE SENATE ROOMS, WHICH ARE HOUSE ROOMS.

THOSE THINGS ARE GOING ON.

AND THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WILL MAKE FOR A SLOWER PROCESS AND FEWER BILLS.

AND WE'VE TOLD OUR CAUCUS, DON'T EXPECT A LOT OF THINGS TO MOVE.

>> RIGHT.

>> AND WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THOSE EXACT SAME PROTOCOLS.

OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS WILL CONTINUE ON NORMAL SCHEDULE, BUT INSTEAD OF THE TWO-HOUR BLOCKS THAT WE NORMALLY OCCUPY, WE'LL HAVE TWO-HOUR BLOCKS, WE WILL MEET FOR ONE HOUR SO YOU THE DOES GIVE THEM TIME TO CLEAN THE ROOMS AND THEY CAN MEET REMOTELY IF THEY'D LIKE.

ONE OF OUR BIGGEST OBSTACLES AS A CAUCUS IS THERE IS NO PLACE ON THE CAPITOL GROUNDS LARGE ENOUGH TO HOLD 6 HOLD 75 PEOPLE OTHER THAN HOUSE CHAMBERS.

OTHERON THERE IS NO PLACE WHERE WE CAN HAVE PHYSICAL DISTANCING.

THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOURS AS FAR AS COMMUNICATING WITH MEMBERS, BEING ABLE TO BRING THEM UP TO SPEED ON THINGS.

SO THERE'S A UNIQUE SET OF OBSTACLES THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE.

>> AND YOU'VE GOT 20-SOMETHING NEW MEMBERS SO THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE FUN.

>> IT IS.

>> LAST QUESTION ON THIS, I PROMISE, ABOUT PEOPLE -- PEOPLE WHO WILL TESTIFY.

WILL THEY BE ASKED TO TESTIFY IN PERSON OR WILL THE OPTION BE THAT THEY CAN DO IT REMOTELY IF THEY HAVE SOME CONCERN?

>> THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DIET BOTH WAYS.

IT WILL BE UP -- DO IT BOTH WAYS IT.

WILL BE UP TO THE CHAIR, THE BILL SPONSOR.

IF THE BILL SPONSOR HAS PEOPLE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE TESTIFY REMOTELY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

IF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO AMEER IN PERSON, THEY WILL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

TO APPEAR IN PERSON.

WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE PEOPLE WALKING IN AND OUT OF THE BUILDING.

>> BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS STILL CLOSEDIN'.

>> THE BUILDING IS STILL CLOSED WITH LIMITED ACCESS BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.

AND CERTAINLY PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS TO VISIT WITH THEIR LEGISLATORS, TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMITTEE MEETINGS, BUT IT WILL BE GREATLY RESTRICTED.

>> DITTO?

>> YES.

SAME THING.

AND LET ME SAY THIS.

NORTH KOREAN AND JONI AND DAVID, WE'LL HAVE ALL TALKED THROUGH THESE THINGS AND TRIED TO TALK THROUGH IT.

AND OUR LOT OF OUR TECHNOLOGIES TO BE REMOTE, LET'S GIVE CREDIT EVERYBODY TO WHO IS INVOLVED.

OUR FEDERAL DELEGATION, THE UPGRADES WERE $4 MILLION IN UPGRADES SO WE CAN MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO AFTER.

MANY PARTICIPATE, AND THAT WAS CARES MONEY THAT CAME BACK THAT, THROUGH OUR FEDERAL DELEGATION, THROUGH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO US, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS HAVE BEEN WORKED THROUGH.

FOR ALL OUR DIFFERENCES, YOU SEE THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED WORKING RELATIONSHIPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROCESS GOES FORWARD AS SAFELY AS POSSIBLE.

>> SO YOU ARE WATCHING DAYTONA AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT KYGA 21.

THAT'S THE HASHTAG THAT YOU WILL SEE IF YOU ARE A BIG TWITTER USER.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO TALK ABOUT FROM LOGISTICS TO THE OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND THINGS THAT YOU WILL BE WORKING ON.

THE FIRST WEEK, SPEAKER OSBORN, IS THIS GOING TO BE A ROBUST AS PERHAPS I'M THINKING OF MAYBE IT WAS IT 2017 WHEN THERE WERE SIX OR SEVEN BILLS PASSED IN A FIVE-DAY PERIOD, INCLUDING A SATURDAY SESSION?

DO YOU THINK YOU'LL BE IN ON SATURDAY AND WHAT WILL GET DONE?

>> I THINK THERE'S A CHANCE WE COULD BE IN ON SATURDAY BUT IT WILL BE AN AGGRESSIVE AGENDA TO BEGIN WITH, AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE AN AGGRESSIVE AGENDA THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF SESSION.

WITH A 30-DAY SESSION HAVING TO DRAFT A BUDGET, WE HAVE NO TIME TO WASTE.

AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TIME TO SPEND THAT TYPICAL FOUR-DAY ALL-EXPENSE PAID VACATION IN FRANKFORT THAT PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN SO USED TO.

WE WILL HIT THE GROUND RUNNING.

WE WILL HAVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS IMMEDIATELY AND BEGIN WORKING ON LEGISLATION RIGHT AWAY.

>> SENATOR STIVERS.

>> TOTALLY AGREE.

WE WANT TO IDENTIFY THOSE THINGS.

WE WANT TO GET THE BUDGET PROCESS MOVING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

THAT HAS TO BE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

HECK, RENEE, WE'RE NOT HERE IN THIS STUDIO UNLESS WE GET A BUDGET PASSED.

THINGS JUST DON'T WORK IN THIS STATE UNLESS THE BUDGET, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT OUR PRIORITY RIGHT AFTER THE BAT.

>> BUT THAT WON'T GET DONE NECESSARILY THE FIRST WEEK, WILL IT?

>> I THINK YOU WILL SEE ACTION ON THE BUDGET RIGHT AWAY.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE A BIT OF A DIFFERENT PROCESS THIS YEAR BECAUSE IT'S BEING DONE IN A SHORT SESSION.

I THINK THAT YOU WILL SEE US TAKING ACTION ON THE BUDGET RIGHT AWAY TO BET US INTO CONFERENCE SO WE CAN -- GET US INTO CONFERENCE SO WE CAN UTILIZE THAT INTERCESSION THAT NORMALLY HAVE WERE THAT BREAK PERIOD IN JANUARY THROUGH THE 1st OF FEBRUARY.

WE WILL BE WORKING DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

SO I THINK YOU WILL SEE US TAKE SOME ACTION TO GET US INTO THAT WORK PROCESS EARLY ON.

>> SO ARE YOU PREDICTING THAT A BUDGET COULD BE TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK BY MID-FEBRUARY, LATE FEBRUARY?

>> I DON'T WANT TO PREDICT A TIME YET, BUT I AM CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL BE IN CONFERENCE AND PRODUCTIVE CONFERENCE HAMMERING OUT THE FINAL DETAILS IN EARLY FEBRUARY.

>> IN EARLY FEBRUARY.

>> TOTALLY AGREE.

THAT'S OUR GOAL.

YOU CAN'T EVER PREDICT.

EVERY SESSION HAS ITS OWN TYPE OF PERSONALITY AND NUANCES, BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO GET THAT OFF THE TABLE.

THEN WE CAN FOCUS ON OTHER WHAT I CALL SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS FISCAL LEGISLATION.

>> AND THE REALITY IS THERE ARE FEW PEOPLE WHO, LAWMAKERS WHO WORK ON THE BUDGET, RIGHT?

SO OTHER THINGS CAN STILL HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE'S MAYBE A DOZEN OR SO LEGISLATIVE HEADS THAT ARE REALLY INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS, SO OTHER THINGS STILL COULD PROCEED.

CORRECT?

>> WELL, THAT'S THE WAY WE DIVIDE UP OUR COMMITTEES.

IF YOU'RE A COMMITTEE CHAIR, LIKE WHITNEY WESTERFIELD IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIR.

HE'S NOT ON THE BUDGET, SO HE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE AND PROGRESS THINGS THROUGH THAT COMMITTEE, AS RALPH ALVARADO ON THE HEALTH AND WELFARE, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ON THE BUDGET.

>> AND YOU SAUL SET UP THE BUDGET REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEES, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> SO THAT COULD ALSO HELP FACILITATE THE PROCESS A LITTLE QUICKER MAYBE.

LET'S GET DOWN.

WE'VE GOT LOTS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, WHICH I KNOW ASK YOU ALL'S FAVE BUT WE'LL GET TO THOSE IN A MINUTE.

I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE POWERS HAVE THE GOVERNOR.

AIR PROGRAM NOTE OR OUR VIEWERS THAT AT 9:00 WE HAVE A PRE-TAPED INTERVIEW WITH THE GOVERNOR AND THE FIRST LADY BRITAINY BESHEAR, AND WE'LL TALK MUCH ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, SO STAY TUNED.

STAY WITH US THROUGH 10:00 TONIGHT BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT TO INFORM YOU ON.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR BIM I KNOW THAT THE SENATE -- I'LL GO TO YOU FIRST, MR. PRESIDENT.

LEADER DAMON THAYER HAD SAID THERE WERE TWO POSSIBILITIES HERE, TWO VERSIONS, TWO DIFFERENT BILLS THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE EXECUTIVE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR.

THE GOVERNOR WILL SAY, AND VIEWERS WILL HEAR HIM SAY, THAT THE SUPREME COURT SETTLED THIS MATTER, THAT 39A HE WAS VICTORIA IN THAT AND IT APPLIED NOT JUST TO SHORT-TERM DISASTERSY AND EVENTS BUT TO LONG-TERM PANDEMICS.

SO THE APPROACH THE STAT WILL TAKE TO REIN IN THE EXECUTIVE EMERGENCY POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR?

>> WE'LL LOOK AT A RETHAT OF THE OF 39A AND 13, WHICH IS THE REGULATORY PROCESS.

13 IS WHAT WE, I WOULD SAY TO MOST PEOPLE, IS AI MORE A NOTICE AND TRANSPARENCY STYLISH BECAUSE SO MANY EXECUTIVE ORDERS CAME OUT THAT WERE VAGUE, AND PEOPLE WANTED KNOW DID THIS A PLIER A APPLY OR THAT APPLY.

IT REALLY ISN'T A LIMITATION ON GOVERNOR'S POWER BUT CLARITY SO PEOPLE WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHEN HE HAS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, WHAT IT MEANS AND WHAT IT SAYS, AND HOW IT'S TO BE INTERPRETED.

SO THAT'S 13A.

39 IS EXTENT AND DURATION.

NOBODY ARGUES WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE TIMES THAT A GOVERNOR NEEDS TO ACT WITHOUT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BEING INVOLVED, BUT AS TO WHAT LENGTH OF OF TIME AND AS TO WHAT FUNCTIONS CAN THE GOVERNOR HAVE AUTHORITY OVER, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN DECLARING A, YOU KNOW, IN A REGIONAL TYPE SITUATION, A ROAD CLOSED THAT YOU HAVE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS VERSUS SAYING TO SOMEONE, YOU CAN'T GO HERE OR YOU CAN'T GO THERE.

SO DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THOSE TYPES OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROTECTED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTITUTIONS, BOTH, FEDERAL AND STATE, AND WHAT I CALL OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS WILL BE DISTINGUISHED, AND IT WILL BE AN EXTENT AND DURATION TYPE OF DISCUSSION.

>> LEADER McGARVEY, I I WANT TO GO TO YOU AND ALSO LEADER JENKINS AND ASK YOU, DO YOU THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARIFICATION IN KRS REGARDING THE EXTENT AND OF OF THE GOVERNOR'S IMAGINE POWERS WHEN IT COMES TO THESE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHETHER THEY BE SHORT OR LONG-TERM.

>> HONESTLY WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BILLS PROVIDED WY THE MAJORITY YET.

I THINK WE'LL GET A GLIMPSE AT THOSE TOMORROW.

BUT WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.

IR HOPE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SITS IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

IT'S THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.

AND PART OF THE REASON THAT WE HAVE SUCH A STRONG CENTRAL EXECUTIVE IN THE STATE IS WE ARE A PART-TIME CITIZEN LEGISLATURE.

THAT IS NOT BY CHOICE NECESSARILY.

IT IS BY CONSTITUTION.

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THIS YEAR WE CANNOT BE IN FRANKFORT AND VOTE ON BILLS PAST MARCH 30th P. NEXT YEAR THAT WILL BE APRIL 15th.

WE CAN'T BE IN SESSION PAST APRIL 15th AND VOTE ON BILLS AND DO ANYTHING.

AND SO IF WE'RE TAKING POWERS AWAY FROM THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY, TO LOOK AFTER THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN OUR COMMUNITIES WHEN WE ARE NOT ALLOWED CONSTITUTIONALLY TO TAKE VOTES, WHAT MECHANISM ARE WE PUTTING IN PLACE?

AND I THINK THIS CREATES A PROBLEM.

WHEN THE LEGISLATURE, WE ARE AN OVERSIGHT BODY, WE DO CREATE POLICY THAT GOVERNORS OF ANY PARTY HAVE TO FOLLOW, BUT WHEN WE ARE NOT IN SESSION, WE DO RELY ON AN EXECUTIVE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO FUNCTION THAT WAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE MAJORITY PROPOSES BUT I HOPE THAT THIS DOESN'T BECOME ANYTHING THAT'S POLITICAL THAT'S DIRECTED TOWARDS THE CURRENT OCCUPANT OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THAT WE ARE REALLY THINKING AND DRAFTING POLICY THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT GOING FORWARD FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.

>> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH MORGAN.

THIS IS AN INSTITUTIONAL WERE SITUATION, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL SITUATION.

THIS IS THE LEGISLATURE.

THAT NATURAL FRICTION YOU HAVE HEARD ME, I HAD IT WITH GOVERNOR BEVIN QUITE PROMINENTLY.

BUT THE OTHER ISSUE THAT YOU RAISE, AND I DON'T WANT TO CUT IN ON JONI'S TIME, PROBABLY ADDRESSES SOMETHING THE HOUSE IS GOING TO INTRODUCE.

>> CAN I GET REPRESENTATIVE JONI JENKINS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL TO GO SPEAKER OSBORNE.

>> THANK YOU.

WOULD I ECHO WHAT LEADER McGARVEY SAID.

YOU KNOW, THE LEGISLATURE IS A DELIBERATE BODY.

WE TAKE UP POLICY.

WE VET IT.

WE MOVE NOT AS NIMBLY AS SOMETIMES YOU WOULD NEED TO MOVE IN AN EMERGENCY.

I THINK IT IS A GREAT PRACTICE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT LEGISLATION -- LOOK AT THE STATUTES AND LOOK AND SEE IF THEY NEED TO BE TWEAKED.

I THINK 39A IN THE TIME HAVE A ABOUT AN IN THE LEGISLATURE WE HAVE 28TH TWICE, ONCE AFTER 9/11 AND I BELIEVE ONCE DURING THE FISCAL PROBLEMS OF 20-2008/2009.

SO I AM NOT OPPOSED TO GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THESE STATUTES BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NO REACTING OUR OVERCORRECTING FROM WHAT FOLKS MAY HAVE SEEN AS UNPOPULAR BUT I THINK I THINK NECESSARY CHOICES THAT GOVERNOR MADE.

>> SPEAKERS OSBORNE, WHAT YOU CAN ADD ABOUT WHAT YOU THE APPROACH OF THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS MAY BE?

>> I THINK YOU WILL SEE US UNVEIL A FEW INNINGS IN THE NEXT FUSE DAYS THAT I THINK WILL HELP DEFINE WHAT SOME OF THOSE AUTHORITIES ARE, WHERE SOME OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS GO.

BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT INHERENTLY TURNS POLITICAL ANY TIME THIS IS DISCUSSED, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE LIVE IN.

BUT I WOULD, AS ROBERT SAID, I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO LOOK AT MAYBE SOME OF THE DISCOURSE THAT WE HAD WITH THE PREVIOUS GOVERNOR, AND FOR THOSE THAT BELIEVE THAT ANY GOVERNOR SHOULD HAVE UNLIMIT OR COMPLETELY UNDEFINED POWERS, THINK ABOUT THE PREVIOUS GOVERNOR HAVING THOSE POWERS AND THAT AUTHORITY.

THINK ABOUT THE NEXT GOVERNOR HAVING THOSE POWERS AND THAT AUTHORITY.

I DON'T DISAGREE.

WE DO NEED A STRONG EXECUTIVE.

WE HAVE A STRONG EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT, FORM OF GOVERNMENT HERE IN KENTUCKY, AND THOSE EMERGENCY POWERS ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE UNLIMITED.

AND I WILL TAKE THE GOVERNOR AT FACE VALUE.

THE SUPREME COURT DID RULE ON THIS, AND I THINK THEY GAVE US VERY CLEAR DIRECTION AS TO THE WAY THAT WE DO NEED TO DEFINE THESE THINGS.

AND SOME MAY SEE THAT AS LIMITING.

SOME MAY SEE THAT AS INCLUDING.

THIS WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE COURTS.

THE COURTS NEED TO HAVE INVOLVEMENT IN THEIR OPERATION.

SO I THINK THAT, AS JONI SAID, THE NEED TO REEVALUATE THESE THINGS, CERTAINLY A YEAR AGO NONE OF US ENVISIONED WHAT WE MAY BE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW, EVEN TEN MONTHS AGO WE HAD NO CLUE THAT WE WOULD BE STILL IN AN EMERGENT SITUATION.

SO I THINK NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT THESE TYPES OF THINGS CAN PRESENT THEMSELVES, IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO IMPROVE THOSE STRUCTURES.

>> AND ANOTHER WAY TO GET AT IT IS PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW THE GENERAL.

>> I TO CALL ITSELF INTO SPECIAL SESSION, SENATE PRESIDENT STIVERS, WHICH IS AN IDEA YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND PRESENTED BEFORE, NOT JUST THIS TIME AROUND.

HAS A BILL BEEN PRE-FILED TO THIS ALREADY?

>> I DID A BILL PROBABLY WHEN I WAS THE MAJORITY LEADER BACK IN 2009 OR '10 THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT SPEAKER OSBORNE PROPOSED LAST YEAR, AND I WOULD PRESUME THAT LAZARUS MAY COME BACK THIS SESSION, SO -- BUT, YEAH, I THINK YOU'LL SEE SOMETHING BECAUSE, AS MORGAN SAID, ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THE LACK OF A FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE, WHICH IN MY OPINION IS A GOOD THING.

WE DON'T NEED A FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CALL OURSELVES BACK IN.

>> BUT IT DOESN'T PREEMPT TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNOR FROM CALLING INTO SESSION, EITHER.

>> NO.

I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO LIMIT THAT.

NO, NO, NO.

>> THE BILL THAT YOU HAD SPEAKER OSBORNE LAST YEAR, AND I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED THIS UP TO MAKE SURE I GOT THIS RIGHT.

I'LL LET YOU EXPLAIN IT.

BUT I THINK IT ALLOWED SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE CALENDAR.

>> IT DOES.

IT REALLY DOESN'T GIVE US THE UNLIMITED ABILITY OR AUTHORITY ON CALL OURSELVES BACK IN.

WHAT IT DOES IS IT REMOVES THE CALENDAR DATELINES THAT WE WERE FACED WITH IN SESSIONS.

IT DOES -- WE WOULD STILL HAVE A SHORT SESSION WHERE WE WOULD COME IN THIS YEAR WITH 30 DAYS, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW TO US REMOVE THAT MARCH 30 DEADLINE.

>> BECAUSE YOU COULD MEET IN OCTOBER.

>> EXACTLY.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PAST YEAR, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE -- I DON'T KNOW -- TEN OR 12 DAYS THAT WE DON'T USE DURING THE 2020 SESSION.

I THINK KNOWING WHAT WE EVEN KNEW THEN AND PARTICULARLY WHAT WE KNOW NOW, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER SERVED TO BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD, PASS OUR CONTINUATION BUDGET THAT WE PASSED, GO HOME, WAIT AND SEE HOW THINGS UNFOLDED, AND THEN BE ABLE TO BRING OURSELVES BACK IN LATER, NOT NECESSARILY UTILIZING MORE DAYS BUT JUST GIVING AS A BETTER VISION AS TO WHAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT.

>> AND THAT WOULD BE ALSO IN THE FORM OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AS WELL, CORRECT?

>> IT WOULD BE.

>> BECAUSE THOSE DEADLINES ARE IN STATUTE.

>> CORRECT.

>> LEADERS McGARVEY OR LEADERS JENKINS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO SOME BIG ISSUES?

OTHER BIG ISSUES.

>> SURE.

I'LL COMMENT ON IT BRIEFLY, RENEE.

I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT SPEAKER OSBORNE SAID, BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS, AND I JUST THINK BACK ON THE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT AN ANNUAL SESSION.

SO THE FACT THAT WE'RE SITTING HERE TONIGHT TALKING ABOUT A SESSION IS ANNUAL SESSIONS WERE SUPPOSED TO BASICALLY JUST RELIEVE SOME PRESSURE SO THAT YOU COULD FOCUS ON A BOEING IN EVEN-NUMBERED BILLS MAYBE PASS A FEW NECESSARY ITEMS WHEN WE IN FOR WHAT THEY CALLED THE SHORT SESSION, THE 30-DAY SESSION.

WE'LL PROBABLY SEVERE 1 BILLS FILED THIS YEAR, AND BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WE'LL ALSO PASS A BUDGET IN 30 DAYS.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STARTING TO EXTEND THOSE DEADLINES OUTS, YOU ONE OF THE PROBLEMS I SEE NOW GETTING PEOPLE TO SERVE IN A PART-TIME CITIZEN LEGISLATURE, IS SORT OF THE HAVOC IT CREATES IN YOUR OTHER JOB, AS WE CALL IT OR JUST YOUR SCHEDULE, AND THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE HANGING IT OUT THERE, THAT YOU COULD GO BACK INTO SESSION AT ANY POINT IN THE YEAR I THINK IS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR LIGHT OF GOOD PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO WORK TO MEET END MEET FOR THEIR FAMILY AND ALSO WANT TO COME TO FRANKFORT AND I EVER SERVE THEIR COMMUNITY.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS ON THIS.

I LIKE THE IDEA A LEGISLATOR OF THE ABILITY TO DO SOME THINGS, ABOUT IT WORRIES ME THE SPIRIT OFF PART-TIME LEGISLATURE.

>> LEADER JENKINS, DO YOU CARE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT?

>> YOU KNOW, I AM CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT SPEAKER OSBORNE FILES THIS YEAR.

IR WAS PRETTY CRITICAL IN COMMITTEE LAST YEAR ON THIS BILL.

BUT I DO REALIZE THAT MOST STATES HAVE THIS ABILITY.

I THINK 39 OTHER STATES HAVE THE ABILITY TO CALL THEMSELVES INTO SPECIAL SESSION.

EVERYTHING LOOKS DIFFERENT IN EVERY STATE.

SO I THINK IT'S A UNIQUE IDEA THAT BEARS VETTING, AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND CERTAINLY THE CITIZENS THEN, SHOULD WE PASS IT, THE CITIZENS WOULD HAVE THEIR SAY IN IT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD FEEL ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE BEING IN MAYBE MORE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE MOVE ON AND TALK ABOUT MEDICAL CANNABIS?

BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WANT TO, SENATOR STIVERS.

THIS QUESTION/COMMENT FROM MICHELLE CRAWFORD WHO I THINK YOU ALL KNOW WHO HAS BEEN IN FRANKFORT A LOT ON THIS ISSUE FROM MASON COUNTY, SHE SAYS, "MEDICAL CANNABIS PASSED WITH OVER TWO-THIRDS OF THE HOUSE VOTE LAST SESSION.

WHY DON'T SENATOR STIVERS LET THE BILL COME UP FOR AN UP OR DOWN SHOW ON THE VOTE IN THE SENATE?

>> WELL, I THINK I'VE BEEN PRETTY CLEAR THAT I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOME MEDICINAL OR THERAPEUTIC VALUE TO THC.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I WAS DELIVERED FOR YEARS, I WOULD SAY GIVE ME THE STUDIES AND I WOULD SHOW ALL THE STUDIES THAT WERE DELIVERED TO ME, AND NONE.

SO ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO THEY DELIVERED THOSE STUDIES AND I READ THEM, EVERY ONE.

AND THE TERMINOLOGY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT IS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT IN THEIR STUDIES, AND THERE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS TO WHAT I SAID FORESTAYS TISTY, NAUSEA, APPETITE, FOR SPASTICITY, NAUSEA, APPETITE IN THE REAL REAL AM OF JOINT INFLAMMATION.

THAT'S THERE.

EVERY STUD SAID THE DURATION OF THE STUD I WAS TOO SHORT OR THE POPULATION OF THE STUDY WAS TOO SMALL AND MORE MORE NEEDED TO BE DONE TO KNOW EFFECTIVELY HOW WE USE SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT UNDER 25 IT'S ADVERSE TO BRAIN DEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU SMOKE IT, IT HAS 50% MORE CARCINOGENS.

AND STUDIES SHOW THAT PROLONGED EXPOSURE HAVE A HIGHER LIKELIHOOD OF PSYCHOTIC EVENT.

SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT BUT I REALLY THINK THE LEAD, AND HATE DOING THIS, NEEDS TO COME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT SITTING DOWN AND SAYING, ALL RIGHT, JUST AS WE WOULD WITH THE MODERNA OR ANYTHING ELSE, LET'S GO THROUGH THE STUDY.

LET'S GET BLIND SAMPLES AND LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT, NOT JUST ON A WHIM TO THINK IT DOES, BUT LET'S GET THE APPROPRIATE PROTOCOLS AND HAVE THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LIKE WE'VE HAD THIS PAST YEAR WITH THE VACCINES FOR COVID-19.

>> SO LEADER McGARVEY, I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION, AND THE GOVERNOR A FEW WEEKS BACK BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR HAD CALLED ON THE LEGISLATURE TO BE BIG AND BOLD AND TO PASS MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND SPORTS BETTING.

SO LET'S DEAL WITH THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

AT 9:00, AROUND 9:30 ACTUALLY, FOLKS WILL HEAR THE GOVERNOR SAY THAT THAT HE BELIEVES IT SHOULD BE TAXED.

SO I DO WANT TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IS IT AB IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME IN KENTUCKY?

>> IT'S PAST TIME FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN KENTUCKY.

I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE IT.

I'M LESS CONVINCED ON THE TAX QUESTION OF IT THOUGH.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD VIEW MEDICAL MARIJUANA ITSELF AS A REVENUE PRODUCER FOR THE STATE.

THERE WILL BE SOME REVENUE THAT COMES FROM ALLOWING MEDICINAL MARIJUANA TO BE GROWN AND CULTIVATED AND GIVEN OUT HERE, BUT WE HAVE A PROHIBITION AGAINST TAXING MEDICINE IN KENTUCKY AND THAT'S SOMETHING I'M IN FAVOR OF.

I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MEDICAL MARIJUANA HERE.

WE'RE PRESCRIBING PEOPLE MORPHINE IN KENTUCKY, AND SEVERE PAIN PILLS.

LET'S PRESCRIBE MARIJUANA.

I DO AGREE WITH ROBERT ON ONE THING, THOUGH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GO AHEAD AND REMOVE THAT SCHEDULE 1 DESIGNATION FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA SO WE CAN DO MORE SOPHISTICATED MORE IN-DEPTH RESEARCH ON IT AND CONTINUE TO DEVELOP IT AS MEDICINE BUT I THINK ITS TIME WHOSE COME IN KENTUCKY I'LL TELL YOU ONE OTHER THING, RENEE.

I'D LIKE TO SIGHT BROUGHT UP FOR A VOTE, AND IF IT PASSES ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, GREAT.

IF IT DOESN'T PASS ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, THEN THAT SAYS SOMETHING TOO.

BUT IT'S GOTTEN THE SUPPORT EVER SPOT IN THE HOUSE, GOTTEN SUPPORT IN THE COMMITTEE, LET'S BRING IT FOR A VOTE.

>> SO WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS BILL IN THE HOUSE AGAIN, SPEAKER OSBORNE?

>> JASON NEM ES HAS ALREADY PRE-FILED THE BILL AND I KNOW IS WORKING DILIGENTLY TO GAIN SUPPORT.

YOU KNOW IT PASSED OVERWHELMING FLIT HOUSE LAST YEAR, AND THERE IS SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT AGAIN.

I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME HOPE THAT THE SENATE WILL TAKE IT UP.

AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY I THINK THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR CAUCUS AND OUR BODY, OUR CHAMBER, ARE TIRED OF MAKING CRIMINALS OUT OF SICK PEOPLE.

WE FREELY PRESCRIBE NARCOTICS AND OPIOIDS TO EXCESS EVERY SINGLE DAY WITH FAR GREATER CONSEQUENCES, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL BENEFITS FROM IT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE EVOLVED ON TOO.

TEN YEARS AGO I WOULD HAVE TOILED I WAS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS.

BUT I'VE MET, TALKED TO, READ ENOUGH, STUDIED ENOUGH NOW TO SEE WHERE THOSE BENEFITS LIE, AND I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE TAKE THAT STEP.

I DISAGREE COMPLETELY WITH THE GOVERNOR ON TAXATION.

WE DO NOT TAX MEDICINE IN THIS STATE.

IT'S INHUMANE TO TAX MEDICINE.

WE MADE THAT STATEMENT AS TAX POLICY YEARS AND YEARS AGO.

IT'S SETTLED DEBATE.

IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT -- IF WE REALLY ARE GOING TO CONSIDER THIS MEDICINAL, WHICH I BELIEVE WE SHOULD, THEN I THINK THAT TO DISCUSS TAXATION OF IT IS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE TO OPEN THAT DEBATE, WE COULD HAVE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN THE DEBATE ABOUT TAXING PHARMACEUTICALS COMPLETELY.

>> AND WE MAKES THE POINT ABOUT THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT NEEDS TO BE YIM PLEMENTED AND THE STAFF THAT WOULD NEED TO BE AND ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAYERS FOR THAT AND IT NEEDS TO BE SUPPORTED IN SOME WAY.

>> THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR IN REPRESENTATIVE NEM ES' BILL THAT HE PASSED LAST YEAR.

THERE IS A SMALL FEE ATTACHED TO THE DISPENSING THAT WOULD COVER THAT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.

>> BUT NOT THE USER OR THE PERSON WHO NEEDED THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS NOT TAXED.

>> CORRECT.

>> LEADER JENKINS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT SPORTS INTERNET.

>> I COULD JUST SAY THAT OUR CAUCUS HAS -- SPORTS BETTING.

>> OUR CAUCUS HASS BEEN BEHIND THIS FOR MANY SESSIONS AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THAT, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE BILL IN THE HOUSE, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE COULD BE A BILL COMING FROM THE SENATE LEADER McGARVEY.

>> IS THAT BILL COMING FROM LEADER McGARVEY?

>> WE'LL HAVE TO SEE, RENEE.

I THINK WE COULD POTENTIALLY SEE THE SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS CERTAINLY PROPOSE SOME VERSION OF THIS BILL.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS.

FOR THE GOVERNOR, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE WORK ON ALL THE SITTING AND TAKING THE SHOTS TOGETHER TO SHOW A BIPARTISAN EFFORT, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD THE LEGISLATURE HAVE A PRETTY LOUD AND CLEAR STATEMENT.

TO THINK OF THIS AS A MONEY GENERATOR, TO TAX IT, IF YOU'RE TRULYIZATION MEDICINAL OR THERAPEUTIC IS TOTALLY WRONG BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TAKING THAT APPROACH, THAT IT'S A MONEY GENERATOR, THEN YOU'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT THE MEDICINAL OR THERAPEUTIC VILE BECAUSE YOU'RE TOTAL TREATING IT DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER DRUG WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF IS WRONG.

>> OKAY.

LET'S TALK ABOUT SPORTS BETTING AND THEY'VE BEEN GOT SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT VOGTS REFORM, EDUCATION CUTS AND WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET.

SO LET ME START WITH LEADER JENKINS AND ASK YOU ABOUT SPORTS BETTING.

YOU THINK THAT'S AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME AND THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD -- GO AHEAD.

>> I'M SORRY P. FOR TALKING OVER YOU.

THE TECHNOLOGY IS A LITTLE HARD TO DECIPHER HERE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE HOUSE WE HAD A SPORTS BETTING BILL THAT WAS CARRIED BY REPRESENTATIVE KOENIG OF THE MAJORITY, AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT HAD OVER 50 COSPONSORS AND NEVER CAME TO A VOTE.

IT IS A ISSUE THAT MY CAUCUS IS VERY, VERY MUCH BEHIND, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO -- WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE AL GENTRY WHO HAS WORKED VERY HARD ON THAT ISSUE, VERY CLOSELY WITH REPRESENTATIVE KOENIG, AND I WOULD ASSUME WE WOULD SEE A BILL FILED, AND I THINK YOU WILL SEE MOST MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY CAUCUS IN THE HOUSE BE COSPONSORS OF THAT BILL.

>> I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN REVENUE ESTIMATES THAT THIS IS, WHAT, MAYBE $25 MILLION THAT COULD BE GENERATED, SENATE PRESIDENT STIVERS.

NEVADA HAS AN EXAMPLE WHERE THEY DON'T EVEN GENERATE THAT MUCH AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS IS DONE.

IS THAT YOUR NANE MAIN CONCERN IT?

>> I THINK RIGHT NOW FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, THIS HAS BEEN SIDE SOMEWHAT TO THE HORSE INDUSTRY.

I THINK THE HORSE INDUSTRY AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE █WELL-BEINGOF THEHORS INDUSTRY NEED TO FOCUS ON HISTORIC HORSE RACING BEFORE THEY START THINKING ABOUT SPORTS BOOK AND GAMBLING IN THAT REALM.

>> AND SO THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO DO WHAT WHEN IT COMES TO HORSE RACING?

WHAT IS THE SUPREME COURT SAYING THAT SHOULD BE DONE HERE?

>> HISTORIC HORSE RACING IS NOT REALLY A VIABLE OPTION, NOT BASED ON THE SUPREME COURT OPINION OF ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO.

>> RIGHT.

>> AND IT GENERATES ABOUT $35 MILLION IN TAX REVENUE FOR THE STATE.

$15MILLION COMES BACK TO OUR GENERAL FUND, $20 MILLION WHICH GOES BACK INTO THE INDUSTRY THAT INCREASES PURSES, BREEDERS' INCENTIVES, AND HAS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL RIPPLE EFFECT IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND THAT WHICH THIS STATE CONTROLS IN THAT REALM OF THE INDUSTRY, AND IT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT WHAT THAT OPINION DID OUT OF SUPREME COURT.

>> SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE KENTUCKY STATE LEGISLATURE CAN DO TO CLARIFY?

>> VERY MUCH.

>> AND IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN, SPEAKER OSBORNE?

>> THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS ARE ONGOING, YES, AND I THINK THAT IN THE SUPREME COURT RULING, I'LL DEFER TO ROBERT AS THE ATTORNEY, THE SUPREME COURT WAS PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE NEEDED TO DO IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS LEGAL, AND ULTIMATE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT RULED WAS THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD NOT ACTED TO GIVE THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO THE HORSE RACING COMMISSION.

AND THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THAT.

AND IT LOOKED PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY TOLD US EXACTLY WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO REMEDY IT, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE A LITTLE MORE FOCUS INITIALLY THAN THE SPORTS WAGERING JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN EXISTING -- THESE ARE EXISTING BUSINESSES.

THESE ARE EXISTING FACILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN HAVE THAT HAVE INVESTED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN KENTUCKY, AND I THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THAT, IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE MOST OF THE FOCUS INITIALLY AWAY FROM SPORTS BETTING.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NOT SUPPORT FOR SPORTS BETTING AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF OUR CAUCUS.

IT REMAINS A BIT OF A DIVISIVE ISSUE CERTAINLY, BUT THERE'S ONGOING INTEREST AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT.

BUT I DO BELIEVE IT DID TAKE A BACK SEAT INITIALLY TO HISTORICAL HORSE RACING.

>> SO ON BEDS WEDNESDAY NIGHT RIGHT HERE AT 7:00 ON KET YOU CAN WATCH THE GOVERNOR PRESENT HIS STATE OF THE COMMONWEALTH BUDGET ADDRESS.

IT'S A HYBRID ADDRESS THAT HE WILL MAKE VIRTUALLY, AND WE WILL HAVE THAT ON KET AT 7:00.

AND SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME IN FROM ANN FROM CLARK COUNTY, HOW MUCH A HIT DO YOU ALL THINK EDUCATION WILL TAKE IN THE NEXT BUDGET?

AND YOU CAN HEAR THE GOVERNOR TALK ABOUT HOW HE'S GROTEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR TEACHERS AND OTHER -- GOING TO PRESENT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR TEACHERS AND OTHER CLASSIFIED STAFF THE GUY PAY BUMP, SO HE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE COMING UP AFTER THIS PROGRAM.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT EDUCATION FUNDING, SENATOR STIVERS?

AND HOW MUCH OF THAT IS GOING TO INCLUDE SCHOOL CHOICE OPTIONS AS WELL?

>> WELL, UNTIL WE SEE WHAT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE IS PROJECTING, AND YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THEY GET THE RECEIPTS, THEY KNOW WHERE THE TRENDS ARE FORMING AND DEVELOPING BECAUSE, AS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THEY ARE GETTING THESE REVENUES IN AND THEY KNOW WHETHER IT'S COMING FROM SALES TAX OR INCOME TAX, CORPORATE TAX, SEVERANCE TAX.

THEY HAVE PERIOD INFORMATION THAN WE DO.

AND SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO PREDICT UNTIL WE GET THAT BUDGET ADDRESS, YET WE HAVE CERTAIN PARAMETERS.

BUT IT'S TOO EARLY TO SAY WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THIS, I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE REALIZE HOW MUCH THAT CARES PACKAGE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PASSED KEPT OUR ECONOMY ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED.

AND SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF THAT, AS MY FRIEND DAVID GIVENS SAYS.

IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PULLS BACK, WHICH THEY'RE THE ONLY GROUP THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO PRINT MONEY -- WE DON'T -- IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE GOT IT THEIR HELP OR JUST CRASH.

WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS WITH WHAT WE DO WITH OUR BUDGET RIGHT NOW.

>> LEADERS JENKINS, QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT WHAT IF WERE YOU RECOGNIZING THE GOV GOVERNOR, AND MAYBE YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PRIORITY BUDGET ITEMS THAT HE SHOULD PRESENT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE THERE?

I THINK CERTAINLY EDUCATION IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ALL KENTUCKIANS.

WE HAVE CERTAINLY TEEN SEEN THROUGH LOTS OF LESSONS THAT HAVE BEEN LEARNED THROUGH THIS PANDEMIC, BUT ONE OF THEM IS HOW IMPORTANT OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE AND HOW MUCH PEOPLE WANT TO GET BACK TO IN-PERSON LEARNING AND THE REAL JOB THAT TEACHERS DO EVERY SINGLE DAY IN EDUCATING OUR KIDS.

SO I THINK AT THIS TIME WE HAVE TO BE REAL HONEST ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A PANDEMIC AND KIDS HAVE NOT BEEN IN SCHOOL, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE FUNDS IN THIS BUDGET FOR INTERVENTIONS FOR THOSE KIDS THAT HAVE LAGGED BEHIND OR ARE FALLING BEHIND, SO I HOPE THAT THERE'S MANY -- INCREASED MONEY FOR SUMMER SCHOOL, FOR INTERVENTIONS, AND FOR BRINGING OUR KIDS BACK TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE.

>> LEADER McGARVEY, SAME TO YOU, SIR.

>> YEAH, I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

AND OBVIOUSLY ONE THING YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WAITING TO GET THESE BUDGET BRIEFINGS 50 GOVERNOR, AND I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, WE ACTUALLY TRY TO AGREE ON HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE.

NOW, YOU SEE THE DISAGREEMENTS ON HOW WE SPEND THAT MONEY, BUT WE TRY TO AGREE HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE, SO GETTING THAT SET, WE'RE GOING TO GET THOSE NUMBERS, BUT EDUCATION HAS TO BE A PRIORITY.

I ECHO WHAT LEADERS JENKINS JUST SAID.

YOU KNOW THE AGES OF MY THREE KIDS.

I PROMISE YOU THERE'S A LOT OF PARENTS ACROSS KENTUCKY RIGHT NOW WHO ARE REALIZING TEACHERS AREN'T PAID ENOUGH FOR WHAT THEY DO.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO INVEST IN EVERY ASPECT EDUCATION, WHETHER THAT'S EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, UNIVERSAL PRE-K, WHETHER IT'S HAVING AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE OPTIONS, WHETHER IT'S THE INTERVENTION THAT LEADER JENKINS TALKS ABOUT.

I CAN TELL YOU I'VE GOT TWIN THIRD GRADERS AT HOME RIGHT NOW WHO HAVE NOT STEPPED FOOT IN A CLASSROOM SINCE MARCH 13th.

WHAT DOES IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN ALL OF THESE KIDS FROM ELEMENTARY TO MIDDLE TO HIGH SCHOOL GO BACK INTO THE SCHOOL FOR THE FIRST TIME?

WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS WILL WE EDWIN TO NOTICE THAT, OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INVEST IN?

AND I THINK THAT'S HOW WE VIEW IT.

WE VIEW THIS EDUCATION AS AN INVESTMENT BECAUSE NO MATTER WHERE WE DISAGREE HOW TO SPEND MONEY, WE ARE GOING TO SPEND MONEY EVENTUALLY, AND WE CAN INVEST IT ON THE FRONT END AND TRY TO SOLVE A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS OR WE CAN INVEST IT UNFORTUNATELY ON THE BACK END WHEN SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ARE TOO LATE TO CORRECT.

>> SO SPEAKER OSBORNE, THAT SAME QUESTION, PARTICULARLY WILL SCHOOL CHOICE OPEN HONEST AND ALSO TEACHER PENSION.

WE KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE MASSEY IS WORKING AND HE HAS A COLLABORATIVE GROUP OF FOLKS, THE K GROUPS OSH RAL FA BET SOUP OF K GROUPS HE'S BEEN WORKING ON TO COME UP WITH A PLAN.

WHAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT THAT.

>> >> FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT CLEARLY WE HAVE PRIORITIZED EDUCATION FUNDING, THE TWO BUDGETS THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN.

I UNDERSTAND THE CRITICS WHO WILL SAY IT'S NOT ENOUGH, AND I UNDERSTAND.

IT'S PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH.

BUT IT IS -- IT HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES OVER THE PREVIOUS BUDGETS THAT WERE WRITTEN.

SO THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A PRIORITY.

I THINK THE PAY RAISES IN THIS ENVIRONMENT ARE DIFFICULT TO ENVISION.

BUT I COULDN'T AGREE MORE THAN WITH WHAT JONI SAID ABOUT US FOCUSING ON THE OTHER IMPACTS OF THIS PANDEMIC.

THESE ARE REAL AND THEY ARE HEARTBREAKING.

>> MENTAL HEALTH, SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL.

>> YES.

TO CONTINUE TO SEE THE LEARNING GAP WIDEN, PARTICULARLY IN IMPOVERISHED COMMUNITIES, WE ARE, I THINK WE ARE SEEING A CRISIS DEVELOP IN FRONT OF US, AND TO NOT ADDRESS IT I THINK IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND I THINK THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT BE A PRIORITY FOR US AND FRY TO GIVE THOSE KIDS THE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED, TEACHERS THE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO TEACH THEM, AND I THINK THAT YOU WILL ALSO SEE US MOVE TO GIVE SCHOOLS, SCHOOL BOARDS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS THE OPTIONS, THE ABILITIES TO OPEN WHEN THEY SAFELY CAN PRESENT PLANS MOVING FORWARD QUICKLY AND GET KIDS BACK IN SCHOOL SAFELY, OBVIOUSLY.

BUT FOR THOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT HAVE PRESENTED A FRAMEWORK THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO REOPEN SAFELY, I THINK WE NEED TO THEM DO THAT.

>> AND THAT COULD HAPPEN THE FIRST WEEK?

>> I THINK EWELL THAT YOU WILL SEE SOME ACTION THE FIRST WEEK, YES.

>> SO LET ME ASK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, WHILE WE'RE WITH YOU, JOHN WIECKEL OR WE CANEL OF LOUISVILLE SAYS, "MY BUSINESS HAS OBEYED THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS.

WHAT CAN THE COMMONWEALTH DO TO LIMIT LIABILITY FOR BUSINESSES RELATED TO POTENTIAL COVID-19 LITIGATION?"

YOU ALL HAVE AN ANSWER?

>> ONE OF FROBEL MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE WILL DO THIS FIRST SESSION, I BELIEVE, IS -- OR THIS FIRST WEEK IS TO PASS SOME MEANINGFUL LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, NON-PROFITS, OTHER ENTITIES THAT ARE OPERATING UNDER SAFE PROTOCOL THAT HAVE OPERATED UNDER APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES THAT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDERS THAT THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN BUT STILL HAVE THAT THREAD OF LIABILITY OR CONCERN FOR FOR LIABILITY.

I THINK THAT'S RESTRICTING A LOT OF BUSINESSES FROM OH OPENING.

I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THE INSURANCES THAT THEY WILL NOT BE TARGETED.

AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT TALKING ABOUT PRESENTING ANYBODY FROM WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE.

BUT FOR THOSE BUSINESSES, THOSE ENTITIES THAT HAVE COMPLIED, AND I THINK THAT WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE SOMETIMES TONGUE-IN-CHEEK, BUT BE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH JUST ABOUT EVERY RECOMMENDATION THAT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BUYER SOME GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME ALSO BEEN IN VIOLATION OF IT, AND I THINK WE'VE GOT TO PROVIDE SOME ASSURANCES TO THOSE, THOSE ENTITIES AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE TARGETED.

>> AND FRANKFORT LEADERS, LEADER McGARVEY OR JENKINS, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT LEGAL LIABILITY PROTECTIONS FOR BUSINESSES WHEN IT COMES TO PANDEMIC-RELATED CLAIMANTSEST -- CLAIMS?

>> YEAH, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS ONE WHERE THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.

CLEARLY WE'RE SYMPATHETIC.

NO ONE HAS SEEN ANYTHING THAT IS GOING ON LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN ANY OF OUR LIFETIMES AND EVEN SOME OF THE RULES AND RESTRICTIONS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE PANDEMIC STARTED.

WHAT I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH RIGHT NOW IS AN ACTUAL PROBLEM WITH THIS IN KENTUCKY.

AT ONE POINT I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN AROUND 100 LAWSUITS FILED.

MOST OF THEM ARE BUSINESSES AGAINST BUSINESS FOR CONTRACT VIOLATIONS.

A FEW ARE ABOUT ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS FOR TERMINATING PEOPLE IN THE AGE OF COVID.

BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, AND OBVIOUSLY I'D BE HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED ON THIS, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE LAWSUIT THAT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST A BUSINESS FOR ACTUALLY WHAT WE'RE CALLING THIS COVID LIE ABOUT IT FOR A PATRON WALKING INTO A BUSINESS AND BEING SUBJECTED TO IT.

SO I'M INTERESTED TO SEE THE DETAILS OF THIS BILL AND ALSO TO HEAR SORT OF THE FURTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NEED OF RIGHT NOW.

>> SO IS IT A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM, SENATOR STIVERS?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

AND MORGAN MAY BE MORE AWARE OF THIS THAN VIRTUALLY ANYBODY ON THE PANEL BECAUSE I THINK HIS DISTRICT HAS MORE RESTAURANTS THAN ANY OF OUR OTHER DISTRICTS COMBINED WHERE HE LIVES, AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE OF COVID, AND I'M NOT SAYING AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THEY'RE SCARED TO DEATH.

EITHER THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE THEIR PATRONS, IF THEY TRY TO REOPEN WILL SOMEHOW WIND UP WITH SOME TYPE OF DELEGATES EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CDC GUIDELINES, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GUIDELINES, BUT THE CRITICAL THING ABOUT ALL THIS THAT WE DO, IF YOU THINK ABOUT HOW WE GENERATE OUR REVENUES, AND WOULDN'T TO DO THINGS FOR TEACHERS, WOULDN'T TO DO THINGS FOR POLICE OFFICERS, SOCIAL WORKERS, IF WE DON'T GET THESE BUSINESSES BACK OPEN AND RUNNING, GUESS WHAT?

THERE'S NO TAXES TO BE COLLECTED.

NOBODY PAYING EMPLOYMENT TAXES, NOBODY PAYING CORPORATE TAXES, KNOWING NOBODY PAYING ON WITHHOLDING ON THEIR WAGES.

WE'VE GOT TO OPEN THESE BUSINESSES BACK UP BECAUSE ONLY FOR THE CARES MONEY WE WOULDN'T BE EVEN CLOSE TO WHERE WE ARE ON OUR REVENUE PROJECTIONS.

>> SO LAST QUICK ISSUE THAT I'LL GET TO BEFORE WE WRAP THIS UP IN QUESTION IN ROBERT FARLEY.

ARE THERE PLANS TO ADDRESS HOW WE VOTE IN KENTUCKY BY BY LEGISLATURE RATHER THAN ALLOW THE SECRETARY AND GOVERNOR DECIDE?

ANOTHER WAY IS MAKING SOME OF THE TEMPORARY VOTING PROCESSES PERMANENT.

LEADER JENKINS, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT?

THAT HAPPENED IN THE 2020 ELECTION CYCLE, I SHOULD SAY.

>> THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS RELEASED A AGENDA OF VOTING REFORMS, I BELIEVE, IN OCTOBER.

SEEPS LIKE 100 YEARS AGO.

THAT WOULD PUT IN PLACE THE EARLY NO EXCUSE VOTING, ABSENTEE VOTING, AND WE THINK THAT THEY WORKED SO WELL, AND I WOULD THINK THE MAJORITY WOULD AGREE BECAUSE THEY DID SO WELL IN THE LAST ELECTION, BUT THEY WORKED VERY WELL, THEY'RE VERY POPULAR.

WE SAW VERY, VERY, VERY LITTLE ABUSE.

AND WE WOULD LIKE SEE THAT CARRY FORWARD.

AND I THINK KENTUCKIANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE EASIER FORMS OF VOTING CONTINUE FROM HERE ON OUT.

>> WHAT'S THE PROSPECT THAT OF, SPEAKER, OSBORN?

>> I THINK YOU WILL SEE SOME CHANGES MADE PERMANENT.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT'LL LOOK LIKE AT THIS POINT.

KEVIN BRATCHER, CHAIR OF THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE, IS KIND OF DOING AN INFORMAL WORKING GROUP WITH SECRETARY OF STATE, WITH COUNTY CLERICS, JUST TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS BEST LONG-TERM POLICY, IS NOT JUST WHAT WORKED IN PANDEMIC SOMETIMES BUT WHAT IS GOOD LONG-TERM POLICY.

AND I WOULD CHALLENGE LEADER JENKINS TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE METHOD OF VOTING HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR SUCCESS DURING THIS PAST ELECTION.

>> WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE, I THINK.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

GOOD LUCK TOMORROW AND IN THE DAYS REMAINING.

I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A VIGOROUS SESSION.

SO STAY TUNED AS COMING RIGHT UP AT 9:00 EASTERN RIGHT HERE ON KET WE HAVE AN HOUR-LONG INTERVIEW THE.

YOU HAVE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT IT WITH GOVERNOR ANDY BESHEAR CALLED "FIRST YEAR REFLECTIONS."

I SPEAK WITH THE GOVERNOR AND IRS IF LADY BRITAINY BESHEAR ABOUT THEIR FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE.

OF COURSE ON WEDNESDAY AT 7/s CENTRAL KET WILL HAVE LIVE COVERAGE OF THE COMMONWEALTH BUDGET ADDRESS WITH ANALYSIS FROM REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS.

ALL THE FOLKS YOU HAVE SEEN TONIGHT, I THINK YOU'LL SEE AGAIN ON WEDNESDAY, WE HOPE.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR WATCHING ONCE AGAIN.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

STAY SAFE AND HEALTHY, AND WE WILL SEE YOU WEDNESDAY NIGHT.

"LEGISLATIVE UPDATE" WILL BE BACK ON FRATE 8:30.

TAKE GOOD CARE.