WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

OUR TOPIC TONIGHT: PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND JOBLESS BENEFITS.

THERE'S JUST A FEW DAYS LEFT IN THIS SESSION OF THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

LAWMAKERS HAVE ALREADY PASSED LEGISLATION LIMITING HOW LONG KENTUCKIANS CAN RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

AND THERE WILL BE NEW REQUIREMENTS TO LOOK FOR WORK THE HOUSE AND SENATE ALSO VOTED TO END THE COVID STATE OF EMERG THE GOVERNOR SAYS THAT WILL CAUSE KENTUCKY TO LOSE OUT ON MORE THAN $50 MILLION IN FOOD STAMP FUNDING.

LAWMAKERS ARE STILL VILLARAIGOSA HOUSE BILL 7 WHICH PUTS NEW RESTRICTIONS ON WHO GETS PUBLIC SUPPORTERS OF THESE CHANGES SAY THEY WILL ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET OFF WELFARE PROGRAMS AND FIND JOBS.

BUT CRITICS SAY IN SOME PARTS OF KENTUCKY THOSE JOBS DON'T EXIST AND THE CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM WILL HURT PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED THE HELP.

TO DISCUSS ALL THIS W JOINED IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO DUSTIN PUGEL, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST FOR THE KENTUCKY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC POLICY, ANNE TYLER MORGAN, AN ATTORNEY AND MCBRAYER PLLC MEMBER, BILL LONDRIGAN, PRESIDENT OF KENTUCKY STATE AFL AND BRYAN SUNDERLAND, STATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DIRECTOR FOR THE FOUNDATION FOR GOVERNMENT A WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SEND US A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON TWITTER AT KYTONIGHTKET.

SEND AN EMAIL TO KYTONIGHT@KET.ORG.

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

OR YOU CAN JUST GIVE AS YOU CALL AT 1-800-494-7605.

WELCOME TO ALL OF OUR GUESTS.

AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

JUST A FEW HOUSE AGO SENATE COMMITTEE PASSED HOUSE BILL 7 WHICH DEALS WITH PUBLIC BENEFITS.

YOU'VE BEEN ON BEFORE WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A CUSTOM YEARS AGO SO WE'RE GOING TRO VISIT THAT, BUT WANT TO CON WITH THE JOBLESS BENEFITS THAT WERE PASSED.

SO STATE LAWMAKERS, THEY OVERRODE THE GOVERNOR'S REJECTION OF ENDING THE COVID EMERGENCY.

THIS SENATES JOINT RESOLUTION 150 LAST WEEK, ALSO SLIMMING THE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

THE COVID STATE OF EMERGENCY, HOUSE BILL 4 THAT TIES THE UNEMPLOYMENT, THE LENGTH OF THOSE BENEFITS TO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND ADDS THOSE WORK REQUIREMENTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT HOUSE BILL 4 FIRST.

AND I WANT TO START WITH YOU, BILL LONDRIGAN.

DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO DO HOUSE BILL 4 AT THIS TIME?

OR ARE WE STILL REBOUNDING FROM COVID ECONOMY ENOUGH WHERE THIS COULD DO SOME DETRIMENT?

>> OF COURSE, IT'S GOING TO DO DETRIMENT.

IT'S GOING TO DO DETRIMENT TO THE WORKERS KENTUCKY WHO ARE GOING TO BE CUT IN THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

WE THINK IT'S TOTALING NECESSARY, UNFAIR AND UNFUNDED.

IT'S UNNECESSARY BECAUSE AFTER THIS PANDEMIC WHERE LARGEST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WERE LAID UEFA IN ANY PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE CAN REMEMBER, THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TRUST FUND HAS BOUNCED BACK SLITTING ALREADY.

WE'VE GOT $344 MILLION ALREADY THERE.

WE'RE WAITING ON ANOTHER $242 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SO THEREFORE, THE THREAT TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM DOESN'T EVEN EXIST AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND IT'S UNNECESSARY TO CUT BENEFITS.

IT'S UNFAIR BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL THAT RELATE TO INDEXING OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WHICH WILL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF WEEKS THAT A PERSON WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO GET UNEMPLOYMENT.

IF HOUSE BILL 4 WAS IN EFFECT AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME AND OUR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS ABOUT 3.9%, THE MOOCs AMOUNT OF, THIS IS THAT A PERSON COULD DRAW WOULD BE 12 WEEKS WHICH IS CUT DOWN FROM 56 WEEKS.

IT'S ALSO UNDER FUNDED.

IT'S GOING TO PUT A GREAT BURR DON'T ADMINISTRATION OF THE LABOR LABOR CABINET TO TRY AND TRACK THE JOB SEARCH REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN THE BILL.

SO WE SEE THIS AS A TOTALLY UNFAIR PROPOSAL THAT IS DEFINITELY GOING TO HUSTER WORKERS, IT'S GO TO CAUSE WORKERS TO -- HURT WORKERS, CAUSE WORKERS TO BE PUT UNDER ECONOMIC STRESS WHEN THEY DO GET LAID OFF DUE TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BENEFITS THAT ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, IF A PERSON GETS 26, BEFORE BENEFIT AT THE AVERAGE RATE THEY'RE GETTING $9,400 IN BENEFIT.

THAW THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEIR HOUSEHOLD, PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE, PAY THEIR MORTGAGE AND PAY THEIR NIM RIGHT NOW UNDER THIS BILL THOSE WORKERS REMEMBER WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR $4,400 IN BENEFIT AND THEN THEY WOULD BE CUT OFF, AND THOSE WORKERS AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT IN THAT SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

THEN WE ADD THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS ON THERE THAT WORKERS HAVE TO DO THESE CONVOLUTED WORK SEARCH REQUIREMENTS, AND IF AN EMPLOYER OFFERS THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK AT LEASE THAN HALF OF WHAT THEY WERE EARNING BEFORE AND THEY DO NOT TAKE THAT EMPLOYMENT, THEN THEY COULD BE REPORTED BACK TO THE STATE AND JUST AFTER SIX WEEKS A PERSON CAN BE DENIED FURTHER UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

WE JUST THINK THIS IS A VERY TERRIBLE WAY TO TREAT THE WORKERS OF KENTUCKY WHO GET LAID OFF DUE TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN AND WHO NEED A HELPING HAND TO GET TO THEIR NEXT JOB.

>> ADJUST PUGEL, THERE ARE 100,000 JOBS THAT ARE OPEN.

YOU SEE HELP WANTED SIGNS AND HIRING SIGNS ALL OVER.

DOES THAT MAKE THE CASE WE NEED TO INCREASE WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION IN THIS STATE, AND HOUSE BILL 4 CAN GET KENTUCKY THERE?

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT WE'RE IN THE MOST ROBUST JOBS RECOVERY THAT WE HAVE EVER SEEN.

IT'S OUTPRAISING THE LAST FOUR RECESSIONS.

WE ARE -- OUTPACING THE LAST FOUR REINTERCEPTIONS WE ARE HAVING AN INCRENNEL AMOUNT OF FOLKS GO BACK TO WORK IN WAYS THAT WE'VE NEVER STEEN BEFORE, AND THE NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO ARE ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RIGHT NOW ARE LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL WORKFORCE.

SO, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF ALL OF THOSE FOLKS WERE SOMEHOW PUSHED OFF AND INTO THESE JOBS, THAT REALLY WOULDN'T MAKE MUCH OF A DENT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF JOP OPENINGS WE HAVE.

BUT BEYOND THAT WE KNOW THAT CUTTING THE NUMBER OF WEEKS OF UNEMPLOYMENT DOESN'T WORK.

THERE'S TEN OTHER STATES THAT HAVE LESS THAN THE NATIONAL STANDARD 26 WEEKS, AND IN THOSE STATES IT REALLY HAS NOT DONE WHAT THE PROPONENTS OF THE BILL SAY IT WILL DO.

IT HAS NOT INCREASED THE RATE OF REEMPLOYMENT.

IT HASN'T REDUCED NUMBER OF JOB OPTIONS AND IT HASN'T REDUCED THE LABOR WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION RATE.

SO WE REALLY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAYS THIS COULD ACTUALLY WORSEN THE RECOVERY PAUSE WE KNOW THAT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IS AN ECONOMIC STABILIZER 1 WE KNOW THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE SPENDING THOSE BENEFITS ON GROCERIES, RENT, CARS, ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY NEED, THAT ENSURES THAT THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN STAY INNER JOBS, MAKING AND SELLING THOSE THINGS.

SO WHEN YOU START REDUCING THE AMOUNT, ESPECIALLY DURING A DOWNTURN, WHICH WE'RE NOT IN NOW BUT WE WILL BE IN AGAIN, WHAT WILL THAT MEAN FOR PROLONGING THAT ECONOMIC PAIN.

>> SO IF TEN OTHER STATES, ANNE-TYLER MORGAN HAVE HAD AN EXPERIENCE WHERE IT DIDN'T ENCOURAGE GREATER WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION, THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OTHER THAN TO PUNISH THOSE WHO ARE OUT OF WORK?

>> SURE, WELL, I WOULD DISAGREE THAT THOSE STATES HAVE SEEN NEGATIVE RESULTS FROM THE PROGRAMS, BUT I WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL THAT I CHALLENGE THE PREMISE THAT GOING BACK TO WORK IS SOMEHOW PUNITIVE TO ABLE-BODIED KENTUCKIANS.

GOING TO WORK IS A PRIVILEGE.

IT'S A WAY TO PROVIDE FOR ONE'S SELF AND ONE'S FAMILY.

AND SO ANY IDEA OR PREMISE THAT A PERSON WORKING IS SOMEHOW BEING PUNISHED IS SIMPLY NOT SOMETHING I WOULD AGREE WITH.

I THINK THAT THE POINT OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT SYSTEM IS TO HELP PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PUT OUT OF WORK BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN AND GET THEM BACK INTO THE JOB PATRICK MA.

SO WOULD I LIKE TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THOSE PARTS OF THE BILLS THAT HELP KENTUCKIANS GET BACK INTO THE LABOR FORCE.

THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS BILL AND IN HOUSE BILL 7 WHICH WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT IN A BIT REGARDING ONLINE SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR JOB TRAINING AND SUPPORTS FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR JOBS, REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CABINET POST JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR KENTUCKIANS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE NOW.

I THINK ALL OF US HAVE PROBABLY HEARD PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS SAY THAT THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK FOR APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT.

THIS BILL WOULD ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.

SO GETTING PEOPLE BACK INTO THE WORKFORCE IS NOT CONSIDERED A PUNISHMENT.

IT'S CONSIDERED SOMETHING THAT IS AN AID TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIKE HAS BEEN SAID, BEEN PUT OUT OF WORKFORCE BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, AND THIS IS A THE BRIDGE TO GET THEM BACK IN THAT WORKFORCE AND BACK ABLE TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.

>> BRYAN SUNDERLAND, WE DID HEAR PRIMARILY FROM DEMOCRATS DURING THE FLOOR DEBATE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR BILL BUT IN AREAS OF THE STATE SUCH AS EASTERN KENTUCKY THAT'S SUFFERING ALREADY FROM DEPOPULATION, THAT THIS WOULD MAKE THAT PROBLEM EVEN WORSE AS THEY WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE THE MOUNTAINS TO FIND WORK.

YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AND DO YOU THINK IT WILL INCENTIVIZE WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION AS SUPPORTERS HOPE IT WILL?

>> I DO THINK IT WILL, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD SUGGEST IN OTHER STATES.

I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH JUSTIN ON THAT POINT.

BUT LET'S LOOK AT WHAT IS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE?

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AS ANNE SAID, IS A BRIDGE TO A JOB.

THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT SYSTEM IS TO HELP PEOPLE GET BACK TO WORK.

AND UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, UNDER THE NEW LAW THAT WILL BE IN EFFECT, BAER WE'RE FOLLOWING STATES LIKE FLORIDA, NORTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, TENNESSEE, OTHER STATES THAT ARE DEBATING THIS PROPOSAL ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT SAYS WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD LIKE THEY ARE NOW, WITH 167,000 OPEN JOBS IN KENTUCKY AND A REALLY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, YOU STILL GET THREE MONTHS TO HELP FIND A JOB, AND IF THE ECONOMY TURNS IS OUR, YOU GET MORE BENEFITS.

YOU GET MORE WEEKS OF BENEFITS.

KENTUCKY ALREADY HAD AN UNEMPLOYMENT PROGRAM THAT IN LARGE MEASURE DISINCENTIVIZED PEOPLE TO GET BACK TO WORK.

WE HAD THE LONGEST DURATION PERIOD MAINLY BECAUSE WE HAD THE HIGHEST MAXIMUM BENEFIT OF ANY OF OUR SURROUNDING STATES.

SO IF YOU'RE DESIGNING A PROGRAM TO KEEP PEOPLE ON UNEMPLOYMENT OR YOU'RE DESIGNING A PROGRAM TO GET PEOPLE BACK INTO THE WORKFORCE, HOUSE BILL 4 IS DESIGNED TO HELP GET PEOPLE BACK INTO THE WORKFORCE AND IT WILL INCREASE THE JOB PARTICIPATION RATE.

>> ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS AND CRITICISM ABOUT THE BILL IS IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE STEAM AND THAT'S THE ANTIQUATED COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, AND THAT THAT'S REALLY THE BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE SLOW AND NO PROCESSING OF MANY CLAIMS DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC.

SHOULD THAT NOT HAVE BEEN A PART OF THIS MEASURE?

>> WELL, IT WAS ALREADY PUT INTO PLACE, AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE FINAL BUDGET THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S GOING TO PUT OUT TO SEE IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL FUNDING THERE FOR THAT, BUT THAT PROGRAM IS ALREADY IN PLACE.

THERE WAS ALREADY THE R RFP.

THEY'RE WORKING ON PUTTING THAT PROCESS IN.

I KNOW THERE'S SOME DISAGREEMENT ON HOW QUICKLY AND HOW EASILY THEY CAN OVERCOME THE TECHNOLOGY.

I THINK DURING THE DEBATE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY GAVE THEM ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS TO HELP IMPLEMENT THAT TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CORNS CONCERNS OF IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM BUT A BIGGER PROBLEM WITH THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IN KENTUCKY IS NOT JUST THE ANTIQUATED TECHNOLOGY, IT'S HOW WE HAD BIFURCATED UNEMPLOYMENT VERSUS REEMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES.

AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT THIS BILL DOES A BETTER JOB OF.

AND NOT ONLY THAT, IT INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO GET JOB TRAINING AND CERTIFICATIONS WHILE THEY'RE ON UNEMPLOYMENT IF THEY DO NEED TO UPSCALE BECAUSE THERE'S -- UPSKILL BECAUSE THERE'S A PROBLEM IN THEIR AREA, THEY CAN'T GET ANOTHER JOB.

THEY GET AN ADDITIONAL FIVE WEEKS ON TOP OF THE 12 TO 24 WEEKS ALREADY IN PLACE.

IN BAD TIMES WHEN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS HIGH, THEY CAN ACTUALLY GET MORE BENEFITS THAN THE 26 WEEKS THAT'S CURRENTLY OFFERED, SO IT'S STRUCTURED IN A WHAT I THAT MATCHES THE UNEMPLOYMENT SYSTEM TO THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY AND HOW EASY TO IT FIND A JOB, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT TRULY INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO GET BACK TO WORK MORE QUICKLY.

>> I WANT YOU ALL TO RESPOND HAD TO-TO-THAT, AS WELL AS THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SYSTEM ITSELF.

WELL, THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SYSTEM ITSELF WILL BE EXACERBATED DUE TO THIS BILL BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE THE RFP OUT HERE AND WE'VE GOT ALL THE ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

THE LABOR CABINET HAS ESTIMATED THAT'S GOING TO COST ANOTHER $7 MILLION TO PUT THE COMPUTER SYSTEM OR GET THE RFP APPROVED BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

LET ME ALSO MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT THE WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION RATE.

WORKERS THAT ARE UNEMPLOYED, THAT ARE DIRECT COLLECTING UNEMPLOYMENT, ELIGIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT THEY ARE IN THE WORKFORCE.

THEY ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS TO BE IN WORKFORCE.

THE WORKERS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOURAGED THAT'S QUIT LOOKING FOR WORK, THOSE ARE THE THE ONES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE WORKFORCE.

AND WHEN WE REALLY TALK ABOUT THE WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION NUMBERS WITH WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE LEAVING ARE RETIRING.

BABY BOOMERS ARE RETIRING AT A REALLY LARGE RATE, AND A LOT OF THE YOUNGER OPPORTUNITIES ARE TAKING THE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO MORE TRAINING AND STUFF LIKE THAT, SO OUR WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION IS REALLY NOT SIGNIFICANTLY A PROBLEM AS FAR AS WHAT WEI WE'RE FACING RIGHT NOW.

BUT WHEN YOU TAKE PEOPLE AND YOU SAY, HEY, LOOK, YOU'VE GOT TO GET OFF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE AND FIND THIS OTHER JOB, AND THEY'RE LIVING IN EAST KENTUCKY IN ONE OUR 31 DISTRESSED COUNTIES AND THERE ARE NO JOBS AVAILABLE, WHAT ARE THEIR OPTIONS?

AND LET'S LOOK AT IT.

26 WEEKS UNEMPLOYMENT.

THAT SEEMS LOOK A LONG TIME BUT MOST PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY ON AVERAGE 18 WEEKS IS WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY GETTING.

SO FOLKS ARE LEAVING UNEMPLOYMENT WHEN THEIR BENEFITS EXPIRED AND WHEN THEY'RE FINDING NEW JOBS.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO CUT THEM OFF SO MUCH EARLIER AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE GREATER DIFFICULTIES TRYING TO FIND THOSE JOBS.

>> BUT IF THE AVERAGE WAS 18 WEEKS ALREADY, THEN MOST PEOPLE WERE BENEFITING FROM THAT.

>> EXACTLY, THEY WERE BENEFITING FROM IT AND THEY WERE LOOKING FOR WORK.

>> BUT THEY WOULD STILL FALL WITHIN THE 12 TO 24 WEEKS PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED OR WON LAW NOW.

>> BUT THE MAXIMUM, THOSE SO THAT'S AN AVERAGE.

THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY COLLECT AT 26 WEEKS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT ENTIRE PICTURE IT REALLY IS PUNITIVE.

IT TAKES THE WORKERS OFF UNEMPLOYMENT SHOPPERS YEARN IT OTHERWISE HAVE.

THEY'RE GETTING LESS BENEFITS FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND WE DEPONENT THINK THIS IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.

THIS GOES HAND IN HAND WITH HOUSE BILL 70 ATTACK ON PUBLIC BENEFITS.

THIS IS AS INSURANCE PROGRAM.

AND IT WORKS VERY WELL.

IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR 84 YEARS IN KENTUCKY AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE TAKING THIS HUGE WHACK AT WORKERS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY ALL THESE BENEFITS WHEN THEY REALLY NEED THEM, AND THIS IS REALLY NOT A GOOD POLICY.

>> DUSTIN, YOU HAVE DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE FAULK HOUSE BILL 7?

>> THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

WANT TO ADD THAT RESEARCH SHOWS WHEN FOLKS HAVE ENOUGH RUNWAY WITH UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, THEY'RE ABLE TO GET A BETTER FIT.

THEY'RE ABLE TO GET A JOB THAT'S IN THEIR CAREER FIELD.

THEY'RE ABLE TO GET HIGHER WAGES.

HOUSE BILL 4 ACTUALLY EXPLICITLY CUTS BENEFIT OFF THE A SIX WEEKS IF YOU ARE OFFERED A JOB THAT PAYS A LITTLE OVER HALF OF WHAT YOUR LAST JOB DID, SO IT IS ACTUALLY FORCING PEOPLE INTO LOWER-WAGE JOBS, AND BECAUSE FUTURE WAGES ARE USUALLY PREDICATED ON PAST WAGES, THAT ACTUALLY LOWERS THE TRAJECTORY OF LIFETIME EARNINGS AND IT ALSO RESULTS IN HAD A POOR JOB MATCH IT.

ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE BILL, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS JOB EVEN IF IT'S OUTSIDE YOUR CAREER FIELD OR THE SKILLS THAT YOU HAVE ACQUIRED UP TO THAT POINT, SO IT'S NOT ONLY WORSE FOR THOSE WORKERS WHO ARE GOING TO END UP WITH LOWER WAGES WEBSITES WORSE FOR EMPLOYERS AND IT'S WORSE FOR THE ECONOMY OVERALL BECAUSE THE SKILL SETS THAT THEY'VE BEEN DEVELOPING OVER A LIFETIME ARE NO LONGER BEING PUT TO USE.

>> ANY COMMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT?

>> SURE.

I THINK THERE'S NO PROHIBITION ON A PERSON TAKING A LOWER WAGE JOB AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY FINDING BETTER EMPLOYMENT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY GO ON TO THEN DO.

THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP A PERSON FROM ACCEPTING A JOB AND FINDING OTHER EMPLOYMENT IN THEIR FIELD WHEN THEY CAN.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF JOB OPENINGS THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW IN KENTUCKY AND WHEN YOU HAVE AN ABLE-BODIED INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ABLE TO TAKE WORK, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THE PREMISE THAT A PERSON SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE PERFECT JOB COMES ALONG IS THE RIGHT WAY FOR THEM TO FIND EMPLOYMENT OR THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY FOR NEM TO FIND EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY EMPLOYED ARE MORE LIKELY TO FIND FUTURE EMPLOYMENT.

SO GETTING THEM BACK INTO THE WORKFORCE AND THEN ABLE TO LOOK FOR A JOB IN THEIR FIELD IS THE RAMP THAT'S RECOMMENDED BY THIS BILL, AND AGAIN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AVENUES THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THIS BILL TO HELP PEOPLE FIND EMPLOYMENT IN THEIR FIELD.

WHERE REALLY THOSE OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH ONLINE PROGRAMMING AND AGAIN AS BRYAN MENTIONED, JOB TRAINING ARE NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENT, BRYAN?

>> I WOULD JUST FOLLOW UP AND SAY THAT THE LONGER SOMEONE IS OUT OF WORK, THE LESS LIKELY THEY ARE TO STAY ON THE SAME JOB TRAJECTORY AS IT IS.

WHAT WE SAW BACK AROUND THE RECESSION IN 2008 WHEN PEOPLE WERE GIVEN UP TO 99 WEEKS P HAVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, THAT WHEN PEOPLE WENT BACK TO THE WORKFORCE, IT WAS A DIFFERENT WORKFORCE, AND THAT'S WHY THIS ONE INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO LOOK FOR WORK QUICKER AND NOT ONLY THAT, IT PROVIDES THEM THE TOOLS ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER THINGS THAT KENTUCKY ALREADY DOES, LIKE THE WORK READY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM THAT HELPS PEOPLE UPSKILL AND RESKILL TOWARDS HIGH-IN AND CAREERS HERE IN KENTUCKY AND PROVIDE FREE TRAINING TO GET THEM BACK INTO THE WORKFORCE.

A LOT OF THESE THINGS REALLY TRULY WORK TOGETHER TO GIVE PEOPLE THE TOOLS TO GET THEMSELVES BACK INTO THE WORKFORCE.

>> SO LET'S MAKE A TRANSITION.

YOU ARE WATCHING "KENTUCKY TONIGHT" AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JOBLESS AND PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT SEGUE TO TALK ABOUT HOUSE BILL 7 THAT WAS APPROVED BY A SENATE COMMITTEE TODAY JUST A FEW HOURS AGO AND WE'LL BE TAKING UP, WE ASSUME 1 ON THE SENATE FLOOR TOMORROW.

ANNE-TYLER, I WANT YOU TO TELL US WHAT IS THE GOAL OF HOUSE BILL 7?

AND COME RIGHT BACK ACHIEVED WITH WHAT IS LAID OUT IN THIS VOLUMINOUS MEASURE?

>> LIKE YOU SAID, RENEE, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS MEASURE BEFORE.

AND THE BILL HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF FORMS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AS WELFARE REFORM HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMARK QUICKLY ON HOW HARD THE HOUSE LAST WORKED TO ENSURE THAT THIS BILL COVERS ALL THE BASES AND HAS BEEN VERY WELL STUDIED AND WELL RESEARCHED.

AND SO I THINK THE GOAL OF THIS VERSION OF THE BILL IS TO ENSURE THAT THE YOU BASES ARE COVERED WITH HOW PELL OUR WELFARE PROGRAMS ARE WORKING CURRENTLY, OUR TANF, OUR SNAP AND OUR MEDICAID PROGRAMS, AND TO ADD THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR RECIPIENTS OF PUBLIC BENEFITS, NAMELY, MEDICAID, TO GET INVOLVED IN SOME WAY IN A TRAINING PROGRAM OR IN VOLUNTEERISM.

>> WASN'T THAT ALREADY PART OF THE 2019 LAW?

>> IT WAS.

AND I THINK THAT'S A PRIMARY GOAL OF HOUSE BILL 7, YOU THE ABOUT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONS TO HOUSE BILL 7 THAT I THINK ADD TO THE STUDY OF OUR PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE BENEFIT CLIFF TASK FORCE.

>> AND I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET AROUND TO THE BENEFITS CLIFF TASK FORCE BECAUSE THAT WAS A SEPARATE MEASURE THAT EVOLVED INTO BEING A TASK FORCE, AND SOMETIMES WE KNOW HOW THAT GOES.

I DO WANT TO COME OVER TO YOU DUSTIN PUGEL TO ASK BECAUSE YOU'VE RIN WRITTEN A LOT ABOUT THIS AND TESTIFIED ABOUT HOUSE BILL ISN'T HAVE 7 WITH YOU WHAT YOU THINK.

ABOUT THE CHANGES TO EBT CARDS.

75% IS RECOMMENDED, THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO PURCHASE HEALTHY FOODS, EMPHASIS ON USING DOUBLE DOLLARS AT FARMERS MARKETS, ET CETERA, THE COMMUNITY ENGAGE WANT REQUIREMENT OF, THE LOSS OF ELECTRONIC BENEFITS CARDS FOR SIX MONTHS IF YOU ARE TRAFFICKING OR ILLEGALLY USING OR DISTRIBUTING EBT CARDS ON FIRST OFFENSE AND, OF COURSE, THAT GRADUATES.

AND THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME CHANGES.

THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S NEEDED.

SO IF YOU CAN KIND OF LIGHT WHAT YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THOSE PROVISIONS.

>> DID LAY OUT YOUR OBJECTIONS.

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BACK UP AND THINK ABOUT WHY WE HAVE A SAFETY NET TO BEGIN WITH.

PROGRAMS LIKE SNAP WHICH PROVIDES FOOD SIN OF AND MEDICAID WHICH PROVIDE MEDICINE AND HELP WITH DOCTORS AND YOUR BILLS ALONG THOSE LINES, THEY REALLY SET A FLOOR, A FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC WELL-BEING SO THAT YOU CAN'T FALL THROUGH THAT FLOOR.

AND IT'S REALM SET UP SO THAT IT'S THERE WHEN YOU NEED IT QUICKLY AND THAT YOU CAN MOVE ON FROM IT WHEN YOU DON'T, AND THAT'S HOW IT WORKS IT.

RALLY DOES DO A LOT OF GOOD FOR PRIMARILY CHILDREN AND OLDER FOLKS BUT ALSO WORKING AGE ADULTS, MOST OF WHOM DO WORK.

WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WITH HOUSE BILL 7 IS THAT IT PUTS CRACKS IN THAT FOUNDATION THAT PEOPLE CAN TRIP OVER AND ULTIMATELY FALL THROUGH.

IT DOES THAT THROUGH INCREASING PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS, BY NOT ALLOWING SELF ATTESTATION FOR MOST OF THE TIME.

>> EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY CITY OF-ATTESTATION.

>> SURE.

WHEN YOU'RE APPLYING FOR BENEFITS A LOT OF TIMES YOU'RE ABLE TO LET THE CABINET KNOW, HEIRS HERE'S HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN MY HOUSE, HOW MUCH I EARN AND EVENTUALLY THAT GETS VERIFIED THROUGH DOCUMENTATION BUT IT ALLOWS THE PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD.

THIS REALLY HINDERS THE ABILITY FOR FOLKS TO DO THAT SO IT SLOWS IT DOWN, REQUIRES MORE PAPERWORK WHICH IS MORE ADMINISTRATIVE LOAD ON THE CABINET AND MORE DIFFICULTY FOR THE FOLKS WHO HAVE TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION.

HOUSE BILL 7 ALSO DOES NOT ALLOW THE STATE TO WAIVE THE SNAP WORK REQUIREMENT AND ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS UNLESS THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE GETS ABOVE 10%, YOU THE BOO WE KNOW THAT IT IS REALLY -- WE KNOW THAT IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT A LOT OF TIMES FOR FOLKS TO APPROVE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A DISABILITY.

WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF TIMES THERE ARE CHILDREN IN THOSE HOMES, AND SO WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY FOOD ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE THAT YOU THINK IS JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MEETING THIS WORK REPORTING REQUIREMENT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY TAKING FOOD WE FROM THE ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD.

AND SO WE DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A REALLY GOOD WAY FORWARD FOR EITHER IMPROVING THE SAFETY NORT HELPING PEOPLE GET BACK TO WORK.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE'RE IN ONE OF THE THOSE INCREDIBLE JOB RECOVERIES THAT WE'VE EVER SEEN, BUT IF WE WANTED IT TO GO EVEN FASTER, WE KNOW WHAT DOES WORK TO HELP PROVIDE SUPPORTERS FOR FOLKS TO GO BACK TO WORK IT IS.

PROVIDING CHILD CARE SO THAT MOTHERS CAN GO BACK TO WORK.

IT'S PROVIDING MORE HOME AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES SO FOLKS CARING FOR A ELDERLY OR DISABLED LOVED ONE CAN GO BACK TO WORK.

AND FRANKLY IT'S HIGHER WAGES, AND WE KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE BECAUSE THE JOBS RECOVERY HAS REACHED EVERYONE WHO EARNS ABOVE $27,000 A YEAR.

FOR FOLKS WHO EARN $27,000 OR LESS PER YEAR, YOU'RE STILL 15% BELOW WHERE YOU WERE BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.

IF WE REALLY WANT TO SUPPORT FOLKS, REALLY WANTED TO ENSURE WE WERE HELPING THEM MOVE FORWARD, WE WOULD DO THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AND NOTE ADD TO THE STACK OF PAPERWORK THEY ALREADY HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO GET HELP.

>> BIDEN SUNDERLAND, THIS AFTERNOON OR EARLY EVENING HOUSE BACKER SPEAK DAVID MEADE WENT OVER WITH THAT THEY TERMED THE COMMITTEE SUT INSTITUTE THAT MEANS THERE ARE CHANGES AND REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL 7, AND HE SAID THE GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE THOSE WHO REALLY NEED THE BENEFITS OF GETTING NEM AND TO CURB ABUSE AND FRAUD.

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT HOW MUCH FRAUD IS HAPPENING IN THE SYSTEM?

WHAT'S THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IS BELIEVED OR HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED THAT'S BEEN TAKEN ILLEGALLY FROM THE SYSTEM?

>> WELL, THERE'S AN INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT THAT SAID AT LEAST $100 MILLION HAS BEEN PAID OUT FOR ABLE-BODIED ADULTS THROUGH MEDICAID.

THERE ARE COUNTLESS EXAMPLES ACROSS THE COUNTRY OF FRAUD IN THE SYSTEM.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, LET'S GET BACK.

THE PURPOSE OF THE SAFETY NET, I WOULD AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY, IT IS TO TAKE CARE OF THE MOST VULNERABLE AND THAT'S WHAT REPRESENTATIVE MEADE SAID.

THE ELDERLY, THE DISABLED, THE CHILDREN.

THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE TAKEN CARE OF.

BUT WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS AN INCREASING GROWTH OF ABLE-BODY ADULTS WITHOUT CHILDREN FILLING THE MEDICAID ROLLS.

FROM 2000 TO 2020, KENTUCKY'S MEDICAID ROLLS INCREASE FROM 14.9% OF OUR POPULATION TO 2022 IT WAS 33.4%.

A THIRD OF KENTUCKIANS ARE NOW ON MEDICAID.

AND WHAT WE'VE SEEN NATIONWIDE FROM 2000 TO 2019 IS AN INCREASE FROM $6.9 MILLION TO 34 MILLION ABLE-BODIED ADULTS.

SO THE POINT OF THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHERE THE OBJECTIVE, I WOULD AGREE, IS TO GIVE PEOPLE THE RESOURCES AND THE HELP WHEN THEY NEED IT AND TO HELP THEM GRADUATE FROM THE PROGRAM INTO A JOB, BUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM IS NOT DESIGNED TO MEET THAT OBJECTIVE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM, I WAS STRUCK, WE HAD A FOCUS GROUP IN ANOTHER STATE, AND AN OLDER GENTLEMAN WHO WAS A POLITICALLY INDEPENDENT PERSON WAS ASKED ABOUT SHOULD THERE BE WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR ABLE-BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT KIDS IN THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM?

AND HE SAID, ABSOLUTELY.

PROBLEM WITH MOST OF OUR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IS THEY'RE NOT A BIG PEOPLE TO GET BACK TO WORK.

THEY'RE PAYING PEOPLE TO STAY POOR.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE GOT A STRUCTURE WHERE THAT'S NOT -- THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAM AND THE WAY IT'S SET UP IS MISALIGNED, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT HOUSE BILL 7 IS DESIGNED TO DO.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THINGS IN THE BILL THAT, LIKE SNAP WORK REQUIREMENTS.

TANF, TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDED FAMILIES, HAS A BUILT-IN WORK PROGRAM IN IT.

THERE'S JOB PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE.

THERE'S COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS NOT TO TAKE THINGS AWAY FROM PEOPLE.

IT'S TO PROVIDE THEM THE RESOURCES TO GRADUATE FROM THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, AND IT'S A MATTER OF RESTRUCTURING THE PROGRAM SO IT MEETS THE OBJECTIVE TO HELP GET PEOPLE BACK ON THEIR FEET.

>> SO SPEAKING OF RESTRUCTURING THE PROGRAM, IT COMES AT A COST.

THE CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, AND THIS WAS A FISCAL NOTE THAT WAS ISSUED LAST WEEK, HAD SAID THAT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO 500 NOW NEW EMPLOYEES, A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, DUSTIN, TO IMPLEMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD ANOTHER FISCAL STATEMENT UPDATE TODAY FROM THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE OR THE CHANGES TO THE -- OR THE LATEST VERSION OF THE BILL, BUT DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT TO YOU, THAT IT WOULD COST THAT MUCH AND DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> BEFORE I GET TO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO ONE THING WHICH IS THAT MOST WORKING AGE FOLKS ON SNAP OR WITH MEDICAID DO WORK.

THE IN FACT, THERE'S A ONE IN FOUR CHANCE THAT THE CASHIER HELPING CHECK OUT YOUR GROCERIES OR THE COOK WHO IS MAKING YOUR FOOD AT A RESTAURANT IT'S SNAP BENEFITS TO BUY THEIR OWN FOOD.

80% OF FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING AGE WITH SNAP THE WORK BEFORE THEY USE SNAP AND IT'S ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT AFTERWARDS.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT MOST WORKING AGE FOLKS WITH THESE BENEFITS ARE WORKING.

THEY JUST EARN SO LITTLE THAT THEY QUALIFY FOR THESE BENEFITS TO BEGIN WITH, AND THAT'S A SUPPORT FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO STAY IN THE WORKFORCE INSTEAD OF FALLING THROUGH THOSE CRACKS THAT WE MENTIONED BEFORE.

>> BILL-UNDER LONDRIGAN?

>> I WOULD JUST SAY WORK AND PEOPLE IN KENTUCKY, ESPECIALLY IN OUR EASTERN KENTUCKY COUNTIES THAT HAVE BEEN HARD HIT BY THE DEVASTATION OF THE COAL INDUSTRY, THOSE FOLKS ARE IN NEED OF THIS ASSISTANCE, AND TO CLAIM THAT THERE'S WIDESPREAD WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE THAT IS GOING ON THAT THESE WORKERS DON'T DESERVE TO HAVE THESE BENEFITS, I THINK THAT'S JUST DISINGENUOUS.

THERE'S ALREADY A SYSTEM IN PLACE TO DETECT WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN ALL OF THESE SYSTEMS.

BUT YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THIS THING FROM THE FREQUENT PERSPECTIVE FROM WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR ECONOMY, IN OUR STATE, AND AS A SAID EARLIER, WE'VE GOT 30, AT LEAST 30 COUNTIES IN OUR EASTERN KENTUCKY AREA THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ECONOMICALLY DISTRESS FOR DECADE, AND THE WORKERS IN THOSE AREAS HAVE LITTLE ACCESS TO ANY ACCIDENT EMPLOYMENT.

MOST OF THE EMPLOYMENT THERE ARE LOW-WAGE JOBS, IF THERE ARE ANY AT ALL.

SO THESE BENEFITS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE, AND I THINK GOING FROM THE APPROACH THEY'VE GOT TO TAKE PEOPLE OFF IN ORDER TO SATISFY OUR GOALS HERE IS I THINK IT'S A LONG THE WRONG WAY TO APPROACH.

>> IT DUSTIN, I THINK LAST WEEK THE KENTUCKY CENTER FOR ECONOMIC POLICY DID A STUDY AND ESTIMATES 200,000 KENTUCKIANS COULD LOSE MEDICAID COVERAGE AND TENS OF THOUSANDS COULD LOSE SNAP BENEFITS UNDER HOUSE BILL 7.

THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL 7 AND NOT THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE, THE WHICH WREAK TALK ABOUT OF THIS THOSE CHANGES.

BUT STOD SECRETARY YEAH, FREE LENDER, THE CABINET SECRETARY THEY HAD SED THAT WOULD AMOUNT THE ON A LOSS OFY WANT $.3 BILLION THE, WHO PROVIDERS.

ANNE-TYLER MORGAN, ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS THAT HAVE STRUGGLED TO KEEP THEIR DOORS OPEN, A LOSS OF $1.3 BILLION SEEMS UNTENABLE.

>> I WOULD CHALLENGE THOSE NUMBERS RENEE SHAW AI, OF COURSE, BUT I WOULD SAY FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO RELY ON MEDICAID DOLLARS, MANY OF THOSE DOLLARS ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH OTHER INSURANCE OPTIONS THAT FOLKS COULD HAVE IF THEY'RE PAINFULLY OR THROUGH DISH PAYMENTS THROUGH HOSPITALS AND OTHER TYPES OF PAYMENTS FOR UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS, SO PROVIDERS DO HAVE OTHER AVENUES TO BE PAID.

BUT I WOULD ALSO CHALLENGE WITH THAT STATEMENT SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT THE U.

LOSS OF BENEFITS.

UNDER THIS BILL, THE ONLY BENEFITS THAT WILL BE LOST ARE IF PEOPLE TAKE ILLEGAL ACTION WITH REGARD TO THEIR BENEFITS OR IF THEY'RE ABLE-BODIED WITH NO DEPENDENTS AND REFUSED FOR WHATEVER REASON UNDER THIS BILL TO WORK.

>> SO ELDERLY AND CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, AND I HEARD A STATEMENT THAT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WOULD BE AFFECTED, BUT THERE IS SPECIFICALLY LANGUAGE IN HOUSE BILL 7, AS THERE WERE IN PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THE BILL, THAT FOR SNAP BENEFICIARIES, IF THEY HAVE DEPENDENTS OR CHILDREN, THEN THOSE BENEFITS WILL GO TO ANOTHER GUARDIAN OR PERSON WHO CAN ADMINISTER THOSE BENEFITS FOR THE CHILDREN, SO THE BILL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES CHILDREN AND FAMILY WHO ARE RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS, AND SO SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HERE ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WILL COME OFF THE PROGRAMS.

AND AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS NOT TO CUT BENEFIT TO FOLKS.

IT'S TO HELP THEM GET INTO THE WORKFORCE OR TO HELP THEM HAVE AN ON-RAMP INTO THE WORKFORCE IN THE FUTURE.

SO I WANT TO DISAGREE FUNDAMENTALLY WITH THE EXTREME CUTTING OF BENEFITS BECAUSE THIS BILL SIMPLY DOESN'T DO IT?

SO HOW MANY KENTUCKIANS WOULD LOSE BENEFITS?

IF IT'S NOT 80,000 TO 200,000 BE, HOW MANY COULD?

>> I THINK A LOT OF THESE STUDIES THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE BILL WOULD UNEARTH THAT BECAUSE WE DO REQUIRE THE CABINET TO CONDUCT STUDIES ABOUT THE NUMBER INDIVIDUALS THAT FALL INTO THOSE CATEGORIES AND THE AMOUNT OF FRAUD.

>> DUSTIN.

>> WE NOE KNOW THERE ARE 30,000 FOLKS WITH SNAP BECAUSE OF THIS BLANKET BAN ON WAIVING THE WORK REPORTING REQUIREMENT WOULD LOSE BENEFITS WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

BEFORE WHEN WE LET THOSE WAIVERS ROLL OFF, IT TOOK 18 MONTHS FOR 30,000 PEOPLE TO LOSE THEY EVER BENEFITS.

SO IT WOULD BE A VERY LARGE AND IMMEDIATE IMPACT.

AND I SHOULD JUST SAY TWO THINGS.

ONE, WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY FOOD ASSISTANCE FROM ONE PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD WITH AN ELDERLY PERSON OR A CHILD, YOU LOWER THE ENTIRE FAMILY'S FOOD BUDGET.

IT'S NOT LIKE THOSE GET TRANCHE OUT AND YOU ONLY SPEND SO MUCH ON KIDS AND SO MUCH ON ADULTS.

WHEN YOU TAKE FOOD MONEY AWAY FROM A FAMILY, THAT'S LESS MONEY FOR THOSE KID, TOO, AND SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY REAL SITUATION.

BUT I ALSO SAY THAT WHEN YOU REQUIRE OVERVERIFICATION OF THINGS, WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO FUTURE OUT RFIs, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, EACH ONE OF THOSE COMES WITH A COUNTDOWN, A 30-DAY COUNTDOWN, AND INDEPENDENCE EITHER YOU ARE ABLE TO GET THAT BACK OR THE CABINET IS ABLE TO PROCESS IT IN TIME, YOU LOSE YOUR BENEFITS, AND WE KNOW THAT PAPERWORK ISSUES ARE ALWAYS THE NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER TWO REASON WHY PEOPLE LOSE MEDICAID AND SNAP.

SO BY CONTINUING TO PUSH OUT MORE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU'RE FRYING RESTORE FI IN MANY INCOME, TRYING TO VERIFY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A HOUSEHOLD, YOU'RE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TIMES PEOPLE CAN AND WILL LOSE THEIR BENEFITS, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, BEING ELIGIBLE, JUST NOT GETTING THAT DONE IN TIME.

>> AND THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THEY HAVE TO REPORT THEIR INCOME IS INCREASED.

IS IT EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS?

>> THERE WAS A CHANGE REPORTING ELEMENT THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT WITH THE SENATE COMMITTEE SUB.

BUT IT'S STILL ABOUT A 30-DAY COUNTDOWN FOR EACH OF THESE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION.

AND AGAIN, I LOOK AT THE DATA EVERY MONTH WHEN IT COMES OUT.

FOLKS LOSE BENEFIT BECAUSE OF PAPERWORK ISSUES, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE INELIGIBLE.

>> BILL.

>> I JUST WANT TO CHIME IN WITH WHAT DUSTIN SAID.

THIS REALLY IS AN EFFORT TO PUSH PEOPLE OFF THEE BENEFIT PROGRAMS PROGRAMS.

THESE ARE SOCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS THAT ARE COMING UNDER ATTACK JUST LIKE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND IT REALLY IS QUESTIONABLE ABOUT THE GOALS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.

THE GOALS SHOULD BE TO UPLIFT PEOPLE, TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED AND TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES WHEN THEY'RE IN TOUGH ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WE JUST THINK THAT THESE APPROACHES TO UNDERCUTTING BENEFITS AND REQUIRING THESE ONEROUS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE JUST WAYS OF CUTTING BACK AND PUSHING PEOPLE OFF BENEFITS.

THANK DESERVE THEM.

AND WHEN WE GO BACK TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

IT'S AN INSURANCE SYSTEM THAT'S WORKED WELL.

EMPLOYERS ARE NOW PAYING THE LOWEST LEVEL THEIR WAGE, TAXABLE WAGE BASE ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS THAN THEY HAVE IN LIKE 80 YEARS.

SO THESE PROGRAMS WE THINK ARE VERY, VERY BENEFICIAL AND THEY WORK WELL.

AND, OF COURSE, THERE'S SOME ABUSE AND FRAUD IN EACH ONE OF THE PROGRAMS BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE RECEIVING BENEFITS, AND THOSE THAT ARE RECEIVING THEM ARE IN NEED AND NEED TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE AND BE THEE BENEFITS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THEM.

>> AND ALONG WITH PUTTING -- >> SNAP IS LESS THAN 2%.

>> SAY THAT AGAIN, I'LL SORRY.

>> THE RATE OF FRAUD FOR SNAP FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE IS LESS THAN 2% ACCORDING TO THE USDA.

>> AND WHAT IS IT FOR NECKED.

>> I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER.

>> SPEAKING OF MEDICAID, AND THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, BRYAN SUNDERLAND, JUST CURIOUS IF THERE ARE PROJECTIONS AND ESTIMATIONS WHICH MAYBE NOT THE ENTIRE GROUP WILL AGREE ON 180,000 OR 200,000 PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR BENEFITS, WILL THIS RESULT IN PEOPLE NOT SEEKING A MEDICAL HOME AND PROVIDER BUT THEN WAITING AND THERE WILL BE AN OVERUTILIZATION OF THE ER WHICH WOULD BE, I WOULD THINK, MUCH HIGHER COST ON THE OTHER END?

IS THAT A CONSIDERATION?

>> WELL, I THINK YOU'RE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY GRADUATED FROM MECH.

IF THE INSPECTOR ANGELS REPORT SAYS ARE THERE 35,000 ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE ON MEDICAID THAT POTENTIALLY DON'T QUALIFY AND 70,000 IN THE REGULAR POPULATION ON MEDICAID, JUST CALL THAT 100,000 PEOPLE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT QUALIFY, IF THEY DON'T QUALIFY IS THAT BECAUSE THEIR INCOMES HAVE GONE UP, NOW THEY HAVE A JOB HAVE HAVE AND HAVE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE OR HAVE THEY BEEN NEED TO HEAVILY SUB DECIDE ACH EXCHANGE AND PICKED UP A BRONZED PLAN THERE?

YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID THAT THEY'RE NOT GROWING TO HAVE HEALTH CARE.

WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE GRADUATED TO A BETTER ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCE AND MOST LIKELY HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HEALTH CARE IN SOME OTHER WAY.

AND WHEN WE GET TO THE AMOUNT OF FRAUD, REPEAT REPORTS SHOW THAT THE ONE IN FIVE MEDICAID DOLLARS POTENTIALLY PAID OUT IN INELIGIBLE CLAIMS OR ONE IN FIVE WAS PART OF WHAT THEY CALL THE PERM, THE PERMANENT ERROR RATE.

AND SO IF ONE IN FIVE DOLLARS IS POTENTIALLY GOING OUT THE DOOR EITHER FRAUDULENTLY OR BY MISTAKE OR BECAUSE -- IT SAYS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT CLEANING UP THE ROLLS AND MAKING SURE THINGS THINGS ARE GOING ON.

THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING IS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE GET INTO THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SELF-ATTESTATION AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PUTTING SOMEONE ON THE PROGRAM AND SAYING, AS YOU SAID, WE'LL GO BACK AND KiNETic LATER, WELL, RIGHT NOW ONCE GET TO MEDICAID, YOU'RE ON MEDICAID.

THE CURRENT MORATORIUM IS TAKING PEOPLE OFF OF MEDICAID IS IN PLACE BECAUSE MOST OF THE STATE, ALL THE STATES ARE ACCEPTING WHAT IS CALLED AN ENHANCED F MAP, MEANING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GIVING EVERY STATE 6.2% MORE FOR THEIR MEDICAID PROGRAMS, AND THE STIPULATION IS YOU CAN'T TAKE ANYONE OFF THE PROGRAM, WHETHER THEY GOT ON FROM SELF-ATTESTATION, WHETHER THEY WERE PUT ON FOR OTHER REASONS OR WHETHER THEY'VE ACTUALLY GRADUATED FROM THE PROGRAM, SO EVERY STATE'S ROLLS RIGHT NOW ARE INFLATED WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T ACTUALLY QUALIFY.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS -- >> THAT WAS DUE TO COVID, CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS DUE TO COVID, BUT THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.

NOW, THERE'S BEEN RUMORS THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO EXPIRE AND THEN STATES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW THEY END CONTRACT UP THEIR ROLLS TO MAKE SURE THAT INELIGIBLE PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKING BENEFITS AWAY FROM THE MOST NEEDY AND TAKING -- YOU KNOW, EVERY TAX DOLLAR THAT'S SPENT ON SOMEONE THAT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SOMETHING IS A TAX DOLLAR THAT'S NOT GOING TO SOMETHING ELSE.

AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT IN TERMS OF THE STATE'S MEDICAID COSTS FROM 2016 20162020, MEDICAID COSTS HAVE GONE UP 25%.

OUR SEEK, OUR K THROUGH 12 WENT UP 1.5% I THINK.

POSE SECONDARY EDUCATION DECREASED BY 6%.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHERE WE'RE INVESTIGATING.

ARE WE PAYING FOR THE SYMPTOMS OF NOT INVESTING ON THE FRONT END?

AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK REPRESENTATIVE MEADE'S AND REPRESENTATIVE WEBERS' UNEMPLOYMENT BILL ARE FOCUSED ON THE FRONT ENDOPROVIDING TRAINING AND HELP TO GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK, AND TO BE ABLE TO GET SOME OF THE PROGRAM COSTS UNDER CONTROL SO WE CAN INVEST THAT ON THE FRONTAL END IN EDUCATION TO WHERE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO GET PEOPLE INTO A JOB TO WHERE THEY CAN SUPPORT THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

>> SO ARKANSAS, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ARKANSAS EXPERIENCE WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER LITIGATION, I UNDER.

HOW MUCH IS WHAT HOUSE BILL 7 IS IN IT NOW?

AND THAT WOULD EVEN CHANGE TOMORROW WHEN THEY GET TO THE FLOOR, THERE COULD BE AMENDMENTS.

HOW MUCH DOES HOUSE BILL 7 RESELLABLE AND ARKANSAS LAW?

>> HOUSE BILL 7 HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARKANSAS EXPERIENCE AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT BASES.

MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF HOUSE BILL 7 AND IT'S SET TO REP REPLILY KATE FEDERAL LAW OR REACH THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL LAW.

RENEE, I CAN'T LET THE OPPORTUNITY GO TO CHALLENGE ONE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT AGAIN, JUST UNDERLIES THE PREMISE OF BOTH OF THESE BILLS.

BILL SAID I THINK I'M QUOTING DIRECTLY, THIS IS AN INSURANCE PROGRAM THAT IS WORKING WELL.

AND I HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT 2021 U.S. CENSUS DATA SHOWS THAT KENTUCKY IS FOURTH IN THE NATION IN ITS POVERTY RANKING.

THIS IS NOT A PROGRAM, AND THIS IS NOT A SET OF PROGRAMS IN KENTUCKY THAT IS WORKING WELL.

WE'VE HEARD ACROSS THE BOARD THAT WE HAVE KENTUCKIANS SUFFERING, PARTICULARLY IN EASTERN KENTUCKY, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, AND YET WE CONTINUE TO STAY THAT THESE ARE PROGRAMS THAT ARE WORKING FOR US?

THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT.

AND BOTH OF THESE BILLS ARE INTEND TO ADDRESS THAT.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE VERSION HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT MANY OF THE CONSTITUTIONALALITY CHALLENGES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED TO VARIOUS BUILTS ON THIS SUBJECT, AND AS WE'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THIS BILL HAS BEEN REVIEWED AT LENGTH TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES PASS MUSTER.

BUT THESE ARE NECESSARY BILLS TO IP SURE THAT WYE DON'T CONTINUE TO STAY IN THE BOTTOM RANKINGS IN THE NATION FOR OUR WORSTOFF KENTUCKYIANS.

>> DUSTIN.

>> WELL, ANNE-TYLER IS RIGHT IN THAT THE SENATE VERSION END CONTRACT UP THE ISSUES THAT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION RELATED TO ARKANSAS, BUT WE KNOW THAT HAD THEY GONE DOWN THAT ROAD, ARKANSAS, THEIR EXPERIENCE WAS DISASTROUS.

TENDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LOST HEALTH COVERAGE, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM, NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE INELIGIBLE BUT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO REPORT OR WHAT TO REPORT IN TERMS OF THEIR HOURS, AND THERE'S BEEN EXTENSIVE RESEARCH FROM HARVARD AND ELSEWHERE TO SHOW THAT THAT WAS NOT -- THAT WAS NOT A GOOD ROAD TO GO DOWN.

SO FORTUNATELY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS CLEANED THAT UP.

IT'S NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT.

IT'S AN OPTION TO PARTICIPATE.

BUT I THINK -- I JUST WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK ABOUT MEDICAID FRAUD, AS BRYAN WAS REFERRING TO.

THAT'S PROVIDER FRAUD.

THAT'S NOT FOLKS WHO ARE GAMING THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY NEED HEALTH COVERAGE.

WHEN FOLKS APPLY FOR MEDICAID, IT'S BECAUSE THEY NEED MEDICINE, THEY NEED TO GO TO A DOCTOR.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO GET RICH OFF THEIR APPENDECTOMY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT OUR SPENDING ON MEDICAID AS AN SPECIAL USE PERMIT INVESTMENT -- AS A WAY OF PROVIDING FOR THE WELL-BEING OF OUR STATE, AND WE KNOW THAT AFTER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WHEN WHEN WE EXPANDED MEDICAID AND MORE FOLKS WERE ABLE TO GET COVERAGE, IT INCREASED SUB USE DISORDERS TREATMENT, IT ENSURED FEWER PEOPLE WERE DRYING OF COLON CANCER, IT INCREASED HOSPITALIZATIONS FOR AS HUH, INCREASED BREAST CANCER SCREENINGS AND WE KNOW THAT IT SAVED LIVES.

SO I THINK IT'S REALLY CRITICAL NOT TO THINK OF THIS AS SORT OF A DRAG ON THE STATE BUT REALLY AN INVESTMENT IN OUR PEOPLE THAT HELPS PROVIDE ALL THE THINGS THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO MOVE UP THOSE RANKING, WHICH WE'VE BEEN DOING STEADILY.

>> BRYAN SUNDERLAND, DOES HOUSE BILL 7 ADDRESS PROVIDER FRAUD?

>> IT HAS A LOT OF STUDYING IN IT.

>> IT HAS A LOT OF STUDY TO STUDY PROVIDE FRAUD OR NOT TO ACT ON PROVIDER FRAUD?

IT.

>> CHANGES HOW HOSPITAL PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY WORKS.

>> EXPLAIN THAT TERM, PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY.

>> IT'S SOMEWHAT LIKE SELF-ATTESTATION BUT WHEN SOMEONE COMES INTO A HOSPITAL AND THEY DON'T HAVE INSURANCE, THE HOSPITAL IS REQUIRED TO GIVE THEM CARE.

THE HOSPITAL WILL START THE PROCESS OF SEEING, WELL, LET'S SEE IF THEY'RE MEDICAID ELIGIBLE, AND THEY'LL START TOY FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK THAT THEY'RE PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY.

AND IN A LOT OF CASES IF ALL OF THE THING CHECK OUT, THEN THE PERSON GETS ENROLLED IN MEDICAID, THE HOSPITAL GETS PAID FOR TO SERVICES THEY PROVIDE, AND THAT AMERICAN IS ON MEDICAID.

THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES IN OTHER STATES WHERE HOSPITALS NATURALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY, SO THEY WILL SIGN PEOPLE UP.

THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES IN OTHER STATES WHERE THEY DIDN'T REALLY CHECK.

THEY JUST DID IT.

AND WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT THAT'S LOCKING ALL THE STATES INTO MEDICAID, I THINK IT WAS -- I THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO LOOK AT TO MAKE SURE ARE THE PROVIDERS DOING THE RIGHT THING AND ARE THE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION CAME OUT TO TABLE, WORK WITH REPRESENTATIVE MEADE AND CAME TO SOME LANGUAGE THAT WILL HELP KIND OF TAKE CARE OF THAT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.

THERE ARE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICES WITHIN MEDICAID.

THEY DO A LOT OF LINING AT -- WE'VE SEEN MEDICAID FRAUD POP UP IN THE NEWS WHERE PEOPLE ARE DOING THE WRONG THING, THEY GET CAUGHT, AND THE STATE -- AND I THINK THAT'S -- THE STATE SHOULD GO AFTER THAT VERY, VERY HARD.

>> RENEE, ONE OTHER THING THAT HOUSE BILL 7 DOES RELATED TO PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY IS IT PREVENTS THE STATE FROM BEING THE ONE THAT PROVIDES PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY FOR FOLKS.

DURING THE WORST PART OF THE DOWNTURN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LOST THEIR JOBS.

MANY OF THOSE ALSO LOST THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.

SO THE STATE ASKED CHMS, THE FEDERAL GOT.

CAN WE DO WHAT THE HOSPITALS ARE DOING, BE WE PROVIDE PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY TEMPORARY COVERAGE AND SO WE DO THAT.

COVERED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FOR SIX MONTHS AT A TIME.

THEN LAST JUNE MOST OF THOSE FOLKS ROLLED OFF.

WE WENT FROM ABOUT 130,000 THE PEOPLE TO 200,000 PEOPLE ON PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY MEDICAID.

THAT WAS A HUGE DEAL TO KEEP HOSPITAL DOORS OPEN, TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY OF CARE SO PEOPLE COULD KEEP GETTING THEIR MEDICINE, SEEING THEIR DOCTORS, AND THENELED PEOPLE ROLLED OFF OF THE OF IT WHEN IT WASN'T NEEDED ANY MORE AND THIS PREVENTS THE STATE FROM DOING THAT IN THE FUTURE AT ALL, AND I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER DOWNTURN.

EVERYONE KNOWS THAT WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY.

AND TAKING THAT TOOL IDENTITY OUR TOOL CHEST IS GOING TO BE DANGEROUS FOR INDIVIDUAL BUT ALSO FOR HOSPITALS.

>> PATRICIA DOURI FAYETTE COUNTY SAID I'M A FORMER US IN OF 40 YEARS BUT HAD TO RETIRE BECAUSE OF ILLNESS.

I BARELY MAKE OVER THE INCOME LIMIT SO IT'S HARD TO QUALIFY.

WHAT IS KENTUCKY DOING FOR THOSE WHO ARE ON FIXED NEXT WHO ARE FOOD INSECURITY BUT ARE BARELY EXCEEDING INCOME LIMIT?

ANNE-TYLER NORTH KOREAN.

>> >> THE BILL DOES ADDRESS PARTICULAR ASSISTANCE TO SENIORS AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE SENIORS OF THE QUALITIES OF THIS WILL BULL IS IT'S TAKING SENIORS INTO ACCOUNT.

>> I'M SORRY, DUSTIN.

>> THE ELDERLY SIMPLIFIED APPLICATION PROJECT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BILL.

AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THERE IS HELP WITH THAT -- SOMEONE MAKING JUST OVER THE INCOME LIMIT.

BENEFIT ITSELF TASK FORCE WHICH WILL STUDY AND ADDRESS HOPEFULLY WITH REGARD TO WHAT IS FOUND IN THAT STUDY.

THE BENEFIT CLIFF, WHICH IS EXACTLY THAT SITUATION OF SOMEONE WHO MAKES JUST OVER THE INCOME ELIGIBILITY LIMIT FOR THESE PROGRAMS, WHO IS THEN IN A POSITION TO LOSE ALL OF THEIR BENEFITS FROM FINDING EMPLOYMENT THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO GOOD, AND SO HOPEFULLY THAT TASK FORCE WILL COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE STATE CAN THEN IMPLEMENT TO HELP FOLKS IN EXACTLY THAT POSITION.

>> ARE THERE NOT ALREADY PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO THAT?

AS LONG AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE CLIFF.

>> I THINK A LOT OF IS THE COMMENTS TO CONDENSE THOSE COMMENTS -- REGARDING THE BENEFIT CLIFF IT IS A NUANCED ISSUE AND I THINK THAT THE PROPER ATTENTION IS NOW BEING GIVEN TO IT.

IT'S NOT A QUICK FIX.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH A HANDY SOLUTION FOR.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT DOES REQUIRE SOMETHING AS INTENSIVE AS A TASK FORCE REVIEW.

>> ANOTHER QUESTION FROM ALLEN COUNTY.

IF AVAILABLE JOBS ARE UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE STATE, DOES HOUSE BILL 7 PROVIDE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES FROM DISTRESSED COUNTIES TO THOSE WHERE JOBS ARE PLENTIFUL OR ARE EMPLOYERS EXPECTED TO PAY THOSE EXPENSES EVEN FOR LOW WAGE EMPLOYEES?

>> IT IS STILL UP TO THE EMPLOYERS UNDER THIS BILL, RENEE.

THERE'S NO DIRECT ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE RELOCATIONS.

>> PART OF THE ISSUE I THINK LIKE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, WE HEARD LAWMAKERS FROM EASTERN KENTUCKY SAYING, THIS IS GOING TO EMPTY OUT MY COUNTIES.

WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE JOBS RIGHT NOW.

WHAT WE NEED IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WE DON'T NEED INCENTIVES TO PULL PEOPLE OUT, WHICH WE KNOW HAS BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, AS COAL AND MANUFACTURING HAS DRIED UP IN EASTERN COUNTIES.

SO PROVIDING SUPPORTS THAT HELP PEOPLE STAY THERE AND BUILD UP AN ECONOMY FROM THE GROUND UP AGAIN IS REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THOSE COMMUNITIES CAN REMAIN VAGRANT, TO ENSURE THAT FOLKS CAN CONTINUE TO STAY WHERE THEY LOVE.

>> BILL?

>> THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE WITH HOUSE BILL 4, IS THE INDEXING MECHANISM WILL DISENFRANCHISE THOSE PEOPLE IN COUNTIES THAT HAVE HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATES.

RIGHT NOW MAGOFFIN COUNTY'S GOT A 10% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BUT THEY WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE MORE NUMBER OF BECOMES FAR AVAILABLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SO IT'S CERTAINLY UNFAIR ACROSS THE ENTIRE COMMONWEALTH, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'VE GOT COUNTIES THAT ARE TRADITIONALLY HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT RATES THAN ACROSS THE STATE, SO THAT'S DEFINITELY A BIG PROBLEM.

>> WE HAVE THIS TWEET FROM H. SEILER JEFFERSON COUNTY.

WHY ARE THE PRO HB 7 CITING STATS FROM OTHER STATES?

PLEASE ADDRESS THE FACT THAT COMPUTER GLITCHES THOUGH PEOPLE IS IN AND OUT OF OF THE MEDICAID.

>> I THINK WE'RE CYTING STUD FRIDAYS OTHER IT'S DAUS IT'S QUITE COMMON TO USE OTHER STATE'S EXAMS ELSE.

, WHETHER THOSE STATES HAVE DONE SOMETHING GOOD OR DONE SOMETHING BAD, IT'S CERTAINLY HELPFUL TO US TO USE THOSE EXAMPLES WHERE THEY'RE RELEVANT, AND THOSE ARE CERTAIN MAKERS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN MAYBE NATIONWIDE AS A RESULT OF MUCH OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN NATIONWIDE, GROWING WORKFORCE SHORTAGES OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS AND NOW HISTORIC INFLATION RATES.

SO WE ARE USING THOSE OTHER STATES TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE THE BEST ACTIONS POSSIBLE OR IS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKES THE BEST ACTIONS POSSIBLE.

>> DOES HOUSE BILL 7 PUT FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN USE THE ELECTRONIC BENEFIT CARDS FOR?

>> THE ELECTRONIC BENEFITS CARDS ARE RESTRICTED IN A WAY THAT YOU CAN'T FRAUDULENTLY USE THEM, SO THERE'S ALREADY A FEDERAL LAW IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T USE THEM ON THINGS LIKE GAMBLING, CIGARETTES, ALCOHOL AND THE ELECTRONIC BENEFIT CARD LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL MAKES SURE THAT IF IT IS USED IMPROPERLY, TO WITHDRAW CASH THIS & THEN PAY FOR THOSE THINGS, THOSE ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES.

BUT IT DOES ADD PENALTIES OVER TIME IF THAT IS CURRENTLY INCORRECTLY USED.

>> FROM ONE MONTH TO FIVE YEARS OR PERMANENT?

>> IT'S NOW ONE YEAR RATHER THAN FIVE UNDER THE SUB.

>> UNDER THE SUB.

WHY YOU THOUGHTS ON THAT.

>> THERE ALREADY WERE PENALTIES INVOLVED FOR WHAT ARE CALLED INTENTIONAL PROGRAM VIOLATIONS, WHEN SOMEONE'S TRYING TO CHEAT THE SYSTEM.

WHAT WE ARE TENDER CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE WAY THAT THIS THEN CREATES A CROSS-PROGRAM BAN WHICH IS SOMETHING WE'RE NOT SURE IS ALLOWED UNDER FEDERAL RULES.

EACH OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE GOVERNED UNDER FEDERAL AGENCIES AND HAVE TO ADHERE TO FEDERAL STATUTES.

SO CREATING A BAN FROM, SAY, MEDICAID BECAUSE YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR K TAP EBT CARD, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DO.

AND IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD DO, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE USE SNAP TO GET GROCERIES.

SO IF YOU DO SOMETHING WRONG BECAUSE OF K TAP, YOU'RE BASICALLY ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL IN THAT SITUATION.

IN.

>> WEI THIS QUESTION FROM JEFF SIMS.

HOW UNEMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE PARTICIPATION IN KENTUCKY PERCEIVED BY THE INDUSTRIES AND BUSINESSES THAT KENTUCKY IS TRYING TO ATTRACT.

BRYAN SUNDERLAND, I'LL HAVE YOU FILED THAT ONE.

>> I WOULD LOOK AT THE LARON PARKING RATE FOR THE NIDE.

OF ABOUT 63.4% VERSUS KENTUCKY IS 56.5%.

WE HAVE THE THIRD LOWEST WITH ONLY WEST FAYETTE COUNTY AND MISSISSIPPI LOWER IN TERMS OF LABOR PARTICIPATING RATES, WHICH MEANS WHEN AN EMPLOYER IS HOMECOMING TO LOOK AT KENTUCKY, THEY REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE TO LOOK AT TO HELP FILL THOSE JOBS.

IT'S DEFINITELY A NEGATIVE.

NOW, KENTUCKY HAS A LOT OF GREAT THINGS GOING FOR IT: LOCATION, LOGISTICS, WATER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PERFECTLY LOCATED FOR A LOT OF THINGS.

BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE WARTS ON OUR STATE.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE REAL QUESTION IS IS NOT WHETHER WE HAVE A LOW UNEMPLOYMENT RATE RIGHT NOW BUT HOW DO WE GET CERTAIN PEOPLE OFF OF THE SIDELINES WHO FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER HAVE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO EITHER STAY UNEMPLOYED OR HAS NOT FOUND THEIR PATH TO THE WORKFORCE, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK BOTH OF THESE PROGRAMS DO REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS BY TYING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS AND INCENTIVIZING THEM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE UNEMPLOYMENT BILL GIVING YOU A BONUS HAVE FIVE ADDITIONAL WEEKS.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO A SIX OR EIGHT-WEEK TRAINING PROGRAM, THAT COVERS SOME EXPENSES WHILE YOU'RE GETTING RETRAINED AND SKILLED UP.

THAT CAN ALSO HELP SOME OF THESE INSTANCES WHERE THE JOB YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN YOUR COUNTY ISN'T THERE AND YOU HAVE -- SO -- WELL, WHAT CAN I UPSKILL OR RESKILL MYSELF TO BECAUSE I DO WANT TO STAY IN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.

HOW CAN I UPSKILL SO THAT I CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OTHER OPPORTUNITIES?

>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT WHO IS HELPING THESE OUT-OF-WORK KENTUCKIANS KNOW HOW TO NAVIGATE THIS PROCESS?

ARE THE CAREER CENTERS THAT ARE REASONABLY REASONABLE REGIONALLY PLACED?

WOULD THAT BE THEIR GOAL, ANNE-TYLER?

>> THEY WOULD.

THEY HAVE BEEN ALREADY BUT THEY WOULD BE ON AN INCREASED BASIS BECAUSE THIS BILL REQUIRES THAT NEW ONLINE PROGRAMS BE CREATED TO CONNECT EMPLOYERS WITH NEW EMPLOYEES AND TO HELP PEOPLE FIND RESOURCES THAT ARE AROUND THE STATE TO HELP -- >> BUT THIS ALSO ASSUMES THAT PEOPLE HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DIN TAL LITERACY AS WELL.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

AND AGAIN IT JUST MAKES THOSE PROGRAMS AVAILABLE.

BUT THERE ARE, LIKE YOU SAID, CAREER CENTERS AVAILABLE AS WELL AS SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICES ACROSS THE STATE THAT CAN HELP PEOPLE CONNECT WITH THOSE RESOURCES AND THOSE JOB OPPORTUNITIES.

THIS BILL CERTAINLY GOES FURTHER THAN ANYTHING WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST IN HELPING PEOPLE FIND OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE STATE AND HELPING THEM TO GET THE TRAINING AND RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED TO GET BACK INTO THE WORKFORCE.

WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING QUITE LIKE THIS IN TERMS OF HELPING PEOPLE CONNECT WITH OPPORTUNITIES.

>> SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT, DUSTIN?

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WHEN IT COMES TO PRIME AGE WORKERS WITH PEOPLE BETWEEN 24 AND 55 YEARS OLD, WE KNOW WHO IS ON THE PROVERBIAL SIDELINES, SO FOR FOLKS GENERALLY SPEAKING IN THAT AGE GROUP, 80% OF THEM ARE IN A JOB RIGHT NOW.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT FATHERS WITHIN THAT AGE GROUP, IT'S CLOSER TO 95%.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT MOTHERS, IT'S ACTUALLY BELOW 70%.

ESPECIALLY MOTHERS YOUNG CHILDREN.

SO AGAIN, IT'S NOT THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST SITTING AROUND WAITING FOR THE RIGHT OPPORTUNITY.

PEOPLE ARE TAKING CARE OF FOLKS.

AND THIS IS TRUE ALSO FOR FOLKS TAKING CARE OF ELDERLY OR DISABLED LOVED ONES.

SO IF WE REALLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE PRIMARY GROUP WHO IS ON THE SIDELINES, WHICH IS MOTHERS OF YOUNG KIDS, WE WOULD ADDRESS THE 50% OF THE STATE THAT'S IN A CHILD CARE DESERT RIGHT NOW AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.

WE HAVE A CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE INVESTED HEAVILY IN THROUGH FEDERAL FUND THAT HAS REALLY HELPED BUT THOSE FUND ARE GOING TO GO AWAY SO STATE FUNDING WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE WOULD GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TOWING BACK INTO A CAREER THAT THEY LOVE AND NOT SIT ON THESE SIDELINES.

>> DO WE KNOW IN A CHILD CARE BILL IS GOING TO COME IN THE LAST 72 HOURS?

>> I THINK WE'RE ALL WAITING WITH BATED BREATH, RENEE, TO SEE WHAT IS UNTIL THE BUDGET.

>> BILL, QUICKLY.

>> I JUST WANT TO MENTION WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAINING PROGRAMS.

KTCTS AND THE ADDITIONAL SIX WEEKS OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BUT THEY DON'T MENTION PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY TUITION TO GO TO THESE TRAINING PROGRAMS WHILE THEIR ON UNEMPLOYMENT.

IT'S DEFINITE GOING TO BE A SQUEEZE.

IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC I'M GOING TO GET RETRAINED OVER HERE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN FIND SOME JOB.

THERE ARE SOME ECONOMIC ISSUES THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH -- >> THERE'S NO FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE OFFERED UP IN HOUSE WILL 7.

>> NO BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO KENTUCKY ACROSS THE STATE?

THIS IDEA THAT WE HAVE A ORANGE SHORTAGE NOT TRUE.

BELIEVE IS A SHORTAGE OF WORKERS WHO WANT TO WORK FOR POVERTY WAGES.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IF YOU DISAGGREGATE THE WAGE BINS IS WHAT IT'S CALLED, YOU LOOK AT FOLKS WHO EPHRINE ABOVE 27 HOW TOED A YEAR, THEY HAVE ALREADY RECOVERED FROM THE PANDEMIC.

THEY ARE ABOVE PRE-PANDEMIC LEVELS EMPLOYMENT.

IF YOU LOOK AT FOLKS WHO EARN 27 HOW TOED OR BELOW, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO KEEP UP.

IF YOU TALK TO EMPLOYERS THEY'LL TIM THAT.

IF YOU RAISE WAGES YOU WILL GET FOLKS.

>> REAL QUICKLY.

>> ONE OTHER THING.

WE'VE GOT X NUMBER OF JOBS, YOU WE MENTIONED 180 -- THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED THERE ARE ONLY 12,900 PEOPLE ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT SO IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT ARE OPEN.

>> EL WAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

GOOD DISCUSSION.

WE'LL BE WATCHING IN THE DAYS TO COME.

THE LEGISLATURE RESUMES TOMORROW FOR DAY 56, I BELIEVE, 57 MAYBE, AND WE'LL BE THERE ALL DAY.

THE BUDGET CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IS MEETING 10:00 A.M.

SO WE'LL BE PROVIDING THAT COVERAGE EVER COVERAGE BOTH ON AIR AND ONLINE AT KET.ORG.

I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT AT 11:00 FOR A WRAP-UP OF THE DAY A EVENTS FOR LEGISLATIVE 82L.

UPDATE."

THANKS SO VERY MUCH FOR WATCHING AND TAKE CARE.

I'LL SEE YOU SOON.