WELCOME TO "KENTUCKY TONIGHT."

I'M RENEE SHAW.

THANK YOU SOCH VERY FOR JOINING US TONIGHT A REVIEW OF THE 2022 KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THE SESSION ENDED LAST THURSDAY.

LAWMAKERS PASSED A TWO-YEAR BUDGET WITH RAISES FOR STATE WORKERS, INCLUDING STATE TROOPERS BUT NOT TEACHES.

THEY PASSED AN OMNIBUS ANTI-ABORTION BILL WHICH HAS ALREADY PROMPTED LEGAL CHALLENGES, LOWERED THE STATE INCOME TAX RATE, AND CREATED A WAY TO FUND CHARTER SCHOOLS.

THEY ALSO PASSED LAWS FURTHER LIMITING THE GOVERNOR'S HOURS AND CREATED RULES FOR HOW HISTORY CAN BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS.

GOVERNOR ANDY BESHEAR VETOED MANY OF THESE BILLS BUT THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND SENATE OVERRODE THOSE VETOES LAST WEEK.

THEY DID NOT LEGALIZE MEDICAL MARIJUANA OR SPORTS BETTING, AND SO TO ANALYZE THE SESSION IN OUR LEXINGTON STUDIO WEV SENATOR ROSH STIVERS, A REPUBLICAN FROM MANCHESTER AND SENATE PRESIDENT.

SENATOR MORGAN McGARVEY, A LOUISVILLE DEMOCRAT AND SENATE MINORITY FLOOR LEADER.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID OSBORNE, A REPUBLICAN FROM PROS INSPECT AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

AND REPRESENTATIVE JONI JENKINS A K FROM SHIVELY AND HOUSE MINORITY FLOOR leader WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SEND US A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON TWITTER AT KYTONIGHTKET.

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

OR YOU CAN GIVE ISSA I A CALL AT 1-800-494-7605.

I WELCOME TOUR OF THE GUESTS.

I KNOW YOU ALL LOVE THAT ROBERT LINE, DON'T YOU?

IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING SESSION SO I WANT TO HIT A JENN QUESTION AND I'LL STAR WITH LEADER JENKINS.

GIVE US THE HIGHLIGHTS AND THE LOWLIGHTS OF THE KY GA 22 HASHTAG.

>> OH, MY GOODNESS.

YOU KNOW, I WAS TALKING TO LEADER McGARVEY ON THE WAY UP HERE AND I SAID THE GEM ASSEMBLY AFFECTS EVERYBODY EVER.

>>> IN KENTUCKY BUT THEY AFFECT KENTUCKIANS VERY DIFFERENTLY AND NOT EQUALLY.

SO IF YOU WERE A STATE EMPLOYEE, YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT WE HAD A REY GOOD SESSION BECAUSE YOUR GETTING A RAISE.

IF YOU A RETIREE, YOU PROBE DIDN'T THINK THE SESSION WAS GREAT.

IF YOU WERE A WOMAN ON ON FRIDAY THOUGHT YOU WERE HAVING A PROCEDURE DONE AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD, YOU PROBABLY THINK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY WAS REALLY BAD.

SO I THINK SOME HIGHLIGHTS WERE THERE WERE SOME REALLY GOOD THING IN THE BUDGET.

THE LOW LIGHT WERE WE REALLY PASSED I THINK SOME DIVISIVE BILLS ABOUT EDUCATION, ABOUT ABORTION ACCESS, AND I THINK THERE WERE SOME MISSED OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE GREAT REVENUES THAT WE HAD TO WORK WITH THIS TIME.

>> NOT DOING PRE-K. >> NOT DOING PRE-K, NOT MAKING THAT BIG BOLD INVESTMENT THAT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE LOOKED BACK 20 YEARS LATER AND SAID, WOW, THAT WAS REALLY SOMETHING.

>> AND WHAT WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN?

>> I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN PRE-K. HIT THE COULD HAVE BEEN INFRASTRUCTURE.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN SPORTS BETTING.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES I THINK THAT WE MACE MISSED.

>> IS SPORTS BETTING AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA A BIG BOLD INVESTMENT, LEADER McGARVEY?

>> IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO TO KEEP FROM FALLING BEHIND.

LOOK AT SPORTS BETTING.

KENTUCKY'S AN ISLAND.

EVERY STATE THAT BORDERS KENTUCKY HAS PASSED SPORTS BETTING.

WE ARE JUST THREE WEEKS AWAY FROM THE FIRST SATURDAY IN MAY WHEN THE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING US TO PLACE THEIR BETS ON HORSE RACING IN THE KENTUCKY DERBY, BUT YOU CAN'T PLACE A BET ON THE NBA FINALS RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S SILLY.

I THINK PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY HAVE CLEARLY SAID THEY WANT THIS, THEY NEED IT.

LOOK AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

37 STATES HAVE PASSED A FORM OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

MISSISSIPPI HAS PASSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

AND THE KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS REFUSED TO EVEN SO MUCH AS HAVE A VOTE ON IT.

IS IT A MISSED OPPORTUNITY?

YES, IT'S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE'RE AT NO PUTTING IT IN THE VOTE FOR THE STATE SENATE.

>> THE HOUSE HAD A VOTE ON IT.

LET'S ASK THE SPEAKER ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND LET'S TALK ABOUT SPORTS BETTING.

SO WE'LL START WITH WHAT DIDN'T PASS, AND THOSE ARE THE TWO BIG ONES THAT I HEAR A LOT ABOUT AND PERHAPS YOU DO AS WELL.

>> SURE.

>> FOR THE PARTY THAT IS PRO-BUSINESS, SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY, WHY WOULD YOU GIVE UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO FOR SPORTS BETTING THAT COULD WERE I IN SOME REVENUE, THAT COULD BE JOB CREATION IF YOU ARE THE PARTY THAT IS FOR BUSINESS?

>> I'VE ALWAYS KIND OF ALWAYS FELT LIKE -- WELL I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED EXPANDING GAMBLING SINCE MY VERY FIRST DAYS IN THE LEGISLATURE.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE ABSOLUTE WRONG REASON TO DO IT IS TO INCREASE REVENUES TO THE STATE.

I THINK THAT'S THE WRONG TO DO A LOT OF THINGS.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO IT TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR THE STATE.

I DO THINK FROM A PRO-BUSINESS STANDPOINT, THOUGH, IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO HAVE SOME SYNERGIES, AS MORGAN SAID.

WE HAVE HORSE RACING.

WE HAVE COMPANIES THAT HAVE BEEN IN ITS BETTING BUSINESS FOR OVER 150 YEARS IN SOME CASES.

THESE ARE NOT STRANGERS.

THESE ARE GOOD ACTORS.

THEY'VE BEEN ACTING RESPONSIBLY IN THE COMMONWEALTH FOR MULTIPLE GENERATIONS.

AND I THINK TO ALLOW THEM TO EXPAND THAT PRODUCT BASE IS A NATURAL EVOLUTION AND SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO.

I'M ALSO ALL IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES AND YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS ON YOUR OWN.

SO THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA SITUATION, I TEND TOAL FOLLOW THE SAME TYPES OF THOUGHT PROCESS ON THAT.

I HAVE -- I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAX IT.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE PROFITING AS A GOVERNMENT FROM MEDICINE, BUT THANK YOU THAT MANY OF US, THOSE OF US THAT SUPPORT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, HAVE GOTTEN TO A PINT WHERE WE'RE TIRED OF MAKING CRIMINALS OUT OF SICK PEOPLE AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO.

WE CLEARLY DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO OPIOIDS AND NARCOTICS.

PREWE PRESCRIBE THEM TO DEATH EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE IS PRETTY READILY AVAILABLE NOW THAT SOME PEOPLE, AT LEAST, GET A LOT OF BENEFIT FROM THEM.

SO LET'S STOP MAKING THOSE PEOPLE CONTACT LENSES.

BUT THERE ALWAYS, EVERY SESSION, A IS I GAVE-AND-TAKE WHERE YOU DON'T GET EVERYTHING PASSED THAT YOU WANT TO.

YOU PASS A FEW THINGS YOU DIDN'T EXPECT TO.

OUR CAUCUS AND OUR CHAMBER FELT VERY STRONGLY ABOUT BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS.

AND PASSED THEM PRETTY HANDILY WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT DOWN IN THE SENATE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THEY JUST DIDN'T ENJOY THE SAME KIND OF SUPPORT DOWN THERE.

>> SO LET'S TALKING ABOUT THE KIND SUPPORTED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE IN THE STATE SENATE, SENATE PRESIDENT.

MR. PRESIDENT.

>> AS I LOOK TO THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT, I MAY BE THAT EILAND THAT THE SENATOR WAS TALKING ABOUT.

>> YOU MAYBE THE ISLAND.

YOU TALKED TO US SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, YOU WANT MORE RESEARCH.

IN FACT, A BILL DID PASS, REPRESENT KIM MOSER HOUSE BILL 604 THAT WOULD SET UP THAT CENTER FOR RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY ON THE MEDICINAL MARIJUANA BECAUSE THAT'S AS FAR AS YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE FOGGY.

>> AT THIS TIME.

>> WHY WAS IS THAT.

>> >> SEVERAL YEARS AGO I STOOD ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND SAID, PROVIDE ME ALL THE STUDIES, AND NOBODY PROVIDEY MOO A STUDY.

I STOOD THERE THE NEXT YEAR AND SAID HERE ARE ALL THE STUDIES THEY PROVIDED ME.

NONE.

THEY GAVE THEM TO ME AFTER THAT.

THERE WAS ABOUT 20.

AND I SAT DOWN AND ACTUALLY READ THEM.

AND I DON'T COME UP WITH THESE TERMS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE OF MY PROFESSION.

I'M A LAWYER.

MORNING'S A LAWYER.

WE HAVE THAT.

YOU IN THE PRESS HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS, THE BUZZ WORDS.

BUT IN VIRTUALLY EVERY ONE OF THOSE STUDIES IT SAID THIS, "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS THAT MARIJUANA CAN BE THERAPEUTIC OR MEDICINAL FOR SPASTICITY, WHICH IS SEIZURES, NAUSEA, SUPPRESSION, OR APPETITE ENHANCEMENT, WHICH IS GENERALLY RELATED TO CANCER, OR JOINT INFLAMMATION, LIKE IN KROHN'S CROHN'S BUT EVERYONE CONCLUDED SAMPLE SIZES WERE TOO SMALL, DURATION WAS TOO SHORT, AND MORE STUDY WAS NEEDED BECAUSE PROLONGED USE, SEVERE LIKELIHOOD OF A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE, ONE, IF YOU -- TWO, IF YOU SMOKE IT WITH 50% MORE CARCINOGENS THAN TOBACCO, AND THREE, DETRIMENTALLAL TO BRAIN DEVELOPMENT FOR INDIVIDUAL UN25.

SO I HEAR THE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO SAY IT HELPS THEM.

THERE ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS, ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO ME, AND I WAS CRITICIZED OVER WAS THE OCULAR PRESSURE RELATED TO GLAUCOMA.

AFTER I WAS I.

CRITICIZED ABOUT THAT SAYING THERE WERE OTHER DRUGS BETTER SUITED, I HAD NUMEROUS OPHTHALMOLOGISTS RIGHT ME AND SAY, U.

YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.

HALF-LIFE FOR REDUCING OCULAR PRESSURE IS VERY SMALL.

AND IT DOESN'T DO THE JOB.

MORE STUDY IS NEEDED.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME VERY COMPELLING PEOPLE UP THERE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT A GOOD HANDLE ON THIS.

AND I AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR SAID LET'S DO IT AND LET'S TAX IT.

IF IT'S TRULY MEDICINAL, TRULY THERAPEUTIC, WE DON'T TAX DRUGS.

>> AND DOES THIS SIDE FAVOR TAXING MEDICINAL MARIJUANA?

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE GOVERNOR?

>> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAX MED ISAL NATURAL MARIJUANA.

IT'S MEDICINE.

HOWEVER, I THINK YOU HEAR THAT AND PEOPLE A SOUP IT'S SOMEHOW REVENUE NEWAL CENTRAL.

WHEN YOU'RE CREATING A NEW INDUSTRY, WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE GROWING IT, PEOPLE WHO ARE SELLING IT, NOT TO THE CONSUMER BUT CULTIVATING IT, IT'S GOING TO CREATE NEW REVENUE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO CREATE I NEW INDUSTRY IN KENTUCKY.

IS IT GOING TO CURE ALL THE BUDGETTEST WOULD THE FUTURE?

NO, IT'S NOT.

BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'VE SEEN ANYBODY SELLING MEDICAL MARIJUANA AS A PRIMARY REVENUE THING.

IT'S ACTUALLY, AS SPEAKER OSBORNE SAID, IT'S NOT MAKING CRIMINALS OUT OF PEOPLE WHO NEED IT FOR MEDICINE.

IT'S BECAUSE WE ARE PRESCRIBING OPIATES AND MORPHINE TO PEOPLE BUT AFRAID TO PRESCRIBE MARIJUANA.

I THINK WE SHOULD JOIN THE VAST MAJORITY OF STATES THAT DO.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, THERE ARE 70% OF KENTUCKIANS WHO HAVE BEEN SURVEYED ABOUT THIS WHO DO FAVOR IT, SO ARE YOU NOT GOING AGAINST THE WILL OF 70% OF KENTUCKIANS WHO SAY THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT?

>> I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT STUDY.

IS IT LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA OR MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

THAT I DIDN'T KNOW.

BUT I DO WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS.

PRESCRIBING OPIATES, OPIOIDS, THAT'S A PREM, AND WE REALLY -- A PROBLEM, AND WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A MUCH BIGGER, LARGER PROBLEM.

>> YOU HAVE WHEN EVEN GONE AFTER THAT BEFORE.

>> AND WE HAVE BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START LOOKING AT AN INDEPENDENT BOARD THAT'S OUTSIDE ALL MEDICAL PROCESSING TO START LOOKING AT INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO WAKE UP AND HEAR AND SEE IS R., ESPECIALLY IN MY AREA, IS THE DOCTORS WHO ARE BEING INVESTIGATED, THE PHARMACISTS WHO ARE BEING INVESTIGATED, THE NURSE PRACTITIONERS THAT ARE BEING INVESTIGATED FOR OVERPRESCRIBING, AND WE KNOW WE OVERPRESCRIBE.

>> THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL QUESTIONS COME IN ABOUT RAISES, YOU THE ABOUT THEIRS EVER HERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO YOU, SENATOR STIVERS, FROM ROBERT CUMMINGS IN RUSSELL COUNTY.

SINCE HE WON'T ALLOW THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL TO PASS THE SENATE COMMITTEE, HOW MUCH OF HIS LEGAL PRACTICE IS DEVOTED TO CRIMMAL NATURAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASES?

>> NONE.

IN FACT, IN 2005 I DID USED TO DO A LOT OFFAL FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURT.

MY CHILDREN WERE YOUNG.

AND A MAN ASKED ME NOT TO DO IT ANYMORE AND I DIDN'T.

THAT WAS MY FATHER.

HE DIED A MONTH LATER.

I DON'T DO CRIMINAL DEFENSE IN DRUG CASES.

>> MOVING ON TO THE QUESTION ABOUT PAY RAISES, AND THEN WE'VE GOT OTHER THINGS WE'LL COVER, THIS IS FROM A STATE EMPLOYEE IN FRANKFORT.

WILL ALL STATE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE 8% RAISE EFFECTIVE JULY 1st, 2022, OR WILL EMPLOYEES RECEIVE 8% ON THE ANNIVERSARY INCREMENT DATE OF EMPLOYMENT?

AND CAN LEADERSHIP EXPLAIN HOW THE RAISES FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE SECOND YEAR WILL WORK?

UP TO A HAVE 2% FOR SOME BUT NOT ALL.

AND A QUESTION THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT IS DOES THAT AFFECT THE PENSION SPIKING LAW?

YOU'RE L. FIVE YEARS BEFORE YOU RETIRE, A 20% RAISE POSSIBILITY, THAT'S QUITE A BIT.

AND SO IF YOU COULD ANSWER THOSE THREE QUESTIONS.

MR. SPEAKER.

>> TO YOUR LAST QUESTION FIRST, CERTAINLY THIS COULD AFFECT SOME PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS ALONG THE WAY, AND THOSE WILL BE BUILT INTO THE OVERALL CALCULATION OF THE EMPLOYER MATCH WHEN THAT IS DONE, AND THEN WHEN WE SETTLE UP WITH THE ACTUARIALLY REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION MADE DURING THE BUDGET, THAT WILL CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE POTENTIAL EFFECTS.

THE 8% FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DOES GO INTO EFFECT JULY 1 FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.

INITIALLY IT WAS SET TO GO INTO EFFECT ON THE ANNIVERSARY DATE.

IT GOT REALLY CONFUSING.

AND PERSONNEL ACTUALLY ASKED US TO STEP BACK AND TAKE A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THAT WHICH SEEMED TO MAKE SOME SENSE.

THE 12% THEORETICAL 12% THAT IS KIND OF PARKED.

THE MONEY HAS ACTUALLY BEEN APPROPRIATED.

IT IS IN THE BUDGET.

DEPENDENT UPON THE PAY STUDY FROM PERSONNEL CABINET.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO IN STATE GOVERNMENT FOR YEARS IS TO LOOK AT STATE EMPLOYMENT LIKE A BUSINESS WOULD, CONSIDERING THE NEEDS IN CERTAIN REGIONS, CONSIDERING COST OF LIVING IN CERTAIN REGIONS.

IT MAY COST MORE TO HAVE AN EMPLOYEE IN LOUISVILLE THAN IT DOES IN PADUCAH OR IN PIKEVILLE, AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES THAT MAY BE MADE TO GET PEOPLE TO GO TO CERTAIN AREAS OF THE IS THAT IT STATE.

AND OVERALLALLAL SALARY STUDY THAT WOULD LOOK -- AN OVERALLAL SALARY STUDY THAT WOULD LOOK AT CREATING AN RANK AND STEP SYSTEMMAL HALL THAT WILL BE A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY OF EMPLOYING A STATE WORKFORCE, HOPEFULLY, BUT THAT MONEY IS PARKED AND THEN WILL BE TRIGGERED BY THAT STUDY WHEN IT COMES IN AND HOPEFULLY THEY WILL COME WITH A STUDY THAT DOES REALLY HELP MOVE OUR STATE WORKFORCE FORWARD.

>> AND IF THEY DON'T, THERE'S SOME PRETTY HEFT FINANCIAL PENALTIES FOR THEM, RIGHT?

$2MILLION OR SOMETHING?

>> $2 MILLION A MONTH.

AND THAT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE REFUSAL OF THE PERSONNEL CABINET TO ACT PREV.

THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT A -- TO ACT PREVIOUSLY.

THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SUB IN THE A PROPOSAL OF THIS PLAN BACK IN THE INTERIM AND JUST FLATLY REFUSED TO DO SO.

AND SO THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA, SO MUCH SO THAT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH HAVE BOTH UNDERTAKEN THOSE SIMILAR STUDIES TO MAKE EMPLOYMENT MORE COMPETITIVE AND MAKE IT BETTER FOR EMPLOYEES.

THE PERSONNEL CABINET JUST REFUSED TO DO SO.

AND SO GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT IS A LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE, IT IS THE LAW, CARRIES THE FORCE OF LAW, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME IMPETUS BEHIND ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO.

>> LEADER MCGARVEY AND LEADER JENKINS, YOU DO THINK EIGHT TO 12, IS THAT ADEQUATE, LEADER JENKINS?

>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD START AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT FUTURE LEGISLATORS WILL NEED TO MONITOR AS OTHERRALLAL SALARIES.

WE'RE IN COMPETITION IN EVERY REGION OF THE STATE WITH OTHER PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE KEPT HEARING MOSTLY FROM SOCIAL WORKERS THAT THEY COULD GO TO McDONALD AND MAKE AS MUCH AS BEING ENTRUSTED WITH OUR MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN.

I THINK THIS COMES ON TOP OF WHAT THE GOVERNOR DID LATE LAST YEAR FOR SOCIAL WORKERS.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE NEED -- THEY NEED TO KEEP MONITORING THAT.

>> I AGREE WITH LEADER JENKINS.

I MEAN, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY NECESSARY FIRST STEP.

WE HAVE TO KEEP GOVERNMENT JOB AT LEAST SOMEWHAT COMPETITIVE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THINGS ARE WAY OUT OF WHACK.

AS.

SHE MENTIONED SOCIAL WORKERS.

I KNOCKED A WOMAN'S DOOR RECENTLY WHO TOLD ME WITHOUT THAT PRAISE THEY WERE LOSING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY COULD GET BETTER PAY -- AND THIS IS IMPORTANT -- BETTER PAY AND BEST BENEFIT GOING TO WORK AT COSTCO.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE COMPETING WITH.

WE HAVE TO KEEP PEOPLE IN THESE REALLY IMPORTANT JOBS, WHETHER IT'S THE SOCIAL WORKER, WHETHER IT'S THE PERSON THAT TAKING CARE, OFSOME OUR MOST VULNERABLE CHILDREN AROUND THE STATE, WHETHER IT'S JUST KEEPING STATE GOVERNMENT GOING BY PROVIDING A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR WORKING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT JOBS, AND WE NEED PEOPLE TO DO THEM.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT SHRINKING THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.

BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO RETAIN THE WORKFORCE THAT WE HAVE.

WHAT HAPPENED AND WHEN DID IT HAPPEN WHEN YOU REALIZED THAT MAYBE THE IDEA AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SHRINKING IT WASN'T THE BEST COURSE FOR THE STATE?

>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S A DISCUSSION OF SHRINKING IT.

IT'S MAKING SURE YOU KEEP WHAT YOU HAVE.

AND I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS AMONGST STATE EMPLOYEES.

ONE OF THE CONDOMINIUMS WE MADE WAS ONE WE GETTAL COFF OUR PENSION SYSTEM, AWAY KNOW WE HAVE TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH PRIVATE SECTOR OF.

SO YOU LOOK AT AN ENGINEER IN TRANSPORTATION CABINET, THEY MAY HAVE TO PAY THEM MORE THAN 12% TO KEEP THAT ENGINEER HERE.

SOMEBODY ELSE IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO -- WITH MAYBE NOT THE DEGREE OR ADVANCED DEGREE, MAY GET 5%, BUT EVERYBODY IS GOING START OFF WITH 8% WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN ANYTHING THE GOVERNOR RECOMMENDED.

AND THEN THE 12 CUMULATIVELY ON AVERAGE IN YEAR TWO.

>> SO IT WOULD BE COULD BE HIGHER FOR SOME PEOPLE.

>> IT COULD BE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE STUDY.

I WANT TO LOOK.

WE PRIMARILY ARE SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS YOU FAR MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY THAN IT IS MANCHESTER.

SO MAYBE A POTENTIAL, YOU WANT TO DO A DIFFERENTIAL PAY BASED ON THE REGION YOU LIVE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE PERSONNEL CABINET TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT IT SHOULD BE IN THOSE AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE TECHNICAL DEGREES, THINGS THAT ARE VERY, VERY COMPETITIVE WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, YOU MAY HAVE TO DO 15% OR 17% OR 18% TO BE ABLE TO BE COMPETITIVE AND KEEP GOOD, QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN IT AS THE HEAD OF LRC, WE'VE LOST A LOT OF EMPLOYEES TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

WE CAN'T KEEP OUR OWN EMPLOYEES, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT AS WELL.

>> SOME ARE CONCERNED THAT RIGHT NOW THERE'S A GOOD SIZE CASH FLOW, YOU THE ABOUT THEN MAYBE PERHAPS IN THE NEXT BIENNIUM THERE'S A DOWNTURN AND YOU COULD BE TALKING FURLOUGHS AND OTHER CREATIVE WAYS.

IS THIS SUSTAINABLE?

BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT IT DOES AFFECT THE PENSION AND IT DOES HAVE SOME LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES.

>> I THINK IT IS SUSTAINABLE BECAUSE WE FORECAST NOT JUST TWO YEARS BUT WE LOOK AND SEE WHAT THE CONSENSUS FORECAST GROUP DOES, WHICH IS BIPARTISAN, APOLITICAL, AND THEY'RE VERY GOOD.

IN THE 26 YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE, THEY'VE BEEN VERY GOOD.

ONLY THREE TIMES THEY'VE MISSED IT ONE FORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE TECH BUBBLE, LAND BUBBLE THAT HIT IN 2007, 9/11 WHICH WAS UNFORESEEN, AND THEN COVID.

IT'S THE ONLY TIMES THEY'VE MISSED.

THOSE FORESEEABLE OR FORECASTABLE TYPES OF THINGS.

I THINK WE'RE ON THIS TYPE RUNG AND I WANT TO SAY THIS.

PROBABLY THE BIGG THINGS AND THIS IS A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, WAS THE FACT THAT WE DID THE STREAMLINED SALES TAX 20-SOME-ODD-YEARS AGO THAT THE REMOTE SALES WEREN'T TAXED BUT WHEN THAT GOT REVERSED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THEN I THINK YOU'VE SEEN OUR SALES TAX GO UP TREMENDOUSLY AND IT WAS I DON'T UNDERSTAND ESTIMATED BY THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION AS THE TO WHAT IT WOULD DO, AND THAT'S REALLY STABILIZED OUR INCOME.

>> SO THIS QUESTION FROM A VIEWER.

THE LEGISLATURE FINDS MONEY FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS AND RAISES FOR STATE WORKERS YOU GO CLIMATE CURRICULUM THEMSELF, LEGISLATORS, BUT WON'T GIVE A RAISE TO TEACHERS.

SO LEADER JENKINS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU REMARKED ON SEVER TIMES AND LEADER MCGARVEY, FOR THAT FACT.

YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

AND WE OFTEN HEARD THAT TEACHERS ARE GETTING OR COULD GET A RAISE BECAUSE THERE'S MORE MONEY GOING TO THE DISTRICTS WHERE THEY COULD MAKE THAT CHOICE THEMSELF, AND THAT'S THE PURE DEFINITION OF LOCAL CONTROL.

>> RIGHT.

I DO THINK, THOUGH, WHEN WE'RE TREATING OTHER STATE EMPLOYEES, AND YOU CAN SAY, WELL, TEACHERS ARE EMPLOYED BY LOCAL ENTITIES, ABOUT IT DO THINK IT SENDS A MESSAGE WHEN WE DID NOT MANDATE RAISES FOR THEM.

WE DID INCREASE FUNDING BACK TO THE LOCAL IN THE HOPES THAT THE LOCALS WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD HAVE SENT A STRONG MESSAGE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPRECIATES WHAT THE TEACHERS DID DURING THE PANDEMIC AND THE HARD WORK THAT THEY DO EVERY DAY.

I WAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF US MANDATING THAT THEY GET RAISES THE RAISES.

>> LEADER MCGARVEY.

>> WE COULD HAVE SET ASIDE MONEY SPECIFICALLY FOR TEACHERS IN THE BUDGET.

WE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE MONEY SPECIFICALLY FOR TEACHERS IN THE BUDGET WHILE INCREASING THE REST OF EDUCATION FUNDING.

I MEAN, EDUCATION IS STILL ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OBLIGATIONS OF STATE GOVERNMENT.

IT IS THE GENERATIONAL INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE OF KENTUCKY, AND TEACHERS PLAY A LARGE ROLE IN THAT, AND SOMETHING THAT PRESIDENT STIVERS WAS TALKING ABOUT A SECOND AGO WITH STATE GOVERNMENT AND TALKING ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS SHRINKING, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING ALL OF US TALK, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT SHORTAGES BASED OAT CURRENT LEVELS OF PAY AND THE CURRENT BENEFITS MANY STATE EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING TEACHERS.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT A TEACHER SHORTAGE, PARTICULARLY IN PLACE LIKE JEFFERSON COUNTY AND THINGS THAT YOU'RE SEEING FORECAST.

AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET TO THAT POINT, AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE DeMINT THIS BUDGET.

>> MR. SPEAKER, SOME PEOPLE HAVED REQUEST WHETHER OR NOT THIS RETALIATION FOR THEM BUCKING UP POLICIES ON PUBLIC PENSION REFORM OR CHARTER SCHOOLS, EDUCATION FUNDING.

WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

>> IT REALLY IS JUST NOT THE CASE.

RENEE, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE DID INCLUDE HISTORIC AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONAL MONEY TOAL LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT'S ASSOCIATION ASKED FOR, THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL BOARD, ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS ASKED FOR.

THEY ASKED FOR THIS FLEXIBILITY.

AND THE REASON THEYED AND FOR THE FLEXIBILITY WAS BASS SO MANY DISTRICTS HAD BEEN TREATED DISPROPORTIONATELY WITH RELATION TO FEDERAL MONEY, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE FEDERAL DOLLARS.

A LOT OF THE DISTRICTS AROUND THE STATE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER RAISES TO THEIR TEACHERS.

SOME WERE NOT BY A OF THE I. WA THOSE FEDERAL MINUTES WERE DISTRIBUTED.

THEY ASKED HA THEY BE GIVEN THE FLEXIBILITY AND NEACE WHAT WE DID.

$525MILLION IN NEW MONEY THE FIRST YEAR ALONE, AND THAT MUCH PLUS SOP MORE IN THE SECOND YEAR.

EACH PERCENTAGE OF PAY RAISE IS $47 MILLION.

MY SUPERINTENDENT, I SPOKE THE HIM IN HOLD OLDHAM COUNTY HE PLANS TO GIVING MOST OF IT IN TEACHER RAISES BECAUSE HE NEEDS TO.

SOME OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS THAT I TALKED TO THAT WERE ABLE TO GIVE RAISES AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE SURPLUSES THEY HAVE, THEY DON'T NEED TO GIVE AS MUCH TO MAINTAIN THEIR WORKFORCE.

SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO LEARN TO GIVE THEM THAT FLEXIBILITY WANT LEAST IN THESE SITUATIONS WHERE SO MANY DISTRICT HAVE BEEN TREATED DISPARATELIY.

>> MR. PRESIDENT, SOME WOULD THAY THANK IN THE PAST WHEN THERE WERE RAISES GIVEN, TEACHERS WERE INCLUDED IN THAT.

WHY NOT THIS TIME?

>> IT WAS IN AT ANY TIME 10, AND BECAUSE THE SEEK AND SEEK ALLOTMENT TAKES THAT CALCULATION IN AS TO HOW TEACHERS WOULD BE CALCULATED IN A POOR DISTRICT VERSUS A MORE WEALTHY DISTRICT, SUPERINTENDENTS CAME BACK IS SAID, LOOK, THIS AFFECTS US DIFFERENT.

THE SCHOOL BOARD SAID, IT AFFECTS US DIFFERENTLY.

SEND US THE MONEY.

THE SPEAKER IS RIGHT ON THIS.

ABOUT $230 MILLION GETS YOU A 5% ACROSS-THE-BOARD RAISE.

I'D SAY ACROSS-THE-BOARD, CLASSIFIED AND CERTIFIED.

WE PUD OVER A HALF A BILLION IN THERE IN YEAR ONE BE WITH MORE THAN THAT IN YEAR TWO.

SO THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH.

AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, THALLAL LOCAL SYSTEM HIRES AND FIRES AND SETS DAY.

IF WE ARE TO SET AND MANDATE RAISES, THEN I THINK IT BECOMES INCUMBENT ON FRANKFORT, THEN, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS THAT, TO SET HIRING/FIRING POLICIES AND PAY POLICIES.

WE HAVE SENT MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY TO DO A MIN MINIMUM 5% RAISE, AND TODAY I HAD MY STAFF REACH OUT TO WHAT WE CALL THE LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY COMMISSION OF SUPERINTENDENTS.

THERE'S ABOUT 15 OF THEM.

AND REACH OUT TO SOME OF THE LARGER SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

EVERY ONE OF THEM PLANS TO DO PAY RAISES.

>> YOU'RE WATCHING "KENTUCKY TONIGHT" AND WE'RE DOING A RECAP OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT JUST ENDED LAST THURSDAY, 60 DAYS.

THIS QUESTION COMES IN FROM KELLIE FULTZ OF OLIVE HILL.

WHAT MAKES THE JUDICIAL BRANCH RAISES DIFFERENT FROM OTHER STATE EMPLOYEE RAISES?

>> 1ST OF ALL, ON JUDICIAL BRANCH DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU ARE, DEPENDS ON WHEN YOU GET IT, LIKE US.

THE GOVERNOR MADE A LITTLE BIT OF A MISSTATEMENT THE OTHER AI-DAY SAYING HE VOTED OURSELVES A PRAISE.

WE DIDN'T ET VO OURSELVES A PAY RAISE.

ONLY UNTIL YOU SEEK RE-ELECTION DO YOU SEE THAT.

I WONT SEE ANY TYPE OF PAY RACE IF I GET RE-ELECTED AND IF I DECIDE TO RUN AND ALL THAT FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

JUDGES ARE THE SAME WAY.

CIRCUIT CLERKS ARE THE SAME WAY.

THE GOVERNOR'S THE SAME WAY.

THE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S THE SAME WAY.

GROOVE GOT TO GET THROUGH THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE GOVERNOR AND THE OTHER INSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS ALSO GETTING RAISES.

>> IN THEY GET RE-ELECTED.

YES, THERE'S A SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO TAKE A PAY RAISE DUR YOUR TERP, AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF MISINFORMATION THAT'S OUT THERE, AND I HEARD THE GOVERNOR SAY THAT YESTERDAY ON MUSE NEWSMAKERS.

EVERYBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO STAND FOR RE-ELECTION BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, INCLUDING HIM.

BUT AS TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, THERE WERE CERTAIN AREAS IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, PRIMARILY SOME IN THE CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE WHERE THEY WERE TREATED SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO SOCIAL WORKERS AND OTHERS WHERE SOCIAL WORKERS GOT 10%, I THINK THEY WERE GOING TO GET $2,400 IN MAY AND THEN 8% AND POTENTIALLY 12%.

IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE THAT'S GOING TO BE SIMILAR.

THEY DIDN'T GET THE 10% IN DECEMBER BUT THEY'RE GOING TO GET 2,000 AND THEN 8%, AND THEN POTENTIALLY 12%.

SO DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE AND WHAT YOUR STATUS IS WITHIN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, NONE OF THE ELECTEDS ARE GOING TO SEE A PAY RAISE UNTIL THEY STAY IN FOR RE-ELECTION.

SOME OF THE OTHERS WE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THEY WERE HEMORRHAGING BASICALLY PERSONNEL JUST LIKE WE HAVE BEEN AND OTHER BRANCHES, AND SO YOU HAD TO MAKE A DISTINCTION ON WHERE WERE THE NEEDS.

>> THE LEGISLATOR PAY RAISES, OF COURSE, LEADER McGARVEY HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF HAD YOU BEEN A BALLOU ABOUT THAT.

YOUR THOUGHT ON THAT PARTICULARLY WHEN TEACHERS DON'T GET A MANDATED PAY RAISE.

>> I DON'T LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE DENIGRATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON ANY LEVEL, YOU THE ABOUT I THINK ABOUT IT, I'VE WORK IN SMALL BUSINESS BEFORE, AND WHAT YOU DO IS YOU MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS PAID BEFORE YOU DO.

AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SED SET ASIDE THAT MONEY FIRST AND MADE SURE EVERYBODY GOT A RAISE BEFORE WE DID.

>> BUT IN A TIME, LEADER JENKINS BE, WHEN THERE'S BEEN TALK OF YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE A LEGISLATURE THAT IS ELITIST, THAT IF YOU DO ACTUALLY MAKE IT WHERE PEOPLE CAN MAKE A LIVING EVEN THOUGH THE A PART-TIME LEGISLATURE, YOU DO HAVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS ALLER I DO NOT ROUND AND IN THE INTERIM IT'S MORE REBUS THAN IT USED TO BE, IT MAKES SENSE THAT LEGISLATOR ARE COMPENSATED, SOME WOULD SAY.

>> I SPOKE OUT ORIGINALLY BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY IT WAS TIED TO THE STATE EMPLOYEES.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF A CHICKEN WAY OF DOING IT.

THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO STAND UP AND SAY LEGISLATORS NEED TO MAKE MORE MONEY.

I VOTED FOR IT BECAUSE I DO THINK LEGISLATORS NEED -- IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO HAVE A RAISE AS WELL IT.

WON'T AFFECT ME AT ALL BECAUSE I'M NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION.

BUT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST RUNNING FORCE THESE SEATS, THAT WE END UP WITH RETIRED FOLKS, WE END UP WITH INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY FOLKS, AND I THINK WE WANT TO DIVERSIFY WHAT WE SEE SITTING IN THOSE SEATS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY I VOTED FOR IT.

>> ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES, THOUGH, REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN WESTROM FROM LEXINGTON PLAYED THE POINT ON HOUSE FLOOR THAT ON THE ALL SALARIES ARE CREATED EQUAL AND THAT SOME ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE VOLUPTUOUS THAN OTHERS.

SO THE DISCREPANCY IN THAT IS WHAT?

>> WELL, I THINK AS LEADER WE ALL GET PAID A LITTLE BIT MORE DURING SESSION AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE WORKING DAYS THAT WE GET PAID FOR THROUGHOUT THE SESSION.

AND NEXT THAT ARE ON MORE COMMITTEES, FOLKS THAT SPEND MORE TIME IN FOR THE RECORD, BUT THAT HAS TO BE OKAYED THROUGH HARPER FOR THAT TO HAPPEN,Y TEIN ON GET PAID MORE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE WHO OVER THE TIME I'VE BEEN THERE HAVE SAID IT'S TIME TO STOP PAYING THEM PER PIECE, THAT PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO HAVE -- THIS IS WITH THAT A LEGISLATIVE SALARY IS.

THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET EVERY YEAR FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S EASY FOR ME TO SAY IT NOW, BUT I THINK SOMETHING SHOULD BE LOOKED AT, THAT WE'RE PROFESSIONALS AND WE WANT TO ATTRACT PROFESSIONAL FOLKS.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SINGLE MOMS CAN SERVE.

WE WANT PEOPLE WHO WORK IN FACTORIES CAN SEARCH.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE SEATS ARE HELD BY PEOPLE WHO LOOKING KENTUCKY.

>> THEY ALSO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE RUN BEFORE YOU GET IN.

>> LET ME COMMENT.

MORGAN McGARVEY COMING FROM LOUISVILLE GETS PAID PROBABLY AN HOURLY RAITT AS A LAWYER GREATER THAN WHAT HE MAKES A DAY IN THE LEGISLATURE.

AN HOURLY RATE AS A LAWYER.

MORGAN IS NOT PHILOSOPHICALLY OF THE SAME STRAND I AM BUT WE NEED DIVERSITY.

AND IT'S TOUGH TO GET SOMEBODY WHO CAN BILL $200 AN HOUR AS A PROFESSIONAL, BE IT A DOCTOR OR A LAWYER, TO COME TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR $200 A DAY.

NOW, THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY, AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MISNOMER AND SOME MISINFORMATION I HEARD THE GOVERNOR SPEAK OF, TALKING ABOUT, WELL, THEY MADE 90 SOME THOUSAND DOLLARS.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

PROBABLY $30,000 OR MORE IS JUST REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR GAS AND MILEAGE EXPENSES, YOUR HOUSING EXPENSES.

WHEN YOU LIVE IN PIKEVILLE, MANCHESTER, PADUCAH, YOU'RE GETTING REIMBURSED FOR YOUR MILEAGE UP, YOUR MILEAGE BACK, YOUR MEALS, YOUR HOTEL AND YOUR HOUSING.

THAT'S THE BULK.

WHAT PEOPLE SEE ON THEY ARE W 2S AS TAXABLE INCOME WILL ELLEN GENERALLY BE LESS THERE BE EVER THAN 30,000 AIDS YEAR.

>> MR. SPEAKER, YOU HAVE A COMMENT?

>> I THINK THERE WAS SOME LESS THAN DIRECT REPORTING THAT WAS DONE ON THAT WHEN THEY LISTED THE SALARIES OF LEGISLATORS BECAUSE THEY DID INCLUDE EXPENSES, AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THAT REPORT, IT SHOWED THAT THOSE THAT FOR THE MOST PART WITH THE HIGHEST PAID WERE THE ONES THAT LIVED THE FARTHEST DISTANCES AWAY.

OF COURSE, IT TAKES SOMEONE THAT'S DRIVING FROM FAR WESTERN KENTUCKY A LOT MORE MILEAGE TO GET TO FOSTER THAN IT DOES FOR SENATOR STIVERS OR FOR ME OR MORGAN.

IT JUST DOES.

>> AND THEY'RE REIMBURSE FOD TRAVEL THE SAME RATE THAT STATE WORKERS ARE, CORRECT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THEY'RE REIMBURSED FOR THAT MILEAGE.

THEY'RE REALM REIMBURSED FOR THAT LODGING WHEN THEY HAVE TO OVERNIGHT.

AND CLEARLY IT'S A LOT MORE LIKELY THAT SOMEONE FROM FAR WEST KENTUCKY IS GOING TO OVERNIGHT, WHEN THEY HAD MEETINGS HERE, THAN IT IS FOR ME OR SOMEONE DRIVING FROM LOUISVILLE.

SO I THINK THAT IT WAS POORLY REPORTED.

I THINK THAT WE TRIED TO PROVIDE THEM THE ACCURATE INFORMATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEENAL SALARIES AND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS.

THEY JUST CHOSE NOT TO REPORT IT THAT WAY.

>> ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENT ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON?

GO AHEAD.

>> FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY 1 I THINK IT'S 50 MILES, DON'T GET THE REIMBURSEMENT ON LODGING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BECAUSE THEY CAN EXPECT TO GO ON.

IT'S A 135 ROUND TRIPP, ONE WAY FOR ME, 2 ISN'T-MILE ROUND TRIP.

I'M KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE.

I'LL NOT A PHILLIP LEADER AND I'M NOT A DANNY CARROLL THAT HAVE THREE AND A HALF DREISS OR FOUR HOUR DRIVES.

>> TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS UNTHAT THOUGH.

>>> SOME DO.

SOME DO.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU SIT DOWN AND TALK TO THEM AND EXPLAIN IT, BUT LET ME BE CLEAR.

SOME PEOPLE OF YOUR PROFESSION, PRIMARILY IN THE PRINT MEDIA, KIND OF WRITE THINGS WASTEWATER FULL DISCLOSURE IN PLANING THAT WHEN MORGAN McGARVEY GOT REIMBURSED FOR THIS OR I GOT REIMBURSED FOR THAT, THAT'S REIMBURSEMENT OF MONEY OUT OF OUR OWN POCKET.

>> THERE'S NO BLOATING OF TIME SHEETS, NO OVERBELLISHN'T OF TIME THAT YOU WOULD BE REASON REASON BURRED FOR.

THERE.

>> IT IS.

>> IT IS AN ACCOUNTING SET BY LCC HAS TO WHAT EVERYBODY GETS ON WHAT THEY GET TO DO AND YOU GET $6 OR BREAKFAST, $8 FOR LUNCH AND $12 FOR DINNER.

>> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT A RECENT DEVELOPMENT TODAY.

AND THIS KIND OF LEADS INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S POWERS AND SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT THE GROWING SUB-TEXT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS BEEN LIMITING THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE POWERS.

AND I'LL START WITH YOU, LEADER MORGAN McGARVEY.

THE FRANKLIN COUNTY CIRCUIT JUDGE TODAY BLOCKED TWO BILLS THAT THE GOVERNOR HAD VETOED AND, OF COURSE, THEY WERE OVERRIDDEN BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS WEEK BUT GOVERNOR'S HOURS AND CONTRACTS AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD DEFEND OR CHALLENGE LAWS, COURT.

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SO TELL US ABOUT THOSE PARTICULAR MEASURES AND WHY THEY SHOULD BE BLOCKED AND REMAIN SO.

>> AND, LOOK, YOU STARTED OFF BY SAYING ERR WE'RE A LEGISLATORS HERE, SO I DO BELIEVE IN A STRONG, INDEPENDENT LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN AND SHOULD TAKE POWERS AWAY FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT OUR EXECUTIVE IN FUNCTION AND NATURE.

AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE'S ABILITY TO ENTER IN OR EXECUTE CONTRACTS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PULL AWAY.

ITEM NO SURPRISED THAT FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT ENJOIN THOSE BILLS WERE BEING ENFORCED UNTIL THEY CAN LOOK AT THEM AND MOVE ON.

SO I THINK WE NEED A STRONG LEGISLATURE.

WE'RE THE POLICY-MAKING BODY.

BUT WE ALSO NEED A STRONG EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHO IS ABLE TO ADMINISTER AND CARRY OUT THE LAWS THAT WE PUT INTO EFFECT.

YOU'VE EVEN HEARD US TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT HERE.

WE ARE A PART-TIME LEGISLATURE.

WE ARE NOT IN SESSION.

WE'RE NOT CAPABLE OF PASSING LAWS RIGHT NOW.

WE CAN'T COME BACK UNTIL JANUARY 3rd OF NEXT YEAR UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS US INTO SESSION.

WE NEED AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT IS ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE PASSED, AND ANY LAWS THAT SORT OF START TO STRIP AWAY AT THAT POWER, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT.

>> IS THAT A SLIPPERY SLOPE, HOUSE SPEAKER?

, IS THAT PERHAPS WHEN THE GOVERNOR WHO IS A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, YOU MIGHT HAVE BUYER'S REMORSE ABOUT THESE PLEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF SEGS.

>> THAT CONTINUES TO GET BROUGHT UP A LOT BUT I WILL POINT TO THE FACT THAT MANY OF THESE THINGS RET LAING TO DMV ADMINISTRATIVE RECESSION ARE THING WE STARTED UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR BEVIN.

AND IT IS BECAUSE IN TODAY'S WORLD, THE PEOPLE, THE CONSTITUENTS OF KENTUCKY DEMAND A MORE RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT THAN WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST.

SO I THINK THAT IT'S -- IT'S EASY TO POINT TO BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

THAT IS BEING DIRECTED AT ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER.

I THINK WHEN YOU STARTED LOOKING A LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE, THAT STARTED, GOSH, 40 YEARS AGO UNDER JOHN W. BROWN WHEN THE LEGISLATURE FIRST STARTED KIND OF SEPARATING ITSELF FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

I THINK IT'S A NATURAL EVOLUTION HAVE THINGS.

I THINK THAT CERTAINLY LAST THERE'S NOT GOB A BALANCE.

WE DO NEED, TO SENATOR McGARVEY'S POINT, WE DO NEED A STRONG AND RESPONSIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THE THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACT.

THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACT QUICKLY.

AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACT WITH AUTHORITY.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO FINISH DIMINISH THAT BEYOND REASON, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE ALSO NEED A GOVERNMENT THAT IS SOMEONE OR -- AND RESPONSIVE TO THE CITIZENS OF KENTUCKY.

AS FAR AS THE RULINGS THAT CAME DOWN FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN READ ANYTHING INTO THAT.

IT'S PARTS OF THE PROCESS.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT -- I THINK IF YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE OPINIONS THEMSELVES, JUDGE BIN ONE GATE SAID HE WANTED TO GET THEM TO THE NEXT LEVEL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING THE SEE THOSE MOVED UP AS QUICKLY AND DECIDED UPON.

>> LEADER JENKINS, DO YOU THINK RECENT MAKERS MEASURES NOT JUST IN THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY BUT THE PREVIOUS HAVE BEEN UNLIMITED.

>> I HOPE WE DON'T EVER GO INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO REGRET WHAT WE HAVE DONE ABOUT EMERGENCY POWERS.

I HOPE WHENEVER SEE A PANDEMIC AGAIN.

BUT IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ARE WAY OUT OF SESSION AND HAVING DO CALL THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BACK IN JUST AS WE SAW WHEN WE HAD A DECEMBER TORNADO IN WEST KENTUCKY.

LUCKILY WE WERE COMING BACK IN AND COULD ABIDE BY THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HAD THAT HAPPENED, SAY, AUGUST, WE MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME PROBLEMS AND HAD TO BRING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ALL 38 OF THEM, BACK IN TO DEAL WITH AN EMERGENCY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY THEUT EXECUTIVE.

>> AND, OF COURSE, THE MEASURE THAT YOU ALL HAD TOGETHER THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED YOU BY JOINT PROCLAMATION TO CALL YOURSELVES BACK IN DID NOT MAKE IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

>> ACTUALLY, IT DID.

>> IT WENT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE LAST YEAR.

IT WILL GO ON THE BALLOT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THIS YEAR.

THAT WAS THE ENABLING LEGISLATION THIS YEAR.

>> RIGHT.

>> THAT WE JUST COULDN'T COME TO COMPLETE AGREEMENT ON.

>> SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ENABLING LEGISLATION, WHAT DOES THAT DO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AND YOU HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN.

>> THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT WE ADOPT A CALENDAR EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

THAT WE WILL ABIDE BY FOR THAT LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

SO IF -- ACTUALLY, TO HAVE ADOPTED THAT ENABLING LEGISLATION PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, WOULD REALLY HAVE DONE KNOWING.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RENDERED MOOT EVEN IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HAD PASSED.

SO IT WAS -- IT WAS TO TRY TO ILLUSTRATE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY WITH THAT A SESSION WOULD LOOK LIKE UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT WILL LOOK NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THE THE WAY IT LOOKS NOW IN MOST CASES.

>> PRESIDENT.

>> LET ME -- 30 DAYS IS WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAS IF HE DECLARES AN EMERGENCY TO WORK.

RARELY HAVE WE SEEN ANYTHING GO BEYOND THE NEED FOR 30 DAYS.

BUT IF YOU'RE DAY 25 AND YOU THINK THAT AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, BE IT A MAN OR I A WOMAN, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, THAT YOU NEED ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY, WE HAVE SHOWN AND WE HAVE DONE IT THAT THE GOVERNOR MAKES THE CASE, CALLS US IN ONE DAY, WAIVING OF THE TWO READINGS AS THE SPEAKER SAID.

WE CAN BE IN AND OUT IN ONE DAY.

IN FOR THE, THREE, WHICH WE DID IT IN THREE DAYS, WHICH WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT BEFORE HIS EMERGENCY POWERS ENDED.

I WOULD THINK -- AND I TRULY BELIEVE THIS -- OF THIS GOVERNOR AND PLIER GOVERNORS, AND I WANT TO DIGRESSION JUST A LITTLE BIT, WE'VE BEEN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CRITIC OF BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND VETOING THINGS AND CHANGING AND DECLARING THE REGS NOT SUFFICIENT, BUT I THINK ANY GOVERNOR COULD SEE AFTER 20, 25 DAYS, THERE MAY BE THE NEED FOR AN EXTENSION AND CAN MAKE THE CASE TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

WE ONLY NEED FOUR HOURS' NOTICE.

WE CAN BE HERE, PASS IT MINIMUM THREE DAYS, SOMETIMES EVEN ONE, AND EXTEND THE POWERS AS FAR AS WE SEE AND DEEM FIT.

IT'S NOT HARD.

>> I'LL PUSH BACK ON PRESIDENT STIVERS A LITTLE BIT ON THIS ONE.

ACTUALLY, THE MOST COMMON STATE OF EMERGENCY CALLED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IS FOR DROUGHT, AND THE AVERAGE DROUGHT LASTS LONGER THAN 30 DAYS.

EVEN IF IT IS ONE DAY, AND WE WON'T HIGHJACK THIS CONVERSATION WITH WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE CAN WAIVE READING OR NOT, BUT EVEN IF YOU CAN WAIVE READING, THEN I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE TO CALL THE LEGISLATURE INTO A SPECIAL SESSION TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RAINED.

THAT IS AN EXECUTIVE FUNCTION.

EVEN THOUGH WE'RE A PART-TIME LEGISLATURE, WE ARE IN SESSION.

I MEAN, WE MAKE IT SUDDEN LOOK IT'S A LONG TIME AND SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE IT IS.

IN NINE MONTHS WE'RE BACK IN FRANKFORT.

WE NEED THE GOVERNOR TO ACT DURING THOSE NINE MONTHS, BUT IF WE DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THAT IS THE OFFICE IS DOING, I THINK WE SHOULDES DRA IT, AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TOO.

WE YOU HAVE TALK ABOUT EXECUTIVE POWERS.

WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE SHOULD HAVE THIS POWER, NOT WHETHER WE LIKE THE DECISIONS OF THE CURRENT GOVERNOR, AND I THINK FAR TOO OFTEN IN THE RECENT DEBATE WE HAVE FOCUSED MORE ON WHETHER WE LIKE THE DECISIONS OF A GOVERNOR, NOT WHETHER THE OFFICE SHOULD HAVE THAT POWER.

>> CAN YOU MAKE THAT DISTINCTION THERE, MR. PRESIDENT?

>> I THINK THAT IS A DISTINCTION THAT WE HAVE MADE WITH BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, HOW FAR SHOULD THEIR POWERS GO, WITHOUT THE POLICY-MAKING BODY, WHICH IS US, BEING CONSULTED.

THAT IS BASICALLY EQUALIZING THE PYROBETWEEN THE BRANCHES, AND THE -- POWER BETWEEN THE BRANCHES, AND THE SUPREME COURT SPEAKER WAS UNANIMOUS SAYING THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD WORK.

I DO WANT TO ASK THIS.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE HAD A DROUGHT EMERGENCY?

IS THIS A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM?

>> COMING FROM YOU GUYS, A SOLUTION SEARCHING FOR A PROBLEM -- >> I KNEW WHERE THERE WAS GOING TO GO.

>> JUMP IN THE BOAT WITH US.

[LAUGHTER] >> JEFF SIMS FROM CALDWELL COUNTY, AS EASTERN AND WESTERN KENTUCKY CONTINUE TO LOSE POPULATION, WHAT WILL IT TAKE TOAL WAIZE RURAL CITIES AND DOWNS ZIT AT THE STAGE IN NIECE AREAS FORE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

HOW DO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS KEEP UP FINANCIALLY FOR STATE MANDATES WITHOUT RAISING TAXES THAT CONTINUE TO DRIVE POPULATION AWAY?

DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST ON THAT, MR. SPEAKER?

>> IT'S A QUESTION THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR YEARS AND CONTINUE TO ASK.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE ARE OFTENTIMES THE PERCEPTION THAT CERTAIN BUSINESSES COME IN, THAT CERTAIN INDUSTRIES COME IN AND THEY'RE DRIVEN TO ONE AREA OR THE OTHER, AND I WILL TELL YOU I HAVE AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR LARRY HAYES AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CABINET WHO HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THEM OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY DO A GREAT JOB OF TRYING TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN PUSH THOSE -- THEY CAN FIND A HOME FOR THOSE INDUSTRIES ANYWHERE IN KENTUCKY, AND I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES TO TRY TO DRIVE SOME OF THOSE INTO THE MORE IMPOVERISHED AREAS OF EASTERN AND WESTERN KENTUCKY, TO ADDRESS THOSE VERY THINGS, AND IT BECOMES -- IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT DOES TEND TO GROW ON ITSELF BECAUSE THE ONE THING THAT WE SEE RIGHT NOW, AS THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT ATTRACTS AND GROWS A BUSINESS, IS THE AVAILABILITY OF A WORKFORCE.

AND AS THOSE POPULATIONS CONTINUE TO MIGRATE INTO OTHER AREAS OF KENTUCKY INTO THE MORE POPULATED AREAS, IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT.

THE GOVERNOR IN THIS BUDGET, AS WELL AS BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS OF THE BUDGET AND THE FINAL VERSION OF THE BUDGET WE PASSED DID APPROPRIATE MONEYS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF MEGA SITES IN SOME OF THE OTHER RURAL PARTS OF KENTUCKY TO TRY TO HAVE, JUST AS WE 2 IN VAN GROVE WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FORD SK PROJECT, WE HAD A MEGA SITE THERE THAT WAS READY TO BUILD ON, AND THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED IT IN HIS BUDGET THIS YEAR.

AGAIN, WE DID IT IN ALL VERSIONS OF OUR BUDGET.

, TO GO AHEAD AND START ACCUMULATING SOME OF THOSE MEGA SITES IN THE MORE RURAL AREAS TO HAVE THEM READY TO GO, SO THAT CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, THAT CAN'T BE A BARRIER BECAUSE OFTENTIMES AVAILABILITY OF LARGE AREAS OF GROUND IS A BARRIER, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EAT LEAST TAKE THOSE THINGS AWAY AS WELL AS GIVING ADDITIONAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES FOR THOSE AREAS THROUGH TECHNICAL COLLEGE AND VOCATION A SCHOOLS.

WE MADE INCREDIBLE INVESTMENTS IN VOCATION A SCHOOLS BOTH LAST YEAR AND AGAIN THIS YEAR TO TRY HOPE TO DEVELOP THOSE WORKFORCES.

>> SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY YOU LOOK A MEASURES LIKE HOUSE BILL 4, THE JOBLESS BENEFITS RESTRUCTURING WHERE SOME WOULD SAY IN EASTERN KENTUCKY WOULD CAUSE FOLKS TO LEAVE TO FIND A JOB, PERHAPS IN A MORE URBAN CENTER LIKE LEXINGTON OR LOUISVILLE OR WHATEVER.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DEPOPULATION, YOUR RESPONSE TO THANK.

>> WELL, YOU'RE TO HAVE TO CREATE JOBS.

IT'S NOT HOUSE BILL 4 THAT SOME TIME IT.

IT'S GOING TO BEING TO THINGS LIKE BUYING MEG A SITES.

LET ME DIGRESS.

THE REAL HERO IN MY OPINION OF THE FORD PLANT, AND YOU MAY THINK THIS IS KIND OF ODD, IS PROBABLY PAUL PATTON BECAUSE IF PAUL PATTON HADN'T BOUGHT THAT FEN HUNDRED 1500 ACRES IT'S NO JUST THE LAND.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE WATER, SEWER, THE THREE-PHASE ELECTRIC.

THE CORD DRILLING, THE GEOTECH TO MAKE SURE IT CAN HANDLE A CONCRETE TO POUR HEAVY EQUIPMENT ON IT AND DOES IT SUBSIDE.

HE HAD THE VISION 20 YEARS AGO TO BUY THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND MAKE SURE IT WAS THERE BECAUSE IF THAT WASN'T THERE, FORD WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GO AND PUT THAT LARGE OF A TRACT TOGETHER, PIRT, GET THE TITLES ON IT, DO TO GEOTECH IN SIX MONTHS.

IT WAS FORTUNATELY FORTUNATE.

THAT'S WHY THE GOVERNOR'S ASKED TO US APPROPRIATE THAT MONEY, AND WE'VE AGREED.

BUT IT IS GOING TO TAKE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT LIKE BROADBAND, LIKE SEWER, LIKE WATER, LIKE ROADS, BECAUSE YOU CAN TELL YOU IN ALLISON COUNTY WE'VE SEEN PROPERTY VALUES GO UP, AND NEGLECTED FOR YEARS.

I FOUGHT TO GET A ROAD TO IT.

BUT THOSE TYPES PLACES, THAT'S HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET THERE.

THE OTHER AND PROBABLY MOST CREDIBLY INFRASTRUCTURE, AND I THINK EVERYBODY HERE WOULD AGREE, IS INTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE POUR U.

POOREST PLACE IN THE STATE, IT'S THE REGION THAT DOESN'T HAVE A UNIVERSITY.

AND THAT'S SOUTHEAST KENTUCKY.

THAT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

>> I THINK ALSO CHILD CARE PLAYS INTO THAT AS WELL.

AND WHAT I HEAR FROM RURAL LEGISLATORS IS AN EAST AND WEST, THERE IS A CHILD CARE DESERT, AND SO THE ONE POPULATION THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN GO BACK TO WORK AFTER THE PANDEMIC ARE YOUNG MOTHERS.

SO I THINK -- AND WE DID SOME THINGS IN THE BUDGET TO HELP DO THAT, TO HELP DEVELOP AND BRING BACK SOME CHILD CARE FACILITIES, BUT THAT'S A HUGE DRIVER FOR YOUNG FAMILIES.

>> AND, OF COURSE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CHILD CARE, BOTH OF WHICH I THINK ARE EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT, THAT SHOWS WHY WE NEED UNIVERSAL PRE-K, BECAUSE THIS IS A PUBLIC PRESCHOOL OPTION THAT ALLOWS KIDS TO GET THAT FOUNDATIONAL LEARNING, BE KINDERGARTEN READY, BECOME LIFELONG LEARNERS AND ALSO DOES HELP PARENTS WHO STRUGGLE WITH CHILD CARE.

>> BUT PRE-IMPEACHMENT K, THAT'S A TIME, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT ON THIS SHOW BEFORE.

>> I FIND IT INTEREST THAT SENATOR REGGIE THOMAS ASKED ONE OF THE LADIES IN EDUCATION MEETING SAYING AND SAID HE FELT THAT SHE WAS VERY MUCH THE EXPERT, WORKING FOR ONE OF THE ACTION AGENCIES, AND I DON'T THINK SENATOR McGARVEY WAS THERE THAT DAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT UNIVERSAL PRE-K THE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS?

AND HER RESPONSE TO SENATOR MCGARVEY IS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY NOR THE CAPACITY.

THAT'S REGGIE THOMAS' SELF-DEFINE EXPERT.

I TALKED TO MANY SUPERINTENDENTS AND THINK WHAT PRE-K IS.

IT'S A SCHOOL YEAR SERVICE UNTIL ABOUT 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK UNTIL 6:00?

WHAT ABOUT THOSE SECOND SHIFTERS?

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO WORK DURING THE SUMMER?

IF YOU'RE ARGUING THAT'S GOOD DAYCARE, I DISAGREE BECAUSE IT HAS HUGE GAPS.

>> WHEN YOU WERE ON BEFORE, I THINK AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS SESSION YOU MADE A COMMENT, AND I'M PARAPHRASING, THAT YOUR CHILDREN DID NOT HAVE FORMAL PRE-K EDUCATION, THEY TURNED OUT FINE, AND SOME PEOPLE SAID IN RESPONSE, WELL, NOT EVERYBODY COMES FROM A BACKGROUND LIKE SENATOR STIVERS WHERE THERE WAS A LOVING FAMILY THAT COULD POUR INTO A CHILD AND HAVE ACCESS TO RESOURCES TO MAKE SURE THIS THEY WERE IN A NURTURING EDUCATIONAL ATMOSPHERE.

SO IS IT A PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM THAT YOU HAVE WITH PRE-K?

>> I AGREE WITH THAT.

I AGREE WITH THAT, THAT THERE IS A PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM.

I THINK I WAS QUOTING DAMON THAYER THAT NIGHT.

>> THAT'S PROBLEMATIC.

[LAUGHTER] >> WE HAD OUR FIRST LAUGH OF THE NIGHT AND IT WAS AT DAMON'S EXPENSE SO DAMON'S PROBABLY LAUGHING.

YOU KNOW, I'M A BELIEVER THAT LET KIDS BE KIDS.

WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THEM IN SCHOOL.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STUDIES, THERE ARE DIFFER STUD US, DO THEY HIT A PRE-K BUMP?

YEAH, BUT IT GENERALLY LEVELS OUT AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS.

THAT WAS BROOKINGS INSTITUTE THAT DID A STUDY ON THAT THAT I READ, AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY A RIGHT-LEANING GROUP.

SO, YEAH, LET KIDS BE KIDS.

>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING.

WHEN I SAY PUBLIC PRE-SCHOOL OPTION, I MEAN AN OPTION THAT ALL KIDS HAVE A PRESCHOOL OPENING, NOT THAT IT IS RUN THROUGH THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

LOOK, I'VE GOT A THREE-YEAR-OLD IN PRESCHOOL RIGHT NOW.

AND IT'S A GREAT FIT.

IT'S A GREAT WAY FOR HER TO GO AND BEGIN THAT JOURNEY TOWARDS LIFELONG LEARNING AND HANG OUT WITH KIDS HER AGE.

IT'S IMPORTANT.

>> I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT TO SAY IT'S A K THROUGH 12 PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNCTION, WHICH IS WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAID, IS IT'S QUITE A BIT LIMITING.

ALL ALL ABOUT DAYCARE AND FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED IT, AND THE BETTER QUALITY AND QUALITY NOT NECESSARILY MEANING EDUCATION, HELP THEM DEVELOP FINE MOTOR SKILLS, HAVE THEM DO THING LIKE THAT, HAVE THEM LEARN AND CRITICAL THINK.

GO OUT AND LOOK' AT A GRASS HOPPER AND UNDERSTAND WHY IT JUMPS THE WAY IT JUMPS.

FUN THING LIKE THAT YOU CAN TEACH AND LEARN BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S MANDATED THROUGH IF PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM, WHICH THAT'S AGAIN BEEN THE GOVERNOR'S MANTRA THROUGHOUT.

>> A COUPLE OF LIGHTNING ROUND QUESTIONS SINCE FIVE MINUTES.

DREW SHY ROCK FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY.

WITH THE PROJECTED $2 BILLION SURPLUS WILL KENTUCKY PENSION RETIREES EVER RECEIVE ANOTHER COLA?

IT'S BEEN 12 YEARS SINCE THE LAST ONE.

YOU WERE ASKED THIS A LOT, MR. SPEAKER,?

>> WE WERE, AND IT WAS -- IT DID EVOKE A LOT OF CONVERSATION.

AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES.

AND I THINK THAT WE MADE A -- I'M CERTAIN THAT SOME WILL DISAGREE, BUT WE MADE A VERY STRATEGIC DECISION THIS YEAR TO PUT NEARLY 2 BILLION-DOLLAR EXTRA DOLLARS INTO THE PENSION SYSTEMS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN LEADER JENKINS SAID THAT SHE HAD HOPED THAT WE'D DO SOMETHING BOLD, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING BOLD.

I THINK THAT IT WAS US SAYING WE WEREN'T GOING TO SPEND EVERY SINGLE PENNY THAT WE HAD BUT WE WERE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET OUR FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER.

AND I THINK MAKING THAT COMMITMENT TO PUT AN EXTRA, ON TOP OF THE CHERYLY REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR -- ACTUARIALLY REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS FOE ALL OF OUR SYSTEMS, BOTH TEACHER AND KENTUCKY EMPLOYEE SYSTEMS, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $2 BILLION ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE MADE DRAMATIC STRIDES IN GETTING THE FUNDING LEVEL OF THAT SYSTEM BACK TO SALVAGEABLE.

AND I THINK THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF YEARS WHERE WE DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT SYSTEM WAS SALVAGEABLE, AND, YES, I DO THINK IT'S TIME THAT RETIREES HAVE A RAISE AND GET THOSE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS WITH THE DRAMATIC INCREASES WE ARE SEEING IN INFLATION RIGHT NOW, IT IS TIME, AND I THINK IF OUR REVENUES CONTINUE AS THEY APPEAR THEY'RE GOING TO, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK ANNEX YEAR.

>> THINK IT'S TIME FOR THAT?

PAST TIME?

>> I DO, YES.

>> I DO.

>> QUESTION FROM COVINGTON.

I'M JUST READING THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN.

THE NURSING PROCEEDING IS IN CRISIS AND IS HEMORRHAGING NURSES BUT THEY WERE COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN IN THE BUDGET THE.

NURSES FEEL INSULTED AND IGNORED.

WHY WERE THEY DISREGARD IN THE BUDGET?

IS THAT TRUER FALSE, MR. PRESIDENT?

>> FIRST OF ALL, WE DID SEVERAL THINGS, INCLUDING TRYING TO GET A BETTER SYSTEM FOR EDUCATING NURSES WITH TAKING THE CAPS OFF.

IT WAS SENATE BILL 10 CARRIED BY ROBIN MILLS BUT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE KNEW YOU ARE MY FINGERPRINTS WERE ON IT.

WE ALSO DID SOME INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO GET INTO THE NURSING FIELD.

BUT I THINK WHERE WE CAME DOWN TO THE BEST WAY TO FIGURE OUT HOW PEOPLE TO BE APPRECIATED WAS FOR THE WORKING CLASS PERSON, THAT NURSE GETS A TAX CUT, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THEIR STATE INCOME TAX, AND AS IT FLOWS THROUGH, IF SHE'S MAKING OR HE'S MAKING $50,000, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE LESS MONEY COMING OUT OF THEIR POCKET, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN INCREASING.

THE SECT THING IS IT GOES FURTHER, IT DROPS A PERCENT MORE.

IF IT'S COMBINED INCOME, IT EVEN IS MORE WHEN YOU HAVE A HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

THAT GETS EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE WORKING PARAMETERS A PAY RAISE.

>> BUT I GUESS PERHAPS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A MORE TARGETED EFFORT FOR THEM, SUCH AS A HERO PIE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNOR.

>> WELL, THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED $400 MILLION BUT NEVER DID REALLY SET ANY PARAMETERS, SAYING THAT, WELL, ANYBODY WHO WAS COMING TO WORK, WHICH WOULD MEAN NURSES VERSUS SOMEBODY WHO MAY HAVE BEEN -- I USE MY SON WHO WORKED EVERY DAY BUT WAS IN A UTILITY TRUCK WORKING THE LINES, THEY WERE COMING TO WORK EVERY DAY.

THERE WAS NO DIFFERENTIATION IN THAT.

WE PROPOSED TO SPECIFICALLY PUT IT TOWARDS HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS BUT COULDN'T GET A LOT OF BUY-IN OUT OF ADMINISTRATION ON THAT.

>> ANY COMMENT FROM THAT SIDE OF THE TABLE?

>> WELL, THE HOUSE HAD A OPEN WORKING GROUP ON ESSENTIAL WORKERS AND DID MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> AND NONE WERE ADOPTED.

>> AND NONE WERE ADOPTED.

>> WITH A MINUTE LEFT I REALLY CAN'T ASK YOU ENOUGH MORE.

>> I JUST WANT TO OFFER ONE THING REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WILL HAVE LEADER JENKINS BACK TO THIS PROGRAM.

BUT LEADER JENKINS IS ONE OF MY SHEROS AND SHE HAS MONDAYS HER RETIREMENT BUT SHE HAS BEEN AN ABSOLUTELY TRAILBLAZER, SHE'S BEEN A WARRIOR FOR WORKING PEOPLE, THAT'S SHE'S BEEN A WARRIOR FOR WOMEN.

SHE IS WHIP SMART.

SHE INTEW I WILL HAVE WILL HAVETIVELY LETS THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

I SAW IT WHEN WE WORKED ON THE DRUG REFORM LEGISLATION IT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLE'S LIVES.

I'VE GOTTEN TO BE HER COLLEAGUE AS LEADER OF THE SENATE DEMOCRATS WHEN SHE'S LED THE HOUSE.

SHE IS A TRUE STATE'S WOMAN AND WILL BE MISSED BY ALL OF US.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, JONI.

>> VERY WELL SAID.

HE'S HOW I WOULD HAVE END PD THANK YOU, LEADER JENKINS, FOR YOUR SERVICE.

AND WE'LL HAVE HER ON AGAIN.

>> I HOPE SO.

>> WE'LL HAVE HER ON AGAIN.

BELIEVE LET THEM GO.

JOIN US NEXT MONDAY NIGHT.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING ON.

WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH CANDIDATES FOR U.S. HOUSE AND U.S. SENATE.

I'M RENEE SHAW.

TAKE GOOD COMPARE AND I'LL SEE YOU SOON