►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Room
154,
it's
January
the
5th
about
9
A.M
eastern
time.
And
what
do
you
call
the
roll
place.
C
A
Welcome
to
everyone,
anyone
have
any
special
guests
that
they
want
to
introduce.
Just
checking,
don't
see
anybody
seeking
recognition,
if,
if
everyone
will
make
sure
we
have
our
devices,
turned
off
cell
phones,
laptops
all
those
things,
so
we
don't
make
any
unintended
noises
or
at
least
attempt
not
to
we've
got
three
items
up
on
the
agenda.
For
today,
we've
got
a
house
bill,
one
house
bill
2
and
House
Bill.
Eight,
we
do
have
mandatory
training
at
10
A.M
in
a
room
nearby,
so
I
intend
to
finish
some
way
somehow
by
10
minutes.
A
A
E
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
ladies
and
gentlemen
of
the
committee
first
house
bill.
One
codifies
for
clarification.
The
conditions
laid
out
in
h,
b,
House
Bill
8
from
the
2002-22
regular
session
it
has
been
met
and
certified
by
the
executive
branch,
resulted
in
a
personal
income
tax
rate
being
reduced
from
5
to
4.5
percent
on
January
1st
2023.
second
house
bill.
A
F
E
I'll
defer
to
the
the
chairman
of
the
preparations
house
committee.
This
isn't
necessarily
a
pay
for
implementation.
This
is
simply
the
reduction
from
House
Bill.
Eight.
E
The
first
reduction
automatically
happened
on
January
1st
and
then
the
second
one
will
happen
on
January
2024,
but
for
further
explanation,
or
you
know,
future
intentions
all
referred
to
the
chairman
If.
He
if
he
wants
to
say
anything.
A
I
would
I
think
you're
right.
The
the
other
thing
you've
got
is
this
bill
does
not
contain
a
pay
for
House
Bill.
One
does
not
contain
to
pay
for,
but
it's
only
rate
reduction.
F
Then
may
I
follow
up.
Please
please
can
I
can
get
reassurance
that,
with
a
reduction
in
the
state
income
tax
and
state
revenue,
we
know
that
more
than
40
percent
of
the
general
fund
comes
from
income
tax
that
will
still
be
able
to
meet
the
obligations
of
government,
public
education,
Medicaid,
Public,
Safety,
My.
A
E
I
think
I
think
would
actually
helped
this
measure
because
it's
putting
more
money
back
into
the
hard-working
kentuckians
across
the
Commonwealth
they'll
be
able
to
spend
their
money
like
they
see
fit,
they'll
be
able
to
pay
down
debt
they'll,
be
able
to
save
for
their
families
and
spend
as
accordingly.
We
are
budgeting
to
our
needs
and
not
our
wants
here
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky.
We've
done
that
several
last
budget
sessions,
and
especially
in
2022
and
it's
working
out
tremendously.
G
G
If,
if
people
recall
back
in
2018,
we
did
a
first
phase
of
tax
monetization
and
when
you
look
at
the
numbers
of
2019,
500
million
dollars
would
put
into
into
our
coffers
in
terms
of
increasing
the
situation
in
terms
of
our
Revenue.
So
that's
basically
shifting
from
income
to
sales
and
I.
G
Think
as
we
continue
to
do
that
as
the
the
vice
chair
mentioned,
we're
putting
more
money's
people,
people's
pocket
and
they're
going
to
spend
it
or
they're,
save
it
or
they're
invested,
and
so
those
are
things
that
we're
seeing
materialize
based
on
our
prudent
perspective
in
terms
of
getting
more
money
in
people's
pocket.
So
we
already
have
proof
in
the
pudding
when
it
comes
to
that
money
going
back
into
the
revenue
to
increase
things
overall.
Thank
you.
A
A
That
yeah
I
think
you
got
the
correct
one.
These
fire
firm
to
tell
the
truth.
Whole
truth,
nothing,
but
the
truth.
H
Chairman
Petrie
and
members
of
the
anr
committee,
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
testify.
As
I
just
noted,
my
name
is
Pam
Thomas
and
I'm,
a
senior
fellow
with
the
Kentucky
Center
for
economic
policy.
I
spent
most
of
my
career
staffing.
This
committee
I
know
a
lot
of
you,
but
some
of
you
are
new
and
you
probably
don't
know
me:
I
started
with
anr
in
1991
and
then
I
retired
in
2016..
H
One
of
my
primary
roles
over
all
of
the
years
I
worked
at
lrc,
was
to
help
you
understand
the
policy
implications
of
the
decisions
that
you
make
and
I
loved
my
job,
because
I
really
felt
like
I
was
making
a
difference.
I
come
before
you
today,
with
this
background,
to
ask
you
to
reconsider
the
Practical
and
policy
implications
of
continuing
to
move
forward
with
additional
income
tax
cuts
that
are
in
House
Bill
one
from
a
fiscal
standpoint.
As
you've
heard,
things
are
really
good
right.
Now,
revenues
are
strong.
H
The
budget
Reserve
trust
fund
is
at
a
record
level,
but
that's
the
case
for
Most
states
not
just
Kentucky
the
many
billions
in
federal
pandemic
and
spurred
a
fast
recovery.
Inflation
is
at
a
higher
level
than
it
has
been
in
40
years,
but
those
causes
of
higher
tax
revenues
are
coming
to
an
end.
Forecasters
don't
predict
the
same
growth
going
forward
and
many
fear
a
recession
on
the
horizon.
H
But,
as
you
also
know,
much
remains
to
be
done.
There's
a
critical
teacher
shortage,
affordable
child
care
isn't
readily
available
across
our
state,
the
Department
of
Juvenile
Justice
and
the
children
it
serves
are
suffering
greatly
because
of
their
inability
to
adequately
staff
their
facilities.
Much
more
investment
is
needed
to
help
the
people
in
Eastern
and
Western
Kentucky
recover
from
tornadoes
and
floods.
The
list
goes
on
and
the
needs
are
great.
H
My
concern
about
the
continued
reduction
of
the
income
tax
rate
is
that
the
formula
on
which
the
cuts
are
based
is
static,
backwards,
facing
and
based
on
a
single
year.
It
doesn't
consider
the
future
or
the
context
within
which
revenues
are
raised
and
the
recent
elevated
collections
are
temporary
and
will
likely
not
continue.
But,
as
you
know,
tax
cuts
are
permanent
and
they
will
result
in
a
major
loss
of
Revenue.
H
The
general
fund
will
lose
over
1.2
billion
dollars
annually
when
the
cut
goes
from
five
percent
to
four
percent
and
it's
fully
phased
in
and
that
takes
a
little
while
because
of
the
way
the
taxes
work
for
scale,
that's
more
than
the
1.1
billion
you've
appropriated
for
the
entire
system
of
higher
education.
So
it's
a
huge
hit
and
for
most
individuals
other
than
those
in
the
top
20
percent.
The
money
they
keep
is
a
result
of
the
cut
is
small.
H
Kentuckians
who
are
under
the
poverty
line
will
receive
no
benefit
at
all
from
these
tax
cuts
because
they
don't
pay
income
taxes.
Yet
the
sales
tax
is
a
much
bigger
share
of
that
family's
budget
than
it
is
for
you
or
I.
The
typical
Kentucky
family,
those
in
the
middle
class,
like
most
of
us,
will
retain
between
38
cents
and
five
dollars
a
week
from
the
reduction
from
five
percent
to
four
percent,
hardly
noticeable
in
day-to-day
life.
H
The
only
big
exemption
left
in
the
sales
tax
is
for
groceries
and
that's
one
of
the
few
exemptions
that
makes
that
tax
less
regressive
and
if
you
took
that
up
to
the
full
six
percent,
you'd
only
make
up
half
the
loss
of
revenue
from
the
sales
tax
cut.
The
sales
tax
rate
on
our
existing
guys
from
all
purchases
would
have
to
be
raised
to
7.4
percent
to
make
up
the
Lost
revenues,
and
that
would
give
us
the
highest
sales
tax
state
level
sales
tax
in
the
country.
H
There
simply
aren't
a
lot
of
other
places
to
go
to
raise
revenue
in
Kentucky.
We
don't
have
the
huge
tourist
space
like
Tennessee,
Nevada
and
Florida,
and
we
don't
have
oil
and
gas
like
Texas,
Alaska
and
Wyoming,
and
I
mentioned
those
Six
States,
because
there
are
six
states
that
don't
have
an
income
tax
and
one
of
the
reasons
they
do
without
an
income
tax
is
because
they
have
these
other
things
that
they
can
do.
So.
H
It's
really
important
to
remember
that
our
economy
and
where
the
money
comes
from
in
Kentucky
is
very
different
from
other
states
and
that's
a
very
important
consideration
in
thinking
about
as
you
move
forward.
If
you
ask
your
constituents,
both
businesses
and
individuals,
what
they
want
and
expect
from
you
as
the
leaders
who
decide
how
State
dollars
are
spent
I
believe
they'll
tell
you.
They
want
good,
strong,
Public,
Schools
access
to
affordable
child
care,
safe
drinking
water
and
Roads
that
don't
have
potholes
they'll
tell
you.
A
I
do
and
I
mean
this
in
all
sincerity,
I
like
talking
with
you,
because
you're
very
much
interested
you're
genuine
about
what
you're
trying
to
understand
and
trying
to
convey
and
I
do
appreciate
that
so
very
much,
but
there's
a
fundamental
difference
in
your
three
decades.
In
what
we're
doing
now,
the
three
decades
that
you
were
involved
in
were
woefully
bad
economics
for
Kentucky
the
numbers.
Are
there
we're
not
going
to
continue
that
bad
track?
We
have
changed,
we're
not
changing.
We
have
changed.
A
A
A
The
actual
needs,
not
the
wants
of
members
or
special
interests,
we'll
look
at
what
those
needs
actually
are,
and
we
budget
to
that.
We've
done
that
very
firmly
for
at
least
two
cycles
now
very
firmly,
if
not
three
but
two
I
can
speak
to
and
when
we
finish
that
budget
process,
there
are
excess
funds
not
to
be
confused
with
the
fiscal
year
Surplus.
A
There
are
access
funds
that
we
are
able
to
tuck
away
after
we
make
record
Investments
and
the
things
that
this
caucus
believes
is
best
for
Kentuckian
has
since
2017.
and
I
will
tell
you.
I
will
continue
to
talk
with
you
and
I'll
continue
to
talk
with
anybody
else
that
has
a
different
take,
because
I
always
like
to
learn
another
angle
on
something.
But
there
are
some
fundamentals
that
have
just
changed
and
aren't
going
back
because
we're
doing
well
and
we're
going
to
continue
to
do
well
we're
going
to
do
even
better
and
next
up.
I
Thank
you,
sir.
This
particular
piece
of
legislation
hurts
lower
income
kentuckians
and
helps
the
wealthier
higher
income
kentuckians.
It
is
not
sustainable.
I
A
I
do
appreciate
that,
but
I'm
not
going
to
let
it
go
unresponded
to.
We
heard
this
in
18
you're
going
to
have
to
raise
taxes
you're
going
to
have
to
raise
taxes.
We
continue
to
expand
the
base,
but
we're
not
making
pay
for
us.
It's
not
a
one
for
one
and
as
of
yet
again
that
was
an
18
and
we're
in
23
and
we're
not
raising
taxes
and
the
rate
at
the
sales
tax
Remains,
the
Same.
We
have
every
intention
of
continuing
with
that
same
tax
rate,
especially
because
we've
got
issues
at
the
local
level.
A
We're
trying
to
leave
space
for
in
case
there's
something
to
be
done
for
their
health
and
I
heard
this
in
18
and
I
continue
to
hear
it
going
to
raise
taxes.
Gonna
have
to
raise
taxes,
everything's
going
to
go
to
hell
in
a
hand,
basket
you're
going
to
have
to
raise
taxes
and
and
I
admire.
You
I
respect
you,
but
that
narrative
is
just
so
bad
for
the
public.
A
I
mean
we're
five
years
in
and
I'll
wait
for
the
sixth
year,
the
seventh
year,
the
tenth
year
and
the
15th
year,
where
everybody's
still
saying
we're
going
to
have
to
raise
taxes,
everything's
going
to
hell
in
the
hand
basket.
While
we
continue
doing
what
we're
doing
and
we're
still
not
raising
taxes.
Representative
Gentry.
J
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
first
of
all,
Mr
chair
I
want
to
apologize
for
being
a
couple
minutes
late
today,
I
got
called.
J
There
but
I
have
a
question.
Maybe
maybe
I
don't
know
if
this
should
go
to
you
or
a
representative
Reed,
but
just
some
very
basic
Common
Sense
questions.
Just
a
couple
of
number
one
I'll
just
go
and
ask
you:
if
you
want
to
bring
this
representative
Reed
up,
he
can
he
can
answer
it
either
one's
fine,
but.
J
And
I
see
we
have
a
fiscal
note
that
has
been
revised
so
kind
of
been
kind
of
briefly
going
through
that
real
quickly.
But
can
you
tell
me
exactly
what
the
cost
is
of
of
going
down
to
four
percent
in
total?
What
we
are
projecting
and
where
are
we
getting
the
replacement
Revenue
specifically
because
I
know
we
I
know
we
created
35
new
sales
taxes
start
on
services
and
that's
in
addition
to
the
41
or
whatever
we
created
in
18..
A
I'm
going
to
catch
that,
if
you
don't
mind,
is
it
okay?
First
off?
If
you
look
at
the
fiscal
note
and
take
it
for
what
it
is,
it's
a
best
guesstimate
at
this
point
they
are
equating
a
half
point
reduction
of
the
individual
income
tax
to
about
315
billion,
316
million
I
think
it's
315.8
was
the
last
number
I
saw
and
that's
always
a
number
that's
in
flux,
but
that
gives
you
an
order
of
magnitude
what
to
associate
it
with
that
would
be
over
a
over
a
full
year.
A
It
would
be
630
632
they're,
looking
at
a
half
year
of
a
half
point,
okay,
so
that's
why
your
number
is
going
to
be
off
so
to
answer:
how
much
is
it
going
to
cost
I?
Think
that's
a
false
question,
but
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
get
at
like
how
much
revenue
would
we
lose
from
what
we
are
getting
right
now
or
anticipating
right
now,
so
a
half
a
year
on
a
half
a
point
would
be
about.
A
315.8
is
my
understanding
is
what
they're
estimating,
and
that
is
always
a
change
of
figure
in
2018
I
think
that
figure
was
closer
to
200,
250
or
maybe
a
little
higher
than
that
for
a
half
point
and
a
half
year.
So
it's
always
a
changing
factor,
and
then
the
next
question
is:
how
much
is
it
going
to
cost?
J
Okay,
if,
if
you'll
allow
me,
let's,
let's
just
talk
about
the
going
from
4.5
to
4,
so
we're
talking
about
I,
guess
224
calendar
year-
is
that
correct.
A
According
to
House
Bill
one
language-
and
please
correct
me:
if
I'm,
if
I
understand
this
incorrectly
House
Bill
one
codifies
the
cut
that
has
already
taken
place
and.
A
24.
well
I'm,
making
sure
that
on
House
Bill
1
for
the
public,
that's
listing
in
they
understand
that
there
are
two
things
happening
in
this
bill.
One
is
codifying
for
clarification
that
individual
income
tax
rate
did
in
fact
Reduce
by
a
half
point
from
five
to
four
and
a
half
on
January
1
2023.
effective
that
date.
That's
what
the
bill
clarifies.
That's
one
number
two.
It
gives
approval
for
the
next
reduction
from
four
and
a
half
to
to
four
percent.
A
That
would
be
effective
on
January
1
2024
to
go
ahead
and
allow
that
to
take
effect
and
codify.
That
also-
and
the
reason
I
say,
allow
it
to
take
effect-
is
that,
as
you
know,
House
Bill
8
set
triggers
conditions
that
had
to
be
met
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
economically,
before
a
rate
reduction
of
the
individual
income
tax
could
occur.
Osbd
and
DOR
office
budget
state
director
office,
state
budget
director,
sorry
about
that
and
Department
of
Revenue
have
both
certified
that
those
conditions
have
been
met,
and
this
takes
the
action
to
say.
J
Okay
and
and
the
second
half
of
that
question
was
basically
okay,
we
got,
we
got
315
million,
630
million
or
whatever.
It
is
over
over
the
two
periods.
How
much
of
that?
How
much
revenue
is
being
created
by
the
new
service
taxes
from
HB
8,
and
how
much
does
that
leave
to
fill
this
Gap
with
Surplus
Monies
I
I'm?
Assuming
that's
where
that's
coming
from.
A
From
the
trust
trust
fund,
the
assumption
is
incorrect,
but
I
understand
the.
A
I'd
be
glad
to
House
Bill,
eight
the
triggers
are
set
and
we're
going
to
be
moving
forward
and
going
down.
Okay,
we're
good,
though
right.
A
J
A
Partial
partial
money,
additional
revenues
will
be
coming
in
based
on
expansion
of
the
sales
tax
base.
Until
your
question,
the
physical
note
that
looked
at
that
last
year
for
House
Bill
8
purposes
had
first
estimated
around
150
million
dollars.
Okay,
so
that's
not
going
to
replace
630
million
over
a
year
period
12-month
period.
So
it's
not
meant
to
be
a
pay
for
so
then
it
draws
you
to
the
next
thing
which
I
find
most
people
incorrectly
go
to.
A
A
We
are
putting
away
money
into
the
reserve
trust
fund
because
we
are
budgeting
below
our
means,
so
we're
not
going
to
have
to
take
money
out
of
a
reserve
trust
to
backfill
a
hole
because
our
needs
don't
get
us
to
a
high
level.
Our
needs
get
us
to
a
level
where
we
have
way
more
Revenue
coming
in
and
projected
Revenue
coming
in,
and
even
when
don't
know
when,
but
even
when
we
hit
a
downturn
and
our
revenues
decrease.
A
We
have
a
lot
of
downward
cushion
in
the
revenue
stream
before
you
even
have
to
think
about
tapping
a
reserve
for
bad
times
now
understand
that's
a
full
picture
that
Reserve
is
there
as
a
backstop
backstop
and
at
the
same
time,
in
the
last
two
budget
cycle,
we've
also
put
more
money
and
got
record
funding
into
the
unemployment
insurance
trust.
So
what
happens
when
downturns?
Come
unemployment,
correct?
Okay,
that's
what
you
expect
heretofore.
A
A
The
last
two
cycles
we've
had
downturns
700
to
800
billion.
We
had
to
borrow
from
the
federal
government
to
Sure
up
our
Unemployment
Insurance
Fund.
We
have
that
much
in
there
now
and
we're
adding
to
it.
So
we've
got
the
cushion
over
there,
don't
have
to
tap
budget
reserve.
For
that,
then,
you've
got
we're
budgeting
within
our
means,
someone's
going
to
have
to
get
their
head
wrapped
around.
What
budgeting
within
your
means?
What
that
actually
comes
down
to
that
means.
There's
money
there
that
you
don't
use.
A
A
A
Before
we
go
to
that
one,
we've
got
a
few
more
and
I
understand
and
I've
Got
a
Feeling
we'll
be
able
to
talk
about
on
the
floor.
Also.
This
is
a
known
entity,
a
known
issue
before
we
ever
got
here.
This
is
a
follow
way.
This
is
a
follow-up,
a
continuation
of
house,
but
like
that
we
talked
about
a
lot
last
year.
We
still
have
that
hard
stop
at
10
minutes
till
then.
We've
got
two
more
bills
to
get
to
so
representative
Dawson.
K
Very
brief,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I'm,
going
to
be
very
brief.
K
The
chairman
and
I
share
common
borders
there
with
Christian
and
Todd
counties.
Not
only
do
we
share
those
borders,
but
also
we
border
the
state
of
Tennessee
as
well
and
I.
Think
sometimes
it's
hard
for
some
of
the
members
here
to
understand
what
we
see
on
a
daily
basis.
The
chairman
and
myself
do
in
1970
the
population
of
Hopkinsville,
Kentucky
and
Clarksville
Tennessee
were
almost
identical
right
at
20
000
citizens.
Each
today
the
population
of
Hopkinsville
is
31
000..
K
The
population
of
Clarksville
Tennessee,
which
has
a
zero
income
tax,
is
166
000
citizens.
Our
goal
is
to
grow
this
Commonwealth
by
growing
the
population.
It
grows
our
tax
base
tax
base.
We
see
this
on
a
daily
basis,
just
looking
out
our
back
doors
where
I
live
I'm
within
10
miles
of
the
Tennessee
State
Line
and
I
see
this
on
a
daily
basis.
Our
goal
is
to
lower
the
income
tax.
K
To
encourage
individuals
to
want
to
live
in,
Kentucky
become
a
part
of
our
tax
base,
which
is
going
to
grow
our
local
governments,
our
Revenue,
coming
there
to
our
school
districts
and
to
the
state
so
I'm
happy
to
support
this,
and
thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
representative
Reed,
for
what
you're
doing.
D
You
Mr
chairman,
I'll
remind
you
of
our
time.
Yes,
sir,
very
briefly,
just
one
quick
Point,
this
conversation
we've
had
this
morning
seems
to
presume
that
there's
no
additional
revenues
coming
into
the
state
for
any
reason
other
than
or
that
the
only
thing
we
have
available
is
is
the
trust
fund,
and
yet
last
just
last
night,
our
governor
spent
several
minutes
listing
business
after
business.
That
is
either
coming
into
Kentucky,
creating
additional
revenues
for
our
state
or
growing
their
business
in
Kentucky,
creating
additional
revenues
for
our
state.
D
So
to
say
that
we
only
have
the
trust
fund
that
we
can
go
to
to
balance
the
changes
in
revenue
from
the
tax
reduction.
That's
just
not
accurate.
The
truth
of
the
matter
is
our
state
is
growing
economically
and
that's
part
of
the
process
that
we
put
in
place
with
the
policies
that
we
started
in
2017
they're
now
coming
to
fruition.
So
to
say
that
we
don't
have
additional
revenues
to
allow
for
us
to
give
an
income
tax
reduction
to
our
hard-working
citizens
is
just
not
accurate.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
L
Sorry,
okay,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman,
as
I.
Look
at
the
fiscal
note
it
it
comes
to
my
attention
that
the
2023
impact
is
a
negative
315.8
million
dollars,
and
what
concerns
me
and
I
think
the
elephant
in
the
room
is:
is
the
annual
impact
of
full
implementation
is
indeterminable
that
that
concerns
me
and
I
think
it
should
concern
all
kentuckians.
So
as
as
we
look
at
House
Bill
one
I'm
concerned
about
that
going
forward,
so
that
that
would
be
a
concern.
A
L
If
I
may,
yes,
I
am
okay,
I
understand
what
you're,
saying
and
I
think
numbers
numbers
and
dollars
and
cents
are
certainly
something
that
fluctuate
and
move,
but
that
concerns
me
and
and
I
would
like
to
have
at
full
unders
understanding
of
what
the
annual
impact
is
at
full
implementation.
That
would
be
something
that
that
I
think
we
need
to
have
sure
I'll.
A
Go
back
to
it
and
it's
a
good
request:
I,
don't
think
anyone
with
the
methods
in
use
at
the
lrc
and
what
CFG
would
be
able
to
give
you
that,
but
they
would
be
explaining
the
limitations
of
the
methodology
for
the
physical
notes.
I
would
go
so
far
as
to
say
in
my
calculations:
I!
Look
at
it
as
currently
close
to
current
time,
if
it's
approximately
315
million
for
a
half
point
and
a
half
year.
A
L
Think
one
thing
just
says:
one
thing
closing
that
I
think
we've
got
to
be
concerned
and
the
taxpayers
of
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
have
to
be
concerned
that
that
the
Commonwealth
only
has
a
couple
of
ways
to
raise
funds,
sure
and-
and
that
is
through
fees
and
through
taxes,
and
it's
important
I
think
to
make
sure
that
everybody
understands
this,
that
the
windfall
that
potentially
we
will
get
or
taxpayers
in
Kentucky
will
get
as
a
reduction
of
state
income
tax.
You
pay
on
one
hand
or
you
pay
on
the
other,
rob
peter.
L
A
I
D
L
G
G
J
A
Bring
the
vote
please
briefly,
please.
J
I'm,
a
no
today
I'd
love
to
be
able
to
give
taxes
back,
nobody
likes
taxes,
but
this
is
a
step-by-step
process
that
started
several
years
ago,
and
this
this
is
a
shift
in
the
tax
burden,
is
what
this
is:
we're
moving
to
more
of
a
consumptive-based
tax
and
and
that's
really
good
for
higher
earners
and
and
it
it
actually
raises
the
burden
on
the
lowest
of
earner,
so
I'm
a
no
today
for
the
voice
for
the
lowest
of
earners
and
most
vulnerable
in
our
state.
Thank
you.
D
I
C
E
A
Hospital
one
having
received
16
yes
votes
for
no
votes
will
pass
with
favorable
with
favorable
expression
that
same
should
pass
on
the
floor.
Thank
you.
House
Bill,
two
on
the
agenda.
A
When
act
relating
to
the
Bowling
Green
Veterans
Center,
making
an
appropriation
therefore,
and
declaring
an
emergency
sponsored
by
representative
Michael
Meredith,
and
if
you
will
introduce
yourself
and
anyone
else
at
the
table
which
I
think
I
recognize
that
yep.
If
you'll
introduce
everybody
everybody
at
the
table,
please
introduce
themselves.
M
A
M
Please
proceed.
Thank
you
again.
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
This
is
a
relatively
simple
piece
of
legislation.
Many
of
you
who
have
been
in
the
general
assembly
for
a
few
years
know
about
this
project.
It's
a
project
that
was
really
kind
of
kick-started
in
2012,
so
it's
been
worked
on
for
nearly
a
decade.
We
passed
the
first
appropriation
for
this
facility
in
2016
in
the
house
in
2017.
It
got
through
the
entire
process.
M
When
this
project
was
actually
awarded
federal
funds
and
bid,
it
came
in
well
over
budget
even
after
we
took
steps
to
try
to
reduce
what
that
cost
would
be
all
of
us
when
we
found
that
out.
First
went
to
our
federal
delegation,
the
governor's
office
myself,
Senator
Wilson
and
other
members
of
the
general
assembly
started
working
with
them
trying
to
find
a
federal
solution.
Obviously
the
federal
process
happens
really
really
slowly
and
we
were
going
to
miss
out
on
these
funds
coming
from
the
federal
government.
M
If
we
did
that
and
have
to
restart
this
process
entirely.
So
everybody
agreed
the
administration,
the
finance
and
administration
cabinet,
the
the
Senate
leadership,
the
house
leadership
to
go
ahead
and
take
this
step
to
fund
this
out
of
our
funds
at
the
state
level.
To
make
this
happen,
we
had
a
groundbreaking
in
November.
The
project
is
already
underway.
This
is
just
going
to
complete
the
project.
G
G
K
G
G
E
J
E
With
20,
yes,
votes,
zero,
no
votes,
House,
Bill,
2
passes
saying,
should
be
reported
favorably
on
the
house
floor.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
members
of
committee
yeah.
Thank
you.
You're
welcome.
E
A
Thank
you
for
consideration
of
the
committee.
We
have
House
Bill
11,
which
is
a
core
alert
to
what
was
just
presented
by
representative
Meredith
and
Senator
Wilson
relative
to
the
cost
increase
cost
of
the
Veterans
Center
in
order
to
keep
our
budgeting
as
level
as
can
as
we
can,
as
well
as
remain
close
to
zero
sum
without
opening
the
budget,
but
dealing
with
an
emergency
need.
A
We
are
simply
reducing
the
portion
of
their
Administration
and
support
budget
General
Administration
support
budget
by
the
amount
that
have
been
allocated
toward
the
EV
program
for
the
match.
This
does
not
defeat
or
take
away
from
the
EV
project.
I've
spoke
with
Administration
as
late
as
late
yesterday.
That's
still
moving
forward
and
we
will
continue
to
monitor
if
they
were
to
need
General
funds
unanticipated
at
this
point,
but
they
do
not
need
this
at
this
point.
A
D
L
G
G
J
D
E
E
A
Mr
chairman,
yes,
sir
May
I
make
a
motion
inside
the
committee
that
we
conditionally
put
that
on
the
consent
calendar
in
case
there
ever
were
to
be
one
today,
absolutely.