►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on State Government (3-8-22)
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
Good
afternoon
and
welcome
to
the
sixth
meeting
of
the
house
state
government
committee
meeting
of
the
2022
regular
session.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
C
A
We've
got
some
members
missing,
but
we
can
at
least
start
the
testimony
on
the
bill.
The
I
and
representative
pratt
have
asked
that
our
bills
not
be
heard
in
committee
today,
so
we
are
here
to
hear
one
bill
and
that
is
house
bill
28.
A
before
we
go
into
that
I'd
like
to
remind
everybody
to
use
the
sign
up
sheets.
If
you
wish
to
to
testify
on
the
bill,
please
no
signs
are
avail
in
the
room:
silence
your
cell
phones,
if
you're
in
the
room
members,
please
remember
to
turn
on
your
mics
if
you're,
those
on
teleconference
mute
and
unmute
as
appropriate.
A
We
have
a
motion
on
the
sub.
Second,
we
have
a
second
all
in
favor
of
the
sub.
Please
signify
by
saying.
D
G
A
A
I
Thank
you.
I
apologize
for
being
late.
I
was
a
transportation
committee
which
is
still
going
on,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
to
get
over
here.
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
for
a
committee
amendment
to
be
heard.
A
Is
there
a
second,
we
have
a
second
and
I
believe
it
is
in
the
folders.
It.
A
In
the
folders
it's
amendment
hca
for
house
committee,
amendment
continue.
I
Can
I
explain,
thank
you
very
much
chairman
what
this
does
is
currently
in
the
language
of
the
bill.
It
just
has
post-secondary
education,
and
so
we've
we've
just
to
stay
consistent
with
the
language
I
wanted
to
remove
private
institutions,
so
it
just
includes
what
this
amendment
does.
It
includes
public
in
several
different
places,
so
this
would
only
be
required
by
public,
secondary
institutions,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
for
considering
the
friendly
committee
amendment
and
for
the
chairman.
A
Seeing
none
like
a
voice
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
the
house
committee
amendment
signify
by
saying
I
I
oppose
like
sign
the
that
is
before
us
and
standardies.
A
All
right,
so
we
have
this
matter
before
us
with
the
committee
sub,
which
at
the
end
will
roll
into
the
committee
sub.
So.
A
J
J
A
A
J
From
lexington
kentucky,
sir
very
good,
thank
you.
I'm
a
supporter
of
good
public
health
and
the
right
of
businesses
to
set
rules
to
protect
their
employees,
customers
and
visitors.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
chairman
miller
and
the
committee
members.
I'm
completely
opposed
to
hp.
28.
J
J
J
A
Thank
you,
sir
next
is
mr
jd
cheney.
A
Please
have
a
seat
and
three
minutes:
please
introduce
yourselves.
H
H
Thank
you,
chairman
miller.
I
don't
think
there's
any
danger
of
repetition
at
this
point.
No
surprise
here
for
the
members
of
this
committee
that
we've
worked
for
and
worked
with
over
the
last
several
years.
One
thing
you
can
count
on
from
the
kentucky
league
of
cities.
I
hope
you
all
view
it.
This
way
is
that
we
are
consistent
when
it
comes
to
our
defense
of
home
rule
and
local
decisions
being
best
made
at
the
local
level.
H
This
legislation
would
impact
city
and
county
governments
being
able
to
make
those
decisions
at
the
local
level
and,
as
such,
our
board
has
voted
to
oppose
that.
I
I
I
want
to
also
make
clear
that
it's
not.
There
may
be
some
broad
philosophical
agreement
with
my
membership
about
whether
or
not
they
would
impose
any
types
of
restrictions
that
are
prohibited.
In
fact,
I
think
every
mayor
I've
talked
to
would
would
not
or
any
city
council
would
not
given
the
fact
of
what
we
were
facing
and
we
opposed
just
for
the
consistency.
Example.
H
We
had
an
issue
with
the
biden
mandate
that
mandated
to
get
the
vaccines.
We
were
fearful
that
we
were
going
to
lose
a
lot
of
our
public
safety
employees,
so
it's
not
weighing
in
for
us
one
way
or
another
on
on
the
vaccine
issue.
It
is
to
say
that
local
officials
are
in
the
best
position
to
make
local
decisions
locally
and
because
it
violates
that
tenant
and
basic
principle
of
home
rule.
H
H
A
Welcome,
please
introduce
yourself
and
tell
us
where
you're
from.
C
My
name
is
jason
hall
catholic
conference
of
kentucky
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
want
to
apologize
that
with
the
amendments
flying
around
this
morning.
I
may
be:
I've
not
had
a
chance
to
did
not
receive
all
of
those
and
have
a
chance
to
review
them,
but
I
have
seen
now
representative
heaven's
amendment.
I
certainly
appreciate
that
our
remaining
concern
is
in
section
one.
There
is
a
definition
which
actually
might
be
used
multiple
times
during
the
course
of
the
statute,
but
section
one
which
is
not
amended
by
representative
heaven's.
C
Amendment
includes
religious
and
educational
non-profits
in
the
definition
of
public
entities,
and
we
would
have
a
signif
serious
objection
to
including
religious
non-profits
and
other
nonprofits
in
the
definition
of
a
public
entity
and
creating
separate
regulatory
frameworks
and
for
public
and
private
entities
in
which
religious
nonprofits
would
end
up
on
the
public
side
of
that
line,
and
so
we
would
object
very
strongly
if
there
would
be
a
way
to
amend
that.
That
would
address
that
concern,
but
we
appreciate
the
willingness
to
offer
these
amendments
and
consider
them
so
far
this
morning.
A
You're
welcome.
Thank
you
again
for
your
brevity,
you
for
your
brevity,
the
last
speaker
that
has
signed
up,
and
I
will
give
a
second
call,
because
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
here.
A
If
will
davis.
A
My
bad
okay,
even
though
it's
a
little
out
of
order,
if
there's
anyone
who
wishes
to
speak
for
three
minutes,
I
will
give
them
that
privilege,
because
I've
got
a
little
extra
time,
because
the
other
two
bills
are
not
going
to
be
heard.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
question
is
actually
going
to
go.
I
think,
sponsor
representative.
Could
you
respond
to
the
religious
nonprofit
question
that
was
just
brought
up
just
if
you
can
help
us
clarify
what
that
language
is
at
least
what
the
intention
was
versus
what
it
might
actually
be
saying.
G
If
there's
an
issue
with
that,
we
can
look
at
it
more
closely.
But
again
this
has
been
vetted
over
the
course
of
the
past
six
months
very
carefully,
and
this
is
the
first
time
that
I've
heard
that
concern
today.
So
I'm
happy
to
look
at
it,
but
the
intention
is
to
create
as
broad
protections
as
possible
for
kentuckians
to
be
able
to
decide
for
themselves
whether
or
not
to
receive
a
vaccine.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you,
and
I
would
just
say
that
we
might
need
to
look
at
that
as
we
go
to
the
floor,
assuming
that
it
passes
from
the
committee
today,
just
I'm
not
100
clear
where
we
need
to
go
with
that,
so
I
think
it's
something
for
a
conversation
for
a
future
date.
Thank
you.
A
G
Again,
this
is
a
concern
that
has
just
been
raised
today
among
the
stakeholders
that
we've
talked
with
on
this
bill.
It's
not
been
an
issue
so
far
and
I'm
you
know
more
than
willing
to
look
at
the
definition.
But
again
the
intention
was
to
provide
as
broad
protection
as
possible
for
kentucky.
Okay.
A
K
I
really
don't
do
representative
johnson
asked
the
question
I
wanted
to
ask.
I,
when
I
read
the
bill
this
morning,
that
was
my
biggest.
I
had
a
couple
of
flags.
My
number
one
flag
was:
why
are
we
singling
out
non-profits,
I
think
about
crisis,
pregnancy,
centers
and
and
rape,
and
I
mean
I
just
those
I
don't
know
I
just
it
seems
weird
to
be
singling
them
out,
especially
if
they're
associated
with
the
church.
K
I
don't
know
so
I
I
would
like
to
maybe
discuss
that
I'll.
I
mean
I'll
be
a
yes
today,
but
I'm
gonna
need
to
talk
to
you,
maybe
about
changing
on
the
floor.
G
Absolutely-
and
I
appreciate
those
remarks,
representative,
duplicy
and
again
for
a
frame
of
reference.
You
know
my
intention
with
the
entirety
of
this
bill,
including
its
original
form,
was
to
provide
as
broad
protections
as
possible
statutory
protections
for
kentuckians
to
be
able
to
decide
for
themselves.
So,
throughout
the
legislative
process,
it
has
been
evaluated
and
there
will
continue
to
be
discussions
along
those
lines.
But
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
I
would
rather
that
everybody
be
able
to
decide
for
themselves.
Thank
you.
L
Can
you
kind
of
just
bring
this
right
to
narrow
scope
for
me
on?
We
we've
heard
all
these
different
organizations
that
that
I
have
some
respect
for
say
that
they're
not
interested
in
this
legislation.
L
Could
you
tell
me
where
you're
headed
with
this
and
on
your
final
conclusion
and
what
you'd
like
to
see
come
out
of
this
piece
of
legislation
for
kentucky,
because
I
guess
what
bothers
me
just
a
little
bit
about
it,
and
I
was
telling
the
chairman
earlier.
L
My
problem
is
we're
passing
legislation
that'll
be
forever
until
it's
cemented
or
taken
out.
Somebody
else
takes
it
out,
so
you
must
have
a
viewpoint
of
some
sort
of
protection
for
just
individual
rights
or
just
because
we're
listening
from
businesses,
this
league
of
cities.
L
These
are
people
that
come
in
to
represent
a
lot
of
people
and
similar
to
the
question
on
religious
organizations,
and
I
had
one
thing
that
bothered
me
just
a
little
bit
representative
was
the
fact
that
we
were
saying
that,
maybe
even
restaurants
until
you
took
the
business
side
of
it
out,
restaurants,
couldn't
question
employees
coming
in
that's
going
to
be
handling
a
lot
of
food,
a
lot
of
different
things,
whether
they've
had
protection.
I
I
know
this
is
a
when
I
first
heard
the
bill
several
months
ago.
L
The
part
that
worried
me
was
infringing
on
our
private
businesses
and
telling
them
what
to
do
that.
That
bothered
me
to
start
off
with,
and
I've
been
trying
to
trying
to
find
some
area
that
I
could
grasp
onto
what
direction
you're
trying
to
go,
because
I
know
your
past
is
not
to
go
after
individuals
like
private
businesses
and
things
like
that
that
you
stand
for
some
liberty.
So
I
look
at
capitalism
and
private
businesses
as
liberty.
A
You're
welcome
representative
davis.
F
F
Hard
to
know
where
you
are
when
somebody's
on
a
microphone
I
wanted
to
just
clarify,
because
a
lot
of
the
questions
and
some
of
the
comments
from
the
table
had
to
do
with
businesses
the
original
iteration
of
the
bill,
as
you
said,
included
private
entities
and
businesses.
This
does
not
because
of
pushback
within
the
caucus
and
among
the
community.
F
That
leads
me
to
my
comp.
My
the
purpose
of
my
comment
is
the
language
about
or
any
non-profit
corporation,
as
defined
by
keras
14.1-070
was
consistent
with
the
original
bill.
I
think
that's
probably
just
in
drafting
the
amendment
that
was
left
in,
probably
unintentionally,
because
that
would
that's
part
of
the
private
world
that
I
think
we're
we're
taking
out
of
this.
So
my
suggestion
is
with
that
understanding
and
agreement
that
was
made
to
take
private
out
that
that
probably
was
supposed
to
come
out
as
well.
F
But
that's
that's
why
I
think
it's
in
there.
It
was
just
a
scrivener's
error
and
not
not
deleting
it
when
the
rest
of
the
private
entity
information
came
out.
Is
that
is
that
correct?
Or
do
any
comment
on
that.
G
I
think
that
you
characterized
the
status
of
the
bill
well
in
terms
of
the
committee
sub.
As
far
as
the
push
back
and
you
know,
internal
discussions
that
took
place
and
as
far
as
the
definition
of
the
nonprofits,
I
would
tend
to
agree
that
if
the
design
was
to
remove
private,
that
that
was
likely
intended
to
be
removed
as
well.
F
A
At
this
point,
we
have
no
more
questions.
This
last
call
for
questions
representative
stevenson.
Sorry
mike.
M
I
I
have
a
question:
you
talked
about
the
broadest
protection
for
kentuckians,
so
I
guess
my
question
is:
if
the
government
is
responsible
for
protecting
kentuckians,
what
are
they
to
do
when
we're
in
such
a
thing
as
a
pandemic,
if
they
don't
have
information
to
make
decisions
on
like
how
do
you
protect
the
community
from
a
pandemic?
If
you're
not
allowed
to
ask
the
question.
G
Representative
stevenson,
thank
you
for
your
question
and
no
aspect
of
this
legislation
is
intended
to
impede
a
government's
ability
to
provide
good,
solid
information
for
citizens
to
make
good
decisions,
because
I
firmly
believe
that
kentuckians
can
make
good
decisions
for
themselves
and
their
families
when
it
comes
to
their
health
care.
When
it
comes
to
situations
like
public
health
crises
and
there's
no
aspect
of
this
legislation.
That
would
impede
the
government's
ability
to
provide
that
information.
M
G
A
Very
good,
seeing
no
other
questions.
Madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
E
A
N
N
I
think
this
bill
is
a
bad
deal
and
we
don't
know
what
other
kind
of
pandemic
will
come
in
the
near
future.
But
putting
this
law
into
place
inhibits
not
only
state
government,
but
it
will
inhibit,
I
believe,
all
divisions
of
government,
and
for
that
reason
I
stand
for
what
is
right
and
what
is
for
the
good
of
all
and
I
vote
no
for
this
bill.
D
I
D
Explain
my
yes
vote,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
sir.
This
has
been
a
unique
bill
in
the
fact
that
it
seems
that,
seemingly
we
have
competing
conservative
values
at
this
point.
One
is
as
jd
cheney's
very
well
put
the
the
concept
of
local
rule
and
that's
something
that
I
believe
in
greatly,
but
at
the
same
time
we
have
the
conservative
value
of
individual
rights
and,
although
I'm
a
local
rural
guy
have
been
for
a
long
time,
I'm
going
to
at
this
point
stand
with
individual
rights.
D
F
A
quick
comment,
mr
chairman,
just
wanted
to
clarify.
I
don't
think
my
friend
the
gentleman
from
franklin
intended
to
say
otherwise,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear.
Everybody
knows
this,
he
said
we
don't
know
what
further
pandemic
there
may
be
in
the
future.
This
bill
only
applies
to
covet.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
a
yes
thank
you.
Thank
you.
B
A
E
While
we've
been
discussing
this,
I
actually
looked
up
krs
1481
070.
There
are
like
45
different
entities
there
and
I
do
believe
a
lot
of
those
are
private
entities.
So
I
would
hope
that
I'm
gonna
vote
yesterday,
but
I
would
hope
that
we
can
clarify
that
deal
with
that
on
the
floor.
I
would
like
to
one
other.
You
know
I've
heard
from
so
many
constituents
on
this
issue
and
the
bottom
line
is.
E
I
have
consistently
told
people
get
the
right
information
and
I
believe
it's
the
role
of
government
to
get
the
information
out
to
individuals,
get
that
information
out
to
people
accurate
information
so
that
individuals
can
consult
with
their
doctors
and
make
the
decisions
that
are
right
for
them.
I
vote
yes,.
K
I'd
like
to
explain
my
vote
voting
yes,
but
I've
just
found
this.
This
whole
dialogue,
quite
interesting
from
where
we
are
today
from
where
we
were
in
1919.
K
K
It
says
this
was
in
the
announcements
part
in
january
1919,
no
preaching
from
september
1918.
Until
march,
1919
state
board
of
health
stopped
public
gatherings
on
account
a
flu
epidemic.
Many
thousands
die,
so
we
have
kind
of
come
full
circle.
With
with
how
we
view
edicts
from
you
know,
state
the
state
health
department
at
the
time
to
where
we
are
today.
I
vote
yes,.
O
Briefly,
explain
representative
up
church's
reading
of
his
church's
past
and
has
further
convinced
me
of
my
no
vote
and
representative.
My
friend
from
jefferson
did
reiterate
that
this
is
for
the
covet
virus
only
but
also
any
mutations
and
how
dangerous
that
is,
and
as
a
former
public
servant
and
a
fire
chief
to
be
able
to
have
the
ability
to
home
rule
the
ability
to
direct
the
forces,
basically
with
those
firefighters
and
law
enforcement
who
I
dealt
with
quite
a
bit
also
to
say
to
them
as
they
come
to
work
each
day.
O
A
I'm
going
to
explain
my
yes
vote.
First
off,
I
want
to
say
I'm
a
proponent
of
vaccines.
I've
received
three
modernist
shots,
but
in
life
we
all
face
risks.
A
A
A
Is
there
and
we
have
a
second
all
in
favor
of
rolling
the
motion
into
the
amendment
into
a
sub
say
I
opposed
like
sign.
It
is
rolled
into
the
sub
there
being
no
other
business
to
come
before
us.
We
are
adjourned.