►
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
A
Please
indicate
your
location
when
the
secretary
calls
the
role
only
members
in
their
annex
office
or
on
the
capitol
campus
will
be
counted
as
present
and
allowed
to
vote
on
bills.
If
any
member
has
a
question
or
a
comment,
please
signal
to
janine
or
sasha
members
attending
remotely
that
have
a
question
or
comment.
Please
send
a
message
in
zoom
using
the
chat
function.
C
C
B
B
B
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
this
committee.
We
have
before
us
house
bill
ford
today,
which
is
a
bill.
We've
heard
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
this
is
a
bill
that
came
as
a
result
of
many
hours
and
and
months
of
working
and
looking
at
the
unemployment
issue
and
getting
folks
back
to
work.
K
There
is,
and
at
at
this
time,
if
we
could.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
will
briefly
explain
before
I
get
into
the
details
of
the
bill
as
a
whole,
because
I
know
members
may
have
had
some
questions
about
the
about
the
sub
one
of
the
things
that
we,
the
the
cabinet,
reached
out
to
us
and
made
some
recommendations.
K
K
There
was
some
clarification
that
was
asked
for
there
and
we've
accommodated
that
in
this
legislation,
and
then
representatives,
heath
and
dosset
reached
out
to
me
and
asked
that
we
incorporate
in
this
bill
some
some
guaranteed
language.
That
would
ensure
that
those
folks
that
were
affected
by
the
tornado
disaster
last
december
will
receive
their
unemployment
payments,
and
so
we've
incorporated
that,
and
so
those
are
factors
that
those
are
components
that
have
now
been
included
in
the
bill.
K
K
K
This
bill
moves
that
up
to
five
per
week
and
that
would
include
five
would
include
three
searches,
for
example,
submitting
an
application
doing
an
interview
things
like
that
searching
for
a
job,
and
then
it
would
include
two
additional
areas
where
an
individual
could
shadow
someone
in
a
job
attend
a
job
training
program
on
how
to
search
and
look
for
jobs.
K
I
think
this
is
important
because
it's
been
proven
when
individuals,
when
individuals
are
proactive
in
their
look
for
jobs,
looking
for
jobs
and
active
in
that
search,
that
more
opportunities,
open
up
and
folks
may
see
areas
that
they
previously
had
not
looked
at
as
employment.
Those
opportunities
would
be
available
to
them.
K
K
It's
been
proven
that
it
strengthens
the
unemployment
system,
it
encourages
folks
to
find
employment
earlier
and-
and
we
we
have
built
in
mechanisms
throughout
this
bill-
that
if
we
have
an
unemployment
rate
increase,
then
weeks
are
increased
and
so
there's
added
added
support
for
for
folks
that
are
in
that
area.
K
Those
would
still
be
available
to
folks
they
would
require
general
assembly
approval.
As
I
said
earlier,
this
bill
clarifies
that
claimants
with
verified
return
to
work
prospects
within
16
weeks
are
eligible
for
16
weeks
of
benefits.
Unless
the
state
average
unemployment
rate
is
six
and
a
half
percent
or
higher.
At
that
point,
it
would
trigger
additional
benefits
that
folks
would
receive
under
any
higher
unemployment
period.
K
K
We
have
a
section
and,
and
it
this
allows,
the
bill
allows
for
the
secretary
of
the
labor
cabinet,
with
the
support,
with
the
approval
of
the
general
assembly,
to
extend
massive
maximum
duration
benefits
if
federal
extended
benefits
are
triggered.
So,
as
I
said,
we
do
have
those
mechanisms
built
in
place.
If
we
have
a
major
economic
downturn,
then
it
allows
for
individuals
to
receive
additional
weeks.
K
We
have
a
component
in
the
bill
for
no-show
interviews
and
job
refusals,
and
this
is
one
of
the
things
we've
heard
from
folks,
as,
as
I'm
sure
many
of
you
have
heard
from
your
constituents,
you
have
individuals
across
the
state
that
have
are
in
need
of
employees
and
folks
simply
are
not
applying
right
now
for
work
and
and
many
times
when
they
do
have
applications,
they
will
schedule
interviews
and
folks
will
not
show
up
for
those
interviews.
K
So
this
allows.
This
is
a
mechanism
that
allows
folks
to
to
report
those
individuals
and
when
they
file
that
initial
report
on
that
to
to
flag
that
you
know,
they'll,
be
ex
there'll,
be
opportunities
to
explain
situations
that
are
coming
up
an
individual
if
they
had
trouble
cutting
getting
there.
This
is
not
a
mechanism
for
employers
to
hammer
people.
This
is
for
folks
to
be.
K
You
know
if
someone
is
looking
for
and
offered
employment
and
and
it's
a
suitable
job
and
it's
one
that
they
can
take,
that
job
refusal
should
be
noted
and
indicated.
K
We
move
on
to
another
part
of
the
bill.
It's
the
work
share
program.
It
consumes
a
huge
part
of
the
bill.
The
cabinet
made
this
recommendation
to
our
committee
and
we
included
that
in
this
bill.
K
It
is
heavily
governed
by
federal
federal
regulations,
and
so
it
will
be
it
will.
The
secretary
will
have
some
pretty
defined
avenues
that
he
has
to
take
on
this
bill.
K
So
that's
a
huge
part
of
it.
Another
component
that
I
did
want
to
mention
that
we're
going
to
hear
from
the
gentleman
next
to
me
is
individuals
that
enroll
in
a
classes
or
additional
educational
training,
whether
it's
for
skilled
positions
or
they
want
to
pursue
additional
education,
we're
going
to
allow
them
to
have
up
to
five
weeks
of
additional
employment
if
they're
enrolled
in
those
programs
and
making
progress.
K
Mr
chairman,
ladies
and
gentlemen
of
this
committee,
this
is
an
important
bill.
I
think
it's
one
that
is
needed
in
the
commonwealth.
A
lot
of
additional
a
lot
of
work
has
gone
into
preparing
it,
and-
and
I
would
ask
members
to
to
look
at
what
we're
attempting
to
do
here
and
and
and
support
the
bill
and
at
this
point
I'll
yield
to
our
speakers
who
are
here.
L
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you
to
the
committee
for
allowing
me
to
be
out
here
to
talk
about
kctcs
a
little
bit.
Kctcs
believes
the
provisions
in
house
bill.
4
are
extremely
advantageous
to
those
who
need
help,
after
losing
jobs,
helpful
to
employers
and
also
to
kentucky's
economy.
L
Industry
certifications
are
an
essential
part
of
what
today's
employers
are
looking
for
when
hiring
and
they
aren't
finding
enough
people
with
those
credentials.
We
offer
a
good
number
of
short-term
credentials
for
in-demand
careers.
Some
certificates
can
be
completed
in
a
week
in
weeks
or
a
few
months
that
lead
to
good
careers.
For
example,
in
four
or
five
weeks
you
can
complete
a
cdl
in
just
a
few
months.
Our
students
can
earn
line
worker
credentials,
phlebotomists
or
pharmacy
techs
most
have
jobs
waiting
for
them
before
they've
even
completed
the
program.
L
One
question
I'm
asked
sometimes
is
why
we've
got
so
many
locations
and
that's
because
the
mission
of
community
and
technical
colleges
is
about
access.
We
want
people
to
be
able
to
go
locally,
and
so
we've
got
locations
within
30
minutes
of
everybody
in
this
state
and
our
courses
are
affordable
too.
Seventy
percent
of
our
students
don't
pay
tuition
because
of
state
and
federal
financial
aid,
and
only
14
percent
of
our
students
take
out
student
loans
with
an
average
loan
being
less
than
four
thousand
dollars.
L
So
the
provision
in
this
bill
to
help
laid
off
workers
to
upskill
and
retrain
is
extremely
important
to
kentucky's
employers
in
kentucky's
economy
house
bill
4
provides
kentuckians
with
the
additional
time
needed
to
complete
programs
that
can
quickly
better
their
lives
by
getting
them
into
good,
paying
high
demand
careers.
This
in
turn
helps
local
and
state
economies
and
employers
throughout
the
commonwealth.
M
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
speak
today
in
support
of
house
bill
4..
As
you
know,
we
have
been
working
on
the
unemployment
issue
in
kentucky
for
some
time
now
and
we
have
been
very
focused
on
our
worker
shortage
in
kentucky
and
in
fact,
this
past
summer
we
published
a
report
on
our
workforce
issues
in
kentucky
it's
called
20
years
in
the
making
kentucky's
workforce
crisis,
and
it
describes
the
challenges
that
we
face
as
having
the
third
lowest
workforce
participation
rate
in
the
nation.
M
It
describes
some
of
the
programs,
the
policies,
the
things
that
we're
doing
now
to
address
our
workforce
shortage
and
the
things
that
we
need
to
be
doing
in
the
future,
and
the
report
came
to
a
very
important
conclusion.
The
reasons
for
our
workforce
shortage
are
many,
and
our
solutions
must
be
multifaceted.
M
We
continue
to
be
hopeful
for
a
sustained
recovery
and
we're
hearing
new
job
announcements
coming
every
day.
We
are
excited
to
to
celebrate
the
expansions
of
existing
companies
in
kentucky,
as
well
as
welcoming
new
companies
to
kentucky,
but
we
cannot
only
focus
on
job
creation.
We
must
also
talk
about
having
the
workers
to
fill
those
jobs,
and
I've
spoken
about
this
in
this
committee
before
where
we
think
about
our
economy
and
how
our
economy
is
doing,
and
it's
really
two
sides
of
a
coin
two
sides
of
an
equation.
M
We
have
to
talk
about
creating
jobs
and
you
will
you
will
hear
the
kentucky
chamber
talk
about
creating
jobs
all
the
time
and
we
will
work
on
policies
and
programs
to
do
that.
But
we
have
to
have
the
workers
to
fill
the
jobs.
We
have
to
make
sure
that
that
that
third
shift
can
operate,
for
example,
and
that
small
business
owners
have
the
people
to
open
their
doors
and
and
to
continue
to
work
to
work,
and
so
what's
important
is
that
a
robust
economy
is
not
sustainable.
M
When
nearly
half
of
the
working
age
population
isn't
working,
our
economic
future
is
uncertain,
not
because
businesses
don't
want
to
locate
or
expand
here,
our
geographical
location,
our
low
cost
of
doing
business,
our
affordable
and
reliable
energy,
or
all
reasons
to
do
business
in
kentucky.
But
we
cannot
become
known
as
a
state
that
is
short
on
workers.
This
is
a
huge
issue
for
us
to
tackle.
M
There
isn't
one
specific
bill
or
one
specific
program
that
can
address
our
worker
shortage
in
kentucky,
but
house
bill
4
specifically
tackles
a
few
of
the
challenges
that
we
laid
out
in
our
workforce
report
this
past
summer.
One
is
that
kentucky
had
one
of
the
longest
average
durations
spent
on
unemployment
in
the
nation
between
2009
and
2019.,
too
long,
a
duration
19
weeks
on
average,
when
jobs
are
available
and
the
economy
is
growing.
M
This
harms
employment
in
kentucky
hurts
small
business
and
employers,
and
it
negatively
impacts
our
unemployment
insurance
system,
which
could
set
us
up
for
some
pretty
serious
problems
during
an
economic
downturn
and
of
course,
we
know
that
there's
a
skills
gap
between
workers
and
available
jobs.
That's
another
major
major
challenge
that
we
deal
with,
and
our
report
pointed
out
that
kentucky
trails,
the
nation
when
it
comes
to
post-secondary
attainment.
M
As
chairman
weber
described,
this
bill
ties
the
maximum
number
of
weeks
of
benefits
available
to
economic
conditions
using
the
unemployment
rate.
We
know
that
people
tend
to
work
more
intensely
when
their
benefits
are
going
to
end
and
reducing
the
weeks
when
more
jobs
are
available,
means
getting
people
back
to
work
more
quickly,
which
is
a
good
thing
for
workers
and
a
good
thing
for
our
economy
and
we've
seen
this
happen
in
other
states
that
have
passed
similar
legislation.
M
Florida,
georgia,
north
carolina,
where
they've
seen
their
average
duration
spent
on
unemployment
go
down
and
their
rates
of
employment
growth,
actually
increase
house
bill.
4
updates
the
work
search
requirements
by
expanding
the
definition,
definition
of
what
work
search
is
to
better
reflect
a
modern
day,
work,
search
effort
and
then
increases
the
number
of
activities
from
one
a
week
to
five.
M
This
is
offered
in
27
other
states,
and
these
programs
can
help
maintain
the
employer,
employee
relationship
during
difficult
economic
times
and
ensure
workers
continue
to
receive
the
benefits
that
their
employers
are
providing,
and
I
think
that's
really
important
as
well.
We
know
this
bill
will
not
solve
all
of
our
workforce
shortage
problem.
M
Additional
work
must
be
done
to
tackle
challenges
such
as
child
care,
the
need
for
more
education
and
training
transportation,
health
problems
that
are
a
barrier
for
some
who
are
who
are
in
need
of
work.
But
the
chamber
has
long
championed
policies
and
programs
related
to
these
struggles
as
well,
and
we
will
continue
to
work
on
those
issues
during
this
legislative
session.
We
urge
you
to
take
bold
steps
this
session
in
addressing
our
workforce
shortages
and
please
support
house
bill
4..
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
all
right,
rep
weber,
you
mentioned
that
changing
the
base
number
of
unemployment
weeks
is
proven
that
it
strengthens
the
system.
Could
you
share
the
research
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
right
now
and
then
also
specify
which
section
of
the
bill
which
line
would
declare
that
an
increase
in
in
benefits
would
immediately
occur
based
upon
a
recession
or
another
event
that
would
have
to
trigger
a
change
in
unemployment.
N
Thank
you
for
that
question
representative
in
terms
of
looking
at
the
experiences
of
other
states
that
utilize
an
indexing
model
to
determine
the
maximum
duration
of
weeks
we
mentioned
previously.
That
includes
states
such
as
north
carolina,
georgia,
florida,
kansas,
idaho,
alabama,
passed
legislation,
2019
tennessee,
passed
legislation
in
2021
other
states
are
considering
similar
legislation
as
well.
The
best
approach
to
consider
the
experiences
of
those
states
is
to
look
at
oui
data
to
look
at
things
such
as
their
how
their
how
their
duration
rates
changed.
N
You
can
also
look
at
bureau
of
labor
statistics
data
to
look
at
how
things
like
their
employment
rates
change
on
the
whole
looking
at
states
that
have
been
doing
this
the
longest.
I
think
those
are
the
best
states
to
study
for
this.
Obviously,
we
can't
really
use
alabama
because
they
only
adopted
their
law
in
2019.
But
if
you
look
at
georgia
north
carolina
in
florida,
they
did
see
decreased
rates
of
benefit
duration
that
were
significant.
N
They
also
saw
stronger
rates
of
overall
employment
growth
in
comparison
to
the
nation
as
a
whole
and
far
stronger
rates
of
employment
growth
in
comparison
to
a
state
such
as
kentucky.
So
there
is
good
data
there
suggesting
that
there
was
a
positive
impact
from
connecting
the
maximum
duration
of
weeks
to
the
unemployment
rate.
N
C
Okay,
so
yes,
I'd
appreciate
those
studies,
if
you
would
so,
I
can
read
them
before
this
is
heard
on
the
floor.
You
know
from
from
what
I've
read
about
this.
I
really
don't
understand
why
we
need
this
bill.
M
I'm
happy
to
respond
to
that,
and
you
know
I
think
what
I
need
to
reiterate
is
that
we
have
in
some
years
the
longest
average
duration
spent
on
unemployment,
and
I
you
know
I.
This
is
something
that
we
have
looked
at
for
years
and
these
other
states
that
you
speak
of
that
have
higher
workforce
participation
rates.
It's
not
hard
to
find
most
states
do
that
have
shorter
duration
spent
on
unemployment.
I
have
some
of
the
same
questions
as
to
why
we
have
that
because
we
have
so
many
jobs
available.
M
We
have
so
many
education
training
programs
available,
and
so
I
think
you
know
we
can
often
look
at
other
states
and
what
they're
doing
and
we're
looking
specifically
in
north
carolina
florida,
georgia.
Some
of
these
other
states
that
have
seen
improvement
but
we're
here
because
kentucky
has
a
workforce
shortage.
M
We
have
the
third
lowest
workforce
participation
rate
in
the
nation,
and
we
know
that
there
are
multiple
reasons
for
it
and
when
we
have
nearly
half
of
our
working
age
population,
not
working
spending
half
of
the
year
on
unemployment,
when
there
are
jobs
available,
is
a
struggle.
It's
a
struggle
for
small
business,
it's
a
struggle
across
all
sectors
and
across
the
economy
in
kentucky,
and
so,
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
one
approach
to
dealing
with
that.
A
A
The
maximum
duration
at
present
time
is
26
weeks.
Is
that
right?
This
bill
would
reduce
that
to
24
weeks.
Is
that
so
there's
a
there's
a
two
week,
there's
a
two
week
difference:
would
you
go
into
what
the
what
the
calculation
was
and
what
the
thought
process
was
to
go
from
26
to
24.
K
It
was,
it
was
the
calculation
based
on
the
on
starting
the
12
weeks
at
the
low
unemployment
rate,
and
as
that,
as
that
unemployment
rate
increases
by
half
a
percent,
then
it
was
adding
additional
weeks
to
that,
and
so
when
it
reaches
10
percent,
it
hit
the
24
mark
sure,
and
so
then,
after
that
you
know
after
you
hit
that
mark,
then
there
are
other
factors
that
would
kick
in
in
terms
of
of
a
high
unemployment.
D
Thank
you,
and
I
think
my
question
might
be
for
chair
weber
or
any
of
your
guests.
One
of
the
common
misconceptions
is
how
the
unemployment
insurance
premiums
are
actually
paid
for
the
folks
at
home.
Can
you
clarify
and
just
educate
us
all?
Do
the
employees
pay
those
premiums
or
is
that
a
responsibility
of
the
employer.
K
D
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
all
for
presenting.
I
had
a
couple
of
questions.
I've
heard
a
lot
of
you
know
you
all
have
talked
about
the
unemployment
rate
worker
shortage.
H
I
have
not
heard
the
word
wages
once
mentioned
by
anybody
in
this
presentation
and
the
reason
I'm
bringing
that
up
is
because
we
have
a
lot
of
nuances,
and
I
understand
that
we
want
to
improve
our
unemployment
insurance
system.
I
understand
that
that's
the
intent
of
everybody
presenting
this
bill.
My
concern
is
that
if
I'm
a
young
person
today
and
I've
invested
my
time
several
years-
a
lot
of
money
in
an
education-
and
I
have
a
degree-
and
I
have
a
job
or
I
get
laid
off
or
I
can't
find
a
job.
H
N
The
first
thing
I
would
say
to
that
is
within
within
the
first
six
weeks
of
receiving
benefits.
There
is
tremendous
amount
of
flexibility
there
for
an
individual
to
find
a
job
that
reflects
their
previous
work
or
their
previous
training
and
there's
economic
benefits
to
that.
If
you're,
a
welder,
for
example,
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
economic
interest
in
a
laid
off
welder
that
you
you
could
find
a
job
continuing
as
a
welder
that
would
be
to
the
benefit
of
our
economy.
N
The
system
is
effectively
not
designed
to
make
sure
they're
finding
necessarily
their
ideal
job,
but
there's
nothing
to
stop
that
individual
from
doing
that
once
they
find
a
job
that
will
pay
more
than
what
they're
receiving
in
unemployment
benefits
and
it's
important
to
keep
in
mind.
Our
average
benefit
rate
is
higher
than
most
of
those
states,
but
still
about
350
on
average.
N
If
you
look
back
in
previous
years,
they
would
find
a
job
that
would
probably
pay
more
than
that,
and
I
think
that's
a
better
situation
for
them
and
if
they
want
to
continue
looking
for
that
job,
whether
it's
in
the
legal
field
or
another
field,
they're
absolutely
entitled
to
continue
doing
that.
The
spill
would
not
stop
that
in
any
way.
H
Quick
follow-up.
Thank
you
for.
H
Thank
you.
Actually,
it's
a
whole
other
question.
I
apologize.
I
also
had
a
question
about
the
ui
system
itself.
Early
on
when
we
were
all
dealing
with,
you
know
our
constituents
reaching
out
to
us.
We
can't
get
benefits,
we
need
help.
H
A
lot
of
discussion
was
had
about
the
system
itself
being
outdated,
money
being
provided
to
update
that,
and
I
I
set
up
weekly
meetings
with
the
ui
office
to
follow
that
process,
because
the
system
itself
is
pretty
crucial
in
all
of
this
discussion,
how
the
claims
are
processed,
how
quickly
they're
processed
and
we're
asking
them.
It
seems
like,
for
instance,
in
section
5.
I
believe
it's
page
11
we're
asking
for
audits.
H
You
know
to
assess
whether
or
not
those
five
eligibility
requirements
are
being
met.
The
rfp
process
is
long.
It's
several
months.
Long
scoring
process
is
probably
another
several
months
long
and
that's
in
the
hopes
that
you
find
a
company.
That's
able
to
develop
this,
this
software
and
this
technology
that
we
need
for
this
system
that
is
still
going
on
this
has
been
going
on
since
since
the
pandemic
began.
H
My
question
is
what
allowances
are
in
this
bill?
Are
we
going
to
have
to
have
another
rfp
to
address
those
specific
concerns
for
the
development
of
what
we're
asking
the
system
to
do?
And
then,
in
addition
to
that
staffing,
I
understand
that
there
were
not
very
many
staff
to
begin
with
that.
There
were
some
more
that
were
being
trained,
but
again
we're
adding
a
lot
more
work
both
to
the
system
and
to
individuals.
K
K
K
K
He
was
a
strong
advocate
of
a
of
a
system
that
we
could
take
off
the
shelf
and
I
think,
plug
in
maybe
a
reference
that
he
says:
that's
a
pre
prepared
system
or
we
could
develop
a
custom-made
system
and
and
that's
the
route
that
that
the
state
is
going.
That's
the
route
that
the
administration
is
going
on
this,
so
we're
looking
at
40
to
60
million
dollars
to
develop
this
new
system.
K
Throughout
the
discussions
of
the
of
the
task
force,
we've
talked
about
additional
components
that
we
would
like
to
have
in
place
in
this
system.
You
know
we'll
be
responsible
for
maintaining
this
system
over
the
long
period
of
time,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
heard
is
we
want
this
new
system
so
that
we
can
adjust
and
so
that
we
can.
K
Add
those
things
that
we
want
to
these
things
were
discussed
during
the
interim.
These
things
were
are
factors
that
other
states
have
done
and
with
a
custom-made
system
we
should
be
in
a
position
where
we
can
add
things
that
we
want
to.
They
shouldn't
delay
the
rfp
process
or
the
vendors.
You
know,
there's
a
very
select
number
of
vendors
out
there
that
do
this.
K
This
should
not
be
new
to
them.
So
with
regard
to
that,
I
think
that
the
you
know
we
implement
the
law.
These
are
discussions
that
have
been
made.
Other
states
have
worked
around
these
requirements,
so
I
think
we'll
see
the
commonwealth
do
that
as
well.
With
regard
to
additional
staff,
you
know
that
that's
something
I've
heard
I
know
we
have.
There
are
two
people
that
work
full
time
and
another
individual.
I
was
told
that
works
part
of
the
time
on
verification.
K
A
A
E
Good
morning,
mr
chairperson
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
As
I
said,
I
am
dale
reigns,
president
of
the
kentucky
council
of
churches,
a
body
representing
11
different
christian
denominations
in
16
regional
bodies
across
the
state,
comprised
of
over
eleven
hundred
congregations
and
eight
hundred
thousand
kentuckians
we're
one
of
the
broadest
oldest
and
most
active
councils
in
the
country.
Having
provided
unified,
theological
reflection
from
churches,
both
rural
and
urban,
black
and
white,
rich
and
poor.
E
E
E
E
E
Black
kentuckians
made
up
16.4
percent
of
uninsured
unemployment.
Insurance
claims
in
kentucky
in
december
2021,
compared
to
making
up
only
9.3
percent
of
the
state
workforce
and
getting
a
new
job
is
also
especially
difficult
for
kentuckians
with
disabilities
and
people
who
are
seeking
a
second
chance
coming
out
of
incarceration.
E
You
know.
Jesus
preached
a
message
of
economic
justice
to
the
poor
of
his
time,
fully
understanding
that
poverty
prevented
those
who
were
created
in
the
very
image
of
god
from
participating
in
the
abundant
life.
He
came
to
give.
Please
don't
put
forth
this
bill
that
will
push
more
divine,
image-bearing
kentuckians
into
poverty.
O
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
You
know
unemployment
and
unemployment
insurance
are
certainly
subjects.
That's
been
on
all
of
our
minds
over
the
last
two
years.
I
am
sure
that
every
one
of
you
have
gotten
calls
from
your
constituents
regarding
problems
accessing
unemployment
insurance.
O
O
You
know,
proponents
of
hb4
argue
that
restricting
the
length
of
time,
unemployment
benefits
are
available
to
claimants
will
increase
our
labor
force
participation
rate.
The
opposite
is
true.
Among
the
10
states,
with
the
highest
labor
force
participation
rate,
only
one
has
maximum
duration
of
benefits
below
26
weeks,
whereas
five
of
the
10
states
with
the
lowest
labor
force,
petition
participation
rate,
have
maximum
duration
below
26
weeks.
So
there's
no
correlation
between
the
length
of
unemployment
benefits
and
whether
workers
return
to
work
sooner
and
don't
forget
how
iu
benefits
are
spent
by
unemployed
workers.
O
G
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
giving
me
a
few
moments
to
speak
on
this
really
critical
issue
like
bill
said
all
of
us
all
of
us
in
this
room
received
calls
throughout
2020
and
into
2021
from
our
neighbors
our
loved
ones,
people
who
are
struggling
to
get
by
during
the
downturn
and
who
are
having
difficult
with
their
unemployment
insurance
benefits.
We
heard
heart-wrenching
stories
about
empty
gas
tanks,
hungry
children,
missed
mortgage
payments
and
generally
increased
hardship.
G
The
way
that
we
calculate
the
unemployment
rate
through
house
bill
4
in
particular,
looks
at
the
previous
six-month
quarter
and
then
the
first
half
of
that,
I'm
not
sorry,
not
quarter,
but
the
essentially
three
quarters
ago
looks
at
the
average
unemployment
rate
during
that
time
and
that's
what
determines
the
unemployment
rate
during
the
six-month
period
that
the
claimant
files
a
claim
in?
So
what
we're
doing
is
essentially
looking
back
12
to
9
months
previous
to
find
out
what
the
unemployment
rate
is
that
will
adhere
to
individuals.
That's
on
page
one.
G
Under
the
definitions
we
looked
at
that
standard
and
we
went
back
all
the
way
to
1990
and
found
out
at
no
period
in
the
last
30
years.
Would
we
have
ever
hit
24
weeks?
In
fact,
if
you
look
at
2020,
when
our
unemployment
rate
exceeded
16,
we
would
have
only
had
12
weeks
that
entire
year,
currently,
we
would
have
14
under
this
under
the
way
this
operates.
G
That's
offered
to
them,
no
matter
whether
it's
in
their
career
field
or
not,
as
long
as
it
pays
about
half
of
what
their
last
job
paid.
These
three
things
are
not
a
recipe
for
a
stronger
economy,
they're,
a
recipe
for
lower
wages
and
increased
hardship
and
make
no
mistake.
Policies
like
these
have
increased
hardship
in
other
states,
but
have
failed
to
improve
workforce
participation
elsewhere.
G
It's
also
important
to
remember
that
last
year,
when
half
the
states
cut
off
unemployment
insurance
benefits
from
the
federal
government
early,
they
didn't
see
any
higher
uptick
in
hiring
than
kentucky
did
and
when
kentucky's
own
federal
benefits
expired.
Last
september,
we
also
didn't
see
an
uptick
in
hiring.
G
What's
more,
this
won't
help
our
workforce
grow.
Like
I
said
it
will
hurt
workers
who
live
in
rural
parts
of
the
state,
black
workers
laid
off
coal
miners
and
factory
workers
and
workers
who
have
served
their
time
after
a
criminal
sentence,
all
of
whom
have
unemployment
rates
above
the
state
average
cutting
off
the
number
of
weeks
early
and
requiring
people
to
take
low
wage
jobs
punishes
workers
who
face
barriers
that
are
outside
of
their
control.
G
As
workers
already
know,
navigating
kentucky's
unemployment
system
is
dizzyingly
difficult
house
bill
4
only
adds
the
tangle
of
requirements
that
will
almost
certainly
trip
up
workers
who
are
already
down
on
their
luck,
not
to
mention
burden.
Our
few
unemployment
insurance
staff,
our
state's
50
year
old
unemployment
insurance
technology
system,
can
accommodate
these
changes,
and
the
current
effort
to
put
in
a
new
technology
system
may
have
to
start
all
over
as
bill
was
mentioning
and
take
much
longer
to
get
into
effect.
G
N
Thank
you
chairman.
I
think
there
are
several
things
that
we
respond
to.
I
do
want
to
focus
on
one
one
particular
issue
and
if
you'll
indulge
me
for
a
moment
or
two,
I
think
this
is
a
very
important
issue,
because
it
has
started
to
come
up
and
it's
worth
talking
about
in
that
regards
the
united
states
treasury
rule
regarding
fiscal
recovery
funds,
as
they
can
be
used
by
states
for
those
of
you
that
might
recall.
N
Last
year,
the
american
rescue
plan
act
include
billions
of
dollars
in
fiscal
recovery
funds
that
could
be
utilized
by
states
to
help
shore
up
their
state
budgets
and
also
respond
to
economic
distress
that
was
caused
by
the
the
pandemic.
Ever
since
that
legislation
was
passed,
the
united
states
treasury
department
has
been
slowly
releasing
guidance
to
help
states
understand
what
they
can
spend
those
dollars
on
in
may
of
2017.
They
released
some
initial
guidance,
a
very,
very
long
document,
very
convoluted
document
that
it
was
difficult
to
understand.
N
Last
month
they
released
what
they
call
their
final
rule
and
that
final
rule
ultimately
dictates
how
states
can
utilize
these
dollars.
This
is
a
400
page
document.
I've
had
the
unpleasant
experience
of
reading
it
and
that's
not
to
criticize
necessarily
this
role
in
particular,
but
these
are
convoluted,
complex
rules
that
have
a
lot
of
ins
and
outs
to
them.
One
of
the
issues
that
is
raised
in
the
final
rule.
This
is
buried
within
a
400-page
rule
around
page
118
119.
N
12
advances
under
the
interim
final
rule,
such
as
legislative
appropriation
of
funds
for
the
purpose,
even
if
a
formal
obligation
has
not
occurred
treasury
will
exercise
enforcement
discretion
to
not
pursue
violations
of
this
final
rule,
provision
for
recipients
that
have
appropriated
funds
for
this
purpose
prior
to
the
date
of
the
adoption
of
the
final
rule.
This
is
all
to
say
that
our
interpretation
of
the
treasury
rule
is
very
different
from
other
interpretations
out
there.
It
is
a
complex
rule.
N
Our
belief
is
that
we
can
do
things
such
as
replenish
our
unemployment,
insurance
trust
fund
and
pursue
house
bill
4
simultaneously,
and
we
believe
that
the
interim
or
the
current
final
world
from
treasury
is
consistent
on
that
point.
I'll
turn
over
to
other
folks
here
to
see,
if
the
other
other
parts
they
will
respond
to.
K
Mr
chairman,
I
did
just
want
to
offer
one
point
of
clarification
from
what
we
heard
earlier
with
regard
to
the
the
six-week
suitable
work.
Definition
on
page
three
of
the
bill
would
be
well.
I
don't
have
lines
on
my
copy
here,
but
it's
the
it's
the
first
added
language
there.
It
says
the
secretary
shall
consider
any
employment
there
is.
There
is
not
a
hard
fast
requirement
there
that
an
individual
is
going
to
have
to
take
a
job
that
is
is
totally
out
of
of
sync
for
them.
K
The
secretary
is
the
final
arbitrator
there
and
he'll
have
that
ability
to
consider
that
and
see
whether
it's
consistent
so
to
to
frame
the
argument
as
if
we're
we're
simply
abusing
people
and
kicking
them
off
and
making.
You
know,
folks
that
were
making
x
amount
of
dollars
before
accept
jobs
that
are
totally
out
of
the
range
for
them.
There's
built-in
mechanisms
for
that,
and
I
appreciate
charles's
comments
on
the
treasury
rule.
K
J
My
question
probably
is
geared
towards
the
kctcs
director,
but
maybe
you
guys
can
help
me
for
those
that
don't
know
I.
I
am
an
education
principal
elementary
principal
and
there's
parts
of
this
bill
that
I
really
like.
J
The
part
that
I
really
like
is
this
education
piece.
What
I
would
like
to
ask
and
see
is,
I
know
you
mentioned
that
a
cdl
can
be
attained
in
four
to
five
weeks.
Sometimes
what
I
would
like
to
see
is:
maybe
do
you
see
in
the
future
other
options,
other
degrees,
other
trainings,
other
certificates
that
could
be
attained
in
this
four
to
five
week
span.
J
You
know
with
the
way
our
economy
is
right.
Now
vocational
skills
are
needed
for
our
public
and
for
our
workforce.
So
I
would
like
to
see
some
other
trainings
certificates
that
could
be
attained
in
that
short
time
frame
or
maybe
shorter
than
what
typically
is.
L
L
Particularly
computer
and
information
technology
which
are
stackable,
and
so
you
you
get
your
foot
in
the
door
and
then
as
you
learn.
Well,
I'm
sorry
is
that
better
sorry
about
that,
rookie
mistake:
that's
okay,
but
yeah.
I
think
it
opens
the
door
to
more
opportunity
and
what
we're
all
about
is
is
on-ramps
and
off-ramps
just
get
you
in
get
you
back
out
working
but
but
as
you
want
to
upskill,
and
do
that
you
can
do
that
and
it
and
it's
easy
to
come
in
and
it's
affordable.
D
Thank
you
chairman.
I
appreciate
the
components
of
this
bill.
There
are
some
really
good
areas.
The
work
sharing,
I
believe,
helps
both
the
employee
and
the
employer,
and
so
taking
that
into
consideration.
D
I
discussed
with
you
yesterday
a
little
bit
about
the
job
search
component,
rule
versus
urban
and
those
concerns,
and
I
appreciate
you
hearing
this
out
on
that.
One
thing
I
was
wanting
to
ask
about
is:
how
does
this
affect
construction
or
seasonal
workforce
and
if
you
could
clarify
that
a
little
bit
in
the
bill.
K
Representative
callaway
those
individuals
that
have
specific
return
dates
to
work
and
the
individuals
that
you
mentioned.
There
would
be
those
those
folks
they're
allowed
16
weeks,
which
is
kind
of
the
standard,
so
they
they
wouldn't
fall
under
the
requirements
of
this
bill
as
far
as
the
job
searches
as
long
as
they
have
a
specified
return
date.
K
That's
part,
one
of
the
things
that
we
did
with
the
committee
sub
earlier.
We
changed
that
because
there
was
some
language
in
there
that
might
make
it
a
little
difficult
for
some
folks
that
don't
necessarily
return
to
a
specific
employer,
but
they
go
through
another
avenue
of
getting
their
work
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
those
folks
were
covered
and
there
wasn't
any
any
problem
with
their
return.
So
so
so
those
folks
are
covered
in
this
bill.
K
They
would
not
fall
under
the
requirements
and
any-
and
you
know
at
the
end
of
16
shooting
at
the
end
of
16
weeks.
If,
if,
if
our
economy
alters
and
changes,
then
they
would
be
eligible
for
the
additional
federal
benefits
that
would
come
in
so
there's
nothing
that
would
harm
them
in
this
bill.
D
K
D
Just
want
to
make
the
comment
that
I
do.
I
reject
the
idea
that
if
I
support
this
bill
that
I
am
non-caring,
we've
worked
the
last
year
and
a
half
non-stop
for
people
that
have
not
been
able
to
receive
their
benefits.
I
still
have
people
from
2020
that
have
not
received
their
benefits
that
we
have
worked
tirelessly
for,
and
we
will
continue
to
do
that.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
and.
K
Representative
truitt,
I
wanted
to
address
something
that
you
said
earlier
to
to
the
president
and-
and
I
and
I
understand
what
you're
saying-
and
I
fully
support
that,
and
I
would
be
very
open
to
working
with
you
and
the
president
on
additional
areas
that
we
could
strengthen
this
bill
and
make
it
make
it
something
that
could
truly
truly
help
those
people.
I
see
this
bill
as
re-employment
and
as
a
help
to
those
folks
and
get
them
on
maybe
a
career
path.
That's
they.
K
I
I
just
have
a
a
question
and
a
comment,
and
I
guess
my
my
question
is
probably
to
you,
chairman,
webber,
section
8
of
the
bill,
I'm
looking
at
page
17.
I
K
Some
of
the
various
business
entities
like
the
chamber,
the
small
retail
federation-
you
know
those
folks
have
talked
to
me.
They
have
a
lot
of
their
members
that
have
reached
out.
So
I
think
it'll
be
a
process
of
educating
that
membership
on
on
making
them
aware,
and
then
I
think,
just
the
knowledge
of
this
bill,
passing
it
it's
a
very.
K
I
I
I
also
wanted
to
briefly
say-
and
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
and
know
that
we
have
areas
in
in
our
state
where
there
are
no
jobs
available,
and
I
heard
a
a
phenomenal
speech
from
a
colleague
yesterday
that
talked
about
this
exact
same
thing:
that
that
how
can
you?
I
How?
How
can
you
put
requirements
on
people
in
areas
where
there
are
no
jobs?
And
I
implore
us
as
a
general
assembly?
I
implore
us
as
representatives
that
we
also
have
to
work
on
that
component
and
I
know
that's
important,
but
when
we
have
areas
that
there
are
no
jobs
available,
we
have
to
work
on
that
as
well.
I
I
fully
support
this
bill
and
I
believe
that
this
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
I
think
that
as
a
general
assembly
that
this
is
the
correct
thing
to
do,
but
we
also
have
to
focus
on
those
parts
of
the
state
where
employment
has
to
be
established
as
well.
So
I
encourage
us
all
to
do
that.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
do
kind
of
want
to
go
back
to
the
to
the
letter
that
we
received
from
budget
director
hicks
on
the
the
use
of
the
arpa
money.
I
talked
about
this
in
our
meeting
a
week
or
two
ago
when
we
considered
house
bill
144
about
freezing
the
employer
rates
for
for
the
coming
year,
and
I
said
you
know
we
appropriated
this
312
million
dollars,
we're
gonna
have
to
kind
of
watch
it
right
we're
going
to
watch
it
as
it
goes
through
the
budget
process.
P
Well
now
we
really
need
to
watch
it
because
now
at
charles,
as
you
put
as
you
summarized
it,
we
have
this
400
page,
really
complicated,
convoluted
document
that
if
we
pass
this
bill,
we
might
not
even
be
able
to
use
that
money
and
we
put
that
money
in
there
because
we
didn't
want
to
to
take
out
another
loan
and
we
wanted
to
put
our
trust
fund
in
a
little
more
solvent
position
and
now
we're
jeopardizing
potentially
that
money.
P
And
so
my
question
is
charles.
You
know
you've
kind
of
defended
the
interpretation
of
this
document
and
mike.
So
my
question
is:
did
you
contact
the
treasury
department
directly
about
about
this
bill?
What
we're
considering
doing?
Because
you
seem
to
feel
like
we're
on
pretty
solid
ground
where
is
that
ground
coming
from?
Is
that
a
legal
opinion
that
you
all
obtained
or
is
that
from
the
treasure
department
directly.
N
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
people
trying
to
contact
treasury
at
this
moment,
because
the
rule
is
so
incredibly
complex
and
hinges
on
a
tremendous
amount
of
money.
So
we
we
know
there
are
several
organizations
out
there
that
are
submitting
questions
such
as
this
one
to
treasury.
To
get
full
clarity,
I
will
say
there
has
been
independent
outside
analysis
done
of
this
rule.
N
You
could
look
at
groups
such
as
the
tax
foundation
as
a
good
example
of
this
who
have
followed
the
interpretation
that
there's
very
much
in
alignment
with
the
interpretation
that
we
have.
So
we
do
feel
that
that
this
is
on
solid
ground,
but.
N
We
have
not
independently
directly
reached
out
to
treasury,
but
again
several
other.
I
know
groups
are
doing
this
and
this
includes
groups,
I
believe,
such
as
ncs.
A
A
N
I
would
I
again
just
just
reiterate:
I
believe
the
operating
paragraph
is
fairly
clear,
that
the
interim
final
rule
is,
in
effect
until
the
final
rule
becomes
effective,
and
I
think
it's
hard
to
get
around
that
language.
A
N
Again,
keeping
in
mind
that
interconnection
of
those
two
issues,
the
interim
final
rule
is,
in
effect
until
the
final
rule
becomes
effective
on
april
1st.
So
essentially,
our
read
of
that
rule
would
be
that
it
is
simply
not
currently,
in
effect
until
april
1st,
and
so
an
appropriation
could
take
place.
This
legislation
could
be
passed.
N
The
rule
the
language
just
goes
on
to
add
even
more
flexibility
in
that
when
it
states
that
there
will
be
enforcement
discretion
regarding
the
maintenance
of
effort
provision,
assuming
that
appropriate
steps
have
taken
place
again,
there's
there's
there's
a
lack
of
clarity,
which
is
kind
of
the
hallmark
of
the
rule.
But
again
I
think
it
all
points
to
a
very
specific
direction.
A
Thank
you.
We
are
going
to
take
a
vote
at
9
50.,
so
we
have
looks
like
nine
minutes.
Representative
gentry
recognized.
D
D
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chair
and
again,
once
again
here
we
are
calling
a
meeting
last
night
on
a
very,
very
pretty
important
bill
that
has
a
lot
in
it
that
affects
a
lot
of
people,
including
working
men
and
women
in
this
state
who
need
help
these.
This
is
not
welfare.
These
are
workers,
men
and
women
workers
that
need
help
when
they
lose
their
jobs,
no
fault
of
their
own
and
and
there's
not
enough
time.
I
don't
get
it
sorry
about
that.
Mr
chairman.
A
830
representative
gentry.
D
D
The
labor
participation
I
mean
increased
labor
participation
rates.
Are
you
guys
saying
that
you
think
one
of
the
biggest
reasons
in
labor
participation,
participation
rates
being
low
is
because
people
are
milking
unemployment
and
not
having
an
incentive
to
go
back
quicker?
Is
there
evidence
for
that.
M
M
I've
spoken
about
some
of
them
today
and
I
promise
you
we
will
be
back
before
you,
maybe
this
committee,
maybe
others
working
on
legislation,
that's
related
to
the
worker
shortage
working
on
legislation,
that's
related
to
situations
where
perhaps
you
have
people
who
have
exhausted
their
unemployment
benefits
now
at
26
weeks,
or
have
long
since
exhausted
and
are
still
struggling
in
certain
areas
of
the
state.
We
will
be
working
on
all
of
those
issues.
M
This
is
one
element
of
the
equation
that
we're
focusing
on
this
session
to
tackle
our
worker
shortage
and
we
will
be
involved
in
so
many
other
policies
that
are
that
are
related
to
any
sort
of
barriers
that
exist
that
people
face
who
want
to
go
back
to
work
but
are
struggling
with
it.
So
one
one
piece
of
the
puzzle:
one
one
element
of
the
equation,
but
we
think
it's
an
important
one
and
that's
why
we're
here
today
in
support
of
house
bill
4.
F
Just
quickly,
I
do
also
appreciate
the
concern
all
of
my
colleagues
have
I
get
concerned
when
we
attempt
to
provide
a
solution
when
people
spend
a
couple
of
years
on
this
and
and
they
bring
it
forward
and
and
try
to
create
some
solutions,
and
the
concern
I
have
is
that
it
also
provides
a
platform
which
this
is
the
way
the
law
works
for
people
to
get
up
here
and
and
have
these
very
intense
discussions
or
or
speeches
about
the
economy
overall
or
people
caring,
not
caring,
wanting
to
punish
wanting
to
harm
people.
F
I
get
concerned
about
that
when
I
know
that
this
is
a
step
that
people
are
taking
with
good
intent,
that
purposeful
lives
are
often
involved.
Gainful
employment-
there's
not
a
soul
on
this
on
this
committee
that
doesn't
understand
that
how
we
get
there,
obviously
there's
some
disagreements,
but
I'd
like
to
see
people
bring
solutions
when
they
have
these
long
poke
your
holes
in
somebody's
trying
to
make
a
difference
law-
and
I
I
commend
you
for
bringing
this
forward-
you
knew
it
was
gonna,
be
controversial.
F
This
is
the
first
step
of
many
many
many
steps
it
must
take,
and
I
say
let's
see
this
thing
on
so
it
can
be
talked
about
on
the
floor
and
then
in
the
other
chamber.
So
thank
you
for
it
and
we
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
all
for
coming
representative.
J
Comment,
I'm
from
one
of
the
31,
economically
distressed
counties
and
before
I
came
up
here,
part
of
my
job
was
bringing
in
business
the
largest
barrier
we
have
is
our
workforce
participation
rate.
You
can't
bring
a
factory
into
a
county
that
has
more
people
not
working
than
working
it's
impossible.
J
So
I
applaud
you
all
for
trying
to
to
fix
it.
I
realize
this
is
a
very
small
piece
of
the
puzzle,
but
until
we
solve
our
workforce
participation
rate,
our
economically
distressed
counties
will
continue
to
be
that
way,
because
we
can't
bring
companies
in
to
places
where
people,
unfortunately,
don't
want
to
work.
So,
thank
you
all.
A
C
C
C
C
Q
This
has
been
a
vigorous,
informative
presentation,
and
I
appreciate
all
the
people,
the
opponents
and
the
opponents
as
they
have
made
their
opinions
on.
I
want
to
preference
my
comments
and
and
my
vote
by
taking
something
from
ronald
reagan.
He
once
said
their
their
lies,
their
damn
lies
and
their
statistics.
Q
Q
I
think
we
have
workforce
out
there
in
in
the
state,
and
I
would
ask
us
to
take
a
look
at
house
bill
293,
which
is
ban
the
box,
the
app
on
applications.
That
says
that
if
you're
an
ex-felon,
you
have
to
check
the
box
or
you
could
be
one,
your
application
could
be
put
in
513
or
2
that
that
you
could
be
fired
if
you
got
the
job
for
having
filled
out
of
a
fraudulent
application.
So
my
vote
on
this
bill,
mr
chairman,
is
now.
A
I
do
still
have
some
concerns
that
were
expressed
by
representative
beckler
about
those
areas
of
kentucky
that
are,
unfortunately,
don't
have
the
number
of
jobs
that
we
have
in
the
golden
triangle,
and
so
I
hope
that
we
work
to
do
everything
that
we
can
to
bring
jobs
to
those
areas
and
the
economic
development
that
is
so
desperately
needed
in
eastern
kentucky.
So
I
vote
yes,.
D
Yes
explain
my
vote.
Yes,
you
may,
yes,
I
vote
to
move
this
forward
and
I
appreciate
the
consideration
for
the
areas
impacted
by
the
tornado
and
I
hate
to
admit.
I
have
to
agree
with
representative
beckler
and
hope
some
more
work
can
be
done,
but
but
I'm
voting
yet.
D
Thank
you,
I'm
I'm
voting
no
today
because
I
don't
feel,
like
I've
had
adequate
enough
time
to
ask
questions
that
I
have
on
the
bill.
I'm
also
voting
no
today
because
I
don't
believe
a
plan
to
reduce
labor
participation
rates
by
slashing
benefits
to
working
families
works,
it's
bad
policy
and
I'm
also
voting
no
today,
simply
because
I
think
this
bill
is
about
reducing
employer
tax,
that
funds,
the
trust
fund,
and
it's
in
essence,
whether
intended
or
not
intended
takes
money
away
from
those
who
really
need
it
badly.
D
D
D
H
I'm
gonna
vote
no
today,
I
I
my
main
concerns
are
still
the
nuance
in
terms
of
what
jobs
we're
asking
people
to
get
based
on
their
experience
or
education,
the
time
frame
that
we're
forcing
them
off
unemployment
and
then
also
questions
about
the
system.
But
in
the
spirit
of
representative
sheldon's
comments,
I
will
be
reaching
out
to
you,
representative
weber
and
the
cabinet,
and
all
of
you
to
discuss
the
nuances
of
those
specific
points.
So
I'm
a
no
today,
but
I'm
hopeful
for
some
changes.
Thank
you,
representative
lawrence.
D
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
mixed
emotions.
The
last
few
days
I
have
spent
many
hours
on
the
phone
with
employers
throughout
my
district,
where
I'm
from
these
are
employers
that
are
paying
anywhere
from
12
to
25
dollars
an
hour,
and
they
explained
to
me
that
a
lot
of
the
phone
calls
that
they
had
made
to
be
folks
that
had
applied
for
positions
would
tell
them.
I
can't
start
until
my
unemployment
runs
out,
and
so
because
of
that
today
I
want
to
cast
the
yes
vote
for
that.
I
D
I
All
of
us
up
here
spent
a
lot
of
last
year
taking
phone
calls
and
emails
from
constituents
that
got
zero
response
from
this
administration
deleted
emails,
unanswered
phone
calls
couldn't
get
through,
and
I
believe
that
this
is
a
small
piece
to
fix
that
problem
and
to
hopefully
go
in
the
right
direction
for
the
people
of
kentucky.
So
I
vote
yes,.
D
Vote
I
have
some
of
the
same
concerns
as
representative
lockett,
and
we
saw
that
prior
to
the
pandemic,
that
the
state
was
considered
in
full
employment
and
they
shut
down
a
lot
of
the
unemployment
offices.
Well,
the
area
I
represent
in
eastern
kentucky
was
never
even
close
to
full
unemployment,
so
I
I've
got
some
concerns
about
that,
but
I
do
like
the
bill
there's
a
lot
of
good.
O
J
I'm
going
to
vote
yesterday,
like
I
said
earlier,
I
do
like
parts
of
this
bill.
I
really
do
we
do
need
to.
I
want
to
echo
my
colleagues
and
talking
about
you
know
the
shortages
of
jobs
in
eastern
kentucky.
We
as
a
body
have
got
to
do
something
about
those
issues.
J
We've
got
to
do
whatever
we
can
to
create
these
jobs
for
these
people,
so
they
can't
go
back
to
work,
there's
no
better
feeling
than
earning
that
paycheck.
You
know,
and
we
want.
I
want
every
kid.
I
want
every
adult
to
experience
that
so
today
I
do
vote
yes,
and
I
look
forward
to
working
on
tweaking
some
things
to
to
fix
the
problems
in
eastern
kentucky.
K
A
The
bill
is
passed,
16,
yay,
five,
nay
and
and
one
pass
vote.
So
the
bill
should
move
to
the
floor
with
favorable
expression.