►
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
morning,
everyone
it
is
8
31
a.m.
February
16th
I'd
like
to
welcome
everyone
to
the
house
standing
committee
on
economic
development
and
Workforce
investment
meeting
number
one.
Let's
call
the
meeting
to
order
a
couple
house.
Cleaning
items
just
want
to
remind
everyone
to
take
a
moment
to
please
silence
your
phones.
If
you're
interested
in
testifying,
please
use
the
sign
in
sheet
on
the
podium
by
the
door,
a
reminder
that
testimonies
within
the
chair's
discretion,
based
on
time
restraints
and
information
already
presented.
A
As
a
reminder,
there
are
no
signs
allowed
in
the
committee
meeting
rooms.
I
also
like
to
take
a
moment
to
recognize
our
new
members
representative,
Bauman
Representative
Steve,
bratcher,
representative
Jackson,
representative
Pratt,
representative
Swann,
and
myself
so
I'd
like
to
welcome
all
of
our
fellow
new
members
like
to
recognize
our
staff,
Janine
Coy
who's
committee
staff,
administrator
Sasha,
Allen
committee
assistant,
Audrey,
ernstberger
committee,
analyst
and
Crystal
Thompson
committee
analyst
as
well.
So
thank
you
to
our
staff.
Do
any
members
have
any
special
guests?
They
would
like
to
recognize.
B
Representative
Weber
I
would
like
to
take
an
opportunity
this
morning
to
introduce
Nicole
freeze
sitting
in
the
back.
Nicole
is
a
nurse
who
is
shadowing
me
today
as
part
of
a
program
to
better
understand
what
we
and
the
members
of
the
general
assembly
do
on
a
daily
basis
during
the
session,
and
also
to
prepare
her
to
be
a
better
advocate
for
her
profession
and
I'd
like
to
ask
the
members
of
the
committee
to
welcome
Nicole
here
today.
D
A
A
B
Proceed,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
we
have
before
us
today
house
bill
146.,
which
is
going
to
provide
some
changes
to
House
Bill
4
that
we
passed
in
the
2022
session.
This
really
does
not
change
the
overall
intent
of
House
Bill
4,
which
was
to
promote
rapid
re-employment
and
maintain
or
build
the
trust
fund
sustainability
that
we've
had
an
issue
with
over
the
last
number
of
years,
as
is
common
practice
with
a
with
a
major
piece
of
legislation
that
is
passed.
B
The
Kentucky
Department
of
Labor
education
and
labor
cabinet
would
communicate
with
the
U.S
Department
of
Labor
on
the
legislation
that
was
passed
to
make
sure
that
everything
that
we
did
fell
into
Conformity
because
of
the
strong
ties
that
the
unemployment
system
has
with
the
federal
government,
the
U.S
Department
of
Labor
did
come
back
with
some
technical
recommendations
that
they
wanted
us
to
implement.
It
was
a
letter
that
was
received
from
them,
indicating
that
we
were
to
correct
those
and
make
those
changes
in
the
next
legislative
session
coming
forward
and
we're
doing
that
today.
B
As
I
said
a
few
moments
ago,
this
bill,
this
committee
substitute,
does
not
take
away
from
the
original
intent
of
House
Bill
4..
The
goal
of
House
Bill
4
was
a
re-employment
bill
and,
as
I
said,
it
was
designed
to
maintain
or
or
build
on,
the
sustainability
of
the
trust
fund.
We're
probably
right
now
at
about
780
million
dollars
in
in
the
trust
fund,
which
gets
us
to
an
ultimate
goal
that
the
federal
government
establishes
at
about
one
billion
dollars.
That
program
is
solvent.
Just
for
the
new
members
of
the
committee.
B
I
would
point
out
to
you
that
Kentucky's
UI
trust
fund
has
not
been
solvent
since
1974.,
so
we
are
certainly
on
a
correct
path
to
get
there.
There
are
a
number
of
of
things
that
you
will
see
in
the
course
of
the
bill
that
really
amounted
to
clarification
from
the
U.S
Department
of
Labor.
B
They've
asked
us
to
move
a
few
things
to
other
parts
of
of
the
law,
to
to
add
some
things,
to
make
sure
that
we
were
clear
that
that
certain
programs
were
still
going
to
be
covered
and
that
everything
was
on
the
bill
was
was
clear
and
there
wouldn't
be
any
issues
moving
forward.
There
are
a
couple
of
changes
that
I
would
point
out
to
members.
B
If
you
were
remember,
we
had
we
had
indexed
the
unemployment
rate,
so
when
the
unemployment
rate
was
at
four
and
a
half
percent
individuals
would
receive
would
begin
receiving
12
weeks
of
unemployment.
We
also
had
a
section
of
the
bill
there
that
allowed
for
individuals
who
had
a
specified
return
date.
B
16
weeks,
the
U.S
Department
of
Labor
came
back
and
based
on
a
1964
decision.
Legal
decision
indicated
that
we
could
not
have
that
difference
in
weeks.
So
what
we're
doing
today
is
we
are
setting
the
new
floor,
beginning
July,
1st
2023
at
16
weeks
of
unemployment
benefits
I
would
I
would
just
encourage
the
members
of
the
committee
to
keep
in
mind
that,
in
order
for
us
to
be
in
Conformity
with
what
the
feds
are
telling
us,
we
need
to
do.
We
will
have
to
to
pass
this
bill
and
make
these
changes
today.
B
D
Good
morning,
representative
morning,
our
chairman,
I,
should
say
sorry
about
it.
A
couple
of
questions,
real
quick,
so.
D
We're
moving
the
floor
up
to
16
weeks
from
12.
That's
good
I
like
that
fart
I
thought
you
would
I
guess.
My
question
is
I
know
it's
been
a
very
short
window
here
since,
since
this
bill
has
has
been
enacted,
I
guess
January
1st.
Is
that
correct?
That
is
correct.
B
D
We
seen
anything
yet
I
know
it's
a
very
short
window,
but
have
we
seen
any
differences
at
all
yet
or
has
that
been
communicated
with
you
by
the
cabinet
any
kind
of
differences,
positive
or
negative
so
far,
differences
that
relate
to
well
it
first
of
all
the
whole
intent
here,
as
as
you
stated,
is
to
get
people
back
to
work
quicker
and,
like
I
said
I
know
this
is
a
very
short
window,
but
are
we
seeing
anything
from
say
people
that
have
filed
and
are
going
back
to
work
right
away
and
is
there
any
kind
of
connection
there?
D
Is
there
anybody
being
thrown
off
because
of
the
I?
Think
if
I
believe
we
had
a
work
requirement
search
right
on
so
many
so
many
work
work
requirement,
searches
per
week
we
did
have
work,
search
requirements.
B
B
So
I
did
meet
with
the
cabinet
earlier
this
week
and
they
wanted
to
talk
to
me
about
the
work
search
requirement
issue.
As
you
remember,
we
require
three
applications
and
then
there
are
two
additional
activities
that
individuals
can
do,
whether
it's
shadowing
or
reaching
out
to
an
individual
I
would
remind
the
members
of
this
committee
that
we
are
looking
at
a
month
in
to
the
issue.
There
was
some
indication
from
the
cabinet:
nothing
official,
that
there
were
some
individuals
that
may
have
struggled
a
little
bit
with
the
initial
requirement.
B
I
ask
for
some
more
detailed
data
related
to
that.
They
did
not
have
that
with
them
and
did
not
have
that
available
that
day,
I
think
with
any
bill
or
legislation
that
we
pass.
There's
going
to
be
a
time
period
that
folks
are
going
to
have
to
to
be
made
aware
of
it.
I
think
it's
incumbent
upon
the
cabinet
to
fully
educate
individuals
on
what's
available
to
them.
B
For
example,
if
you
will
look
in
the
first
part
of
this
bill
on
page
one,
we
do
add
a
number
of
of
things
that
need
that
individual
claimants
need
to
be
made
aware
of
when
they
file
when
they
receive
their
determination,
letter
of
services
and
programs
that
are
available
to
them
to
help
with
re-employment
and
in
my
meeting
with
the
cabinet,
they
indicated
to
me
that
probably
most
of
these
are
currently
being
done.
B
That
related
to
job
training
in
the
certification
program
and
the
cabinet
could
not
tell
me
in
our
meeting
whether
or
not
claimants
in
the
determinant
determination
letter
are
being
informed
of
these
additional
five
weeks.
My
opinion,
this
is
a
huge
part
of
the
bill
to
help
folks,
as
we
move
forward
on
re-employment
for
individuals.
So
the
the
cabinet
has
kind
of
I.
Guess
unofficially
indicated
to
me
something
that
might
be
a
concern
to
them.
A
D
I
get
if
I
could
just
a
quick
follow-up.
Yes,
I
was
looking
at
the
differences
between
the
original
bill
and
the
substitute
here.
D
The
only
thing
that
that
jumps
out
to
me,
I,
guess,
there's
a
section,
seven
and
eight
I
think
it
helped
me
understand
this
I
think
it's
I
think
we're
trying
to
say
that
when
the
United
States
Department
of
Labor
communicates
back
that
the
cabinet
needs
to
communicate
back
to
lrc
at
a
on
a
timely
fashion
is:
has
that
been
a
problem.
B
B
Yes,
we're
we're
going
to
require
the
Department
of
Labor
to
notify
the
general
assembly
legislative
research
Commission
of
any
communication
from
the
U.S
Department
of
Labor
that
relates
to
bills
passed
in
this
session
and
I
will
be
very
happy
to
explain
to
the
members
of
this
committee
why
this
portion
is
included
and
why
it
is
necessary.
There
was
communication
between
the
education
and
labor
cabinet
dating
back
to
the
2022
session,
when
House
Bill
4
was
being
debated.
B
So
we
had
basically
when
that
communication
began
letters
that
I
have
dating
to
March
March
of
2023
through
January
3rd
of
2000
January
March
of
2022
through
January
of
2023
I,
was
not
made
aware
that
there
were
any
issues
that
needed
to
be
addressed
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
that,
with
the
number
of
months
going
by
with
an
issue
that
could
have
a
great
effect
on
the
Commonwealth
in
our
program,
we
should
have
been
made
aware
of
that
in
the
legislature,
and
so
we
are
implementing
and
including
language
in
this
bill
that
will
now
clarify
that
problem
and
it
won't
be
an
issue
going
forward.
F
Thank
you.
Well,
as
you
mentioned,
you
know,
hb4
did
expand
the
work,
shirt,
work,
search
requirements
and
but
it
sounds
like
you
said
you
that
you've
asked
for
information
as
to
how
that's
affected
individuals
on
their
on
denial
of
their
claims.
Did
you
just
say
that
that
information
wasn't
available
just
yet.
B
I
specifically
asked
the
cabinet
for
that
information
and
was
told
that
they
would
be
be
supplying
that
to
me.
F
Great,
and
would
you
be,
will
we
get
that
information
when,
when
it's
provided.
B
F
Sure
they
would
provide
sure
well
great.
Thank
you.
I
will
contact
them
because
I'd
be
very
curious
to
know,
because,
of
course,
you
know
applying
for
jobs.
You
know
in
Jefferson,
County
and
in
places
where
you
have
manufacturing
plants
or
Toyota.
It
was
a
lot
different
than
in
Eastern
Kentucky,
where
you
have
an
out
of
work
coal,
miner
who
may
be
looking
to
get
back
in
the
business
of
of
maintaining
the
same.
F
F
How
that
work
requirement,
whether
there's
a
notable
difference
and
I
understand
it's
only
just
implemented,
so
the
information
may
not
be
readily
available,
but
I'll
just
be
very
interested
in
that
didn't
know.
If
you
had
that
information,
if
there
is
a
notable
difference,
would
you
be
opposed
to
possibly
a
friendly
amendment
of
of
to
reduce
that
work
requirement.
F
B
Addressing
in
House
Bill
146
the
issues
that
have
arrived,
Arisen
from
the
U.S
Department
of
Labor
letter
and
a
couple
of
issues
that
we've
seen
here
that
have
come
up
in
the
discussion
of
that
at
this
time,
I'm
not
I,
want
House,
Bill
4
to
be
in
full
operation
and
implementation.
Before
we
start
making
changes
to
it
and
I
want
the
data
to
prove
that
it's
there.
B
I
would
also
say,
representative
Lafferty,
that
one
of
the
things
that
individuals
that
I've
talked
to
and
I
understand
the
situation
that
you've
cited,
but
I
have
I
from
on.
From
experience
of
of
folks
that
I've
talked
to
and
have
shared
with
me,
the
opportunity
to
circulate
sometimes
applications
to
engage
in
the
other.
Two
activities
have
often
LED
people
to
to
discover
new
opportunities
that
they
previously
had
not
thought
of
available
to
them.
B
We
have
the
additional
five
weeks
there
that
individuals
can
take
advantage
of
almost
all
all
of
your
com.
Individuals
who
are
claimants
now
for
unemployment
benefits
according
to
the
cabinet.
That
communication
is
via
the
Internet
now,
so
there's
there's
a
lot
more
opportunities
available
to
people.
So,
if
they're
already
receiving
information
from
the
from
the
employment
office
through
the
internet,
then
there's
that
availability
to
do
the
job
searches
it
may
lead
to
other
opportunities.
B
I
think
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
reach
a
point
where
people
begin
to
look
outside
of
the
box
and
that's
not
a
criticism
to
individuals.
That's
just
an
opportunity
to
look
at
what.
What
maybe
are
there
new
opportunities
that
I've
never
previously
explored
or
thought
of
out
there
to
take
advantage
of
them,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
bill
is,
in
my
opinion,
emphasis,
re-employment.
F
Oh,
no,
no
and
I
I
greatly.
I
appreciate
I,
appreciate
that
I
appreciate
that
that
response
I'm,
just
like
I,
said
sort
of
here
to
kind
of
remind
folks
that
you
know
in
places
like
Eastern
Kentucky,
you
know
when
you
say
it
may
lead
them
to
other
options
that
they
didn't
realize
were
out
there.
Sometimes
those
options
aren't
available.
F
You
know
you
know,
I,
hear
all
the
time
in
these
committees
about
the
need
for
skilled
Workforce
and
and
I
and
I
know
I,
probably
sound
like
a
broken
record,
because
so
many
times
I
say
you
know
we
have
skilled
workforces
at
home.
Who
are
looking
for
employment?
F
You
know
we
have
our
out-of-work
coal
miners
who
who
are
skilled
in
safety-
and
you
know
things
like
welding,
but
but
and
and
across
the
board
skilled
in
many
areas,
and
you
know
you
bring
something
to
our
area,
for
instance
like
the
the
correctional
facility
that
we
open
there
to
relieve
some
of
the
some
of
the
the
trouble
with
our
Corrections
across
the
Commonwealth.
And
you
know.
F
At
the
same
time,
you
have
trouble
hiring
correctional
officers
in
other
areas,
but
in
Eastern
Kentucky,
when
we
open
the
southeast
State
Correctional
Complex,
which
you
know
we
had
over
a
thousand
people
apply
for
100
jobs
and
now
that
facility
hires,
almost
I,
think
250
people.
F
So
so
we
are
successful
in
keeping
those
folks
employed,
because
you
know
they're
thankful
for
state
grade
jobs
and
I'm,
not
sorry
I'm
getting
a
little
off
topic
here,
but
but
but
the
main
one
of
the
main
points
was,
is
that
you
know
I,
understand
and
and
I'm
grateful
for
when
it
does
open
up
the
opportunity
to
find
something.
New
I
just
worry
when
those
opportunities
are
not
there
through
no
fault
of
their
own.
For
instance,
the
the
issue
of
online
applications.
It
was
so
critical
to
get
these.
F
You
know
unemployment
offices
back
open
because
in
places
like
Eastern
Kentucky,
we
have
such
limited
access,
sometimes
when
it
comes
to
internet
service
and
I.
Think
because
of
that,
you
know,
some
people
are
behind.
You
know
and
I
won't
just
say
it's
because
of
age.
I,
don't
think
my
husband
has
an
email
address.
B
Will
be
waiting
to
receive
that
information?
I
would
also
point
out
representative
Lafferty
that
one
of
the
things
I
was
I
was
actually
invited
by
representative
Blanton
and,
and
he
and
I
had
a
very
good
discussion
about
the
situation
that
exists
in
Eastern
Kentucky
about
bringing
industry
there
and
jobs
there.
And
so
we
have
actually
had
some
good
discussions
and
a
meeting
and
we'll
have
continue
to
have
a
meeting
I'm
interested
in
making
everyone
every
region
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
successful.
B
And
you
know
to
that
end,
whether
it's
it's
eastern
Kentucky,
whether
it's
Southern
Kentucky,
Western
Kentucky
any
area
in
this
state
I,
think
it's
incumbent
upon
us
as
policy
makers
to
move
in
that
direction.
I
made
a
commitment
to
do
that
and
I'm
I'm
working
to
do
that.
F
Of
course,
thank
you
because
I
appreciate
that,
because
coming
from
someone
who
just
drove
from
Eastern
Kentucky
to
be
here
today,
I
appreciate
the
time
of
you
letting
me
speak
because
Folks
at
home,
we
love
it
there.
We
want
to
stay
there.
We
want
to
be
able
to
stay
there,
I
appreciate
your
cooperation.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
representative.
E
Pratt,
thank
you
chairman
Weber,
such
a
great
Bill,
House,
Bill,
4,
and
also
the
follow-up
of
146.
I
purchased
as
a
small
business
owner,
which
I
am
you
know,
talk
about
UI,
you
mentioned
it
we're
at
780
million
I'd
like
to
set
a
billion
something
people
may
not
realize
on
this
committee.
At
one
point
time
our
UI
system
was
defunct
and
we
actually
had
to
borrow
money
and
pay
interest
back
to
the
federal
government
to
keep
our
UI
system
going.
That's
how
bad
it
got
at
one
point
in
time.
Also.
E
You
know
you
talk
about
getting
feedback
and
Workforce.
We
got
to
take
a
hard
look
at
Kentucky
and
Workforce
participation
we're
at
56.1
percent
48th
in
the
nation.
That
means
we're
getting
very
close
for
everyone
who
is
working
or
someone
not
working.
That's
unacceptable,
but
I
will
tell
you
also
a
small
business
owner.
Your
house
bill
4
is
working
because
my
office
staff
is
telling
me
right
after
January
1st
our
phones
started
ringing.
People
saying
are
you
hiring?
E
D
Explained
my
vote
briefly
please,
although
I
was
vehemently
opposed
to
House
Bill
4
last
year,
I
think
because
I
I
thought
it
was
not
taking
us
in
the
right
direction
in
a
couple
Clauses
as
it
relates
to
workers,
but
the
chain.
This
is.
These
are
changes
to
that
bill
and
these
changes
are
favorable,
so
I'm
a
yes
today
on
this
particular
Bill.
Thank
you.