►
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
B
A
Here
let
me
turn
my
smartphone
okay.
The
first
item
we're
going
to
take
up
is
representative
elliot's
bill
he's
first
on
the
agenda
representative,
daniel
elliott.
If
you
come
to
the
table
and
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
and
the
floor,
be
yours.
Thank.
C
You,
mr
chairman,
good
afternoon,
members
I'm
daniel
elliott,
I'm
the
state
representative
for
the
54th
legislative
district,
which
is
boyle
and
casey
counties
and
house
bill.
248
is
a
measure
that
would
create
a
new
section
of
krs-48
that
would
prohibit
the
expenditure
of
appropriated
funds
by
any
elected
statewide
constitutional
officer
and
any
other
state
official,
employee
or
agency,
except
for
the
attorney
general
and
the
department
of
public
advocacy
in
a
criminal
matter
to
bring
or
support
a
challenge
to
the
constitutionality
of
any
legislative
act
or
resolution
of
the
general
assembly.
C
This
act
would
be
retroactive
to
january
1,
2022
and
the
rationale
behind
it
is
extrapolated
in
section
3
that
the
the
act
is
imperative,
as
the
general
assembly
has
the
constitutional
authority
to
make
the
laws,
the
governor's
constitutional
obligation
to
enforce
the
laws
and
the
public's
confidence
in
its
chief
legal
officer,
the
attorney
general
to
advise
on
the
constitutionality
of
legislation.
Okay,.
A
D
A
E
I'd
like
to
vote
I,
and
in
explaining
my
vote
note
that
this
bill
already
has
two
readings
and
is
prepared
to
move.
I
vote
aye.
Thank
you.
A
A
Is
house
bill
334,
representative
baker,
if
you
could
introduce
yourself
for
the
record.
F
F
Should
I
start
over
or
no
you're
fine,
okay,
section
one
increases
a
penalty
from
one
thousand
to
fifteen
thousand
dollars
for
someone
who
attempts
to
corrupt
a
member
of
the
general
assembly
section
two
changes:
the
composition
of
the
executive
branch
ethics
commission.
F
Currently
there
are
five
members
on
the
commission:
each
the
governor
has
the
sole
authority
to
appoint
those
five
members.
This
expands
the
executive
branch
ethics
commission
from
five
members
to
seven
members.
The
governor
retains
two
of
those
appointments,
the
other
five
appointments
are
given
to
the
each
of
the
other
constitutional
officers.
They
would
each
appoint
one
the
terms
the
existing
members
will
terminate
on
the
effective
date
of
this
act
and
seven
new
members
will
be
appointed
by
the
officials
listed
in
subsection
two
and
that's
pretty
much.
It.
E
A
G
F
Well,
I
I
did
look
at
that,
so
they
would
be
on
the
effective
day
of
the
act.
There
would
be
new
appointments
for
that.
There
is
one
member
that
expires
in
may
of
2022
and
honestly,
I'm
not
sure
how
that
was
how
that
will
be
handled.
I
discovered
that
last
week,
when
I
was
going
through
there,
so
there
is
one
one
vacancy
that
looks
like
would
remain
at
this
point.
G
When
the
when
this
goes
into
effect,
everybody
is
is
gone
right,
yes,
sir
right
so,
and
if
the
appointments
have
not
been
made
yet
we
have
no
board.
Is
that
correct.
F
This
does
not
include
senate
approval
on
the
movers.
No
sir,
thank
you.
G
A
H
I
think
this
is
a
well
thought
unintended
bill.
The
only
thing
that
I
saw,
that
kind
of
really
made
me
think
was
weird
was
the
order
and
which
the
different
members
start
with
their
one,
two
three
four,
because
it's
not
in
the
order
of
let's
say
succession
in
the
constitution
or
whatever.
I
was
just
kind
of
wondering
what
the
order
was,
but
once
we
get
up
and
rolling,
it
really
doesn't
matter
because
it'll
be
kind
of
rolling
things.
So
I
vote
yes,.
E
Mr
chairman,
yes,
you
may
I
vote.
I
also
checked,
and
this
bill
also
has
two
readings
and
is
ready
to
go
this
week.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative
mark
hart
78th
house
district
house
bill
227.
It
establishes
the
first
saturday
in
october,
as
first
responder
doctor
and
healthcare
professional
day
and
that's
pretty
much
what
it
does.
So,
if
there's
any
questions.
I
E
G
A
J
Well,
the
traffic's
moving,
but
ten
minutes
away
from
the
from
the
capitol.
So
okay.
J
Great,
thank
you
laura
is
yours.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee.
Thank
you
for
hearing
me
on
a
zoom
call.
Technology
is
saving
me
on
this
one.
So
as
ppob
co-chairman
with
senator
higdon
in
our
last
meeting,
we
had
a
request
from
the
chmcs
and
from
the
universities
that
there
were
some
issues
with
the
way
that
the
the
the
systems
kppa
were
determining.
J
Who
was
going
to
be
considered
eligible
for
section
seven
of
house
of
last
year's
house
bill
8.
it,
the
the
current
statute,
talked
about
having
historical
analysis
which
kppa
was
taking
to
bean
all
the
way
back
to
the
inception,
whereas
that
makes
it
really
really
difficult
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
who's,
a
contract
worker
and
who's.
J
Not
so
we
asked
the
two
groups
and
the
university
I
mean
the
two
groups
and
the
systems
to
get
together
to
work
out
a
compromise
as
to
how
we
could
move
forward,
and
they
they
brought
that
to
us
a
couple.
I
guess,
probably
about
10
days
ago,
we've
worked
together.
We
have
all
the
universities
are
on
board.
The
chmc's
are
on
board,
kppa
says
it's
there,
good
with
it.
The
actual
analysis
says
that
there's
no
impact
to
the
state
or
to
the
system.
So
with
that
this
was
again
a
mutually
worked
on
bill.
J
There
was
some
pushback
from
from
one
group
that
was
concerned
that
there
was
going
to
be
some
personal
information
shared,
but
the
personal
information
that's
being
shared,
is
simply
the
same
information,
that's
being
shared
with
grs,
which
would
be
information
that
the
employers
already
would
have.
It
just
gives
them
the
ability
to
determine
if
the
information
being
sent
to
them
is
accurate.
So
it's
not
any
new
information
that
would
be
shared
outside
of,
what's
already
known.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
actually
have
two
questions.
One
right.
He
just
was
right
in
the
middle
of
where
he
said
it,
it's
already
being
shared,
and
so
on
page
17.
It
says
that
we
got
added
bold
language
here.
It
says,
accept
that
kentucky
retirement
system
shall
be
required
to
release
account
information.
The
employer
has
required
by
subsection
of
whatever
the
other
section,
where
we're
actually
sharing
the
information.
So
if
it's
already
being
shared
because
I
was
wondering
if
it
was
then
why
do
we
actually
need
that
part
of
the
bill.
J
Senator
it's
it's
not
currently
being
shared
current
statute
says
that
it
may
be
shared.
J
We've
asked
them
to
start
reporting
all
employees
as
well,
and
so
they've
just
requested
that
there'd
be
some
way
to
make
sure
that
what
the
system
is
saying
is
their
employees
and
is
their
liabilities,
that
they
have
a
way
to
verify.
That
and
and
that's
all
this
is
so
it
won't
be,
sharing
all
the
information
that
kppa
has,
but
the
information
that
they're
sharing
with
the
actuaries
will
also
be
available
to
the
employers.
H
Okay,
the
other
question
I
had
is
on
page
eight,
where
it
lists
off
all
the
services
that
are
not
included
in
this.
Yes,
it
lists
off
this
pile
of
services,
normally
lists
like
that
scare
me,
because
we're
going
to
leave
something
out
and
it's
easier
to
word
it
in
the
inverse
to
where
it's
not
limiting.
But,
yes,.
J
J
Yeah
and
that's
a
you
know,
honestly,
it's
a
good
question
that
had
I've
been
in
front
of
your
committee
and
not
feeling
rushed
on
a
phone,
I
would
have
done
a
better
job
explaining
with
the
papers
in
front
of
me,
but
as
we
sat
through
this
process.
So
what
we
want
and
think
about
the
university
they're,
the
easiest
to
explain
if
a
university
has
converted
some
of
their
their
employees
to
say
what
used
to
be
landscapers
and
groundskeepers
they've
made
them
now.
J
Contractors,
you
know
a
contractor
is
not
a
core
service
of
a
university.
I
mean
a
a
groundskeeper
is
not
a
core
service
of
a
university,
nor
is
somebody
working
in
a
cafeteria.
The
universities
have
done
a
lot
of
work
by
bringing
in
companies
that
provide
quite
honestly,
better
food
services
at
lower
prices.
J
By
doing
it,
this
way
so
house
bill
8
was
going
to
force
them
to
put
those
services,
those
non-core
services
back
in
into
an
employee
situation,
instead
of
a
contract
situation
which
was
never
the
intent,
the
intent
was
to
keep
core
services
to
bring
core
services
back
in,
for
instance,
some
of
the
regional
mental
health
centers
created
employment,
temporary
employment
services
basically
and
then
brought
all
their
employees
fired
them
and
brought
them
all
back
in
under
the
different
under
a
different
name,
so
they
didn't
have
to
pay
the
the
pension
cost.
J
A
K
My
vote
explain.
Yes,
you
may
represent
duplessi.
I
wish
that
you
could
be
here
in
person.
I
wanted
to
say
the
same
thing
to
you
that
I
had
kind
of
echoed
to
representative
miller
the
other
week.
You're
you're
heading
into
a
much
deserved
phase
of
life
here
and
congratulate
you
for
it
and
but
to
the
same
end,
your
intellect
and
your
devotion
to
a
do
to
a
task
that
is
thankless
and
wonky
and
never
fits
well
on.
A
three
by
five
push
card
has
been
tremendous
and
much
like
representative
miller.
K
G
A
H
I
normally
am
very
very
concerned
about
data
privacy,
and
I
don't
know
that
I
have
all
my
questions
answered,
but
I
think
in
hope
that
they're
answered
enough
that
I
can
to
really
move
forward
and
hopefully
get
further
clarification
before
this
thing
finalizes.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
A
J
A
You
we
are
waiting
for
one
of
the
presenters
to
show
up
on
594,
so
we
will
move
to
house
bill
740,
which
is
representative
cook's
bill,
and
he
is.
He
is
stuck
on
the
farm
today
and
I'm
going
to
cover
this
for
him
house.
Bill
740
is
related
to
campaign
finance
and
there
is
a
committee
substitute.
So
if
I
could
have
a
motion
to
adopt.
D
A
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
thayer,
second
from
senator
alvarado
on
the
committee
sub,
all
in
favor
say
aye
aye
any
opposed.
The
committee
sub
is
enacted,
okay
house
bill,
740
is
related
to
campaign
finance
and
it
does
a
couple
things
and
we'll
run
down
these
real
quick.
A
The
first
thing
it
does
is
it
defines
the
the
word
form
and
updates
the
language
to
include
online
language.
A
A
H
Mr
chairman,
I'm
still
trying
to
get
the
36
pages
together
here
and
some
of
these
I'd
reviewed
and
some
of
them
I've
not
reviewed
as
in
detail
and
the
little
form
here
is
very
handy,
except
for
when
it
confuses
me
yeah.
So
on
number
five
of
this
form
section,
it
says:
permit
campaign
account
donations
to
a
political
party
or
caucus
campaign
committee
for
auctions
and
fundraisers.
H
A
A
member
of
the
general
assembly
may
utilize
funds
in
his
or
her
campaign
account
to
contribute
up
to
five
thousand
dollars
per
year
to
a
political
party
or
caucus
campaign
committee.
Member
of
the
general
assembly
may
make
allowable
campaign
expenditures
in
both
election
years
and
non-election
years.
A
So
the
the
change
was
contribute
up
to
five
thousand
dollars
per
year.
H
A
L
I'm
john
steffen
executive
director
of
the
registry
of
election
finance
and
I
can
explain
senator
southworth,
there's
kind
of
different
ways,
but
what
this
bill
is
doing
is
clarifying
that
candidates
can
give
up
to
five
thousand
dollars
out
of
their
campaign,
accounts
to
the
caucus
campaign,
committees
or
executive
committees,
which
is
really
already
the
practice.
It
just
clarified
the
language
and
put
that
figure
in
there.
What
you're
thinking
of
is
at
the
end
of
the
campaign,
which
is
in
a
different
section,.
A
A
L
The
5
000
is
leading
up
to
an
election
and
you
still
have
the
ability
to
give
200
per
event
to
other
candidates.
That's
in
a
third
section.
So
it's
like
three
different
sections.
This
one
just
clarifies
that
five
thousand
dollar
allowable
expenditure
out
of
your
campaign,
funds
to
executive
committee
or
caucus
committee.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
since
john
is
here
and
the
topic
is
brought
up
and
it
was
my
language
in
a
bill
several
years
ago.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
committee
sub
does
nothing
to
inhibit
elected
officials,
giving
five
thousand
dollars
to
as
many
executive
committees
as
they'd
like
to
as
long
as
it's
truly
reported.
That's
correct.
Yes,.
A
G
G
Okay,
thank
you.
H
I'm
assuming
we
have
a
little
bit
of
time
for
an
additional
question
on
the
part
that
I
on
number
four
on
this
list
that
says:
permit
the
member
of
the
general
assembly
who's
also
running
for
statewide
office
to
accept
the
campaign
contributions
during
the
session.
I
know
that's
legislative
ethics,
so
I
get
why
it's
being
changed,
but
do
we
have
any
more
information
on
like
who
thought?
B
H
H
K
You
could
use
the
past
gubernatorial
race
as
an
example
where,
in
essence,
the
ticket
that
had
representative
atkins
on
it
at
that
point
in
time
was
financially
disadvantaged
to
the
other
tickets,
because,
while
he
was
here
during
the
course
of
a
primary,
they
couldn't
necessarily
raise
money
using
the
same
mechanism,
so
it
creates
an
unpaid,
unfair
pot
finance
playing
field
for
them
that
that's
the
thought
behind
this
yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
And
the
you
know
to
before
this,
the
only
exception
to
that
rule
was
a
member
of
the
general
assembly
that
was
in
a
special
election
like
if
there's
a
special
election
during
sessions,
so
it
only
makes
sense
if
you're
waiving
it
for
that
special
election
to
waive
it
for
somebody
running
for
that
executive
level
position.
A
B
A
A
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
committee
members,
for
allowing
me
here's
bill
hearn.
My
bill.
Excuse
me
house,
bill.
594
is
a
piece
of
legislation
that
will
help
bring
transparency
and
accountability
to
the
development
of
administrative
regulations,
while
ensuring
the
financial
concerns
of
small
businesses
are
heard
by
the
executive
and
legislative
branches.
This
bill
is
quite
simple
in
nature
and
ensures
that
cost
analysis
be
performed
during
development
of
administrative
regulations.
I
Currently
a
state
level
administration
body
that
is
promulgating.
An
administrative
regulation
only
considers
the
cost
of
regulations
may
have
on
the
state
or
local
government.
This
legislation
extends
the
same
considerations
provided
to
state
and
local
governments
to
the
regulated
entity
in
many
cases
kentucky
business
community.
This
legislation
sets
up
and
defines
the
process
for
administrative
body
to
explain
if
a
cost
estimate
cannot
be
determined.
I
So
the
administrative
regulation
review
subcommittee
can
better
understand
why
a
number
cannot
be
reached
if
found.
The
proposed
proposed
administration
regulation
contains
a
major
negative
economic
impact,
a
local
government
or
regulated
entity.
Then
the
administrative
regulation
review
subcommittee
may
not
shall
find
a
regulation
deficient.
This
regulation
does
not
change
any
process
for
issuing
or
implementing
emergency
administration
regulations.
We
felt
this
is
important,
considering
circumstances
surrounding
potential
cases
for
emergencies
or
national
disasters
house
bill
594
in
no
way
changes
or
requires
the
general
assembly
or
committees
to
change
existing
regulations
already
on
the
books.
I
It
does
not
in
any
way
reduce
regulations
already.
In
effect,
only
regulations
that
will
be
required
to
have
a
cost
analysis
done
are
those
created
after
effective
database
act
house,
bill
594
makes
no
changes
to
administrative
regulation,
subcommittee
oversight
or
powers
of
the
committee.
It
does
not,
anyway
change
the
process
of
implementation
for
administrative
regulations
house
bill
594
sets
up
a
clearly
defined
process
to
hold
the
commonwealth
and
general
assembly
accountable
to
our
regulated
entities
for
regulations
that
impact
their
bottom
line
and
ability
to
create
jobs.
I
L
My
experience
as
chair
of
the
committee
is
that
the
cabinets
are
usually
through
fiscal
impact
statements.
You
know
they're
all
the
time
looking
out
for
the
government,
how
it
will
affect
their
fees,
how
it
will
affect
their
ability
to
operate,
but
they
really
many
times,
don't
necessarily
care
how
it
affects
the
citizenry
in
business
in
kentucky.
So
this
bill
will
will
help
cure
that
problem.
A
M
I
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
appear
before
you
to
ask
that
you
reject
house
bill
594..
I
have
a
few
basic
concerns.
I've
shared
them
with
representative
pratt
earlier
first
is
that
existing
law
already
requires
that
as
part
of
the
regulatory
impact
analysis
that
senator
west
mentioned
that
the
agency
proposing
a
new
or
revised
regulation
identify
the
types
of
quote.
Individuals,
businesses,
organizations
or
state
or
local
governments
affected
by
the
administrative
regulation.
End
quote
and
requires
also
an
analysis
of
how
they'll
be
impacted.
M
A
detailed
explanation
of
the
actions
they'll
have
to
take
to
comply
an
estimate
of
the
costs
imposed
in
order
to
comply
and
the
benefits
that
may
accrue
as
a
result
of
compliance
house.
Bill
594
adds
no
value
to
current
law
or
to
the
regulatory
review
process.
That's
already
there
regarding
the
agency's
assessments
of
costs
imposed
to
business
entities
subject
to
the
regulatory
obligations,
to
the
extent
that
the
agencies
are
not
complying
with
existing
law.
M
Regarding
an
assessment
of
those
costs,
the
administrative
reg
committee
and
the
committee
of
jurisdiction,
after
the
administrative
reg
committee,
already
have
remedies
to
address
that.
My
second
concern
is
that
overwhelmingly-
and
this
is
based
on
44
years
of
experience
and
proudly
working
with
the
agencies
and
proudly
appearing
before
this
august
body,
that
the
regulations
that
are
overwhelmingly
adopted
by
the
state
agencies
are
done.
So,
in
response
to
general
assembly
mandate,
the
general
assembly
has
decided
that
we
should
seek
and
and
administer
federally
delegated
programs.
M
Those
federal
regulations
have
already
gone
through
a
robust
cost-benefit
analysis
if,
as
you're
probably
aware
and
have
to
get
through
the
office
of
management
and
budget
among
other
agencies,
it
seems,
wasteful
and
and
adding
no
value
again
to
require
a
third
cost
assessment
that
has
already
been
done
twice
once
under
existing
state
law
and
once
under
federal
law.
And
my
third
concern
is
this
and
you'll
pardon
me.
If
I'm
a
little
blunt
on
this-
and
this
is
not
a
reflection
on
representative
pratt,
this
bill
has
been
around
for
a
long
time.
M
The
so-called
reigns
act
it's
been
around
since
jeff
davis
was
was
congressman.
It's
been
around
and
kicking
around
different
states
as
well
as
as
congress,
and
I
think
it
was
it
was
kicking
around
here.
Some
years
ago,
the
most
recent
iteration,
I
think,
was
2017.
M
after
44
years
of
working
on
regulatory
issues
in
the
commonwealth
and
appearing
before
this
general
assembly,
I
can
tell
you
that
the
premise
of
the
bill,
which
is
that
regulatory
actions
of
administrative
agencies
are
out
of
control
and
need
to
be
reined
in,
is
fundamentally
flawed
and
not
grounded.
In
fact,
the
reality
is
is
the
instances
in
which
the
legislative
committee
has
found
a
regulation
of
the
executive
branch
to
be
deficient
or
inconsistent
with
legislative
mandate
are
extremely
rare
from
2000
to
2021.
M
By
my
account,
there
were
roughly
25
such
regulations,
six
or
seven
of
which
dealt
with
one
issue,
which
was
trying
to
bring
some
control
over
industrial-scale
hog
operations.
Some
of
you
will
remember
that
was
very
controversial
at
the
time.
During
the
period
of
2005
to
2021
the
excluding
emergency
regulations,
there
were
9676
regulatory
actions
by
agencies
amending
or
adopting
new
regulations.
M
In
percentage
terms,
the
number
of
regulations
that
were
found
to
be
deficient
by
either
the
administrative
reg
committee
or
the
second
committee
review,
were
0.24
of
those
regulatory
actions.
That,
in
my
mind,
hardly
demonstrates
the
need
to
rein
in
the
agencies,
and
I
consider
the
suggestion
that
they
are
out
of
control
to
be
somewhat
of
a
slight
to
the
hard-working
men
and
women
who
work
for
the
executive
branch
at
short
pay
in
order
to
protect
the
building
blocks
of
our
economy,
clean
air,
clean
water,
clean
land
and
a
healthy
workforce.
M
After
this
bill
passed,
the
house
one
legislator's
newsletter,
described
it
as
providing
quote
greater
oversight
into
the
use
of
the
regulatory
process
by
the
executive
branch.
It
also
ensures
the
regulatory
process
is
not
used
to
make
laws
without
the
legislature.
End
quote.
Actually
the
bill
does
neither
it
requires
that
agencies
duplicate
existing
cost
analyses
already
required
by
kentucky
law
and
in
most
cases
by
federal
law.
M
It
selectively
focuses
on
costs
while
ignoring
benefits,
that
regulations
provide
to
the
regulated
entities
to
workers
in
the
workplace
and
to
the
public,
and
it
does
nothing
to
make
sure
that
regulations
conform
to
legislative
intent,
which
is
already
monitored
by
two
committees.
For
each
of
these
reasons,
I
would
request
that
you
reject
house
bill
not
594
and
for
what
may
be
my
last
time,
I
want
to
express
my
profound
appreciation
to
each
one
of
you
to
this
committee
as
a
whole
and
senator
schroeder
to
you
in
particular.
M
E
I've
been
on
this
been
in
here
and
on
this
committee
longer
than
anyone
in
this
room
right
now
and
the
one
consistent
thing
is
you
coming
before
this
committee
disagreeing
with
things
I
agree
on
so
no
other
way
to
send
you
on
your
way
than
to
make
a
motion
that
the
bill
be
reported.
Favorably
motion
same
shall
pass.
K
My
vote
and
explain
email
well
sometimes
there's
people
who
are
just
as
valuable
institutionally
as
the
members
are
and
tom
we
I've,
probably
voted
against
you
more
times.
I
voted
with
you,
but
you
know
you've
never
failed
to
bring
well
thought
out
points
that,
although
they
express
a
view
in
opposition
to
a
lot
of
ours,
certainly
are
are
worthy
and
once
again,
like
I
told
representative
dulce,
I
wish
you
all
well
in
everything
that
that
you
do
with
with
wherever
you're
headed.
A
K
A
G
H
Likewise,
I've
not
been
here
nearly
as
long
serving
with
fitz,
but
I
do
remember
him
from
way
way
years
back
and
I
was
like
who
is
that
guy
and
anyway
now
we
have
many
mutual
friends,
and
so
thank
you
so
much
for
your
service
and
always
being
somebody
that
we
can
count
on
to
get
information,
because
sometimes
there's
a
lack
of
that
around
here,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I'm
voting
for
this.
H
H
They
should
have
been
there
in
the
first
place
and-
and
it
really
comes
back
on
us
and
we're
a
part-time
legislature-
we
have
more
than
a
full-time
job,
so
we
got
to
figure
out
a
way
to
do
this
and
make
it
work.
So
I
think
we
need
more
work,
obviously
in
the
future.
On
generally
these
topics,
but
at
least
it's
a
start
and
we'll
keep
going.
Thank
you.
H
G
I
know
I've
not
been
down
here
as
long
as
some
of
the
other
folks
either,
but
I
guess
you
informed
me
today
that
you've
been
coming
down
here,
at
least
as
long
as
one
of
my
fellow
pike
counties,
herbie
desk
and
since
when
he
used
to
be
in
the
legislature,
so
good
friend
of
mine,
but
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
get
to
know
you
better
down
here,
but
I
appreciate
all
your
hard
work
through
the
years
in
front
of
the
legislature
and
hopefully
we'll
see
you
around
in
capacity
in
the
future.
A
I
vote
I
and
house
bill
594
passes
with
favorable
expression,
nine
to
one
gentlemen,
thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you.
Thank.