I THINK IT WAS ALMOST UNANIMOUS.

>> VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD.

QUESTIONS FROM A VIEWER ABOUT THE BONDING BILL, WHICH OF COURSE NORMALLY IS IN THE WHAT USED TO CALL THE OFF YEAR OR THE EVEN NUMBERED YEAR OF THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR SESSION, AND THIS VIEWER WANTS TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S GOING TO BE RESURRECTED.

WILL THERE BE A BONDING BILL THIS SESSION, AND WILL THERE BE A LARGER ONE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO PASS ONE.

LET'S START WITH YOU, SENATOR PRATT.

>> WELL, THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO GET A BONDING BILL STARTED.

TO RESTART THE BONDING BILL AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD LAST YEAR.

I THINK IT'S UNKNOWN THAT WE ACTUALLY CAME TO AGREEMENT ON A BONDING BILL, BUT IT DIDN'T GET PASSED.

ALL BONDING BILLS HAVE TO ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE, AND WE NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT NATIONAL SENATE.

THERE HAVE BEEN A SMALL GROUP OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES MEETING TOGETHER WITH THE GOVERNOR'S TEAM TO SEE IF WE COULD FIND SOME COMMON GROUND, AND I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE FINAL PACKAGE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, BUT IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN SOCIALIZED ON A VERY BROAD BASIS, AND I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DISTURBING IN THAT IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE SCENES, BUT IN SOME WAYS IT USUALLY IS.

IT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY TO PASS A BONDING BILL, SO AGAIN, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER IF WE ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

>> BONDING BILL, SENATOR DIBBLE.

>> YES, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO INDEED PASSING A BONDING BILL.

THERE'S A LOT OF PENT UP NEED THERE TO INVEST IN THE LARGE CAPITAL ASSETS.

LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THERE'S -- THIS IS A VERY, VERY GOOD AND APPROPRIATE USE FOR GENERAL FUND DOLLARS THAT OCCUR ON A ONE-TIME BASIS, AND THAT'S OF COURSE CONTRASTED WITH ONE-TIME DOLLARS AND PUTTING THEM INTO THINGS THAT HAVE AN ONGOING BUDGETARY NEED.

WE WOULDN'T PUT ONE-TIME DOLLARS INTO OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT OCCUR OVER THE COURSE OF MULTIPLE YEARS, BUT THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO INVEST IN THE BUILDINGS OF OUR HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM AND OUR NATURAL RESTORES AREAS AND OUR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, ET CETERA.

I REALLY DON'T LIKE WHEN THINGS ARE DONE OUT OF VIEW, NOT IN THE FORM OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND PUBLIC DELIBERATION WHERE STAKEHOLDERS CAN COME IN AND PROVIDE THEIR INPUT AND PUBLIC CAN HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON.

REALLY HOPING THAT FUNDING CHAIRS DO BRING ON-THEY MIGHT FASHION THE PACKAGE, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR A FULL AIRING AND FULL HEARING AND BE ABLE FOR CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS, AND IT'S, I THINK, ONE OF THE WORST TRENDS OF OUR LEGISLATURE OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS, NOT JUST THE BONDING BILL, BUT A LOT OF THESE OMNIBUS BILLS THAT ARE FULL OF POLICY, BUDGET ITEMS, ALL DONE OUT OF VIEW, AND THEY COME FORWARD IN THE GIGANTIC PACKAGES WITH VERY LITTLE IF ANY PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC INPUT.

THE REST OF US ARE JUST ASKED TO VOTE ON IT AS IS WITHOUT EVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND IT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WERE HE LEKDED TO DO.

I THINK WE ARE PUSHING HARDER FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY.

I APPRECIATE WHAT SENATOR PRATT SAID.

I AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT.

THE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND, WE HAVE AN $18 BILLION SURPLUS AND SOME OF THESE DOLLARS WE DON'T HAVE TO BORROW IN THE CAPITAL MARKETS.

THAT'S WHAT BONDING IS, IT'S BASICALLY BORROWING.

WE COULD JUST APPROPRIATE DOLLARS NEEDED FOR SOME OF THESE LARGER EXPENDITURES AS WELL.

>> Barry: SENATOR DIBBLE I WANT TO PURSUE THE POINT YOU MADE.

BECAUSE YOUR COLLEAGUE, SENATOR MARTY, HAS MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT TRYING TO AVOID OMNIBUS BILLS AND BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE COMMITTEES THAT HE CHAIRS, HE MIGHT BE IN A POSITION TO INFLUENCE THAT A LITTLE BIT.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FROM YOUR CAUCUS TO MOVE -- I SUPPOSE NEVER GOING TO MOVE COMPLETELY AWAY FROM AN OMNIBUS BILL BUT MOVE MORE IN THE DIRECTION OF A SINGLE SUBJECT BILLS AND SO FORTH.

IS THERE SOME SUPPORT FOR THAT?

MIGHT WE SEE DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS SESSION?

>> THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ON BILLS THAT AREN'T SINGLE SUBJECT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE DO IT ALL THE TIME, AND WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN, OF COURSE, SOMEONE HAS TO SUE AND THEN YOUR ENTITY, YOUR BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAS TO AGREE, THEN OH, YEAH, THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION THAT THE LEGISLATURE TOOK.

THEY ARE MIXING THEIR SUBJECTS.

>> Barry: WANT TO TAKE A SHOT AT THE SUPREME COURT, THAT'S JUST FINE.

THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE, I THINK WE CAN SAFELY SAY, THAT THE COURT HAS NOT BEEN PARTICULARLY AGGRESSIVE BY ENFORCING A SINGLE SUBJECT MATTER.

>> IT NEEDS TO BE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S CHANGED.

IT DOESN'T WANT TO MISS AROUND IN THE OTHER BRANCH THESE DAYS.

I WISH IT WOULD MORE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BEEN REALLY, REALLY SLOPPY AND UNFORTUNATE, HASN'T SERVED THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

IT CONCENTRATES POWER IN VERY, VERY GOOD HANDS.

IT'S NOT HEALTHY.

THAT'S THE SINGLE SUBJECT WHEN WE ARE DOING THE BUDGET FOR AN AGENCY.

WE DON'T DO EVERY LITTLE LINE ITEM.

WE DO THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUDGET, BUT WHEN WE ENACT ALL THE POLICY THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FINANCIAL IMPLICATION, SOME POLICY, WHICH REALLY DOES NEED TO BE DEBATED ON ITS OWN AND STAND ALL ON ITS OWN MERITS, RATHER THAN BEING TIED IN A MUST PASS BILL.

IF YOU DON'T PASS THE BUDGET BILLS, SHE SHUTS DOWN.

YOU PASS THE FAIRLY DISTASTEFUL POLICY IDEAS INTO THE MUST PASS BILLS.

WE VITAL THE SINGLE SUBJECT REQUIREMENT, AND WE HAVE DEALS THAT ARE CUT THAT SHOULDN'T BE AND STUFF IS DONE AGAIN LIKE I SAID WITHOUT THE INPUT AND I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR CHANGING THAT PRACTICE.

>> Barry: SENATOR PRATT, MUCH DEBATED, MUCH CONTROVERSIAL SINGLE SUBJECT ISSUES.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> I THINK SENATOR DIBBLE AND I SEE EYE TO EYE ON THIS.

THE OMNIBUS BILL PROCESS HAS BEEN ABUSED OVER THE YEARS, AND IT'S GETTING WORSE.

IT HASN'T BEEN A REPUBLICAN ISSUE.

IT HASN'T BEEN A DEMOCRATIC ISSUE.

IT'S BEEN BOTH OF US.

I HAVE GOT A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

LAST YEAR MY JOBS BILL GOT WRAPPED IN WITH ENERGY AND COMMERCE.

I THINK YOU CAN SAY THAT FUNDING DEED AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ENERGY POLICY BUT THE LEADERS OF BOTH CHAMBERS CAME TOGETHER, AND THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT WE GOT, AND WHILE I WASN'T HAPPY WITH IT, I HAD TO MOVE IT ALONG AS BEST I COULD.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GET BACK, BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUENTS NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON, AND I THINK GETTING MORE TO A SINGLE SUBJECT ALLOWS US TO HAVE BETTER DEBATE AND BETTER DISCUSSION ON SPECIFIC TOPICS.

SENATOR DIBBLE IS RIGHT.

WHEN YOU ARE WORKING ON A BUDGET, THE SINGLE SUBJECT IS THE BUDGET FOR FUNDING THAT AGENCY, AND SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO FUND THE POLICY THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT.

BUT WHEN YOU START COMBINING TWO OR THREE AGENCIES TOGETHER THAT AREN'T RELATED, THEN I THINK YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR.

I HAVE TOLD SENATOR MARTY DIRECTLY THAT I SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS IN TRYING TO GET US BACK TO MORE NARROWLY FOCUSED BILLS