[0:21] In 2007, Wisconsin I has filmed countless hours of state capital coverage to provide invaluable access

[0:28] to government actions, all available to watch live and on demand. Without Wisconsin I, Wisconsin

[0:34] I would lose an important source of transparent and unbiased accounts of public policy and

[0:39] politics. Give today to secure the longevity of balanced unfiltered civic programming.

[0:48] You

[0:49] to 44321.

[1:27] For access to transparent and unbiased accounts of public policy and politics, please consider

[1:32] a donation.

[1:33] You can do so at wysside.org slash donate, or text of bysside to 44321.

[2:00] Your donation is critical in supporting transparent and unbiased accounts of public policy

[2:05] and politics.

[2:06] You can donate at wysside.org slash donate, or text of bysside to 44321.

[2:12] In

[2:35] 2007, Wisconsin I has filmed countless hours of state capital coverage to provide invaluable access to government actions, all available to watch live and on demand.

[2:46] Without Wisconsin I, Wisconsin I would lose an important source of transparent and unbiased accounts of public policy and politics.

[2:53] Give today to secure the longevity of BAM.

[3:06] Thank you all for coming today.

[3:09] The committee on the environment we are ready to get started so we're calling to order

[3:15] And we're going to do it all official so let's do the pledge of allegiance

[3:21] Mr. Tom, my point of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the

[3:28] Republic for which it stands, one nation under God in the middle with liberty and justice

[3:34] for all.

[3:42] We thought that Representative Binky would be here, so we'll hold the roll after 30 minutes.

[3:49] Well, we're gonna do that, we didn't do that, okay. So the, we'll call the role, please.

[3:57] Representative Gobin, here, Tucker, your kitchens, thank you, we'll wait, represent a pulmonary, we're

[4:03] Essie, fantastic, okay. You too for now. Very good. All right, so thank you all for coming. I know that

[4:11] Um, can be, you know, whatever, a long drive for hearing like this, but since we have so much

[4:18] more to do, it worked out well.

[4:21] Ah, there he is.

[4:30] Um, okay, so I just want to take a moment to, sorry, silence yourself on, if you, you know,

[4:36] have them buzzing at you.

[4:38] I have to.

[4:39] Uh, take a moment to remind everyone that we're, we're on Wisconsin, I think, uh, them

[4:44] for being here today.

[4:47] So everyone knows what's going on.

[4:49] And I want to comment on what's happening here today.

[4:54] So because of the Supreme Court ruling and their action,

[4:59] Evers can put things into rule.

[5:02] They carry the force of law without legislative oversight.

[5:09] This takes away people's chance to speak about issues.

[5:14] And now, because of further legal action, the circuit court action,

[5:20] Evers administration has taken away another opportunity for public input.

[5:27] We often hear the will of the people is the law of the land,

[5:31] but if we don't allow people to speak publicly,

[5:35] how can we know that the rules will benefit them or that they're going to harm them?

[5:42] This rule in itself was going to harm quite a few people, and they came and they had the ability to speak on that, and whether or not the DNR takes action that we're recommending, they had the opportunity to speak.

[6:01] And now they're not going to have that, so to me that's very upsetting, and right now it may be okay for some people because of the way, you know, the person who holds it office.

[6:14] But is that going to be okay if somebody different holds that office?

[6:18] We need to think on that. So we have four modifications before us today.

[6:22] in House Rule 25-092 based on the feedback from the experts that came to speak to us at our

[6:32] public hearing last month. I urge the Department of Natural Resources to consider these modifications

[6:38] and implement them for the benefit of everybody involved. So we'll ask a large council if you

[6:53] that will be offered shortly will be one for the committee would recommend that the department

[7:01] make modifications to clearing house rule 25-0-9-2. I think you've seen the motion. It covers

[7:09] some of the items that were heard at the testimony,

[7:14] including creating some additional exceptions.

[7:17] as you know, the rule largely prohibits the collection sale, propagation and possession

[7:26] of certain native wild.

[7:30] Reptiles and amphibians, the request would be to include some additional exceptions for individuals that were acquired from a legal source, if the possessor can provide documentation that it was so acquired.

[7:47] It would request the an exception for color variance and not color variance as the DNR is proposing in its rule to describe color variance as certain types of albino melanistic meaning al black or pi ball, the meaning 10% or more pure white as the only three types of color variance.

[8:16] and this motion would ask for a more expansive notion of color variant that would be based

[8:23] on statute 169.12 which is where color variants are described as individuals with coloration

[8:32] that is clearly distinct from the normal morphological color pattern. The motion would ask for

[8:41] removal of the provision on using live native reptiles and amphibians in contests, and it

[8:50] would also ask for modification to the provision in the rule on using certain snake tools on

[8:58] DNR property, and instead, instead of a provision on it, would ask for those tools to be

[9:06] as long as they were decenetized after use.

[9:13] Promotion, please.

[9:15] Oh, passage.

[9:18] Thank you, Representative Tucker.

[9:21] Representative Bankie.

[9:23] Thank you so much.

[9:24] Any discussion on this?

[9:25] Representative Paul Mary?

[9:34] Look at this.

[9:35] In light of this recent court ruling,

[9:39] what authority does the Standing Committee have

[9:43] with regard to these recommendations?

[9:46] or are the purely advisory at this point?

[9:53] Yes, so you mean the circuncourt ruling from last week?

[9:57] Okay, so I think what the result of that ruling

[10:01] was to sort of sever the legislative review track

[10:09] from the rule promulgation track.

[10:12] So, after the rule has been going through the rule making process and been approved by the governor,

[10:24] before Thursday's ruling, the rule would be submitted to the legislature for referral to standing committees,

[10:32] and then at the conclusion of the standing committee jurisdiction,

[10:37] Then if the agency didn't want to make any changes, then it would submit the rule to LRB and it would get published as final.

[10:45] Under the circuit courts ruling, after the rule goes through the rulemaking process and gets approved by the governor, it can be delivered straight to the LRB for publication at the same time.

[11:00] It will still be submitted to the legislature and the standing committee will still have its jurisdiction and can take its action on it, but the agency does not have to wait to get that rule published into the register while the standing committee process is ongoing.

[11:29] If the, you know, after the world's promulgated and then put through the LLB process, and technically, I guess approved, if the standing committee decides something and contrary to the rule, what's the next process? What are the next steps after that?

[11:48] Thank you. Yes, certainly that fact pattern could arise. So in the instance of today's

[11:56] proceedings, for example, there's a request that the agency modify or consider modifying

[12:02] the rule. So that is still possible today because this particular rule has not yet been

[12:09] finalized and published. So it's still at the stage where the agency could modify it if it wanted.

[12:17] If there's a scenario where the rule has been published and finalized and then an agent's

[12:25] then a committee does the same thing and requests the modification, it's really truly advisory

[12:33] at that point or just a recommendation that the agency basically do a new rule to make

[12:41] changes because the rule that it would be talking about had already been sort of set in stone

[12:47] and at a point where it was not subject to change. So a request there would really be to

[12:55] do a new rule basically to make these changes work. Today's scenario would still at a point

[13:01] where it's a recommendation to change the current thing that's still in a place where it's

[13:07] of the subject to change?

[13:13] I was like, certain stone is maybe a little bit tough, but we still have a process by which

[13:20] we can make a request after it's published.

[13:23] And the relationship between the agency and the politicos in the room would probably

[13:29] be paramount.

[13:32] So it's a good relationship there.

[13:33] You still could make the real change, assuming working with the department and an earnest

[13:46] You're talking about like today's proceeding where we're in a scenario where the rule is still

[13:51] has not yet been finalized?

[13:53] No, I'm talking about one to one.

[13:54] One finalized.

[13:55] It's been finalized.

[13:56] Oh, yeah.

[13:57] Well, then,

[14:00] yeah, I mean, the statute that says the agency still submits the rule to the chief clerks

[14:09] who then refer to standing committees and the standing committees have 30 days of jurisdiction initially.

[14:16] I mean those those those statutes are still in effect and so that process will still be followed

[14:23] and during that committee's 30 days of jurisdiction or or 60 if it's extended by certain circumstances.

[14:31] The committee can take the actions that it can take such as what the committee is proposing today.

[14:38] Except what I'm trying to say is that the form of our of the committee's request is to modify the rule that won't technically be true at that point because the rule will have been put in a place where it's not subject to being modified by the agency other than by the agency doing a new rule.

[15:00] To make those changes in the code that the thing that had already been committed to the code.

[15:05] So it's just, it sort of just will take a new form of recommendation rather than modify,

[15:11] it would be like, modify it by way of a new rule making to make those changes.

[15:18] Thank you.

[15:20] Madam Chair.

[15:21] Yes.

[15:24] There are public notice requirements with any of the rules prior to that level,

[15:31] but correct that folks can weigh in with public comment on items before the published state

[15:39] is that not true?

[15:41] Yes, most rules with a few narrow exceptions, most rules do need to have a public hearing.

[15:50] There can also be hearing on the scope statement beforehand, but if not there, then at the

[15:56] the rule making process before it gets to the standing committees it will have had a public

[16:02] hearing.

[16:06] Representative Kitchens?

[16:08] First off, I mean, I do think that the rule of that sucks, I think that I've written

[16:13] written bills that became law where the rules come out and it doesn't reflect what the law

[16:18] was intended.

[16:19] So the idea that we then no longer have any say and how it's done is ridiculous.

[16:25] Now, if that being said, that's the way it is right now until we get an objective Supreme

[16:29] court, I think we're stuck with that. But as far as what we're doing today, I think I would

[16:35] hope that everyone, if you feel like these recommendations at Merit, you would vote in favor

[16:38] of them. And whether the idea that it depends on our relationship with the DNR, it's like

[16:43] also for really nice and say pretty please, they'll consider whether it's really in the best

[16:47] interest of the state or not, that's kind of ridiculous. I would hope they're more professional

[16:50] than that. And I guess I would hope again, if you guys think that these recommendations

[16:54] at Merit that you would vote for them, I mean, we know that we don't really have any

[16:58] We're just saying, this is what we think.

[17:01] So, thanks.

[17:02] Thank you.

[17:03] Representative Kitchens and thank you for bringing us back to the track of what this is about today.

[17:09] Any other comments on the rule change for modification requests?

[17:15] Okay.

[17:16] Then let's take that.

[17:17] Put please.

[17:19] Representative Goblin.

[17:21] Aye.

[17:22] Dr.

[17:23] Kitchens?

[17:24] Thank you.

[17:25] Representative Poemary?

[17:26] Now, Rassy.

[17:37] All right.

[17:38] Thank you all.

[17:40] Thank you for.

[17:42] Oh, sorry.

[17:42] We got to take a vote on passage.

[17:44] That was for the introduction.

[17:46] That's the introduction and now the passage.

[17:48] So just a vote or do I have to have a motion again?

[17:52] You have to motion again.

[17:53] Okay.

[17:54] Motion and forth passage.

[17:56] Representative Binky.

[17:57] Second.

[17:57] and second in by, perhaps in a tucker, okay, and take that.

[18:04] Representative Gilbert, I, tucker, all right.

[18:06] Kitchens, thank you. Representative Paul Mary?

[18:11] Rassy.

[18:13] All right. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[18:16] Can you look for your expertise today?

[18:18] Appreciate that.

[18:19] You can't let go.

[18:20] And we can do that now. Okay, my work.

[18:22] Come on, come on.

[18:24] We're done here.

[18:25] Production

[19:31] of Wisconsin Eye, your unfiltered window into legislative deliberations and public policy programming,

[19:38] where our mission is to provide Wisconsinites an opportunity to access the legislative process

[19:43] and connect with conversations that inform our citizenry.

[19:47] Please consider supporting our mission and thank you for watching.

[19:50] Wisconsin Eye, policy made public.

Assembly Committee on Environment

Transcript