Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> with</c> We can support individuals with We can support individuals with applications<00:30:59.760
• </c> may get access to nutrition support. may get access to nutrition support.
• </c><01:56:24.560><c> our</c> use of a vendor to help support our use of a vendor to help support our
• Behavior support means behavior support.
• c><02:05:47.040><c> to</c> keep behavior supports accessible to keep behavior supports accessible to

Keywords: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call – 00:00:00 2. Approval of Minutes – 00:02:10 3. Discussion of State-Based Marketplaces and the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace – 00:02:31 4. Discussion of the Role of Kynectors and Navigators – 00:27:29 5. Discussion of Presumptive Eligibility – 01:11:57 6. Discussion of Medicaid Eligibility, Enrollment, and Redeterminations – 01:20:09 7. Update on Rural Health Transformation Program Application Process – 01:47:35 8. Public Comment – 01:59:57 9. Adjournment – 02:06:10, 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight Advisory Board met for its third meeting and approved the July 30 minutes. The chair outlined a full agenda covering the state-based marketplace versus the federally facilitated marketplace, connectors and navigators, presumptive eligibility, eligibility/enrollment/redetermination, and a rural health transformation update. Commissioner Lisa Lee and Assistant Director David Barry presented first on Kentucky’s state-based exchange, Connect, explaining that it is an integrated eligibility and enrollment system for Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, TANF, child care, and qualified health plans. They reviewed Kentucky’s move from a state-based exchange to healthcare.gov in 2017 and back to a state-based marketplace in 2021, and said the system helps route applicants to the correct program and allows families to move more easily between Medicaid and exchange coverage as circumstances change. The presenters said the exchange is funded by carrier assessments on qualified health plans rather than general fund dollars, with costs allocated across programs based on use. They said Kentucky’s exchange fees are lower than the federal platform’s and that the state-based system provides local assistance through DCBS offices, connectors, and licensed agents in every county. Members asked about startup and operating costs, fee-setting, and whether any general fund dollars are used; the department said it would follow up with the CFO on fee details and said it was not aware of general fund support for exchange operations. Members also raised concerns about Medicaid eligibility verification and improper enrollment, while the department emphasized that the state system uses different questions than healthcare.gov and is designed to identify the correct coverage based on monthly Medicaid income and annual tax-credit income. The board also discussed enrollment trends, including a COVID-era spike during the public health emergency when disenrollments were largely paused, and current qualified health plan enrollment of more than 97,000 people on Connect. Commissioner Lee explained presumptive eligibility as temporary Medicaid coverage, noting it applies to pregnant women and hospital-based cases, with hospitals able to grant it and certain providers able to grant it to pregnant women. She said full eligibility is still determined within 30 days and that presumptive eligibility ends when full Medicaid eligibility is determined or at the end of the following month. The meeting then shifted to connectors, with representatives from Community Action Kentucky and the Kentucky Primary Care Association describing their statewide outreach network, local offices, and role helping residents apply for Medicaid, renew coverage, report changes, and navigate benefits; they said connectors do not determine eligibility but assist with applications, recertifications, and outreach events across the Commonwealth.

Transcript Highlights:

• He's also going to demonstrate how to use the podium. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
• serious investigation and a serious identification of those other sources, so they're here to help us support
• said, but when the bill originally came out to put aside the billion dollars, I was very much in support
• but but when it originally the bill came out to to put aside the billion dollars I was very much in support

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm here in support of House Bill 3176, which provides much needed clarity.
• For these reasons, I respectfully request your support of House Bill 3176.
• I mean, I appreciate this, and I intend to just support it. I don't want to... Thank you.
• It is far less expensive to support someone at home than in a nursing home facility.
• Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of House Bill 3143.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I support the bill.
• </c> strongly support this bill. strongly support this bill.
• ><c> what's</c> demonstration program targeting what's demonstration program targeting what's called<
• I'm here today to support Senate Board. I'm here today to support Senate File<01:30:57.760><c> 2197.
• ><c> value</c><01:46:30.239><c> of</c> research has supported the value of research has supported the

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, so, I fully support these resolutions.
• </c><02:37:53.400><c> we</c> can't say enough about the support we can't say enough about the support
• Uh we're still helping support<02:40:32.040><c> it,</c><02:40:32.160><c> but</c> support it, but support
• </c> we set up these support operations? we set up these support operations?
• </c><03:04:43.000><c> these</c><03:04:43.520><c> small</c> support operations to keep these small support

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm absolutely in support.
• We very much support this bill. I stand for any questions. Thank you for your testimony.
• We speak in support of House Bill 678, and I don't need to belabor the point.
• And so to go along with that and demonstrate support for that initiative, the governor issued his own
• Are we still supporting that?

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's still reasons to support term limits.
• And that's why I support getting rid of Missouri's term limits, and I hope that you can also support
• We've heard this several times, and I'm very much in support.
• I think I pulled my district and it was 75% in support of term limits.
• So I'm a big supporter of term limits.

Summary: The House Elections Budget Committee held a public hearing on several joint resolutions dealing with Missouri legislative term limits and chamber structure. Representatives Peggy McGaugh, Marty Joe Murray, Bruce Sassman, and Jeff Myers presented versions of HJR 104, 121, 122, 149, and related measures that would allow legislators to serve up to 16 total years in either chamber rather than being limited to eight years in one chamber and eight in the other. The sponsors argued the change would preserve institutional knowledge, reduce lobbyist influence, and let voters choose whether experienced members should continue serving. They also discussed leadership limits, with proposals to cap service as Speaker or President Pro Tem, and debated whether those limits should be consecutive or total terms. One proposal also would reduce the size of the House to 103 members, which Myers said would improve efficiency and avoid a senator controlling House members in a three-representative-per-Senate-district model. Committee members raised concerns about self-serving motives, the optics of extending service, possible gaps when members run for the Senate with time left on their 16-year limit, and whether smaller or larger districts would weaken rural representation or shift power toward population centers. Some members supported the concept as a way to preserve expertise and reduce the influence of lobbyists, while others argued the public may view the change skeptically, especially given the original 1992 term-limit vote. Myers defended the smaller House proposal as a way to lower costs, reduce staff redundancy, and improve legislative effectiveness, while opponents questioned whether the fiscal savings would offset the need for more staff and whether the change would actually solve the problems described. Public testimony was split. An opponent argued Missouri voters should not be asked to revisit a decision they made on term limits, said the General Assembly should not be trying to overturn the public’s earlier choice, and urged rejection of all the resolutions. He also criticized lobbyist influence and cited past corruption cases to argue for keeping strict term limits. After testimony concluded, the committee moved into executive session and passed House Bill 3146 by a vote of 10-2. The meeting then adjourned with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• And in support, Peter Abello from the Florida Association of Counties waves in support.
• Michael Carlson, Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, waves in support.
• William Large from the Justice Reform Institute waves in support.
• Maybe I should have just waved in support, but I did mainly want to say thank you.
• We had 19 total respondents to that request for information, demonstrating a lot of interest from the

Transcript Highlights:

• We also found that LCB's data system does not support a data-driven approach to regulation.
• One item to note is like inspections, DOH paused some investigations during the pandemic to support the
• JLARC's perspective and feedback will go a long way in helping the department better support the public
• As I mentioned a few minutes ago, DDA has begun reorganization with DDA and aging and long-term support
• And so while we do see some really great outcomes and improvements for those clients that we support

Summary: At the May 14, 2025 JLARC meeting, members approved the January 9 minutes and adopted the 2025–27 biennial work plan with a minor typo correction. Staff reviewed the new work plan studies, including a drug take-back program fee/expenditure review due in December 2025 and a state energy performance standard compliance review due in June 2027, and noted JLARC’s recent session activity, including several bills passed related to JLARC work and recommendations. The committee then heard a preliminary cannabis market study showing Washington businesses likely produced two to three times more cannabis than retailers sold in 2023. Staff and RAND said LCB’s data systems are incomplete and unreliable, limiting regulation, tax verification, and diversion tracking; they recommended that LCB submit a plan by year-end for collecting accurate data by the end of 2026. Members and LCB discussed the long timeline for a new traceability system, the causes of missing sales and weight data, overproduction, diversion, and the social equity program’s effect on producer licenses. JLARC also presented a preliminary hospital oversight report concluding that the Department of Health is late on many hospital inspections, does not verify third-party inspection standards, does not review adverse health event correction plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. The committee discussed fee funding, language access, and inspection timing, and DOH said it would work on a strategic plan and continue coordinating with JLARC. Members also heard a preliminary report on the public records survivor exemption, which found agencies are using it but need more guidance; JLARC recommended keeping the exemption and having the Attorney General provide additional training. Finally, the committee approved the DDA processes and staffing final report for distribution, which recommended performance metrics, stronger data quality controls, and workforce planning; DDA concurred. JLARC also introduced proposed study questions for a future DCYF juvenile rehabilitation review focused on safety, security, programs, staffing, education, and contraband, and the meeting adjourned after members asked about scope and facility conditions.

Transcript Highlights:

• You support it? You want us to support it? Yes, support it. Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you. Sorry.
• Support it. You want us to support? Yes, support it. Thank you, sir. Morning. Chair members.
• You want us to support it or not support it? Support it. It's recycled.
• We strongly support this proposal. We do support it for in-state production.
• We strongly support the Governor's EV incentive program, hope it will support leases, hope it will support

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We strongly support.
• I strongly support.
• Strongly support.
• Strongly support.
• Polls also show this is overwhelmingly supported: 94% bipartisan support, so we urge your support.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several insurance-related bills. SB 1209 by Senator Allen, sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, would give the Department of Insurance stronger enforcement tools when insurers fail to implement corrective actions identified in market conduct or financial examinations. Supporters said the bill would close gaps that allow repeated violations, improve solvency oversight, and protect policyholders; opponents argued CDI already has broad authority and raised concerns about duplicative penalties, due process, and the bill’s scope. Members discussed amendments to limit the bill to legal violations rather than recommendations, apply penalties per exam rather than per policy, and clarify accounting language. The committee voted to send SB 1209 to Appropriations, with the bill placed on call after a roll vote that included one no vote from Senator Niello. The committee also considered SB 1301, which would require more detailed non-renewal notices for residential property insurance, give policyholders time and information to address correctable issues, and restrict certain non-renewal reasons such as claims below deductible or not covered by the policy. Support came from homeowners, fire survivors, and consumer groups who said notices are often vague and leave families unable to keep coverage; insurers opposed the bill, warning that California’s notice period is already among the longest in the country and that the bill could worsen availability and add burdensome reporting requirements. The author said he was willing to reduce the notice period from 180 days to about three months and work on a mitigation-based process. The committee passed the bill to Appropriations, with Senator Niello voting no and the item placed on call. SB 1026 by Senator Gonzalez would tighten regulation of bail fugitive recovery agents by allowing the Department of Insurance to suspend or revoke licenses without a criminal conviction, adding conduct restrictions, and requiring continuous liability coverage and proper appointment notices. Supporters, including Commissioner Lara, said the bill addresses serious misconduct and loopholes that have led to unsafe conduct and weak oversight. Bail industry representatives and crime victims’ advocates opposed the measure, arguing that the required insurance coverage is unavailable or unlawful as written, that the bill would be hard to comply with, and that it could reduce the number of recovery agents and delay justice. The committee moved SB 1026 to Appropriations, with Senator Niello voting no and the bill placed on call. The committee then heard SB 982 by Senator Wiener, the Affordable Insurance and Recovery Act, which would authorize the Attorney General to sue fossil fuel companies to recover costs tied to climate disasters and insurance losses, with supporters framing it as a way to shift some climate-related costs away from policyholders and taxpayers. The author said amendments would remove retroactivity and delay liability until 2032, while supporters from flood and wildfire survivor groups and climate organizations said the bill would help fund recovery and stabilize insurance costs. Opponents from industry and building trades argued the bill was legally vulnerable, would create a de facto tax or liability scheme, and could harm jobs, energy production, and affordability. Testimony on SB 982 was extensive, but the transcript ends before any committee vote or final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• You support it? You want us to support it? Chair: Yes, support it. Thank you, sir.
• You want us to support it or not support it? Support it. Good afternoon. My name is Tommy.
• You support it? You want us to support it? Yes, support it. Thank you, sir. Okay. Thank you. Sorry.
• Support it. You want us to support? Yes, support it. Thank you, sir. Morning. Chair members.
• You want us to support it or not support it? Support it. It's recycled.

Summary: The subcommittee heard extensive testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the proposal would help decarbonize aviation, support a long-term transition in the fuel sector, and encourage in-state investment and jobs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and several outside witnesses recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited net climate benefits, and may shift limited feedstocks away from renewable diesel rather than create additional fuel supply. A major point of debate was whether the credit would mainly benefit California refineries and workers or instead subsidize out-of-state producers while reducing revenue for transportation programs. Supporters, including union members, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, and airport representatives, said SAF is one of the few viable near-term options for aviation, that California should keep fuel production and jobs in-state, and that the credit would help maintain refinery operations and support the industry’s transition. Opponents, including the LAO, trucking and fuels groups, environmental organizations, and county/road advocates, warned that the proposal could raise gasoline and diesel prices, reduce diesel excise tax revenue for highways and local streets and roads, and provide limited climate benefit compared with other uses of state funds. Some members also raised concerns about feedstock availability, food-system impacts, and whether the policy should be more narrowly targeted if the goal is to support a specific refinery. No vote was taken. The chair stated at the outset that all items on the agenda were being held open for a future hearing, and public comment was taken after the first item because of the level of interest. The hearing then continued with public testimony, which was split between strong support from labor and industry and strong opposition from environmental, transportation, and local government groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• , demonstrating their broad agricultural<00:23:58.400><c> knowledge</c><00:23:58.640><c> and</c><00:23
• your support of it because tell<00:48:39.280><c> you</c><00:48:39.359><c> what,</c><00:48:39.520><c>
• These funds could be used to support public education and advocacy about midwifery care and scope of
• </c> These funds could be used to support These funds could be used to support public<00:53:40.880><c
• </c><01:37:30.880><c> you</c><01:37:31.119><c> on</c><01:37:31.440><c> limiting</c> proud to support

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think you are demonstrating what active case management can result in.
• high-level overview of problem-solving courts and some of the major initiatives of our office to support
• The appropriation was supporting problem-solving courts around the state.
• As I mentioned earlier, there has been extensive research over the past few decades that supports the
• We are so grateful, we being those in the judiciary, for the education and the support that the Legislature

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met with a quorum present and heard several Office of the State Courts Administrator presentations. Judge Mark Mahan discussed the impact of 2023’s HB 837 litigation reforms on court operations, explaining that the law’s changes to comparative negligence, filing deadlines, collateral source evidence, premises liability, bad faith claims, attorney’s fees, and offer-of-judgment rules triggered a major March 2023 civil filing surge. He described how filings tripled statewide, with especially large increases in auto negligence and premises liability cases, and outlined how circuits responded through active case management, added resources, and workflow changes. Members asked whether the bill’s immediate effective date contributed to the surge and whether clearance rates would normalize over time; Judge Mahan said the court system viewed its response as a success and expected rates to settle as the backlog is worked through. The committee then received a presentation on problem-solving courts from Jennifer Grandal and Judge Nina Richardson. Grandal reviewed Florida’s drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts, dependency and early childhood courts, noting statewide best-practice standards, annual reporting requirements, funding sources, and data collection systems. Judge Richardson gave a local perspective on treatment courts, emphasizing that they address underlying mental health and substance use issues, rely on judicial supervision and sanctions as well as incentives, and help participants achieve recovery and avoid reoffending. She said the programs are accountable, transparent, and effective, and thanked the Legislature for continued support. Finally, Judge Rachel Nordby and Eric McClure outlined the judicial branch’s legislative agenda. Nordby summarized the Supreme Court workgroup’s recommendations to expand Florida’s vexatious litigant law, including broader coverage, fewer qualifying adverse cases, a longer lookback period, and a public records exemption for stricken defamatory or sham material. McClure then highlighted additional agenda items: modernizing the duty-judge statute, expanding senior management retirement eligibility, authorizing additional judgeships based on workload studies, removing the statutory cap on court-ordered nonbinding arbitration compensation, protecting appellate clerks’ personal information, allowing alternative authentication for certain judicial notarizations, and creating a hearsay exception for guardian ad litem reports and testimony. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after member introductions and staff introductions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Republicans demonstrated that over a three-week period last May.
• making sure that the will of the voters is recognized and respected, and I'm confident I have his full support
• I talked to him a couple weeks ago when I thought it was a possibility, and he was fully supportive.
• I talked to him a couple weeks ago when I thought it was a possibility, and he was fully supportive.
• I talked to him a couple weeks ago when I thought it was a possibility, and he was fully supportive.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So you can supporting documentation.
• </c> that was given a grant to support her. that was given a grant to support her.
• Um to clearly um delineate support.
• We respectfully support We resource.
• ><c> your</c><01:53:04.400><c> support</c><01:53:04.639><c> for</c> respectfully ask for your support

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I applaud closing that loophole for the primary filing, and I am way in support of this.
• Chairman. ...for that reason I'd ask for adoption and your support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• I really support it.
• This is the route that I want to take, and I'm not requesting any services or support.'
• I am a strong supporter of this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Hui Hoalu Eka in support. Kola Foundation. Please come forward. in support. in support.
• Then we have the Biota Group in support. Puoko Fars in support.
• </c> Group in support. Puoko Fars in support. Group in support. Puoko Fars in support.
• Animal Rights Hawaii in support. Ocean Legislative Task Force in support. Hi Kaloa in support.
• We support them because we support guys.

Bills: HB2101

Keywords: aquatic life, commercial aquarium purposes, Hawaii, environmental protection, sustainability, Native Hawaiian values, marine resources, 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Water and Land heard testimony on House Bill 21101, which would ban or otherwise end commercial aquarium collection. Chairs opened the hearing with a short time limit for testimony and noted they would move to decision-making before the next committee meeting. The Department of Land and Natural Resources said it appreciated the bill’s intent and stood on written testimony, while the Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported the measure as part of its legislative package, citing community calls to ban the practice. Many other organizations and individuals also testified in support, including environmental, Native Hawaiian, and community groups, with arguments focused on reef protection, public trust, cultural concerns, and the view that the trade is extractive and not sustainable. Supporters repeatedly cited declines in yellow tang and other reef fish, especially on West Hawaii and Oahu, and argued that reef recovery has not occurred where collection pressure existed. Several testified that legal aquarium collection has not occurred in West Hawaii since 2017 or on Oahu since 2021, and that the state should not reopen an industry that has been effectively shut down for years. Others said the program is fiscally inefficient because permits generate little revenue compared with the cost of administering and enforcing the program, and that aquaculture or other alternatives could provide jobs without removing wild fish. Native Hawaiian speakers and civic club representatives emphasized traditional and customary practices, community stewardship, and the need to protect resources for future generations. Opposition testimony came from aquarium fishers and related advocates who argued the fishery has been shown sustainable, that the EIS process was completed, and that the bill would unfairly target one user group over another. They said the trade provides livelihoods for local families, that management is solid, and that the legislature should not ban a fishery after requiring compliance with environmental review. Some opponents also argued that fish populations have increased in recent years and that the issue reflects broader user conflict rather than science. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the chair continued taking testimony, including on Zoom, as time allowed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:17:09.280><c> Thank</c> support of this bill. Thank you. Thank support of this bill.
• /c><00:17:54.320><c> House</c><00:17:54.640><c> File</c> supports the provisions of House File supports
• </c> supporting the the 1A. Thank you, Mr. supporting the the 1A. Thank you, Mr.
• And I at uh, deed for that support.
• </c> support of both these bills. support of both these bills.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your time and consideration, and we ask for support to help align Massachusetts with the
• that was done under Democratic Governor Tom Wolf's administration found strong actuarially sound support
• And we're here to urge your support for S. 820.
• On behalf of our members, I want to express our strong support for House Bill 1301.
• Supporting House Bill 1301 is a matter of fairness.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a public hearing on a wide range of auto insurance and vehicle-related bills. Testimony focused heavily on autonomous vehicle regulation, auto insurance rating by ZIP code, rental car liability coverage, and surcharge thresholds for minor accidents. Representative Polito supported a bill to regulate autonomous vehicle testing and deployment, arguing for school-zone restrictions, slower speeds, a remote kill switch, and minimum insurance requirements to protect the public. Representative Mendez and Senator Payano testified for legislation to reduce racial and socioeconomic inequities in auto insurance pricing by limiting the weight insurers may place on territorial loss costs, while the Mass Insurance Federation and Consumer Federation of America offered opposing and supporting views, respectively, on the fairness and actuarial impact of geographic rating. The committee also heard support for a bill to remove inspection-sticker violations from license-point calculations, and for a bill to raise the damage threshold for insurance surcharges and minor/major accident classifications. A substantial portion of the hearing addressed House Bill 1301 on rental car liability. Enterprise Mobility, the American Car Rental Association, and a small Massachusetts rental company supported the bill, saying personal auto insurers should be primary when their insureds drive rental cars, that Massachusetts is an outlier compared with most other states, and that the change would reduce costs and simplify claims handling. The Mass Insurance Federation opposed the bill, arguing that current Massachusetts law already clearly makes the vehicle owner’s policy primary and that shifting liability would raise costs for private-passenger policyholders. Committee members asked detailed questions about how rental coverage works, whether premiums or rental rates would change, and how other states handle the issue. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to adjust surcharge rules for at-fault accidents, with sponsors arguing that repair costs and vehicle values have risen sharply and that the current thresholds are outdated. Members discussed how the point system affects drivers, whether the proposal should apply cumulatively or per incident, and how Carfax and out-of-pocket repairs factor into consumer costs. At the end of the hearing, the chair noted written testimony could still be submitted and, during a brief personal privilege, recorded support for two underinsurance bills, H. 1109 and S. 748. The committee then moved and seconded a motion to adjourn, and the hearing ended without any votes on the bills themselves.