Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Committee Process topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee places large veterans package and multiple bills on consent calendar; omnibus 'Hero Act' described

Veterans and Military Affairs Committee · March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee placed a bundle of veterans-related bills on its consent calendar and advanced a broad omnibus (the Hero Act) that combines many previously vetted measures; the chair said the approach aims to avoid a floor strike-all amendment and expedite short-session work.

A package of veterans-focused bills — including references to SB278 (military protective orders), SB279 (environment referral), SB377 (funeral honor guard deduction), HB5292 (sales‑tax exemptions for veterans organizations), HB5294 (Adjutant General recommendations), HB5295 (naming the Putnam National Guard readiness center), HB5296 (National Guard active‑duty tax deduction), HB5298 (veterans capital grants), HB5412 (Military Department emergency response), HB5415 (veterans health-care ombudsman), HB5406 (the Connecticut "Hero Act" omnibus), and HB5409 (Troops to Trade initiatives) — were placed on the committee's consent calendar and advanced to the floor or referred to other committees where appropriate.

The chair described the omnibus vehicle (referred to in committee as an "aircraft carrier" or the Connecticut Hero Act) as a way to assemble agreed‑upon language and avoid a strike‑all amendment on the floor. Substitute-language clarifications were noted in committee for some bills (for example, narrowing certain tax deductions to state active duty and moving a proposed veterans health‑care ombudsman role from the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the Office of the Health Advocate).

Clerk Sims conducted the consent roll-call; the chair held votes open until 5:30 and recessed the committee. Members were given the opportunity to change recorded votes when they phoned in after the recess.

Votes placed on consent that the committee advanced (LCO numbers as read into the record) included SB278 (LCO 2955) to judiciary and a multi‑bill listing as read on the floor; the committee recorded affirmative votes for the consent calendar items during the roll call.