CVLC was proud to testify to the Connecticut Veterans’ and Military Affairs Committee in support of several bills that were before the committee at the meeting on March 3, 2026.

Authored by CVLC’s Executive Director Alison M. Weir, this testimony aims to outline how these bills will support Connecticut Veterans. Please read our testimony below. You can look up each bill easily by using the CGA’s bill search function here.

Senator Honig, Representative Foster, Senator Gordon, and Representative Anderson, and distinguished members of the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, my name is Alison Weir, and I am the executive director of the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center. CVLC provides free legal services to low-income veterans in Connecticut. 

I write in support of:

• S.B. No. 376 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING WARNINGS AND OTHER MEASURES ON THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS INTERNET WEB SITE FOR THE PROTECTION OF VETERANS AGAINST CERTAIN PROVIDERS OF ASSISTANCE WITH VETERANS’ BENEFITS CLAIMS.
•  S.B. No. 378 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR DISABLED VETERANS
• H.B. No. 5407 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING STATE REIMBURSEMENT TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR REVENUE LOST DUE TO THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR VETERANS WITH A ONE HUNDRED PER CENT PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY RATING.
• H.B. No. 5410 (RAISED) AN ACT PROVIDING HOUSING FOR CERTAIN IMPOVERISHED VETERANS
• H.B. No. 5413 (RAISED) AN ACT ESTABLISHING A VETERANS DENTAL CARE ACCESS PROGRAM.
• H.B. No. 5416 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR VETERANS.

SB 376 would post on the Department of Veterans Affairs website cautions against using unaccredited agents or advisors for filing disability claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Such actors clearly operate in violation of federal law, which requires all agents or attorneys assisting with these forms to be accredited by the VA, and to not charge for their services in the case of initial claim filings. Connecticut Veterans Legal Center does initial filings and appeals to the VA for veterans. All our attorneys who handle such cases are accredited. I myself am accredited; accreditation is not hard to achieve, but it means you cannot charge for initial claims, and you cannot mingle your claims business with a financial planning or other similar business from which you could collect a commission off a veteran’s disability payments. The organizations who resist getting accredited do not have a veteran’s best interest at heart. While I am pleased that the legislation would require warnings against non-accredited agents, and provides easy access to a list of accredited agents and attorneys, the legislation does not do anything to punish bad actors illegally charging veterans (sometimes as much or more than 40% of their disability award). With the passage of the PACT Act and the lure of easy money, these bad actors have proliferated because there is no consequence to their actions. While more warning is always good, actual teeth to discourage “claim sharks” would be better.   

I enthusiastically support SB 378, which would make permanent and part of state law the extension of the property tax exemption to those veterans who have been determined to be totally disabled due to their individual unemployability by the VA. Including these veterans, who have service-connected disability ratings of at least 70% and have been adjudicated by the VA to be functionally totally disabled, so much so that they receive disability benefits equivalent to those received by veterans with 100% service-connected disability ratings. Moreover, the VA has determined that they are unable to hold a job due to their disability. Although the property tax exemption is not needs based, this group of veterans is among the most likely to be in need of the economic benefit of this exemption.  The modification to the statute last session allowed municipalities to extend the property tax to this group of veterans, but to date, only a few, predominantly well-to-do, towns have exercised this option. The availability of this exemption should not depend on whether one lives in a town with a large enough tax base to absorb the additional lost revenue. 

Similarly, I support HB 5407, which would provide state reimbursement to towns for the property taxes lost as a result of the exemption. The population of disabled veterans is not evenly distributed throughout the state and some towns with the largest number of veterans are the most reliant on property tax or have exceptional small tax bases. According to a 2023 study by the state OLR, several of our smallest towns, including Sprague, Montville, Norfolk, Bozrah, Canterbury, and Canaan, have the highest percentage of 100% disabled veteran town residents. Among our clients, the highest percentage are in cities like Hartford and New Haven, where much of the town real estate is owned by tax-exempt institutions such as colleges, hospitals, and government buildings. While I am fully supportive of the property tax exemption (and the proposed expansion), without state reimbursement, I fear that it could exacerbate current inequalities among the towns and leave towns where veterans live with fewer resources for their residents, including veterans. 

I also support of HB 5410, as I am generally in support of more housing for veterans facing homelessness. CVLC provides eviction defense legal support as part of the Right to Counsel program. While we are often able to help veterans avoid an eviction on their record, we are not always able to keep them in their homes because the rents are simply unaffordable. In partnership with the VA and other VA funded programs, like the supportive services for Veteran Families programs at Columbus House, CRT, and The WorkPlace, we are able to marshal more resources for veterans to find stable housing than most legal aid programs. Even so, there are simply not enough affordable units for people. This would not be a permanent or even long term solution, but it might provide veterans some shelter and support as they try to find long-term stable housing. Individual units could provide a sense of security for veterans who shy away from group shelters and opt to stay outdoors rather than going to a traditional shelter. Location on the Rocky Hill campus would also bring them in closer contact with various veteran services offered by the state. It is not a long-term solution to veteran homelessness, but it could help. 

I also support HB 5413 which would create a dental care program for veterans. Currently, veterans only receive dental care through the VA Healthcare if they have a 100% service-connected disability rating, or they have a specific service-connected disability related to their teeth. Oral health is linked closely to overall wellbeing. Studies have found a link between periodontal diseases and cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, and dementia, to name a few.  The World Health Organization notes that “oral diseases disproportionately affect the most vulnerable and disadvantaged populations.” This bill would help lower income veterans who do not qualify for dental care through the VA and ensure that they have access to preventative care and basic dental care. 

Finally, I am support HB 5416, which would create a state food assistance program to assist veterans who no longer have exemption from the work requirement under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Up until January, veterans were exempt from work requirements and, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 9000 veterans in Connecticut were receiving SNAP. There are several exemptions to work requirements that may also apply to veterans (above age 65;  medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment; a parent or other member of a household with responsibility for a dependent child under 14 years of age; a pregnant woman;  or an Indian or an Urban Indian), and DSS has determined that 300 veterans who would have been exempt from the work requirements will be impacted by the change. Based on our data and my reading of the statute, I believe the number will be far higher. 

The Connecticut Veterans Legal Center provides free legal assistance to low-income Veterans living in Connecticut. We have 364 clients who receive SNAP. We do not serve all the eligible veterans in the state, but I think our data can give a good approximation of how many veterans will actually fall within the other remaining exemptions. 

Of our 364 clients, 145 are over 65 years old, leaving 219 veterans, or about 60%, of our clients not eligible for that exemption. Of those, 72 have a VA service-connected disability rating, but that does not necessarily mean they are medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment. As I read the exemptions from work requirement that remain, a veteran would have to have a service-connected rating of 100% or be adjudicated to be “totally disabled due to individual unemployment”, or TDIU, to be considered medically certified as unfit for employment. TDIU determinations are only available to veterans with at least a 70% service-connected disability rating. Of our 72 veteran clients who are both 65 or under and have a service-connected disability rating, only 20 have a service-connected rating of 70% or more. Thus, of our 364 clients who received SNAP before the One Big Beautiful Act was passed, at most 165 fall under one of the remaining exemptions, leaving 199 veterans, or approximately 55%, who had been exempt from work requirements now subject to those requirements. If we extrapolate the CVLC client base to the 9,000 veterans who were receiving SNAP before passage of the act, as many as 4,920 veterans will be impacted by the work requirements. 

CVLC’s client population, as is true for that of our fellow legal services providers due to resource constraints, is a fraction of the population of veterans who are eligible for legal services and SNAP, so our numbers are not necessarily the definitive population of veterans who will be affected by this change, but I think they are representative of the veteran population who relied on SNAP. There is a large population of veterans who had been exempt from work requirements for SNAP who may be unable to fulfill those requirements and thus lose SNAP benefits. As the legal portion of a medical-legal partnership with VA Healthcare, our attorneys work to improve the social determinants of health for our clients, and one of the most important social determinants is food security. I fear that a great many of our clients, and many more veterans throughout the state, will find that they are no longer food secure. Even if they are able to fulfill the work requirements, they will only be able to collect SNAP benefits for 3 months, leaving them without any assistance once that time expires.  

I urge the committee to create a state funded food assistance program that fills in the hole left by HR 1.