WASHINGTON, D.C.-U.S. Senator Susan Collins is continuing her effort to address a provision, included in the Bipartisan Budget Act recently passed by Congress, that, if not fixed, could reduce the annual cost-of-living increase for some current military retirees.
"The significant changes to military retirement included in this budget single out current retirees and change the rules for them, and that's not fair," said Senator Collins.
In response to Senator Collins' concern, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-MI), has committed to reviewing this provision before they take effect.
On December 18th, Senator Collins wrote to Chairman Levin to express her concern with this provision and how it would affect current retirees. On December 20th, Chairman Levin responded and wrote that "the Senate Armed Services will review the retirement benefit changes next year, before they take effect at the end of 2015."
In addition, Senator Collins has cosponsored legislation to be introduced by Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) to restore the full cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees under age 62.
Following is the full text of Senator Collins' letter to Chairman Levin, and Chairman Levin's response:
December 18, 2013
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Bipartisan Budget Act would spare the Department of Defense from a portion of the devastating budget cuts, known as sequestration, that would cripple military readiness and affect thousands of defense-related jobs that are vital to the economy in Maine and in the United States. The military has already endured $487 billion in budget cuts, and the defense industrial base cannot be sustained if the mindless cuts of sequestration continue indefinitely.
While I support the sequester relief provided in the bill for the Department, I am concerned with a provision in the legislation that would reduce the annual cost of living increases to the retired pay of military retirees who are younger than 62 years of age. I am particularly concerned that this provision would affect current retirees.
This provision, if enacted, would not take effect until January of 2016, and it is my understanding that the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and you have promised to scrutinize this change should it become law after the committees reconvene next year. We must do everything that we can to honor the service and sacrifice of the brave men and women who have served our country.
In 2012, we reported a defense authorization bill from the Armed Services Committee to create the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization Commission with the precise goal of carefully examining this issue in a way that would protect current retirees while ensuring the goal of carefully examining this issue in a way that would protect current retirees while ensuring that the military retirement system is offering the right incentives to recruit and retain the most qualified and experienced service members at a time of budget constraints.
In the previous 52 years, the Congress has always passed an annual defense authorization bill, which means that there are at least two opportunities to address this issue before the provision in the budget agreement would go into effect. I request that you do everything you can to identify a more reasonable approach that reflects the careful deliberation we intended when the Commission was established. Thank you for your attention to this request.
***
December 20, 2013
Dear Senator Collins:
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2013. I am also concerned that the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 singles out a group of veterans for retirement benefit changes. Fortunately, as you said, the provision reducing the cost-of-living adjustments for working-age military retirees does not take effect for two years.
The Senate Armed Services Committee will review the retirement benefit changes next year, before they take effect at the end of 2015. I will ensure that the Committee has ample opportunity to discuss the potential impacts of the change with Department of Defense and military service leadership, and to consider potential alternatives that would yield similar savings in a more fair and equitable manner.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
Chairman