Legion staff attended and provided written testimony to the June 28 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on COLA cuts.

Consensus among committee: COLA cuts were wrong

After a budget passed in December that included cutting cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for military retirees, members of Congress vowed to undo that portion of the legislation before it goes into effect in 2015. One of the first steps in that process occurred Jan. 28 during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing featuring representatives from the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and veterans service organizations.

The American Legion, which participated in a press conference following the hearing, provided written testimony for the committee, again restating its steadfast opposition to the COLA cuts. “The American Legion recognizes, as does this committee, that without highly qualified, dedicated men and women, even the most sophisticated weaponry will not provide the deterrent force necessary for this nation to remain at peace,” the testimony stated. “We also understand that preserving an attractive retirement system for the active and reserve components is critical to maintaining an effective all-volunteer force. 

“Further, we cannot understand why Congress would seek to offset the effects of sequestration by targeting less than one quarter of 1 percent of the American population – that same one quarter of 1 percent who chose to dedicate nearly a quarter of a century of their lives to the rigors of military service which involved: moving their families every three to five 5 years, enduring multiple deployments, living on an income that was far less than their civilian peers, enduring physical and emotional stressors unlike any in the civilian sector, and swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies – without any question or mental reservation – even if it meant, their life.”

Committee members expressed their opposition to the COLA cuts. “I believe the COLA reduction is wrong because it targets a single group – military retirees – to help address the budget problems of the federal government as a whole,” said Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. “It is unfair to single out military retirees in a federal deficit-reduction effort.”

Levin’s fellow committee members agreed. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said one of the main reasons he didn’t vote for the budget deal was because of the COLA cuts. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said it was clear the COLA cuts were wrong, and since it was so clear, there was no reason to wait to correct the problem.

And Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said the COLA issue was one where both parties could agree. “What was astounding to me is once this became public, that people from both sides of the aisle said this was wrong before we even voted on it,” she said.

Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine Fox and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. James Winnefeld both agreed that current retirees and those about to leave the military should be exempt from the COLA caps and asked that Congress grandfather those immediately impacted by the cuts if the legislation isn’t revoked.

Fox also asked for patience from Congress until the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission – established by 2013 National Defense Authorization Act – presents its final report in February 2015.

Following the hearing, Legion reps attended a press conference that included Sen. Lindsey Graham, Ayotte and Wicker, where Ayotte revealed an amendment she planned on introducing Tuesday that would provide funding for – among other areas – revoking the COLA cuts.

The amendment – which will be added to flood insurance legislation that is currently pending in the Senate – would require that filers claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit on their income tax return include a valid Social Security Number for each child they are claiming. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this change would save approximately $20 billion over 10 years.

“We are stopping some massive fraud on our tax code,” Ayotte said. “It seems to me that we could put that money to good use for our men and women in uniform to fix this military retiree COLA cut.”

Louis Celli, the Legion’s National Legislative Division director, praised Ayotte, Graham and Wicker for their support on the COLA issue. “We’re extremely grateful for the support we’ve received from the senators you see here,” Celli said.


  1. I am a disabled veteran,and while I am not a retiree,it angers me to see the united states congress try to balance their budget mistakes and overspending,on the backs of our retired military people,these people gave most of their lives in service to our country,and they were promised certain things when they retired,it is just plain wrong to cut their "COLA'and we all,as being former military, need to make our dissatisfaction heard by our elected officials.
  2. We are often asked to say what we think,I will submit what I feel. I am not a Service Retiree but rather a Disabled Veteran [notice the Caps]. Whether it be benefits, from a life dedicated to Military Service, or those from injuries sustained in that service, at the heart of the matter is this, "A PROMISE KEPT". I have been chided by a few who have indicated "Oh, your on the dole!" I will not write my actual response here but rather ask that all think about that. NO! I and my brothers and sisters, active duty, retired, and disabled need not be glorified nor should we be marginalized, or insulted. We kept our promise! God Bless You All and the Leaders deciding this critical matter. <3
  3. I am neither a Retiree nor a Disabled Vet. I'm just a "standard, one-each" Veteran who served for ten years. But I agree with Mr. Pevec - and I am incensed when I hear comments implying indirectly or directly that payments to our Retired or Disabled are "the dole" or some sort of handout. And the misuse of the word "entitlement" is rampant in this country. Our Retirees and Disabled Vets are ENTITLED to what they receive because they've EARNED what they receive. Americans, and in particular our disgraceful media, regularly (and incorrectly) use the term when referring to welfare or similar funds granted to individuals who, for various reasons, qualify for payments based on their *circumstances* and NOT on any action they've taken to serve our country and thus earn compensation.
  4. It would partially depend on rank, but over time it could amount to thousands of dollars.
  5. It doesn't matter to me how deep the cuts are, these are earned benefits and not some government handout! Let the big wigs on capital hill take a cut in their retirements first. Then we can ask people who have already made sacrifices for the country; to make more. Dagonit, why is it people who have contributed the least, seem to get put at the head of the line? It is just plain wrong to steal from veterans like that, start with tightening the belt on runaway federal programs we do not need; quit taking it out of the defense budget just because you despise the military!
  6. How much are the cuts? There were no examples, in the article, showing how the cuts would affect retired veterans.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.