Hearings to examine seniors in the workforce.

The US Senate Special Committee on Aging will now come to order. In December, this committee highlighted the positive impact that having a purpose and engaging with the community has on older Americans. Witnesses shared powerful and first-hand accounts about how staying engaged, whether through volunteering, mentoring, or taking on new responsibilities, helps seniors live a happier, healthier life, with a renewed purpose and goal for their next chapter. Not only is this kind of activity enriching and beneficial to seniors, but also it helps their communities too. In our December hearing, we just spoke about the many, many ways older Americans strengthen the U. S. economy, thanks to the expertise and perspective they bring to the job. The truth is that retirement doesn't have to be the end of one's career. For many, it's the start of a new, purpose-driven chapter in their lives. Seniors can and should use this time to chase and reach new goals and dreams. Maybe try the new hobby they haven't had for, for, hadn't had time for in the past. Start a business doing odd jobs around their neighborhood. Volunteer at their church or even substitute teach at their grandkids' school. In all of these things and more, seniors offer valuable insight because they have lived a full, life of experiences and knowledge that can be passed on to the next generation. However, in that hearing witnesses also shared some of the challenges members of our aging community face when their goals and dreams involve continuing to work, or even going back to work full or part-time. In today's hearing we'll look more closely at what these challenges are and how government is making it worse. The fact is, there are laws on the books that penalize older workers unfairly. The retirement earnings test is one of them. This test punishes workers between the ages of sixty-two and sixty-six, who start to claim their benefits, benefits they are absolutely entitled to and have earned. It essentially takes one dollar of their benefits away for every two dollars they earn once their income hits twenty-four thousand dollars a year. The retirement earnings test was passed during the Great Depression, specifically to push older Americans out of the workforce and free up more jobs for younger Americans. But as we are all aware, it's not the nineteen thirties anymore. And we shouldn't expect our seniors to be punished today by by outdated policies passed, uh, then. Asian Americans deserve better. That's why I've introduced the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, like my friend and fellow committee member, Senator Tuberville. Our bill will get rid of the unfair retirement earnings test so that seniors who want to stay in the workforce can do so without being punished or robbed of their hard-earned benefits. But we need to do more than that. Even if we get the RET repealed, seniors still face mountains of administrative red tape. to get information on how their benefits are impacted by when they retire. The same red tape also makes it hard for seniors to decide when they should start withdrawing their benefits. Many Americans don't realize that when they start withdrawing, it actually impact how much they'll they'll be entitled to. This not only affects our seniors retiring today, but all Americans who are actively planning for their future. We shouldn't be making it more difficult for seniors, or future seniors, to find the information they need to make the best choices for themselves and their families. We should be making it easy, straightforward, and transparent so all Americans can make the best decisions if they plan for retirement. That's why I cosponsored the Claiming Age Clarity Act, which also has the support of two of my colleagues on this committee, ranking member Gillibrand and Senator Warnick.

Mm-hmm.

This bill would give seniors better and more straightforward information about how their social security benefits change based on when they retire and when they start claiming their hard-in benefits. The fact is workers age fifty-five or older have been the fastest growing age group in the labor force more than two decades. In nineteen ninety-four, they made up just ten percent of the workforce, and twenty-two, twenty-four percent. People are living longer, staying healthier, and wanting to keep working and giving back to their communities and pursuing new goals and challenges. If our seniors want to stay at work, we should be empowering them and giving them all the information they need, so they know what they, what that means for their future. It's not the government's job to tell Americans when they should stop working or when they should claim their benefits. And it's definitely not the government's role to punish those who want to continue to continue their careers later in life. Government should be working for our aging population, not against it. We should be giving our seniors transparent information and ample freedom to choose what is best for them. We should not penalize hardworking Americans for continuing to work after they reach retirement age. Because at the end of the day, it's older Americans who bring their experience. experience and expertise necessary to get the job done. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can get government out of the way, inject transparency, and make seniors have the information and freedom they need to make their later years their best years. Now I'll turn it over to Ranking Member Gillibrand.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was very well said. I appreciate your hearing, calling this hearing today, and I'd like to extend a special thank you to our witnesses for sharing your stories, expertise, and knowledge with us today. We can't make these decisions without the input from our constituents and smart experts like you, so we're very grateful for the collaboration. Um, as mentioned by, um, the Chairman, when we look at the US Census demographic data, approximately sixty-five million Americans, or nearly twenty percent of the nation's population, are currently over the age of sixty-five, and that population is continuing to grow. By twenty-forty we expect one in five Americans will be sixty-five. The US workforce is rapidly changing. According to GAO, older workers now represent nearly a quarter of our total workforce, a growing share that reflects broader demographic shifts. But, for that reason, we must evaluate our programs. We have to evaluate our rules and our laws and make sure that both employees and workers can re can navigate today's environment. Since the nineteen thirties, provided the financial security to retirees and protected individuals against risks like disability and death. Today, seventy-four million Americans rely on social security benefits and a hundred and eighty-four workers pay into the system. One of the biggest retirement decisions Americans make is when to claim their social security. That decision gets even more complex for seniors considering collecting social security while also working, particularly because of the program's retirement earnings test. Certainly there are lessons to be learned from the successful bipartisan reform in two thousand, while the congressional record also points to budgetary and poverty issues that we also have to evaluate. Rising costs are forcing many older adults across the country to remain employed or to consider returning to work. For many this is not a life choice, but it's it's not a lifestyle choice, it's an economic necessity. driven by the skyrocketing costs of health care, housing, groceries, and utilities. And when these individuals decide to re-enter the workforce, they can face real barriers, like age discrimination, the need to develop new skills, and other challenges that make it harder for older adults to live financially secure independent lives. These individuals, like all Americans, deserve seamless access to the Social Security Administration. But my constituents are telling me otherwise. They report long wait times, both on the phone and for in-person appointments, difficulty finding out whether field offices are even open, and significant delays in obtaining those answers. This is happening in an agency that has cut nearly seven thousand staff since the start of twenty twenty five, marking the largest workforce reduction in the social security administration history. So I will continue to fight on behalf of my constituents for an agency that functions well, treats its workers fairly, and provides an employer employees the training they need to properly serve the American people. There are many solutions that Congress can undertake to support our seniors' economic resilience. I'm also commi committed to strengthening I'm also committed to strengthening and protecting social security while also supporting older adults in the workforce by banning forced arbitration in cases of age discrimination which can be achieved through a bill I have the Protecting Older Americans Act. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. uh, about our nation's work and retirement landscape. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Um, thank you, member Gillibrand. Um, it's also great to work with you. Um, I'd like to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing. They're experts in workforce and retirement policy and are here to discuss the important role older Americans play in today's workforce. First, I'd like to introduce Rachel Grisler. Rachel is a senior research fellow in the Plymouth Institute for Free Enterprise and Advancing American Freedom. uh, AAF and a visiting fellow in workforce at the Economic Policy Innovation Center. Prior to joining AAF, she spent twelve years as a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and previously served for seven years as senior economist on the staff of the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress. She is recognized as an Economic Expert in Workforce, Social Security, Pensions, Family Policy, Fiscal Policy. I want to thank you for being here for the third time. Um, your expertise is clearly very much appreciated here. Please begin your testimony. Nice to see you.

Thank you, Chairman Scott and ranking member Jill Abrant, um, for the opportunity to be here today. In my testimony, I would like to review the role of older Americans in the workforce and then explain a simple and pro-growth proposal to support instead of penalize older, say, working Americans. Older workers are the fastest growing segment of the labor force accounting for three quarters of total employment growth since two thousand. While part of this rise is due to the sheer number of the aging baby boomers, older Americans labor force participation rates have increased six percentage points even as younger people's participation rates have declined. Today seniors are redefining what retirement looks like. Rather than a one-time permanent exit from the workforce, about half of Americans are choosing nontraditional retirement paths, including transitioning to more flexible part-time or independent work, as well as unretiring by coming back into the workforce after an initial exit. This shift reflects new opportunities and changing preferences. Americans are living longer, healthier lives, and many want to remain engaged and productive. And doing so provides physical, mental, and financial benefits. At the same time, flexible and independent work arrangements have made it easier for older Americans to continue working in the ways that work for them. Older workers' positive contributions cannot be understated, especially amidst cultural shifts that cry out for older generations to impart their wisdom experience and resilience to younger generations. Yet, certain government policies make it harder for seniors who want to continue working to do so. One policy in particular directly penalizes them. That is Social Security's retirement earnings test. which is a relic of the Great Depression, when policymakers wanted to push older Americans out of the workforce to try to free up jobs for younger workers. Today, we want and need older workers. While the retirement earnings test is little known and often misunderstood, it functions like an initial fifty percent tax. So, for individuals who first claim Social Security benefits before their normal retirement age which is going to be sixty-seven next year, and this is what most people do to claim benefits early, they lose one dollar in benefits for every two dollars that they earn over the limit of about twenty-four thousand five hundred dollars per year. This results in, for example, a marginal tax rate of seventy-four percent for somebody who's making twenty-nine thousand dollars, and a marginal tax rate of eighty-four percent for somebody who's making seventy thousand dollars. Not surprisingly, studies show that this causes people to work less and earn less than they would otherwise choose. And while those lost benefits are gradually added back into recipients' monthly checks after they reach the full retirement age, most people don't know that and they perceive the test as a pure tax and subsequently reduce their earnings or stop working altogether. Moreover, individuals with lower life expectancies typically don't recoup all or sometimes any of those lost benefits. The earnings test is also confusing for seniors and it costs the Social Security Administration seventy million dollars per year to administer. And this includes hundreds of thousands of improper payments issued through it. Now, if somebody wants to stop working at age sixty-two, that should be their choice. But unlike their Great Depression-era counterparts, today's older workers shouldn't be ushered into an early exit by an outdated Social Security provision. Ending Social Security's retirement earnings test Senator Scott's Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of twenty twenty six would do, is a win-win. In addition to erasing confusion and administrative burdens, I estimate that it would add up to one million workers to the labor force and increase personal incomes by up to sixty six billion dollars per year. That extra work and earnings would generate up to eighteen billion in annual tax revenues including an additional eight billion dollars per year for social security which would modestly extend the program's solvency. The last time that Congress addressed the retirement earnings test by eliminating it for everybody above the full retirement age the bill passed with one hundred percent bipartisan support and now that the retirement age is almost sixty-seven, it's affecting millions more seniors. Americans of all ages should have the freedom to work, and social security recipients should not have their benefits taken away because they're positively contributing to the workforce. In summary, Many older Americans are already leading the way with their continued contributions. Policymakers should clear the path for current and future seniors to remain engaged by removing outdated barriers and supporting flexible work. Ending the retirement earnings test is a practical and pro-growth place to start. Thank you.

Thank you, Rachel. Thanks for being back. OK, next we have Johnny Taylor. Uh, he's the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Society for Human Resources uh Management His career spans more than twenty years as a lawyer, human rights, uh, human resources executive, and CEO in both the not-for-profit and for-profit spaces. Thanks for being here. Please begin your testimony.

Thank you, uh, Chairman Scott and member, uh, Ranking Member Gillibrand. Uh, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. Uh, let me get with begin with a sort of simple reality. America's workforce is changing. We've all talked about it. The fact of the matter is we know it. You've pointed out that in nineteen ninety-four about, uh, twelve percent of Americans in the workforce were age sixty-five and older. Today that's closer to twenty percent. We also know a shocking stat that often tells people that the fastest growing segment of the US workforce are people seventy-five and older. Not just sixty-five, seventy-five and older, albeit on a smaller base. But the fact of the matter is people are working longer, much longer. And this is not a temporary trend, it's a structural shift. And it requires us to rethink how we approach work and retirement. First, as you've all pointed out, this is good for people. At SHRM, where we represent approximately three hundred and forty thousand members across the country in every industry, we're seeing a clear shift. People are not just working longer because they have to. There are some. But they're working longer because they want to. Because work provides more than a paycheck. It provides purpose, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman. and connection. And research consistently shows that older adults who remain engaged in work, they experience better mental and physical health outcomes, including lower rates of depression and stronger cognitive function. Why? Because work keeps people connected and engaged. So when we talk about extending workforce participation, we're not just talking about economics, we're talking about quality of life and dignity. Second, the this is sort of good for employers, really good for employers. Latest JOLST report says we have six point nine million open jobs in America. Nearly seven in ten organizations report difficulty filling roles, and yet one of the most capable talent pools in America is often overlooked, experienced workers. At the Sherm Foundation, our philanthropic arm, we call this untapped talent. Skilled individuals, including older workers, who are often overlooked. And we actually need them in the workplace. This is not just a social good, it's a business advantage. Research shows that companies with more workers over age fifty are more productive, believe it or not. In fact, increasing the share of workers age fifty and older by just ten percent is associated with a one point one percent gain in productivity, contributing to stronger economic growth and higher GDP per capita. And SHRM data reinforces this. Eighty percent of HR professionals say older workers bring exceptional reliability and expertise and more than ninety percent, and by the way, you don't get ninety percent of HR people to agree on anything, say they perform as well or better than other employees. Now, in a labor market, uh, defined by uncertainty, experienced workers provide consistency, judgment, and stability. And we are already seeing what this looks like in practice. At Publix, a Florida-based company where I'm an orig I'm a Floridian, a ninety-five year old associate works alongside colleagues of all ages. That gentleman is helping model, service, and mentorship that strengthens the entire team. And at MasterCard in New York, reverse mentoring programs pair younger employees with senior leaders, creating two-way learning that blends experience with new perspectives. My friends, these are not exceptions. They are signals of what is possible when we treat experience as an asset. But our systems simply have not kept up, and you've heard this a lot. Too often, workplace practices and and policies still reflect outdated assumptions, that retirement is a single moment, that contribution declines with age. Today's workers want flexibility. They want phased retirement and opportunities to continue contributing in ways that fit their lives. And when we don't provide these options, we're not just timing individuals or limiting individuals, we're limiting our economy. And that's why this alignment matters. So let me close with this. The talent is here, the experience is proven, and the opportunity is ours to unlock. If we support flexibility, invest in lifelong learning, and remove barriers to continued work, we strengthen both our workforce and our economy. Because in America, talent does not expire, it evolves. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Good job. Thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Publix is a great company.

Yes, he is.

Yeah, this

Rick State of Florida.

So, we love Publix in Florida.

I know. Yeah, yeah, this I I think it's our, yeah, it's clearly our biggest employer now.

That's right.

Yeah.

Yeah, so. All right, our next witness, Doctor Jason Feichner. Uh, he is the Executive Director of the Limerick Retirement Income Institute. Previous previously served as the Acting Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. nice easy job. And their Chief Econom- Chief Economist, his area of expertise focused on social security, federal tax policy, federal budget policy, retirement security, and policy proposals to increase saving and investment. Thanks for being here. Please begin your testimony.

Good afternoon. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Jill Brand, thank you for inviting me to testify today. Again, my name is Jason Fickner. I'm also a senior fellow at the National Academy of Social Insurance, as well as a senior policy fellow at the Center for Social Development. at the brown school of washington university in st louis and as chairman scott you mentioned the executive director of the limited retirement institute institute i'm also on the board of directors for the FINRA investor education foundation and a member of the puerto rico pension reserve trust where i serve on both the pension benefits council and the pension reserve board and as mentioned i previously served in several positions in social security administration including the deputy commissioner of social security and chief economist all opinions i expressed today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization with which i am affiliated i want to also thank chairman scott and ranking member gillibrand for your leadership in ensuring that important public policy issues involving aging and social security get the attention to the debate they deserve and that ideas and viewpoints from all sides are aired in a collegial productive and respectful manner it is truly a privilege for me to testify before this committee today my testimony today focuses primarily on the importance of reducing confusion around the social security claiming decision related to retirement earnings test or ret and the nomenclature that social security administration uses to describe the various ages at which a beneficiary can claim retirement benefits one of the key financial decisions facing older americans is when to claim social security retirement benefits as ranking member jill obrien mentioned in fact when to claim social security may be the most important retirement decision someone will make. While these benefits are available as early as age sixty-two, claiming later permanently raises monthly benefits with the maximum benefit available to those who claim at age seventy. Delaying claiming is thus equivalent to purchasing a greater inflation adjusted annuity that will be paid for as long as the beneficiary lives. Most people, however, do not claim social security at their optimal age, usually because they claim too early. Research demonstrates that many people lack the financial education an understanding to make complex financial decisions, including about risks in retirement. The information people receive and the form it takes can also influence how people make financial choices. For example, with respect to the claiming decision, people act differently to the framing of age sixty-two as the early eligibility age, than they would if we framed claiming at age sixty-two as a penalty that results in lower monthly benefits for the rest of your life. in two thousand eight when i was at s s s a and based on research we removed the so-called break even analysis from use by claims representatives when talking to the public about when to claim social security cause we recognized that the framing was potentially biasing people towards early claiming and we want the public to have necessary information education presented sorry necessary information education presented in a manner so that they can make the informed decisions we changed this because it was very important um As provided my, in detail my written testimony, I hope to leave the committee with the following takeaways. First, the retirement earnings test is overly confusing and should be eliminated, or at least rebranded, to better educate the public about its rules to clear up considerable confusion about the relationships between working and claiming retirement benefits. Second, the official names of claiming ages that SSA uses should be changed to better reflect the implications of claiming decisions. For example, SSA could rename the early eligibility age the minimum monthly benefit age, and age seventy as the maximum monthly benefit age. Third, when thinking about framing, a phrase I would like for retirement security is quote-unquote, income is the outcome. We need to modernize the traditional three-legged stool to bring the concept into the current age, by focusing on how we can promote additional income in retirement, which includes reducing barriers for those who want and are able to continue doing so in working in their later years. Along with reducing confusion in the social security claiming decision, This includes reducing barriers for seniors to continue working in their later years. Fundamentally, claiming social security does not mean one needs to stop working, nor does stopping work mean one must claim social security at the same time. Many people will either want or need to continue working and saving in to their later years. Public policy should be designed to allow them to do so. Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity to testify today, and look forward to answering your questions.

Thanks for being here. Let me turn it over to Senator Kim to introduce the next witness.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman Scott. Uh, I want to move to introduce our next witness, Dan Adcock. Mister Adcock is the Director of Government Relations and Policy for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Previously, Mister Adcock served as Legislative Director at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. During his time there in September two thousand, he helped to create the federal long-term care insurance

Thank you.

Uh, thank you, and, uh, dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Gillibrand, uh, thank you for inviting the National Committee to testify. for you today. Um, Ra- Max Richman is sorry he could not join you, particularly because he was a staff director of this committee, and because he worked closely on the senior citizens freedom to work act with Senator John McCain leading up to its enactment in two thousand. Workforce participation depends on the older workers' health, but it's also influenced by their financial circumstances, the availability of jobs, and the willingness of employers to invest in older workers. Congress must remove impediments older workers confront when deciding whether to continuing work, while ensuring any changes do not inadvertently force seniors into the workforce because they simply cannot afford to retire. One piece of this puzzle is repealing the retirement earnings test. The National Committee supports Chairman Scott's repeal legislation in concept. However, before Congress enacts such a major change to Social Security, We believe this committee should carefully explore three basic questions. Number one, will everyone benefit from repealing the RET and if some workers end up worse off, are there ways to mitigate the financial impacts on these workers and their families? Number two, will repeal of the will repealing the RET actually increase the participation of older Americans in the workforce, or are there other legislative changes that should be made to advance this goal? Number three, what will the impact of repealing the RIT be on the Social Security Administration's ability to implement the change, and on the solvency of the Social Security Trust funds? I know from attending town halls with seniors, uh, that repealing the RIT would be extremely popular. After the last repeal of the RIT in two thousand, for claimants who reached the full retirement age, I know that many seniors who were not covered by the law complained that they had been left out. In part, this is because the RIT is extremely complicated and tends to induce fear and uncertainty. Many seniors don't realize that social security benefits withheld under the RIT are later returned to them through higher monthly payments, for the rest of their lives. Those who don't know about this feature of the RIT may find it difficult to fully weigh the impact on their own fi- family's finances. For Congress, it is this element of the RIT that contributes to the challenge of rejecting the positive and the negative impacts of the RET repeal legislation. While we hope the repeal of the RET will increase older worker employment, that won't happen if employers continue to discriminate in hiring based on age. That's what this committee found at your September third, two twenty twenty five hearing. To address this challenge, you focused on bipartisan legislation S twenty seven O three, the protecting older workers Older Americans Act of twenty twenty five, which the National Committee supports. This bill would eliminate the current practice of employers utilizing forced arbitration to resolve age discrimination complaints which would shift some of the leverage in these claims back to the workers. The National Committee is also concerned about the Social Committee Administration's ability to implement the RET repeal, since the agency has undergone a dramatic downsizing as a result of DoGE-inspired staff cuts. In the short term, SSA will be required to modify its computer programs to reflect the elimination of the RET's impact on early retirement reductions. The education piece of an RET repeal is especially important to help beneficiaries make good decisions about when to claim retirement benefits. We urge you to ensure that SSA has enough additional resources to do this work So it is not forced to shift resources from its other operations, which are already severely underfunded. Finally, we know from former Social Security Chief Actuary, Steven Goss, that RET repeal will ultimately reduce trust fund costs. But we are concerned how paying more benefits shortly after the RET repeal is enacted, would affect Social Security's solvency when reserves are expected to be depleted by twenty thirty-four. The question needs to be answered before repeal receives serious consideration. In conclusion, I wanted to thank you again for holding this hearing, uh, this is important hearing and for inviting me to testify. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Thanks for your testimony. Now we'll get to questions. Um, Rachel, the retirement endurance test was originally designed to help younger Americans get jobs. When unemployment ran rampant during the great depression, does that make sense to keep in place now nearly a hundred years later?

No, it doesn't make sense anymore, as we are needing more workers and more producers and even that original thought was a little bit flawed to begin with, because you actually want more workers to produce more, to generate more demand. Um, so on both ends it should have been, that should not have been the policy to begin with. But absolutely, today, not only do we want more people working, we need more people working. By twenty thirty four, there will be more seniors in the US than there are children for the first time in US history. And so we need those older workers.

Right. Mister Taylor, you have written extensively on the value that older Americans bring to the workforce. Uh, what are you hearing from employers Are they trying to recruit and retain older workers, or is there still quite a barrier of age discrimination?

So, uh, there's no question that ageism is alive and well. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I should say, during the post-COVID period when unemployment was sub two percent in some states, we didn't see as much rampant ageism because we needed the talent. We continue to need the talent. That being said, there are still certain barriers. We've got to work on Changing the language, as you've described in many ways, how we speak and about older employees. That continues, there's a built-in narrative that it's time for you to move on. There's a perception amongst younger workers that you're keeping me from my next opportunity because you won't move on. So there's an inherent int- tension that is

That never happens in politics, right?

never happens. And and as a result, that really does present some really tensions, some significant problems in the workplace. Younger employees want their next shot. and the older employee isn't moving on. So what we're trying to do is describe these first mentoring programs, opportunities for people to take on part-time roles which older employees are willing to do, especially if you solve for the RET challenges. And so we think we can solve for this. The other big challenge is flexible work. What we we need increasingly because of worker productivity and lower worker productivity uh participation rates, we need work old uh older workers in the workplace. And so there's not as much of a barrier. as there has been and and when it comes to ageism, but it's alive and well for people who have their own biases.

That makes sense. Yeah, whenever you're gonna run for reelection, everybody everybody wants to run for your office,

That's

suggests you ought to move on,

Yeah, they wanna move.

they have something else for you.

That's right.

So, um, Mister Feigner, there's a problem with how the retirement earnings test is discussed with beneficiaries. It's complex and not very transparent. What does research show about how well older Americans actually understand these rules?

It's a great question, Senator, and as you guessed it does not uh, the research shows they don't understand it very much at all. In fact, they're confusing what the RAT is. They hear retirement earnings and they hear tax, not test. And that discouraged his work, as Rachel Grezer pointed out in her testimony, and you mentioned your opening statements. What is interesting, and this is also what my colleague mentioned, that the people hear this and then they see this idea that money is being taken out of their social security check. So they actually then think it's a tax. They don't understand potentially get it back and that technically it's actually neutral but no one likes to hear well it's actually neutral we'll take it out today and give it back to you tomorrow uh no one likes that idea so it discourages work we're not sure the research shows why it actually if people are not working because they're confused about it or if they just don't want to work they do wanna work and then claim social security but the language we're using we know is confusing senator and that's why we very much want to change the language on the claiming act and also get rid of the retirement earnings test

yeah makes sense jack o'clock how can employers better recognize and leverage the experience and institutional knowledge that older workers bring

well i think it's kind of a mixed bag i think that's especially with workers who are professionals and uh uh who are white collar jobs uh i think that uh many of them are in tune to the idea of trying to bring people back and value that bringing back older workers and the experience they have uh and also being flexible about how they bring them back. So, because some workers may ma- may not wanna work full-time. They wanna, may, may wanna have a glide path towards retirement. So maybe for five years they wanna work part-time or as a consultant. And I think if employers do that, I think that's the case. Uh, but I think where it's becomes very challenging is blue collar jobs, where people are physically not able to work any longer or employers don't perceive that they have that ability and are reluctant to keep them on. So, I don't know that a lot of that is happening on, in that particular part of employment, but Uh, certainly if wor- workers are physically able to do it and can, they should.

Thank you. Mister Taylor, you lead an organization that represents hundreds of thousands of HR professionals from basically every sector of the economy. Your organization sets the standards for how employers think about talent. Is there more that can be done to improve how we treat workers over sixty-two and help them be viewed as an asset rather than a problem?

Yes, Mister Chairman, there are three things in particular, one, uh, screening practices. uh such as focusing on graduation dates and people's resumes. It is a you're talking about an obvious way to commit ageism without leaving a trace of it, is you look simply at a resume and you can do the math and and conclude the age of a person. So we're we're advocating for individuals to actually exclude graduation rates from their resumes as something employers can do. Secondly, coded language that we use like digital native or fast paced environment words that suggest we're looking younger people without saying younger people uh explicitly, which would violate obviously ADA and other other uh laws, local and and state laws. And then excluding older workers from upskilling opportunities. There's this really interesting practice that we had historically, which was we'd provide a lot of training and development opportunities for newer workers. And then when you hit about fifty-five, we stopped sending you to training because you were on the other side of your career. And so what we're saying is employers have got to be more mindful about the idea that you might actually provide training opportunities specifically in this AI world for older workers so you're not messaging to them that they've outlived their shelf life.

Yeah, thank you. Senator Kim.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Um, thank you all for coming on out here. Mister Adcock, I'd li- I'd like to start with you. Um, I, I, I recently became now a a caregiver for my own father, and I know uh one in every four americans currently serve as a caregiver providing uncompensated care to a family member uh many individuals who are caring for their family members are forced to either choose to leave a job or choose to figure out how they can do that and balance it uh in terms of taking care of their loved one and depending on when the caretaker leaves a caregiver leaves a a workforce this can often shortchange social security benefits but there are other also increased challenges for older caregivers who are living on social security alone upon retiring. In either scenario, it's often the case that benefits are often not enough to get past daily expenses, let alone uh expenses associated with caregiving. So I I guess I just wanted to ask you, as we're considering solutions that could better reflect the work lives of Americans, how could we reimagine social security to capture the needs of caregivers in our society?

Uh, thank thanks, Senator Kim. Uh, great, that's a great question. Um, uh, first on for somebody who is uh still working, um, I know that when we talk about a more broad picture of social security reform, one of the things that we support, the National Committee, uh, is that there be a social security caregiver credit. Uh, because if you you are uh leaving the workforce to care for either a child or an elderly parent, uh, it means for every year that you're out of the workforce, your social security record is is reducing your social security benefit for the future. Uh, legislation has been introduced in the past, uh, which would provide basically a proxy, uh, for the time someone left the workforce while caregiving to enable them to have a higher social security benefit than they otherwise would. So that's one thing I would do. Um, I think it's once somebody has retired and is on social security benefits, I think that's, uh, that's a harder harder nut to crack. I mean, obviously with regard to so social security itself, um, I I that's why we you know, obviously as an organization we're concerned more than just about social security, about medicare and medicaid and the older americans act. and uh those those program various of those programs have various supports for caregivers that we think are really essential uh and need to to be beefed up, especially home and community based care that the medicaid program provides uh and insure that that program is there for the long haul uh so and that the older americans act also is enabled uh to provide family caregiver support which it is inadequately been funded in the past and it needs to be fully funded.

yeah now as you said uh you know there are different scenarios in which this happen and for instance you know we've been talking to people that their caregivers who claim social security benefits early due to their caregiving related income loss um and i guess the question that we're trying to think through how how do we make sure that they are not structurally disadvantaged in the long term you know when it comes to you know being under social security policy so what you raised are important questions and i think a number of different scenarios that are out there and i think it would be good for our committee as well as broadly here in congress to be thinking through those different scenarios mister taylor i i'd like to just turn to you uh just kinda build it off of some of the questions that the chairman asked uh about you know about uh older americans who who want to be able to continue on to work and just thinking through you know what kind of policies should we be considering and pursuing here at the federal level to advance accommodations or flexible solutions that could increase uh workplace accessibility for older americans you know you talked about some of these different ideas that are out there uh including some of the you know the language side of things but i'm just wondering if there are certain tactics or tools that you've seen or opportunities for policies that you think are are ones that we should be considering from a legislative standpoint

Senator, I our belief in SHRM is that from a private employer perspective, that there are sufficient legislative policies in place to address discrimination. Frankly, employers uh are best positioned as it stands to audit themselves, uh looking at hiring and talent practices, to remove biased language, for example, from job descriptions and postings, uh to ensure equal access to training and development opportunities as I ment as I mentioned earlier. Frankly, there's not a sense that any piece of additional legislation or policy is gonna solve for that. Employers need the talent, they're convinced of it, we're past the day of saying that, you know, people have outlived their uh value to us. What we've gotta do is just be very intentional about ensuring that our practices don't unintentionally exclude people from the workforce because of their age.

OK. Thank you. With that, I'll yield back.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Moody.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much to our witnesses for being here today. We really appreciate it. Uh, in Florida, as you know, we have a a very large senior population. I think that is growing. Some people refer to it as a silver tsunami, which I love. Um, and I think a large driver of that, I wou you know, I wanna say over fifty percent of returning seniors to work talk about extra money. Um, And, and I think it's, um, in Florida, thankfully, we have a a a a thriving state, um, very easy to start a business, number one in entrepreneurship, new business formations we rank high in the nation, a lot of opportunities. Um, I, you know, I wa- I wa- I want to better understand what the impediments are if someone wants to go back and work in their senior years, what those impediments are. I wanna understand how we might um lawmakers address current law uh to allow for that. So they don't fit, they don't feel um bound in order to receive their social security benefits or other benefits. They don't feel bound to not working because they, if they make more money, they won't be able to receive those earned benefits over the course of their life. I think that is that is wrong and we need to fix it. Um because we know that this is become going to become more and more of a problem, Um, I think by twenty thirty, all baby boomers will be over the age of sixty five. My my office staff keeps thinking that I am a a baby boomer and I keep assuring them that I am not. Um, but I think by twenty thirty four seniors will outnumber children for the first That's not good for the boys. It's true, oh, senior senator of mine from Florida. Um, but by twenty thirty four seniors will outnumber children for the first time. uh in US history. And so I want to get it right before then. I wanna start working on that now. And I am so grateful. Our chairman, I think this has been the most active aging committee maybe in the history. Um it makes sense since we have a chairman from Florida. Um but we know that more and more uh workers over age sixty-five um are coming into the to the employment sector and it's grown by a hundred and seventeen percent within twenty years so Um, giving these realities, I, I wanna hear from you, I mean you're the experts, again, the chairman's put together a great panel. Um, what are, what are the main impediments? Why if someone wanted to work, they wanted to earn the extra income, and we know that costs of living are going up and, specifically related to healthcare and drug prices, and we're trying to do everything we can to address that, drug pricing transparency, um, all of the things that we're doing to address that. But, you know, as they are wanting to make more to cover these increased costs, what is the the main impediment that they are facing if they want to go back into the workforce? And and I'll and I'll start uh with you, uh, Miss Gretzler.

Thank you. A- and I'd like to talk about two, and first is that retirement earnings test. And so somebody who's making a modest amount, like twenty-nine thousand dollars per year, facing a seventy-four percent marginal tax rate, in terms of what they get from that additional dollar that they work and earn. When you see that only twenty-six cents on the dollar coming in a paycheck, that encourages people to just stop working. And so just eliminating that test, um, is it's just a common sense one and it would improve the economy, it would just improve social security. Um, so getting rid of the p- penalty first.

You think that's the number one, the number one thing to do.

I think that combined with, yes.

For triaging our approach.

Yeah, that's the first thing.

OK.

And second, I would address the people who want to transition out of a formal nine to five job into part-time, more flexible work, um, enabling them to first be able to have that opportunity. Um, so things like clarity and what is an independent worker versus an employee, and there are two bills on that, the Modern Worker Empowerment Act and the Twenty-Fourth Century Worker Act, um, that would just provide that clarity to make those opportunities available, and then addressing the benefit side of things. So if somebody is, say, sixty-two and they wanna start transitioning out, but they don't wanna lose access to their health insurance and maybe they still wanna have a retirement account. Having those types of portable benefits be an option through independent work as opposed to the formal employer things you could do. And so something like unlocking benefits for Independent Workers Act. So just expanding the flexibility. Neither of these things are like new mandates on employers. They're just removing current barriers that the government's created.

And I can anybody else wanna comment on that?

Less what the government can do, but what private employers can do. We know specifically that there are four things that older workers uh, say are barriers to them returning to the workplace. One is flexible working hours. We as employers have the ability to impact that. Secondly, they want us to develop more wellness programs that specifically address age-related health needs. So gym memberships are nice and things like that, but ultimately they want things that are responsive to peop- that are age-appropriate, if you will. Thirdly, phase retirement options. Being able to do this. You don't have to go from, you know, eighty to zero in terms of miles per hour, that you can take this down and maybe do it over a period of time. And then fourthly, part-time scheduling opportunities.

If the chairman will indulge me with thirty seconds, I can bring it back to the Claiming Clarity Act, which I think is very important because culturally, we still have this notion that you turn sixty-five and you retire. And I think that's a cultural thing. The language we use, the terms we use, people hear the term early eligibility age and no one wants to be late for their government benefits we don't talk about the minimum monthly benefit age and when i was at social security talking to beneficiaries just telling them oh you're here you're sixty two do you realize this is a minimum monthly benefit they'd say wait minimum what do you mean minimum i can get more the framing is very important if we start disconnecting stopping work from social security claiming then we can start talking about how people could use different types of income working retirement when to claim social security that's best for them without confusing with confusing language. So I think that's something Congress can do and we should all do culturally, is maybe we retire the word retirement.

I'm out of time, but I don't think the Chairman would

No.

would let me end with just you on the end.

No problem.

OK, yeah, well, well thanks Senator, just brief, just and just to to say it briefly. I think probably the biggest impediment is age discrimination. I think that there there are in situations where people really do wanna go back to work, uh but their their potential employer doesn't value their work. And so that's a real, that's a real problem. In terms of, you know, what my colleague just said, I think that's a, a really big, a really huge deal. You know, we're talking today about repealing the earnings test. And for some individuals that might make se- might make sense. But I think the bigger problem is just misunderstanding of how all this works, and how it's a good thing or a bad thing for individuals. And especially that people need, people need to go into this with their eyes wide open, uh, that, that they need, need to understand uh, that they actually do get this event, this money eventually back. It's currently withheld by the retirement earnings test. Uh, and when it, if it was repealed, would it make sense for them to do that? But also they need to be cognizant of the fact that if they decide to, uh, uh, claim benefits early, that that's gonna, uh, that's gonna change the, you know, that that's gonna lower their benefits for their lifetime. And not only for them, but potentially for any survivors they have in the future. So they really need to really understand that before making those very important decisions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

You think they do?

What's that?

Do you think people know?

Uh, I think sometimes they do. I don't I think sometimes they don't. That's why if if your legislation became moi, I think it's really gonna be incumbent incumbent on the Social Security Administration to educate uh potential beneficiaries ab- uh about what's the best, what decision is is in their best interest.

I'm trying I'm trying to think. I don't think it I don't think on what um I get a form every so often, right? I don't think it's ever talked about survivor benefits.

Mm-hmm.

that I remember I have to look at. Senator Warren.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, when he ran for president in twenty twenty four, Donald Trump repeatedly promised that he, quote, wouldn't touch social security. And as soon as he took office, he immediately directed Elon Musk, who thinks that social security is a Ponzi scheme, to doge his way through the Social Security Administration. Um, he slashed staff. He created new administrative hurdles that make it harder for Americans to get their checks, money that they earned. That is effectively a benefits cut. Now, Senate Democrats have fought back and we have forced the Trump administration to reverse course on some of their most harmful policies, but this fight is not over. Social Security Administration is still facing a a customer service crisis, and the Trump administration and the Republicans are still looking for ways to cut Social Security. So their current approach is make Americans work until they drop dead. So just listen to what Trump's appointees are saying. When asked about raising the retirement age, Social Security Administrator Frank Bisignano said, quote, Everything is being considered and will be considered. Mister Adcock, you are a social security expert. How would raising the retirement age affect Americans' benefits?

Well, simply put, it's a benefit cut. Uh, it doesn't matter whether you claim social security benefits at sixty-two or seventy, or how long you live, you're, it's a benefit cut in any way you slice it. And so for every year you decide that you're going to raise the retirement age you're taking about uh well you're losing twenty four thousand dollars of income for every year but then in your future benefits for every year that is increased you're losing uh about seven percent of your benefits

so raising the retirement age on social security by one year cost twenty four thousand dollars and over your lifetime is about a seven percent benefit cut is that

for for each year

for each year

yeah that's right

for each year that you raise it

so because some of the proposals that are being discussed would raise it from sixty seven to sixty nine or six six sixty seven to seventy.

So if you go to seventy, if you do the math, how big is the cut?

Well, the math ends up being it's a twenty percent future cut.

A twenty percent future cut.

Right.

OK.

Yeah.

So, Frank Bisognano is not alone in this, after the Republicans blew trillions of dollars on a tax cut for their rich buddies in their big, beautiful bill. Doctor Oz said the way we dig out of deficit is having quote the average American work a year later and not retire. Mister Adcock, how many Americans without a college degree work in physically demanding jobs?

Uh, in that category of of people who don't have college educations about forty-one percent of them.

So what does it mean to work an extra year?

Well, it, you know, it means an extra year that you don't have benefits and it, and especially you know when we're talking about this particular group of people who need to retire early uh generally their longevity isn't as long i mean i think i've seen studies where uh when you take the bottom half of the income scale uh they live about five years less than the people at the top end of the income scale

wow

and so so and and especially the other part of this is is that if you do have a physically demanding job uh and you're you're likely also to be from a community of color uh in these situations it it means that you're gonna need to claim benefits early. And so, today, uh, under the, under current law, if you, uh, claim early at sixty-two, you're taking about a thirty percent cut to your benefits, had you not waited until your full retirement age, currently at sixty uh sixty-seven. But if you were to raise the retirement age to a uh uh referral retirement age to seventy, we're talking about a fifty percent cut.

Wow. Wow. And, and I just wanna add in this. There are obviously also people who have college degrees who also have

Sure. Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Right.

Yeah.

My my favorite example are kindergarten teachers. Uh, try it sometime.

Right.

Um, but unsurprisingly, Doctor Oz is not thinking about the millions of Americans who work in manual labor, who have physically demanding jobs, many of whom have ground their bodies for decades at construction sites, hauling boxes in warehouses, scrubbing bathroom floors, and literally may not be capable of adding work. Indeed, as you say, these are often the people who have to retire early because they're just physically spent. And look, I'm all for older Americans working longer if they want to work a lot longer. But let's not confuse wanting to work with being forced to work because the Trump administration is taking a sledgehammer to social security. Instead of hanging those workers out to dry, We should be expanding and protecting social security, especially when tariffs and war are now driving up prices for our seniors, for everybody in this country. So, Mister Adcock, how could we pay for bigger social security benefits?

Uh, our preferred solution would be making the wealthy pay their fair share.

Yeah, that seems right to me. Um, look, we've gotta make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share and not force seniors to work until they drop dead. Right now, a billionaire, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, uh, Elon Musk pays as much in social security taxes as someone who makes a hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars a year. I've got a bill to fix that and it would raise enough money to increase benefits by two hundred dollars a month, every senior and help stabilize social security, make sure it is around for the long haul. Social security is not charity, it is a promise. And it is a promise that people have earned. And the Trump administration is trying to strip away that promise, trying to chisel it, trying to shrink it up, and then rebrand it as an opportunity to work. Americans aren't buying it, and we're gonna keep fighting back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Um, Ranking Member Gilbran.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses. Um, I want to address, um, the question of privacy concerns that people whose data is on the Social Security Administration, um, servers are facing. Um, on March tenth, the Washington Post reported that Social Security Administration's office of is investigating a whistle-blower complaint, alleging that a former Doge employee assigned to SSA improperly stored beneficiary and worker-sensitive personal information on a personal thumb drive and further shared it with his employer, a publicly traded information technology company. This follows alleg allegations in twenty twenty five from SSA's then Chief Data Officer regarding the improper actions and storage of SSA beneficiary information. In November of twenty twenty five, and again in February of twenty twenty six, joined by Senators Schumer and also Brooks, we requested that the IG initiate an investigation to determine once and for all the scope of the personal information that was compromised. So, Mr. Adcock, um, can you discuss the potential risk to both Americans, individual Americans and our national security of having the most sensitive and personal data insecure?

Sure. I mean, it's a it's it's a uh it's a uh something we hear from our members uh quite a bit from that they're concerned about it along with other the uh other chaos that has has ha has happened because of doge uh in the the the managing the the social security administration yeah i you know they understand that so much of their personal information both healthcare and and other and social security is is part of that database and here before they believed that that was a pretty secure site that they didn't really have to worry about it uh but now basically because of uh of the this information uh in disclosed in court cases that it has been you know sold to third parties uh i think it's very troubling for our lot a lot of our members and so uh they're really concerned about how this is is being managed and it also speaks to just the overall database itself uh in terms of uh uh proposals to try to take it from the current system to a a new system in a very short period of time without any extra money. And what that could mean for ensuring that all the information that's there, like work histories that determine benefits, that that, that, that, that, that stays pristine and that still is enable, that, that, that database is intact so that we can ensure that benefits are really what they should be. I mean, that's why, for instance, people have been, uh, uh, we've advised our, our members to, to go on to start up my social security account and to save all their, their work history. So in case if that information was ever lost by accident of what's going on at the Social Security Administration,

Abbott.

they would have that.

Yeah, we we hear, I mean, I've been on the Armed Services Committee for almost twenty years and if you lose your data about what you did in the military, it's very hard to get your benefits sometimes. Um, so I think this data protection is a very big issue that we all have to be concerned about. Um, Mr. Fitchner, would you like to add to anything?

A- actually I would, Senator, cuz this is a very important issue. privacy and and i'm a little bit out of the loop on this one's been a while since i was digging in this but when i was at social security administration we were so concerned that working with congress i think that's when we got rid of the social security number off of medicare cards we went to a medicare number and i think one of the things to start considering as you think about privacy is the social security number has become a de facto national id number and it's

mmm

linked to everything you do it's on your tax return it's on your employment records it's everything maybe it's time to start thinking about how you can segment those number for your tax return separate number for medicare for social security so if some hacker gets one number they don't get your entire life

that's interesting

and i'm very concerned about this from an administration's standpoint because you're putting so much information out into social security which also processes w-twos for the irs

yup

so they have tax information if that information gets out it could be very valuable and it could be very detrimental to people when it comes to fraud

thank you um i now wanna address um some of the issues that we talked about earlier in terms of improving the public's access to social security administration. Um The social security administration lost seven thousand workers, which is a lot, uh because Doge encouraged and pushed them out, and pushed out the more experienced workers, the ones who had more years. Uh I've heard from New Yorkers they've really struggled to be able to talk to somebody at the social security administration and hard to get an appointment. Um in March of twenty twenty six the approximate wait time in an office for an office appointment was thirty five days. And the agency has limited publicizing its casework metrics. So we just don't have a lot of insight into this. So, um, one potential burden reduction on social security administration would be to eliminate the need uh to administer the retirement earnings test. This is something that this chairman and I are looking into as a reform that I think is interesting and good um for beneficiaries who remain in the workplace. What major challenges do members report when dealing with the Social Security Administration and are there any unforeseen challenges with this change that we're talking about uh why don't you start Dan and then we can go down the line.

Yeah, no, it it it clearly we've been, you know, for the la you know, for the more than a year now that we receive lots of calls from our members that uh are have made this similar complaints that they've had to wait a long time to get to to uh to make an appointment with the field office if they can get in touch with the field office and now and now that's being compromised in some sense because uh the uh in order to make an appointment at a field office you can't do it individually with an individual field office is being switched now to a national call center in which you have to make those appointments i think the same is true is also accessing the eight hundred number uh uh waiting a really long time in order in order to or to get calls Um, you know, obviously social security disability insurance claims, we don't work as much on those as other organizations do, but we've heard uh that that that time, uh the the lengthy period of time in which it takes to adjudicate those case cases is really increased too. So, yeah, it's been it's all these things have been a huge problem in terms uh of people being able to talk to the agency and do transact, transact business with the agency.

Doctor Fitchner.

Uh it's a it's a great question, Senator, and the one thing I would point out is that before i was asked to testify on this this hearing about the retirement earnings test i've been working with some advocates about the possibility of moving the administration of the rvat over the internal revenue service

mmm

cause this is an income-based issue we're talking about and who is better to manage income-based issues when it comes to working is the irs not ssa

interesting

and irs also has funding challenges as a social administration but as rachel point out testimony the agency spends seventy million dollars administering the rvat if they're not administering the RAT that seventy million dollars they can put someplace else, including customer service.

Mmm.

And I think one of the things now channel my old boss, Commissioner Mike Astru, who came before, you know, committee on the Hill, on the Senate and the House, asking for more more more money, and said, here's what I need, and here's how we'll demonstrate and prove to you what that we're doing, we're say we're gonna do, hold the agency accountable. So if the agency needs more money, have the commissioner come in and say, here's what I plan to do with this money, and here's how I will report to you how we're coming along. which could be public hearings. For a while the agency was putting on YouTube, its operational committee, operational meetings, so you could see their metrics. That's no longer there. I would love to see that back. It was very much a transparency issue to see what the agency was doing in their metrics, instead of hiding them,

Yeah.

and making them public.

Why aren't they doing it?

Very good question, Senator. I do not know.

Mmm. We could maybe do a letter on that,

Yeah.

asking them why. Uh, Mr. Taylor, anything to add?

Wouldn't add anything.

M- Mr. Gressler.

from twenty nineteen we know that the ret affects could affect about five million people and about five hundred thousand individuals did have their benefits reduced or completely eliminated so that's five hundred thousand individuals who many are going to be confused and are going to call the ssa

yeah

try to schedule a visit so by eliminating the test you could immediately eliminate all those things um and so it's a very kind of quick simplification the one thing that you would need to do is those who are already in that sixty two to sixty six age range who have had some benefits held back, you'd have to figure out how are we gonna get those back to them. Is it gonna be intermediate, like one time refund, or are they gonna be in the old system and still move forward and wait until their full retirement age? Um, but that's a pretty easy fix to make.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Yeah, I'm fine. I'd like, I mean, I just, I mean, we ought to get the information.

Yeah.

I mean, we ought to find out.

Yeah, I agree.

So, I mean, we were, you know, both first dates have a lot of seniors.

Yeah.

So, um, Mr. Graves, uh, can you speak a little bit about the positive potential impact that repealing the RET will have on the trust fund?

Yeah, so it's it's modest impact. I've estimated up to about eight billion additional dollars per year, and this is because individuals are working longer, and as they work longer, they're paying additional payroll taxes. So that's boost social securities revenues, Medicare's, state and local income taxes, federal income taxes. So it's really kind of a spillover. not just to social security, but to all the other government revenues as well.

Mister Taylor, from your perspective, what are the most common misconceptions misconceptions employers have about older workers and how do those perceptions differ from the evidence, uh, you see?

So, number one, it's that they're unwilling to learn new ideas. And particularly in this AI AI environment. And what we've learned is there's reticence. Obviously for for good reason, they are not. as we use the term digital natives, so we have got to be more intentional about training and creating training and development opportunities for uh older workers. That's, it's a two way. So some of that has some value to it. The reality is I'm one of those, right? I was born a Blasbo- Blockbuster kid, another Florida company, and the world is just different, right? My fifteen year old has to teach me how to do things, but I'm willing to be taught those things, and we have to be intentional about it. The second area that we find is a perception that they won't work as hard. um, that younger generations have more youth vitality and therefore are willing to put in more hours. And actually, the data would suggest the opposite,

Completely wrong.

totally, but that's some of the perceptions. So much of the work that we're doing is around narrative building and storytelling. We have to convince our colleagues as well as, uh, leaders that in fact, uh, older workers are just as valuable if not more valuable in some ways than some of the younger workers at this point.

I think my generation, probably everybody thinks their generation is the hardest working. I'm sure my parents thought their generation was the hardest working. And they, they, they, it could actually, it could be true, right? Who knows? Um, Mister Fichter, can you explain how repealing the RET test would also provide freedom and flexibility for older Americans when making benefit claims?

Oh, definitely. Thank you, Senator. So, one of the issues people see is they still have this cultural issue that when they stop working and they have to claim social security. If they claim social security, then they stop working. So, one, if we disconnect that, that's the first thing when they see the retirement earnings test they think whoa i'm gonna be taxed for my working after sixty two why am i even bothering working then

yeah

and most of them then take the benefits they don't work and i think this is also very important when thinking about the importance of income and the benefits just to give you an idea senator so when i was i've been working on this issue over twenty years now so i really wanna thank you for your efforts with this and i can remember gillibrand as well cause one of the things i did with social security is we got rid of that break even analysis and made it a personal decision where the agency talks to beneficiaries about them, their spouse, survivors. And they have a double-sided one pager that I put in my written testimony. But to give you an idea how important the claiming decision is for income, if you were scheduled to get just a thousand dollars at age sixty-seven, just a thousand, claiming at age sixty-two would give you seven hundred. That's a thirty percent reduction in your monthly benefits for the rest of your life. If you claim at seventy, it's one thousand two hundred and forty benefits. That's a twenty-four percent increase. Now, for those who can't do math quickly, the difference between that sixty-two benefit and age seventy is a seventy seven percent increase in your monthly benefit that is inflation protected for the rest of your life and when may you need that money the most when you are older, might have health concerns and costs, that claiming decision, that transparency will help you make a better informed decision. And then telling people, look, you can work and get social security, you can not work and get social security, you can do whatever you want. the idea is now thinking about income as the outcome and how to help people make a better informed decision. And again, I applaud you for your efforts in this.

Yep. Anybody wanna add anything?

I'd just like to bring up a point on the solvency of social security and the issue of raising the retirement age. The reality today is that social security does not have the ability to continue paying benefits when the trust fund runs insolvent sometime between twenty thirty two, the most recent projections. And that's an across the board twenty three to twenty eight percent benefit cut. The reality of that is that even if you waited until seventy to start collecting your benefits you would not get what the current program pays today.

And and, Mister Chairman, if I can, because the comment came up, I'm sorry, just as a system.

No, please, please.

Um, whether or not to touch social security, like hands off social security. What I would encourage the Senate uh, is to put their hands on social security, because the default is trust on completion.

Right, the default's horrible.

The default is horrible. It is roughly a twenty three percent benefit cut across the board. Technically, you could say social security is solvent because it is designed not to pay benefits greater than it has in revenues.

Yeah.

But that default again is the worst option. And so I think I would love to encourage, and the trustees have been saying this for over twenty years,

Yeah.

the sooner Congress acts the better. So I would encourage not

It's really unfair. I mean, it's, it's, it's unfair to people that, you know, that rely on it. I was the governor of Florida. And, um, I think I, when I went in the pension plan was like eighty to eighty three percent funded and people act like oh that's ok ok wait a minute

well well again i

how is that ok

i i chaired the puerto

the private sector can't do that

i chaired the puerto rico pension reserve trust and now out of the bankruptcy of puerto rico their public employee pension plans were underfunded to tune of zero

yeah

dollars

yeah

and a forty to fifty billion dollars liability which we're turning around but this is important to do things earlier and not wait until

It's hard.

The point that I want to make is that, you know, we talk about how these plans impact older workers, but we haven't oftentimes asked older workers how they actually feel about it. And our research at Charm suggests that there are four things. They say, one, I get to stay mental, mentally active and engaged. Seventy percent of older workers, sixty-seven and older, say, this is good for me. So you may think this is negative, but it's actually good. Secondly, to maintain financial stability. I actually want to do this, not that I need to but maintaining financial stability,

Mm-hmm.

vacation trips, taking care of the grandkids,

Yeah.

et cetera. Thirdly, to avoid boredom.

Yeah.

The reality is people work for purpose in retirement. And then finally, to continue using their current skills and their experiences. So this idea that it's a bad thing and that we're working people to death doesn't exactly sync with what older workers are telling employers.

Yeah, I mean, some of the jobs are too demanding. you know right so but but i i think i mean everybody wants to have i don't know anybody who doesn't wanna have purpose so i don't plan on retiring so but we we do we have to figure out how to preserve um medicare and social security so it's it's it's um i've only been up here seven years it's pretty hard to have that conversation right now so but we it's if we don't it's not fair to the people that are relying on it it's like when i was i was governor of florida i i worked hard to to get the the pension plan fully funded so it's it's it's hard anybody else ok i'll i wanna thank everybody for being here today and participating look forward to continuing to work with members um if any senator has additional questions for the witnesses or statements to be added their hearing record will be open until next wednesday at five p m thanks each of you