Key Takeaways
- •Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) advocated for repealing the Social Security retirement earnings test, arguing the Depression-era policy unfairly penalizes seniors who continue working by withholding earned benefits.
- •Rachel Greszler (Senior Research Fellow, Advancing American Freedom) testified that eliminating the earnings test could add one million workers to the labor force and generate $18 billion in revenue.
- •Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) pressed Dan Adcock (Director of Government Relations and Policy, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare) on raising the retirement age, which Adcock called a benefit cut.
- •Republicans focused on removing government barriers to work, while Democrats criticized Social Security Administration staffing cuts and emphasized the need for age discrimination protections and caregiver credits.
- •Congress faces a 2034 deadline to address Social Security solvency as the committee considers bipartisan legislation to improve transparency regarding how claiming ages affect monthly benefit levels.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Hearing Analysis
Overview
This hearing examined the growing role of older Americans in the U.S. workforce and the federal policy barriers that discourage seniors from continuing to work. With Americans aged 55 and older representing the fastest-growing segment of the labor force, the discussion focused on the economic and personal benefits of "un-retiring" or pursuing flexible work later in life. Central to the debate was the potential repeal of the Social Security Retirement Earnings Test (RET), a Great Depression-era policy that reduces benefits for early claimants who continue to earn income above a certain threshold. Members also addressed the need for greater transparency in Social Security claiming decisions and the impact of recent administrative staffing cuts on service delivery.
Key Testimony & Policy
Witnesses and lawmakers focused heavily on the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, introduced by Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), which proposes to eliminate the RET. Rachel Greszler, a Senior Research Fellow at Advancing American Freedom, testified that the RET functions as a "50 percent tax" on seniors earning more than approximately $24,500 annually, often resulting in marginal tax rates as high as 84 percent. She argued that repealing the test would add up to one million workers to the labor force and increase federal tax revenues by $18 billion. Dan Adcock of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare expressed conceptual support for the repeal but cautioned that Congress must first evaluate its impact on the Social Security Trust Fund's solvency, which is currently projected for depletion by 2034.
The hearing also highlighted the Claiming Age Clarity Act, a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Sen. Scott (R-FL) and Ranking Member Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-NY). Dr. Jason J. Fichtner of the LIMRA Retirement Income Institute testified that the Social Security Administration (SSA) uses confusing nomenclature that biases seniors toward claiming benefits too early. He proposed rebranding the "early eligibility age" (62) as the "minimum monthly benefit age" and age 70 as the "maximum monthly benefit age" to better reflect the financial implications of the decision. Fichtner emphasized that "income is the outcome," suggesting that policy should decouple the act of stopping work from the act of claiming Social Security.
From an employer perspective, Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., President and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), discussed the "untapped talent" of older workers. He noted that increasing the share of workers over age 50 by 10 percent is associated with a 1.1 percent gain in productivity. Taylor advocated for private-sector shifts toward "phased retirement" and "reverse mentoring" programs, while also calling for the removal of "coded language" in job descriptions that unintentionally excludes older applicants.
Notable Exchanges & Partisan Dynamics
While there was significant bipartisan agreement regarding the repeal of the RET and the need for claiming transparency, the hearing featured sharp partisan disagreements over the administration of the SSA. Ranking Member Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) criticized recent workforce reductions at the SSA, noting that the agency has cut nearly 7,000 staff members since early 2025. Sen. Warren specifically targeted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its influence on the agency, characterizing staffing cuts as a "sledgehammer to Social Security" that creates administrative hurdles and effectively reduces benefits.
Sen. Warren also challenged the idea of raising the retirement age, which she characterized as a 20 percent benefit cut if moved from 67 to 70. She engaged Mr. Adcock in a discussion about the physical demands of manual labor, arguing that many seniors are "physically spent" and cannot work longer. In contrast, Republican members like Sen. Ashley Moody (R-FL) focused on removing government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship and work, arguing that seniors should have the "freedom to choose" to work without being penalized by outdated laws.
A significant portion of the Q&A focused on data privacy. Ranking Member Gillibrand raised concerns about a whistleblower complaint alleging that a former DOGE employee improperly stored sensitive beneficiary data on a personal drive. Dr. Fichtner suggested that the U.S. should move away from using Social Security numbers as a "de facto national ID" to mitigate the risks of such data breaches.
Organizations Mentioned
- Social Security Administration (SSA): The primary agency discussed regarding benefit administration, the Retirement Earnings Test, and recent staffing reductions of 7,000 employees. - Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM): Represented by witness Johnny Taylor; the organization advocates for workplace flexibility and the integration of older "untapped talent" into the workforce. - National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: Represented by Dan Adcock; the group supports the Protecting Older Americans Act and expressed cautious support for RET repeal pending solvency reviews. - Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Criticized by Democratic members for driving staffing cuts and investigated regarding potential data privacy breaches involving beneficiary information. - Internal Revenue Service (IRS): Mentioned as a potential alternative for administering the Retirement Earnings Test, as it already manages income-based data. - Publix Super Markets, Inc.: Praised by Johnny Taylor and Sen. Scott as a model employer for retaining older workers, including a 95-year-old associate. - Advancing American Freedom (AAF): The organization where witness Rachel Greszler serves as a Senior Research Fellow, advocating for pro-growth workforce policies. - Mastercard Inc.: Cited as an example of a company using "reverse mentoring" to pair younger employees with senior leaders.
What's Next
Chairman Scott announced that the hearing record would remain open until the following Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. for additional questions and statements. Lawmakers indicated they would continue to pursue the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act and the Claiming Age Clarity Act. Ranking Member Gillibrand signaled ongoing oversight regarding the SSA data privacy investigation and the agency's declining customer service metrics. Additionally, the committee may follow up with the SSA Commissioner regarding the removal of public operational meetings from transparency platforms.
Transcript
The U.S. 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 testimonies 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 helps their communities, too. In our December hearing, witnesses 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 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 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 62 and 66 who start to claim their benefits, benefits they are absolutely entitled to and have earned. It essentially takes $1 of their benefits away for every $2 they earn once their income hits $24,000 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 1930s anymore, and we shouldn't expect our seniors to be punished today by outdated policies passed then. Aging Americans deserve better. That's why I've introduced the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, along with 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 can actually impact how much 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 our 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 as they plan for retirement. That's why I co-sponsored the Claiming Age Clarity Act, which also has the support of two of my colleagues on this committee, Ranking Member Gillibrand and Senator Warnock. 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-earned benefits. The fact is, workers aged 55 or older have been the fastest-growing age group in the labor force for more than two decades. In 1994, they made up just 10 percent of the workforce. In 2022, 24 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 that means for their future. It is 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 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 hard-working Americans for continuing to work after they reach retirement age. Because at the end of the day, it's older Americans who bring the 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 sure seniors have the information and freedom they need to make their later years their best years. I will turn it over to Ranking Member Gillibrand.
Read the full transcript
Starting at $350/mo
- Full hearing transcripts
- Speaker timestamps with video verification
- Organization & competitor mentions
- Same-day delivery
- Personalized summaries
30-day money-back guarantee on all paid plans.
Not ready to subscribe?
Get a free daily digest with hearing summaries ranked by relevance.
Already have an account? Log in
