▶ 0:23:19Chair Scott: This committee on aging will come to order. We are highlighting the positive impact having a purpose and engaging with the community has on older americans. Witnesses shared positive testimonies and first-hand accounts on how sting engaged whether through volunteering, mentoring or taking on new responsibilities helps seniors live a happier, healthier life with a purpose and goal for their next chapter. Not only is this enriching and beneficial to seniors it helps their communities, too.
▶ 0:23:52Chair Scott: In our december hearing witnesses talked about how older americans strengthen the economy. The expertise and perspective they bring to the job. Truth is retirement does not have to be the end of one's career. For many it is a new, purpose driven chapter in their lives.
▶ 0:24:10Chair Scott: Seniors can and should use this art of their lives to reach new goals and dreams, maybe try a new hobby they did not have time for in the past, start a business of odd jobs around the neighborhood, volunteer at their church or substitute teach at their grandkids's school. Seniors offer valuable insights because they have lived a full life of experiences and knowledge that can be passed on to the next generation.
▶ 0:24:34Chair Scott: However, in that hearing witnesses also shared challenges members of our aging community phase when their goals and dreams [indiscernible] going back to work full or part-time. We talk about the challenges and how government is making it worse. There are laws on the books that penalize older workers unfairly. The retirement earnings test is one of them.
▶ 0:24:57Chair Scott: This test punishes workers between the ages of 62 and 66 who try to claim benefits, benefits they are absolutely entitled to and have earned. It takes one dollar of their benefits away for every two dollars 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 jobs for younger americans.
▶ 0:25:22Chair Scott: But as we are all aware it is not the 1930's anymore and we should not expect our seniors to be punished today by outdated policies of the past -- aging americans deserve better so we are introducing the senior citizens freedom to work act. Our bill will get rid of the unfair retirement earnings test so seniors that want to stay in the workforce can do so without being punished were robbed of hard-earned benefits. But we need to do more than that.
▶ 0:25:52Chair Scott: Even if we get that repealed there is administrative redtape tape to get information on how benefits are impacted by how when they retire. The same red tape makes it hard for seniors to decide when they should start withdrawing benefits. Many americans don't realize that when they start withdrawing it can impact how much they will be entitled to. This affects seniors retiring today and those planning for their future.
▶ 0:26:18Chair Scott: We should not be making it more difficult for seniors, future seniors, defined information they need to make best choices for themselves and their families. We should make it easy, straightforward and transparent so all americans can be prepared for retirement.
▶ 0:26:37Chair Scott: I supported another act, with support from senator gillibrand and senator warren to provide straight forward information about how social security benefits change on when they retire and that they start claiming hard earned benefits. Workers aged 55 or older are the fastest growing age group in the labor force for two decades. 1994 they made up just 10% of the workforce. 2022, 24%.
▶ 0:27:05Chair Scott: People are living longer, staying healthier and wanting to keep working and giving back and pursuing new goals and challenges. If they want to stay it worked we should empower them and give 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 to claim benefits and definitely not to punish those who want to continue careers later in life.
▶ 0:27:31Chair Scott: Government should be working for our aging population, not against it paired we should give 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 older americans bring expertise necessary to get the job done. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how we can keep the government out of the way, inject transparency and give seniors the information they need to make their later years their best years.
▶ 0:28:03Chair Scott: I will turn it over to ranking member gillibrand.
▶ 0:28:04Sen. Gillibrand: Thank you well said. I appreciate you calling this hearing and would like to thank our witnesses for sharing your stories, expertise and knowledge with us today. We can't make these decisions without input from constituents and smart experts like you so we are grateful for the collaboration. As mentioned by the chairman when we look at the U.S.
▶ 0:28:25Sen. Gillibrand: Census demographic data, approximately 65 million americans or 20% of the population are over the age of 65. That population is continuing to grow. By 2024 -- 2040, we expect one in five americans will be over 65. The workforce is rapidly changing, older workers representing a quarter of our total workforce.
▶ 0:28:52Sen. Gillibrand: A growing share that reflects broader demographic shifts, but for that reason we must evaluate our programs. We have to evaluate our rules and laws and make sure both employees and workers can navigate today's environment. Since the 1930's social security provided financial security to retirees and protected individuals against risks like disability and death.
▶ 0:29:19Sen. Gillibrand: Today 74 million americans rely on social security benefits and 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.
▶ 0:29:43Sen. Gillibrand: Certainly there are lessons to be learned from the successful bipartisan reform in 2000 while the congressional record also points to budgetary and poverty issues 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 -- not a lifestyle choice, and economic necessity, driven by skyrocketing cost of housing, groceries and utilities.
▶ 0:30:15Sen. Gillibrand: When these individuals decide to reenter 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. Like all americans they deserve seamless access to the social security but my constituents are telling me otherwise reporting long wait times on the phone and for in person appointments, difficulty finding out whether field offices are even open, and significant delays obtaining
▶ 0:30:45Sen. Gillibrand: Those answers. This is happening at an agency that cut nearly 7000 staff since the start of 2025, marking the largest workforce reduction in social security administration is to repair it I will fight on behalf of my constituents for an agency that functions well, treats workers fairly and provides employees training they need to properly serve the american people. There are many solutions congress could undertake to support seniors' economic resilience.
▶ 0:31:14Sen. Gillibrand: 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 could be achieved through a bill I have, protecting older americans act. I look forward to hearing about our work in retirement landscape.
▶ 0:31:36Chair Scott: Thank you, thank you member gillibrand. Also great to work with you. I would like to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing, exports and workforce retirement policy and here to discuss the important role older americans play in the workforce. I would like to introduce rachel greszler, a senior research fellow at the plymouth institute for free enterprise and advancing american freedom. And a visiting the low at the policy innovation center.
▶ 0:32:06Chair Scott: Prior to joining aaf she spent 12 years as their -- the senior research fellow at heritage foundation and also spent time on the joint economic committee of the U.S. congress. She is recognized as an economic expert in workforce, social security, family policy, fiscal policy. Thank you for being here for the third time. Your expertise is much appreciated here. Please begin your testimony. Nice to see you.
▶ 0:32:32Ms. Greszler: Thank you, chairman scott and ranking member gillibrand for the opportunity to be here today. In my testimony I would like to review the role of older americans in the workforce and explain a simple and progrowth proposal to support instead of penalize older working americans.
▶ 0:32:51Ms. Greszler: Older workers are the fastest-growing segment of the labor force accounting for 3/4 of total employment growth since 2000 per wall part of this rise is due to the sheer number of aging baby boomers, older americans labor force participation rates have increased six percentage points even as younger people's participation rates have declined.
▶ 0:33:13Ms. Greszler: Today's 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 pads, including transitioning to more flexible part-time or independent work, as well as un retiring, reentering the workforce after an initial exit. This reflects opportunities and changing preferences.
▶ 0:33:39Ms. Greszler: Americans are living longer, healthier lives and many want to forget -- remain engaged and productive and that 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 ways that work for them.
▶ 0:33:59Ms. Greszler: Older workers positive contributions cannot be understated, especially amidst cultural shifts that cry out for older generations to impart 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.
▶ 0:34:21Ms. Greszler: That is social security's retirement earnings test, a relic of the great depression when policymakers wanted to push older americans out of the workforce 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 50% tax.
▶ 0:34:44Ms. Greszler: For individuals who first claim social security benefits before their normal retirement age, which will be 67 next year, and this is what most people do to claim benefits early, they lose $1 in benefits for each $2 they earn over the limit of $24,500 per year.
▶ 0:35:06Ms. Greszler: This results in a marginal tax rate of 74% for somebody making $29,000 and a marginal tax rate of 84% for somebody who is making $70,000. Not surprisingly studies show this causes people to work less and earn less than they would otherwise choose.
▶ 0:35:26Ms. Greszler: While those lost benefits are gradually added back in to recipient's monthly checks after they reach full retirement age, most people don't know that and perceive it as a pure tax and reduce their earnings or stop working altogether. Individuals with lower life expectancies typically do not recoup all or sometimes any of those lost benefits.
▶ 0:35:48Ms. Greszler: The earnings test is confusing for seniors and the cost -- it cost the social security administration -- including hundreds of thousands of improper payments issued. If somebody wants to stop working at age 62, that should be their choice, but unlike their great depression era counterparts, today's older workers should not be ushered into an early exit by an outdated social security provision.
▶ 0:36:14Ms. Greszler: Social security's retirement earnings test's and senator scott 2026 act is a win-win. In addition to erasing confusion and administrative burdens I estimate it would add up to one million workers to the labor force and increase personal incomes by up to $66 billion per year.
▶ 0:36:35Ms. Greszler: That extra work and earnings would generate up to $18 billion in annual tax revenues including an additional $8 billion a year ends -- in social security. The last time congress addressed the retirement earnings test by eliminating it for everyone above the full retirement age, the bill passed with 100% bipartisan support. Now that the retirement age is almost 67 it is affecting millions more seniors.
▶ 0:37:04Ms. Greszler: Americans of all ages should have the freedom to work and social security recipients should not have their benefits taken away because they are positively contributing to the workforce. In summary many older americans are already leading the way with continued contributions. Policymakers should clear the path for current and future seniors to remain engaged, by removing outdated barriers and supporting flexible work. The retirement earnings test is a practical and progrowth place to start.
▶ 0:37:32Chair Scott: Thank you, rachel, thanks for being back. Next we have johnny taylor, president and chief executive officer of the society for human resources management. He has 20 years as a lawyer, human resources executive and ceo in the not-for-profit and for-profit spaces. Thank you for being here, please begin your testimony.
▶ 0:37:55Mr. Taylor: Thank you, chairman scott and ranking member gillibrand. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. Let me begin with the simple reality. America's workforce is changing. We have all talked about it, the fact of the matter is, we know it. You pointed out in 1994, 12% of americans in the workforce were 65 and older. Today that is closer to 20%.
▶ 0:38:23Mr. Taylor: We also know a shocking stat, the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. workforce are people 75 and older, not just 60, but 75 and older. Albeit a smaller base, but people are working longer, much longer. This is not a temporary trend. It is a structural shift and requires us to rethink how we approach work in retirement. First as you have all pointed out, this is good for people.
▶ 0:38:52Mr. Taylor: At shrm, we represent 340 thousand members across the country in every industry. We are seeing a clear shift. People not just working longer because they have to, there are some, but they are working longer because they want to. Because work provides more than a paycheck. It provides purpose as you pointed out, and connection.
▶ 0:39:16Mr. Taylor: Research consistently shows that older adults who remain engaged in work experience better mental and physical health outcomes, including lower rates of depression and a stronger cognitive function. Why? Because work keeps people connected and engaged. When we talk about extending workforce participation, we are just talking economics, we are talking quality of life and dignity. Secondly, this is good for employers, really good.
▶ 0:39:45Mr. Taylor: The latest report shows 6.9 million open jobs in america, nearly seven in 10 organizations report difficulty filling roles, yet one of the most capable talent pools in america is often overlooked. Experienced workers. At the shrm foundation our philanthropic arm, we call this untapped talent, skilled individuals including older workers were often overlooked, and we need them in the workplace.
▶ 0:40:14Mr. Taylor: This is not just a social good, it is a business advantage. Research shows companies with more workers over age 50 or more productive believe it or not. In fact increasing the share of workers age 50 and older by just 10% is associated with a 1.1% gain in productivity can tripping to stronger economic growth and higher gdp per capita. Shrm data reinforces this. Over 80% of hr professionals say older workers bring exceptional reliability and expertise.
▶ 0:40:45Mr. Taylor: More than 90% say they perform as well or better than other employees. In a labor market defined by uncertainty, experienced workers provide consistency, judgment and stability. We are already seeing what this looks like in practice.
▶ 0:41:03Mr. Taylor: At publix, a florida-based company, where I am from, a 95 euros associate works alongside colleagues of all ages, that gentleman helping model service and mentor that strengthens the entire team and at mastercard in new york reverse mentoring programs. Younger employees with senior leaders creating two-way learning that blends experience with new perspectives.
▶ 0:41:29Mr. Taylor: 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 have heard this a lot. Too often workplace practices and policies still reflect out -- outdated assumptions that retirement is a single moment, that contribution declines with age. Today's workers want flexibility, phased retirement and opportunities to can -- to continue can be doing in ways that fit their lives.
▶ 0:42:00Mr. Taylor: When we don't provide these options we are not just limiting individuals, we limiting our economy. That is why this alignment matters. 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.
▶ 0:42:32Mr. Taylor: Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:42:33Chair Scott: Good job, thank you for being here. Publix is a great company.
▶ 0:42:39Mr. Taylor: Yes it is, and from the state of florida. >> we love publix in florida. >> our biggest employer.
▶ 0:42:48Chair Scott: Our next witness, Dr. jason fichtner, previously served as acting uppity commissioner of the social security administration, nice easy job, and their chief economist. His area of expertise focuses on social security, federal tax policy, federal jet policy, retirement and policy proposals to propose saving and investment. Thank you for being here, --.
▶ 0:43:20Dr. Fichtner: Thank you. Again my name is jason fichtner, also a senior fellow at the national academy of social insurance and senior fellow at the department in brown university in st. Louis. I'm also on the board of directors for the investor education foundation and member of the puerto rico pension preserve trust where I serve on both the council and the board.
▶ 0:43:49Dr. Fichtner: I previously had several positions at the social security administration. All opinions today I express are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization with which I am affiliated.
▶ 0:44:02Dr. Fichtner: I want to thank chairman scott and ranking member gillibrand for your leadership in ensuring important policy issues involving aging and social security get the attention and debate they deserve and ideas and viewpoints from all sides are aired in a collegial, respectful and productive matter -- manner.
▶ 0:44:24Dr. Fichtner: I'm focused on the importance of reducing confusion around the social security claiming decision related to the retirement earnings test or r.e.t., and the nomenclature that the social security administration uses to describe various agents that a beneficiary can claim social security benefits. One of the key financial decisions facing older americans is when to claim social security retirement benefits.
▶ 0:44:49Dr. Fichtner: In fact when to claim social security when -- may be the most important retirement decision someone will make. While these benefits are available as early as age 62, claiming later permanently raises monthly benefits. Delaying claiming is equivalent to purchasing a greater inflation-adjusted annuity that will be paid for as long as the beneficiary lives.
▶ 0:45:15Dr. Fichtner: Most people do not claim social security at their optimal age usually because they claim it too early. Research demonstrates many lack the financial education and understanding to make complex financial decisions, including risks in retirement. The information people receive and the form it takes can influence how people make financial choices.
▶ 0:45:36Dr. Fichtner: For example with respect to the claiming decision, people act differently to the framing of aged 62 as the early eligibility age than they would in terms of claiming 62 as a penalty that results in lower monthly benefits for the rest of your life.
▶ 0:45:50Dr. Fichtner: In 2008 when I was at ssa, and based on research we removed the so-called breakeven analysis from claim representatives when talking about when to claim social security because we recognize the framing was biasing people toward early payment. We want the public to have necessary information presented -- sorry, necessary information education presented so they can make informed decisions.
▶ 0:46:20Dr. Fichtner: We changed this because it was very important. As provided in my written testimony -- the retirement earnings test is overly confusing and should be eliminated or rebranded to better educate the public about its rules to clear up considerable confusion about the relationships between working and claiming retirement been its. Second the official names of claiming ages at ssa should be changed to better reflect implications of claiming decisions.
▶ 0:46:47Dr. Fichtner: For example ssa could rename early eligibility age the minimum monthly benefit age and age 70 is the maximum monthly than if it age. Third when thinking about framing, the phrasing I would like is quote unquote income is the outcome. We need to modernize tools 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 to continue working in their later years.
▶ 0:47:17Dr. Fichtner: Along with her do sing confusion in the claiming decision this includes reducing barriers to seniors working in their later years. Fundamentally claiming social security does not mean one needs to stop working nor does stopping work means one must claim social security at the same time. Many people will want or need to continue working and saving into their later years. Public policy should be designed to allow them to do so. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify today.
▶ 0:47:47Dr. Fichtner: I look forward to answering your questions.
▶ 0:47:48Chair Scott: Thank you. >> I want to introduce our next witness, dan adcock, the director of government relations and policy for the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. Freebie asleep -- previously he served at the national active association.
▶ 0:48:13Chair Scott: During his time in september 2000 he helped create the federal long-term care insurance program and advocated on behalf of beneficiaries enrolled in social security, medicare and medicaid problems. Mr. adcock also served with the house committee on education and labor, where he helped write the 1992 reauthorization of the older americans act. Mr. adcock, you may begin your testimony.
▶ 0:48:38Mr. Adcock: ■thank you and dear chairman scott and ranking member gillibrand, thank you for inviting the national committee to testify before you. Max richmond was sorry he could not join you because he was on the committee and worked closely on the senior citizens freedom to work act with senator john mccain leading up to its enactment in 2000.
▶ 0:49:05Mr. Adcock: Workforce participation depends on older workers health, but also influenced by their financial circumstances, availability of jobs and willingness of employers to invest in older workers. Congress must remove impediments older workers confront when deciding whether to continue work while ensuring changes do not inversely -- do not force seniors into the workforce because they cannot afford to retire. One piece of the puzzle is repealing the retirement earnings test.
▶ 0:49:33Mr. Adcock: The national committee supports scott -- chairman scott's repeal in concept but before congress enact such a major change to social security, we believe we should explore three basic questions. Will everyone benefit from repealing the r.e.t. And of some workers end up worse off are there ways to mitigate the financial impacts on these workers and their families? Two, will repealing the r.e.t.
▶ 0:50:04Mr. Adcock: Increase participation of older americans in the workforce were are there other legislative changes that should be made to advance the school? Number three, what will the impact of repealing the r.e.t. Be on the social security administration's ability to implement the change in on the solvency of social security trust funds. I know in town halls with seniors, repealing the r.e.t. Would be extremely popular. After the last repeal of the r.e.t.
▶ 0:50:32Mr. Adcock: In 2000 for claimants who reached full retirement age I know many seniors were not covered by law and said they had been left out. In part this is because the r.e.t. Is extremely complicated and tends to induce fear and uncertainty. Many seniors do not realize social security benefits withheld under the r.e.t. Are later returned to them through higher monthly payments for the rest of their lives. Those who do not know about this feature of the r.e.t.
▶ 0:50:59Mr. Adcock: May find it fully difficult to weigh the impact on their family's finances. For congress it is this element of the r.e.t. That contributes to the challenge of rejecting the positive and negative impacts of the r.e.t. Repeal legislation. While we hope the repeal of the r.e.t. Will increase older worker employment, that will not happen if employers continue to discriminate hiring based on age.
▶ 0:51:25Mr. Adcock: That is what this committee found on your september 3, 2025 hearing. To address this you focused on bipartisan legislation, creating -- protecting older americans act of 2025, which the national committee supports. This would eliminate the current practice of employers utilizing forced arbitration to resolve age discrimination complaints which would shift some leverage back to the workers.
▶ 0:51:53Mr. Adcock: The national committee is also concerned about the social security administration's ability to repeal given they have dramatic downsizing because ofdoge task cuts -- because of doge inspired tax cuts. The education piece of an r.e.t. Repeal is important to help beneficiaries make good decisions about when to claim retirement benefits.
▶ 0:52:26Mr. Adcock: We urge you to ensure ssa has enough additional resources to do this work so it is not forced to shift resources from other operations already severely underfunded. Finally we know from former social security chief actuary stephen goss that r.e.t. Repeal will reduce trust fund cost, but we are concerned how paying more benefits shortly after the r.e.t. Repeal is enacted would affect social security solvency when reserves are expected to be depleted by 2034.
▶ 0:52:56Mr. Adcock: The question needs to be answered before a repeal receives serious consideration. In conclusion I want to thank you again for holding this hearing, this important hearing, and for inviting me to testify. Thank you.
▶ 0:53:09Chair Scott: Thanks for being here, thanks for your testimony. Rachel, the retirement earnings test was designed to help older americans get jobs -- help younger americans get jobs during the great depression. Does that make sense now?
▶ 0:53:25Ms. Greszler: It does not make sense anymore as we need more workers and producers and even that original thought was flawed to begin with because you want more workers to produce more to generate more demand. On both ends, that should not of been a policy to begin with but absolutely today, not only do we want more people working, we need more working. By 2034 there will be more seniors in the U.S. than children for the first time in U.S. history so we need those older workers.
▶ 0:53:53Chair Scott: Mr. taylor you have written on the value older americans bring to the workforce. What have you heard from employers? Are they trying to recruit or retain older workers or is there still a barrier of age discrimination?
▶ 0:54:06Mr. Taylor: There is no question ageism is alive and well. During the post-covid period when unemployment was sub 2% in some states we did not see as much rampant ageism because we needed the talent. We continue to need the talent. That said there are still certain barriers. We have to work on changing the language, how we speak about older employees.
▶ 0:54:33Mr. Taylor: There is a built-in narrative it is time for you to move on, a perception amongst younger workers that you are keeping me from my next opportunity because you won't move on, so there is an inherent -- chair scott: that never happens in politics. [laughter]
▶ 0:54:47Mr. Taylor: And as a result that does present tensions and problems in the workforce. Younger employees want their next shot and the older employee is not moving on. So we are trying to have these mentoring programs and opportunities for people to take on part-time roles which older employees are willing to do. So we think we can soften this. The other challenges flexible work.
▶ 0:55:12Mr. Taylor: What we need increasingly because of worker productivity and participation rates we need older workers in the workplace. There is not as much of a barrier when it comes to ages him -- ageism. It is alive and well in biases.
▶ 0:55:33Chair Scott: Whenever you run for reelection everyone wants to run for your office, suggest you should move on, they have something else for you. Mr. fichtner what does research show about how well older americans understand these rules?
▶ 0:55:52Dr. Fichtner: Great question, senator. Research shows they do not understand it much at all, they are confused by what the r.e.t. Is. They hear retirement earnings and they hear tax not test and that discourages workers.
▶ 0:56:09Dr. Fichtner: As rachel pointed out in her testimony and you mentioned in opening statements and my colleague mentioned that people hear this and see this idea that money is taken out of their social security checks so they think it is a tax but don't understand they will get it back and that is technically neutral but nobody likes to hear it, we will take it out today and give it back to you tomorrow. No one likes that idea so it discourages work.
▶ 0:56:32Dr. Fichtner: Were not sure if research shows people are not working because they are confused about it or they do want to work, but the language we are using we know is confusing and that is why what -- why we want to change it and get rid of the retirement earnings test.
▶ 0:56:47Chair Scott: How can employers leverage institutional knowledge older workers bring?
▶ 0:56:55Mr. Adcock: I think it is a mixed bag, especially with workers that are professionals, white-collar jobs, many are in tuned to the idea of bringing people back in value, bringing back older workers and the experience they have and also being flexible about how they bring them back because some workers may not want to work full-time.
▶ 0:57:23Mr. Adcock: They may want to work part-time for five years or as a consultant. I think if employers do that that is the case. Where it has become challenging as 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. I don't know that a lot of it is happening in that part of employment, but if workers are physically able to do it and can, they should.
▶ 0:57:51Chair Scott: Thank you. Mr. taylor, you lead an organization that has hundreds of thousands of hr professionals in every sector of the economy and set standards for how employers think about talent. Is there more that can be done for how we treat workers over 62 and help them be viewed as an asset rather than a problem?
▶ 0:58:12Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. chairman, three things in particular. One, screening practices such as focusing on graduating dates and people's resumes. You're talking about an obvious way to commit ageism, you look simply at a resume and you can do the math and conclude the age of a person. We are advocating for individuals to exclude graduation dates on the resumes.
▶ 0:58:42Mr. Taylor: Secondly coded language like digital native or fast-paced environment, words that suggest we are looking for younger people without saying younger people explicitly, which would violate ada and other laws local and state. And excluding older workers from upskilling opportunities.
▶ 0:59:02Mr. Taylor: An interesting historic practice, we provide a lot of training and development prop -- opportunities for older workers and then when you hit 55 we stop sending you to training because you are on the other side of your career. So what we are seeing is employers have to be more mindful about the idea you might actually provide training opportunities, especially in the ai world for older workers, so you are not messaging to them they outlived their shelf life.
▶ 0:59:30Chair Scott: Senator kim?
▶ 0:59:31Sen. Kim: Thank you, chairman. Thank you all for coming out. Mr. adcock, I would like to start with you. I recently became now a caregiver for my own father and I know one in every four americans currently serve as a caregiver providing uncompensated care to a family member.
▶ 0:59:53Sen. Kim: Many individuals caring for their family members are forced to either choose to leave a job or choose to figure out how to do that and balance it in terms of taking care of their loved one. Depending on when the caregiver leaves a workforce this can often shortchange social security benefits. But there are other increased challenges for older caregivers living on social security alone upon retiring.
▶ 1:00:19Sen. Kim: In either scenario it is often the case benefits are often not enough to get past daily expenses, let alone expenses associated with caregiving. I wanted to ask you, as we are 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?
▶ 1:00:42Mr. Adcock: Thanks, senator kim. That is a great question. First for somebody who is still working, I know when we talk about a more broad picture of social security reform one of the things we support on the national committee is there be a social security caregiver credit because if you are leaving the workforce to care for either a child or elderly parent, it means for every year you were out of the workforce, your social security record is
▶ 1:01:14Mr. Adcock: Reducing your benefit for the future. Legislation has been introduced in the past which would provide a proxy for the time someone left the workforce while caregiving to enable them to have a higher social security benefit than they otherwise would. That is one thing I would do. Once someone has retired and is on social security benefits that is a harder nut to crack. With regard to social security itself.
▶ 1:01:42Mr. Adcock: We as an organization are concerned also about medicare, medicaid. Various programs of various supports for caregivers we think are essential and need to be beefed up especially home and community-based care that medicaid provides and ensuring that is there for the long haul.
▶ 1:02:05Mr. Adcock: And the act if enabled, which has not been funded in the past and needs to be fully funded.
▶ 1:02:14Sen. Kim: There are different scenarios in which this happens and for instance, we have been talking to people that are caregivers who claim social security benefits early, due to their caregiving-related income loss. I guess the question we are trying to think through, how do we make sure they are not structurally disadvantaged in the long-term when it comes to being under social security policy. You raised important questions, a number of different scenarios.
▶ 1:02:44Sen. Kim: It would be good for our committee and broadly in congress to be thinking through those different scenarios. Mr. taylor I would like to turn to you. Building off questions the chairman asked about older americans who want to be able to continue on to work, and thinking through what kind of policy should we be considering and pursuing at the federal level to advance a combination
▶ 1:03:16Sen. Kim: -- accommodations or federal solutions to increase workplace accessibility for older americans? You discussed different ideas including the language side of things but I'm wondering if there are tactics or tools you have seen or opportunities for policies you think are ones we should be considering from a legislative standpoint?
▶ 1:03:34Ms. Greszler: Senator -- Mr.
▶ 1:03:36Taylor: Senator, our belief at shrm, there are sufficient legislative policies in place to address age just from a nation. Employers are best positioned as it stands to audit themselves were looking at hiring and talent practices to remove biased language from job descriptions and postings to ensure equal access to training and development opportunities, as I mentioned earlier.
▶ 1:04:06Taylor: Frankly there is not assents any piece of additional legislation or policy will solve that. Employers need the talent, they are convinced of that. We are past saying people outlived their value to us. We have to be very intentional about insuring our practices don't unintentionally exclude people from the workforce because of their age.
▶ 1:04:26Sen. Kim: Thank you. With that I yield back.
▶ 1:04:29Chair Scott: Senator moody.
▶ 1:04:32Sen. Moody: Thank you chairman and to the witnesses for being here today. In florida we have that large senior population, I think that is growing. Some people refer to it as a silver tsunami, which I love. I think a large driver of that, I want to say over 50% of returning seniors to work talk about extra money.
▶ 1:05:02Sen. Moody: In florida thankfully we have a thriving state, easy to start a business, on-chip and worship, on business formation re-rank high in the nation, a lot of opportunities. I want to better understand what the impediments are if someone wants to go back and work in their seniors are.
▶ 1:05:27Sen. Moody: I want to understand how we might be able to as lawmakers address current law to allow for that, so they don't feel bound in order to receive their social security benefits, they don't feel bound to not working because if they make more money, they won't be able to receive earned benefits over the course of their life.
▶ 1:05:52Sen. Moody: I think that is wrong and we need to fix it because we know this is going to become more and more of a problem. I think by 2030 all baby boomers will be over the age of 65. My office staff keeps thinking I'm a baby boomer and I keep assuring them I'm not.
▶ 1:06:12Sen. Moody: I think by 2034, seniors will outnumber children -- it is true, oh senior senator of mine from florida. By 2034 seniors will outnumber children for the first time in U.S. history. I want to get it right before that, I want to start working on that now. I'm so grateful. Our chairman, I think this has been the most active aging committee may be in the history.
▶ 1:06:42Sen. Moody: It makes sense since we have a chairman from florida, but we know more and more workers over age 65 are coming into the employment sector and it is grown by 117% within 20 years. Giving these realities, I want to hear from you, you are the experts. The chairman padilla together a great panel. What are the main impediments?
▶ 1:07:08Sen. Moody: Why if somebody wanted to work, the extra income, we know that the cost of living is going up specifically related to health care and drug prices and trying to do everything we can to address that, drug pricing transparency, all the things we are doing to address the. As they are wanting to make more to cover increased costs, what is the main impediment they are facing if they want to go back into the workforce?
▶ 1:07:39Sen. Moody: I will start with you, Ms. greszler.
▶ 1:07:43Ms. Greszler: Thank you, I would like to talk about two. One is the retirement earnings test, someone making a modest amount, $29,000 a year, facing a 74% marginal tax rate in terms of what they get from that additional dollar they work and earn. Only 26 cents on the dollar coming in on a paycheck discourages people from working. Illuminating that test is common sense and would improve the economy and social security.
▶ 1:08:11Ms. Greszler: So getting rid of the penalty first.
▶ 1:08:13Sen. Moody: You think that is the number one thing to do? We are triaging our approach.
▶ 1:08:18Ms. Greszler: That is the first thing. Second I would address people that want to transition out of a formal 9-5 job into part-time, more flexible work, enabling them to first have that opportunity. Things like clarity and what is an independent worker versus an employee. There are two bills on that, that would provide clarity to make those opportunities available. Then addressing the benefits side.
▶ 1:08:47Ms. Greszler: If somebody is 62 and want to start transitioning out but not lose access to health insurance, and still wants a retirement account, having those portable benefits be an option through independent work as opposed to the formal employer are things you can do. Something like unblocking benefits for workers act. These are not new mandates on employers but removing barriers the government created.
▶ 1:09:15Sen. Moody: Anybody else want to comment on that?
▶ 1:09:18Mr. Taylor: Less what the government can do but what private employers can do. We know four things older workers say are barriers to them returning to the workplace. One or flexible hours. We have the ability to impact. Secondly they want more wellness programs that specifically address age-related health needs. Gym memberships are nice but ultimately they want things that are responsive, age-appropriate if you will.
▶ 1:09:48Mr. Taylor: Thirdly, phased retirement options. You don't have to go from 80 to 0 in terms of miles per hour. Maybe you can do it over a period of time and fourthly, part-time scheduling opportunities. >> if the chairman will indulge me for 30 seconds I can take it back to that act, culturally we have the notion that you turn 65 and that is it. It is the language we use, the terms, people here early eligibility age.
▶ 1:10:21Mr. Taylor: We don't talk about the minimum monthly benefit age. And at social security talking to ben if area -- fisheries, -- beneficiaries. Tell them it is a minimum. If we do that we can talk about how they can use different types of income, when to claim social security that is best for them without confusing language. That is something congress can do and we can do culturally.
▶ 1:10:52Sen. Moody: I'm out of time but I don't think the chairman would let me end with just you at the end.
▶ 1:11:02Mr. Adcock: I think the biggest impediment is age discrimination. Situations where people want to go back to work, but their potential employer does not value their work so that is a real problem. In terms of what my colleague just said, it is a huge deal. We are talking about repealing the earnings test.
▶ 1:11:23Mr. Adcock: For some individuals that might make sense, but I think the bigger problem is misunderstanding of how this works and how it is a good or bad thing for individuals. Especially, people need to go into this with eyes wide open that they need to understand they do get this money back that is currently withheld by the retirement earnings test. If it was repealed would it make sense for them to do that?
▶ 1:11:53Mr. Adcock: They need to be cognizant of the fact if they decide to claim benefits early that that will change, lower their benefits for their lifetime. Not only for them but potentially any survivors they have in the future, so they need to understand that before making those important decisions.
▶ 1:12:11Sen. Moody: Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:12:13Chair Scott: Do you think people know?
▶ 1:12:17Mr. Adcock: I think sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It is incumbent on the social security administration to educate potential beneficiaries about what decision is in their best interest.
▶ 1:12:31Chair Scott: I get a form every so often, I don't think it has ever talked about survivor benefits that I remember. Senator warren?
▶ 1:12:46Sen. Warren: Thank you, Mr. chairman. When he ran for president in 2024, 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 social security is a ponzi scheme, to doge his way through the social security administration should, he slashed staff, crated new wood ministry to hurdles that make it harder for americans to get
▶ 1:13:17Sen. Warren: Their checks, money that they earned. That is effectively a benefits cut. 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 customer service crisis and the trump administration and the republicans are still working for -- looking for ways to cut social security.
▶ 1:13:47Sen. Warren: 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, a social security administrator said quote everything is being considered and will he considered. Mr. adcock, you are a social security how would raising the retirement age affect americans benefits?
▶ 1:14:20Mr. Adcock: It is a benefit cuts. It doesn't matter whether you plan benefits at 62 or 70 or how long you live, it is a benefit cut. For every year you decide to raise the retirement rage, you are losing $24,000 of income for every year. In your future benefits for every year it is increased you are losing 7% of your benefits.
▶ 1:14:42Sen. Warren: So raising the retirement age on social security by one year costs $24,000 and over your lifetime is about a 7% benefit cut?
▶ 1:14:55Mr. Adcock: For each year. Some of the proposals being discussed would raise it from 67 to 69 or 67 to 70.
▶ 1:15:07Sen. Warren: If you go to 70, how big is the cut?
▶ 1:15:08Mr. Adcock: It is a 20% future cut.
▶ 1:15:13Sen. Warren: A 20% future cut. Ok. So frank is not alone in this. After the republicans blew trillions of dollars on the tax cut for their rich buddies in the big beautiful bill, Dr. oz said the way we dig out of the deficit is having, quote, the average american work a year later and not retire.
▶ 1:15:40Sen. Warren: How many americans without a college degree work in physically demanding jobs?
▶ 1:15:46Mr. Adcock: In that category, that don't have college educations, about 41%.
▶ 1:15:54Sen. Warren: What does that mean to work an extra year?
▶ 1:15:55Mr. Adcock: It means an extra year you don't have benefits and when we talk about this particular group of need to retire early, generally the longevity isn't as long. I have seen studies when you take the bottom half of the income scale, they live about five years less than people at the top.
▶ 1:16:17Mr. Adcock: And the other part is if you do have a physical demanding job, you are likely to be from a community of color. In these situations it means you need to claim benefits early. Today under current law, if you claim at 60 two you're taking a 30% cut to your benefits. If you didn't wait until 67.
▶ 1:16:45Mr. Adcock: If you raise the retirement age to 70, we are talking a 50% cut.
▶ 1:16:50Sen. Warren: I want to add, there are people with college degrees who have physically demanding jobs.
▶ 1:16:58Mr. Adcock: Absolutely.
▶ 1:17:00Sen. Warren: My favorite example our kindergarten teachers. Try it sometime. Unsurprisingly Dr. oz is not thinking about millions of americans who work in many will labor and 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.
▶ 1:17:30Sen. Warren: These are often people who have to retire early because they are physically spent. I'm all for older americans working longer if they want to work longer. But don't confuse wanting to work with being forced to work because the trump administration is taking a sledgehammer to social security.
▶ 1:17:52Sen. Warren: Instead of hanging those workers out to dry, we should be expanding and protecting social security, especially when tariffs and war are driving up prices for seniors, for everybody in the country. How could we pay for bigger social security benefits?
▶ 1:18:11Mr. Adcock: Our preferred solution would be making the wealthy pay their fair share.
▶ 1:18:16Sen. Warren: Seems right to me. But we have to make sure 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, elon musk pays as much in social security taxes as someone who makes 175,000 dollars per year.
▶ 1:18:42Sen. Warren: I have a bill to fix that and it would raise enough money to increase benefits by $200 per month for every senior, and help stabilize social security and making sure it is around for the long haul. Social sick 30 is not charity. -- security is not charity. It is a promise that people have earned.
▶ 1:19:06Sen. Warren: The trump administration is trying to strip away the promise, chisel it and shrink it and rebrand it as an opportunity to work. Americans aren't buying it and we will keep fighting back. Thank you Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:19:22Sen. Scott: Ranking member gillibrand.
▶ 1:19:26Sen. Gillibrand: Thank you to our witnesses. I want to address the question of privacy concerns that people whose data is on the social security administration servers are facing.
▶ 1:19:42Sen. Gillibrand: On march 10 the washington post reported social security administration office of the inspector general was investigating a whistleblower complaint alleging a former doge employee improperly stored workers sensitive information on a personal thumb drive and shared it with his him lawyer, a technology company -- his employer, a technology company.
▶ 1:20:10Sen. Gillibrand: This follows a complaint regarding improper actions and storage of ssa beneficiary information. In november 2025, and february 2026, joined by shed nectars -- senators schumer and alsobrooks, we determined the scope of the personal information compromised.
▶ 1:20:33Sen. Gillibrand: Can you discuss the potential risk to americans and our national security of having sensitive personal data insecure?
▶ 1:20:41Mr. Adcock: It is something we hear from our members quite a bit. They are concerned about it along with the other chaos that happened because of doge and managing the social security administration. They understand that their personal administer -- information is part of the database. And they believe that was a pretty secure site that they didn't have to worry about.
▶ 1:21:12Mr. Adcock: Now, basically because of this information disclosed in court cases, it has been sold to third parties. It is troubling for a lot of our members. So they are concerned about how this is being managed.
▶ 1:21:29Mr. Adcock: And it speaks to the overall database itself, in terms of proposals to try to take it from the current system to a new system in a short period of time without extra money and what that could mean for ensuring all the information that is there, like work history to determine benefits, that that stays proceeding -- pristine and intact so we can ensure benefits are what they should be.
▶ 1:21:57Mr. Adcock: That is why people, we have advised our members to go to start a security account and save their work history so in case the information was ever lost by accident, what is going on with the social security administration.
▶ 1:22:14Sen. Gillibrand: I have been on the armed services committee for almost 20 years and if you lose your data about what you did in the military, it is hard to get your benefits. This data protection is a big issue we need to be concerned about. Would you like to add to anything?
▶ 1:22:31Dr. Fichtner: This is an important issue on privacy. I'm a bit out of the loop, but at the social security administration we were concerned. We got rid of the social security number out medicare cards. One thing to consider about privacy is the social security number has become a de facto national id number linked to your tax return, your employment records, everything.
▶ 1:23:05Dr. Fichtner: Maybe it is time to start thinking about how you could have a separate number for tax returns, medicare, social security. So instead of one number, if someone gets the number they don't get your entire life. They are putting so much information out into social security which processes w-2s for the irs and if tax information gets out, it could be detrimental when it comes to fraud.
▶ 1:23:25Sen. Gillibrand: I want to address the issues we talked about earlier in terms of improving the public's access to social security administration. The social security administration lost 7000 workers which is a lot because doge pushed them out and pushed out more experienced workers, the ones with more years.
▶ 1:23:50Sen. Gillibrand: I heard from new yorkers that they have struggled to talk to somebody at the social security administration and hard to get an appointment. In march 2026 the approximate wait time for an office appointment was 35 days. The agency has limited publicizing this metric so we don't have a lot of insight into this.
▶ 1:24:16Sen. Gillibrand: So one potential burden reduction on social security administration would be to eliminate the need to administer the retirement earnings test. This is something the chairman and I are looking into as a reform but I think is interesting and good. For beneficiaries who remain in the workplace. What major challenges do members report when dealing with the social security administration and are there unforeseen challenges with this change we are talking about?
▶ 1:24:44Mr. Adcock: Clearly for more than a year now, we have received calls from members that make similar complaints. They have had to wait a long time to make an appointment with the field office if they can get in touch with the field office. That is being compromised in some sense because in order to make an appointment at the field office you can't do it individually with an individual guild office.
▶ 1:25:12Mr. Adcock: It is switched to a national call center in which you have to make appointments. The same is true for accessing the 800 number. Waiting a long time to get calls. Social security disability insurance claims, we don't work as much on those as other organizations that we have heard that time, the lengthy period in which it takes to adjudicate those cases has increased.
▶ 1:25:40Mr. Adcock: All these things have been a huge problem in terms of people being able to talk to the agency and do transactions with the agency.
▶ 1:25:51Dr. Fichtner: That is a great question. Before I was asked to testify on the hearing, I had been working with advocates about the possibility of moving the administration over to the internal revenue service. This is an income-based issue we are talking about and who better to manage that when it comes to working is the irs, not ssa?
▶ 1:26:13Dr. Fichtner: Irs has funding challenges but as rachel pointed out, the agency spends $70 million administering the ra t and that is $70 million they could put into customer services. Channeling my old boss, on the senate and the house, asking for more money, said here is what I need and here is how we will demonstrate and prove we are doing what we are supposed to do.
▶ 1:26:44Dr. Fichtner: The agency needs more money, have the commissioner say here is what we plan to do with it and how I will report how we are coming along. It could be public hearings. The agency was putting it on youtube, the operational meetings so you could see the metrics. That's no longer there. We would love to have that back. It was transparency to see the metrics instead of hiding them. . Very good question, I don't know.
▶ 1:27:10Sen. Gillibrand: Maybe we could do a letter. Mr. taylor, anything to add?
▶ 1:27:14Mr. Taylor: I wouldn't doubt anything.
▶ 1:27:17Ms. Greszler: From 2019 we know the ra t could affect 5 million people and about 5000 individuals had benefits reduced or eliminated. That is 500,000 who are going to be confused and call the ssa and try to schedule a visit. By eliminating the test you could immediately eliminate all of those things. So it is a quick simplification.
▶ 1:27:44Ms. Greszler: The one thing you would need to do is those who are already in that 62-60 six age range to have some benefits held back, you would have to figure out how to get back to those. Would it be a one-time refund or the old system, moving forward, waiting until the full retirement age'that is a pretty easy fix to make.
▶ 1:28:06Sen. Scott: I would, we already got the information. We should find out. We have a lot of seniors. Can you speak about the positive potential impact repealing the ra t would have on the trust fund?
▶ 1:28:25Ms. Greszler: It is modest impact. I estimated up to $8 billion additional per year because individuals are working longer and as they work longer they are paying additional payroll taxes. That is boosting social security and medicare, state and local, federal income taxes. It is a spillover not just to social security but to other governor -- government revenues.
▶ 1:28:51Sen. Scott: What are the common misconceptions employers have about older work is and how do those differ from the evidence that you see?
▶ 1:29:01Mr. Taylor: They are unwilling to learn new ideas, number one, and particularly in the ai environment. We have learned there is reticence for good reason. They are not digital natives so we have to be more intentional about training and development for older workers. Some of that has value but the reality is, I'm one of those. I was born a blockbuster kid.
▶ 1:29:32Mr. Taylor: The world is different. My 15-year-old has to teach me how to do things but I'm willing to be taught those things. We have to be intentional about it. The second thing is a perception they won't work as hard. That younger generations have more youth, vitality and are willing to put in more hours. The data would suggest the opposite. That is some of the perception. Much of the work we are doing is around narrative building and storytelling.
▶ 1:30:00Mr. Taylor: We have to convince our colleagues as well as leaders that in fact, older workers are just as valuable if not more valuable in some ways, then younger workers at this point.
▶ 1:30:11Sen. Scott: My generation, probably everybody thinks their generation is the hardest working. It could be true, right? Who knows? Can you explain how repealing the ra t would provide freedom and flexibility for older americans when making benefit claims?
▶ 1:30:31Dr. Fichtner: One issue people see is they have a cultural issue. When they claim social security they stop working. We want to disconnect that. The retirement earnings test, they think I will be taxed for working after 62? Why am I bothering working? Most of them take the benefits and don't work. This is important thinking about the importance of income and benefits.
▶ 1:30:58Dr. Fichtner: I have been working on this almost 20 years so I want to thank you for your efforts with this and thank you member gillibrand as well. We got rid of the, we made it a personal decision where the agency talks to beneficiaries about them, their spouse and survivors and they have a double-sided one page.
▶ 1:31:19Dr. Fichtner: To give you an idea of how important this is, if you are scheduled for $1000 at age 67, just $1000, compared to age 60 27 hundred dollars it is a 30% reduction in monthly benefits for the rest of your life. You claim it at 70 it is a 24% increase. The difference between the 62 and 70 is a 77% increase in your monthly benefit.
▶ 1:31:49Dr. Fichtner: That is inflation protected for the rest of your life. When you might need the money the most, when you're older and have health concerns, that transparency will help you make a better informed decision. Rather than telling people you can work and get social security, not work and get social security, the idea is that income is the outcome. I applied your efforts.
▶ 1:32:11Sen. Scott: Does anybody want to add anything?
▶ 1:32:16Ms. Greszler: I would like to bring up a point on social security and the issue of raising the retirement age. The reality today is that social security doesn't have the ability to continue paying benefits when the trust fund runs insolvent between 2032, and that is across-the-board 23-28% benefit cut. The reality is that even if you waited until 70 to start collecting benefits, you wouldn't get what the current program pays today.
▶ 1:32:46Sen. Scott: If I --
▶ 1:32:52Dr. Fichtner: Whether or not to touch social security, I would encourage the senate to put their hands on social security because the default --
▶ 1:33:01Sen. Scott: The default is horrible.
▶ 1:33:03Dr. Fichtner: Roughly a 22% benefit cut across the board. You could say social security is solvent because it is designed not benefit. -- not to pay benefits. But the default is the worst option. Trustees have been saying this for 20 years. The sooner congress acts, the better.
▶ 1:33:22Sen. Scott: It is not fair to people who rely on it. As the governor of florida, the pension plan was like 80-80 3% funded and people acted like that is ok. What do you mean? How is that ok?
▶ 1:33:42Dr. Fichtner: The puerto rico pension reserve trust, the public employee pension plans were underfunded to the tune of zero dollars. $50 billion liability which we are turning around. This is important to not wait until this.
▶ 1:33:59Sen. Scott: The point I wanted to make is we talk about how these plans impact older workers. We haven't asked older workers how they feel. Our research suggests four things. I get to stay mentally active and engaged. 70% of older workers 67 and older say this is good for me. You may think it is negative but it is good. Secondly to maintain financial stability.
▶ 1:34:28Sen. Scott: I want to do this, not that I need to. Vacations, trips, taking care of grandkids. Thirdly, to avoid boredom. People work for purpose in retirement. And to continue using their current skills and experience. The idea that it is a bad thing and we are working people to death doesn't go with what older workers are telling employers.
▶ 1:34:53Sen. Scott: Some of the jobs are too demanding. But everybody wants, I don't know anybody who doesn't want to have purpose. I don't land on retiring. But we have to figure out how to preserve medicare and social security. I have only been here seven years, it is hard to have that conversation right now but if we don't, it is unfair to people who rely on it.
▶ 1:35:20Sen. Scott: When I was governor I worked hard to get the pension plan fully funded. It is hard. Anybody else? I want to thank everybody for being here today and participating. I look over to working with members. If anybody has statements to be added, the record will be open until next wednesday at 5:00 p.m.. Thanks each of you.