    [Senate Hearing 119-417]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 119-417

                              EXPERIENCE MATTERS:
                           SENIORS AND THE WORKFORCE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 25, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-27

             Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-837 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                           SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

                         RICK SCOTT, Florida, Chairman

    DAVE McCORMICK, Pennsylvania         KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    JIM JUSTICE, West Virginia           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama            MARK KELLY, Arizona
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    JON HUSTED, Ohio                     ANGELA ALSOBRO, soS, Maryland
                                  ----------
                    McKinley Lewis, Majority Staff Director
                    Claire Descamps, Minority Staff Director

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                                                       Page

    Opening Statement of Senator Rick Scott, Chairman................     1
    Opening Statement of Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Ranking
      Member.........................................................     3

                               PANEL OF WITNESSES

    Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow, Economics and Workforce,
      Advancing American Freedom, Washington, D.C....................     4
    Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP, President and CEO, SHRM,
      Alexandria, Virginia...........................................     6
    Jason Fichtner, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Academy of Social
      Insurance, Washington, D.C.....................................     8
    Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, National
      Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Washington,
      D.C............................................................    10

                                    APPENDIX
                          Prepared Witness Statements

    Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow, Economics and Workforce,
      Advancing American Freedom, Washington, D.C....................    30
    Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., SHRM-SCP, President and CEO, SHRM,
      Alexandria, Virginia...........................................    40
    Jason Fichtner, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Academy of Social
      Insurance, Washington, D.C.....................................    55
    Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, National
      Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Washington,
      D.C............................................................    69

                            Questions for the Record

    Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow, Economics and Workforce,
      Advancing American Freedom, Washington, D.C....................    79
    Jason Fichtner, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Academy of Social
      Insurance, Washington, D.C.....................................    81
    Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, National
      Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Washington,
      D.C............................................................    84

                           Statements for the Record

    AARP Statement...................................................    90
    Alliance for Retired Americans Statement.........................    97
    American Psychological Association Statement.....................   100
    Bipartisan Policy Center Statement...............................   106
    Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Statement.............   112
    SSA Office of the Inspector General Statement....................   113

                              EXPERIENCE MATTERS:
                           SENIORS AND THE WORKFORCE

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, March 25, 2026

                                            U.S. Senate
                                     Special Committee on Aging
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:38 p.m., Room
    216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Rick Scott, Chairman of
    the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senator Scott, Moody, Gillibrand, Warren, and Kim.

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR
                          RICK SCOTT, CHAIRMAN

        The Chairman. 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 firsthand
    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 is 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 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 if they are going
    back to work full or part time.
        In today's hearing, we will 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
    earning 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 is not the 1930's anymore, and we shouldn't expect
    our seniors to be punished today by outdated policies passed
    then. Aging Americans deserve better.
        That is why I have 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 could actually impact how much
    they will 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 make it
    easy, straightforward, and transparent so all Americans can
    make the decisions as they plan for retirement.
        That is 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 is definitely not the Governments' 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 is 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 seniors have the information and freedom they need to
    make their later years their best years. Now I will turn it
    over to Ranking Member Gillibrand.

                     OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR
                 KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, RANKING MEMBER

        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was very
    well said. I appreciate your hearing--calling this hearing
    today, and I would 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 are
    very grateful for the collaboration.
        As mentioned by the Chairman, when we look at the U.S.
    census demographic data, approximately 65 million Americans, or
    nearly 20 percent of the Nation's population, are currently
    over the age of 65, and that population is continuing to grow.
    By 2040, we expect one in five Americans will be 65.
        The U.S. 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 navigate today's environment.
        Since the 1930's, Social Security has provided the
    financial security to retirees and protected individuals
    against risks like disability and death. Today, 74 million
    Americans rely on Social Security benefits, and 184 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 2000, 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 is--it is not a
    lifestyle choice. It is an economic necessity driven by the
    skyrocketing cost of healthcare, housing, groceries, and
    utilities and 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.
        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 at an agency that has cut nearly 7,000 staff since
    the start of 2025, marking the largest workforce reduction in
    the Social Security Administration history.
        I will continue to fight on behalf of my constituents for
    an agency that functions well, treats its workers fairly, and
    provides 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 am also committed to strengthening--I am 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 about our
    Nation's work and retirement landscape. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Gillibrand. That is
    awesome. Great to work with you. I would like to welcome our
    witnesses to today's hearing. They are experts in workforce and
    retirement policy and are here to discuss the important role
    older Americans play in today's workforce. First, I would like
    to introduce Rachel Greszler.
        Rachel is a Senior Research Fellow in the Plymouth
    Institute for Free Enterprise and Advancing American Freedom,
    AAF, and a Visiting Fellow in Workforce at the Economic Policy
    Innovation Center. Prior to joining AAF, she spent 12 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 U.S. 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. Your expertise
    is clearly very much appreciated here. Please begin your
    testimony. Nice to see you.

             STATEMENT OF RACHEL GRESZLER, SENIOR RESEARCH

               FELLOW, ECONOMICS AND WORKFORCE, ADVANCING

                   AMERICAN FREEDOM, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. 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 then explain a simple and pro-growth
    proposal to support instead of penalize older working
    Americans.
        Older workers are the fastest growing segment of the labor
    force accounting for three-quarters of total employment growth
    since 2000. 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's seniors are redefining what retirement looks like.
    Rather than a one-time permanent exit from the workforce, about
    half of Americans are choosing non-traditional retirement
    paths, including transitioning to more flexible part-time or
    independent work, as well as un-retiring, 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 50 percent tax.
        For individuals who first claim Social Security benefits
    before their normal retirement age, which is going to be 67
    next year--and this is what most people do to claim benefits
    early--they lose $1 in benefits for every $2 that they earn
    over the limit of about $24,500 per year.
        This results in, for example, a marginal tax rate of 74
    percent for somebody who is making $29,000, and a marginal
    taxpayer 84 percent for somebody who is making $70,000. Not
    surprisingly, studies show that this causes people to work less
    and earn less than they would otherwise choose.
        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 loss benefits.
        The earnings test is also confusing for seniors, and it
    costs the Social Security Administration $70 million 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 62, 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, as Senator Scott's
    Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 2026 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 income by up to $66
    billion per year. That extra work and earnings would generate
    up to $18 billion in annual tax revenues, including an
    additional $8 billion 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 100 percent bipartisan
    support and now that the retirement age is almost 67, it is
    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 are 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.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Rachel. Thanks for being back.
    Okay, next we have Johnny Taylor. He is the President and Chief
    Executive Officer of the Society for Human Resources
    Management.
        His career spans more than 20 years as a lawyer, human
    rights--human resources executive, and CEO in both the not-for-
    profit and for-profit spaces. Thanks for be here. Please begin
    your testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF JOHNNY C. TAYLOR, JR.,

                   SHRM-SCP, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SHRM,

                          ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
    Gillibrand. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
    Let me begin with a sort of simple reality, America's workforce
    is changing. We have all talked about it. The fact of the
    matter is we know it. You have pointed out that in 1994, about
    12 percent of Americans in the workforce were age 65 and older.
        Today, that is closer to 20 percent. We also know a
    shocking stat, that I often tell people, that the fastest
    growing segment of the U.S. workforce are people 75 and older.
    Not just 65--75 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 is a structural shift,
    and it requires us to rethink how we approach work and
    retirement. First, as you have all pointed out, this is good
    for people.
        At SHRM, where we represent approximately 340,000 members
    across the country in every industry, we are seeing a clear
    shift. People are 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, Mr. Chairman, and
    connection.
        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 are not just talking about economics.
        We are talking about quality of life and dignity. Second,
    this is sort of good for employers, really good for employees.
    Latest JOLTS report says we have 6.9 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 SHRM 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 is a business
    advantage.
        Research shows that companies with more workers over age 50
    are more productive, believe it or not. In fact, increasing the
    share of workers aged 50 and older by just 10 percent is
    associated with a 1.1 percent gain in productivity,
    contributing to stronger economic growth and higher GDP per
    capita and SHRM data reinforces this.
        Over 80 percent of H.R. professionals say older workers
    bring exceptional reliability and expertise, and more than 90
    percent--and by the way, you don't get 90 percent of H.R.
    people to agree on anything--say they perform as well or better
    than other employees. Now, in a labor market defined by
    uncertainty, experienced workers provide consistency, judgment,
    and stability.
        We are already seeing what this looks like in practice. At
    Publix, a Florida based company, where I am a Floridian--a 95-
    year-old associate that 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 a 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 have heard this a lot.
    Too often, workplace practices 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 are not just timing individuals or limiting individuals. We
    are limiting our economy and 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. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        The Chairman. Good job. Thanks for being here. Publix is a
    great company.
        Mr. Taylor. Yes, it is. Great State of Florida.
        Senator Gillibrand. We love Publix in Florida.
        The Chairman. Yes. I think it is our--yes, it is clearly
    our biggest employer now.
        Mr. Taylor. That is right.
        The Chairman. Yes. All right, our next witness, Dr. Jason
    Fichtner. He is the Executive Director of the LIMRA Retirement
    Income Institute, previously served as the Acting Deputy
    commissioner of the Social Security Administration--a nice,
    easy job--and their 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.

               STATEMENT OF JASON FICHTNER, PH.D, SENIOR

                      FELLOW, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF

                   SOCIAL INSURANCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Dr. Fichtner. Good afternoon, Chairman Scott, Ranking
    Member Gillibrand. Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
    Again, my name is Jason Fichtner. I am 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.
        As Chairman Scott mentioned, the Executive Director of the
    LIMRA Retirement Institute. I am 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 at the
    Social Security Administration, including the Deputy
    Commissioner of Social Security and Chief Economist. All
    opinions I express 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 and 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 Gillibrand 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 62, claiming later
    permanently raises monthly benefits, with the maximum benefit
    available to those who claim at age 70. 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 and
    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 62 as the early
    eligibility age than they would if we framed claiming at age 62
    as a penalty that results in lower monthly benefits for the
    rest of your life. In 2008, when I was at SSA, 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 because we recognized that the framing
    was potentially biasing people toward early claiming.
        We want the public to have necessary information education
    presented--sorry, necessary information education presented in
    a manner so that they can make informed decisions. We changed
    this because it was very important. As provided in detail in my
    written testimony, I hope to lead 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 70 as the maximum
    monthly benefit age. Third, when thinking about framing, a
    phrase I would like for retirement security is, "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 and working in their later years.
        Along with reducing confusion in the Social Security
    claiming decision, this includes reducing the barriers for
    seniors to continue working in the 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 into 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 I look forward to answering your questions.
        The Chairman. Thanks for being here. Let me turn it over to
    Senator Kim to introduce the next witness.
        Senator Kim. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I want to move
    to introduce our next witness, Dan Adcock. Mr. Adcock is the
    Director of Government Relations and Policy for the National
    Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Previously,
    Mr. Adcock served as Legislative Director at the National
    Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.
        During his time there in September 2000, he helped to
    create the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program and
    advocated on behalf of beneficiaries enrolled in the Social
    Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs.
        Mr. Adcock also served as a Professional Staff Member 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.

                  STATEMENT OF DAN ADCOCK, DIRECTOR OF

               GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND POLICY, NATIONAL

                 COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

                     AND MEDICARE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Adcock. Thank you. Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking
    Member Gillibrand, thank you for inviting the National
    Committee to testify for you today. Max Richmond 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 2000.
        Workforce participation depends on the older worker's
    health, but it is 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 continue 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?
    If some workers end up worse off, are there ways to mitigate
    the financial impacts on these workers and their families?
    Number two, will repealing the RET actually increase the
    participation of older Americans in the workforce, or are there
    other legislative changes that should be to advance this goal.
        Number three, what will the impact of repealing the RET 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 that
    repealing RET would be extremely popular.
        After the last repeal of the RET in 2000 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 RET is extremely complicated
    and tends to induce fear and uncertainty.
        Many seniors don't realize that Social Security benefits
    withheld under the RET 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 RET may find it difficult
    to fully weigh the impact on their own family's finances. For
    Congress, it is this element of the RET that contributes to the
    challenge of projecting the positive and 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 is what this Committee found at your September 3, 2025
    hearing. To address this challenge, you focused on bipartisan
    legislation, S. 2703, the Protecting Older Workers--Older
    Americans Act of 2025, 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
    Security 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,
    Stephen Goss that RET repeal will ultimately reduce trust fund
    costs, but we are concerned how paying more benefits shortly
    after the RET appeal is enacted would affect Social Security's
    solvency when reserves are expected to be depleted by 2034.
        The question needs to be answered before 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.
        The Chairman. Thanks for being here. Thanks for your
    testimony. Now we will get to questions. Rachel, the Retirement
    Earnings 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
    100 years later?
        Ms. Greszler. 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, so on both ends, that should have not been the policy
    to begin.
        Absolutely today, not only do we want more people working.
    We need more people working. By 2034, there will be more
    seniors in the U.S. than there are children for the first time
    in U.S. history and so, we need those older workers.
        The Chairman. Mr. Taylor, you have written extensively on
    the value that older Americans bring to the workforce. 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?
        Mr. Taylor. There is no question that ageism is alive and
    well and 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 have got to work on changing the
    language, as you have described in many ways--how we speak
    about older employees.
        That continues. There is a built-in narrative that it is
    time for you to move on. There is 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 intention
    that is----
        The Chairman. That never happens in politics. Never
    happens----
        Mr. Taylor. As a result, that really does present some real
    tensions--some significant problems in the workplace. Younger
    employees want their next shot, and the older employee isn't
    moving on, so what we are trying to do is describe these
    diverse 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.
        We think we can solve this. The other big challenge is
    flexible work. What we need increasingly, because of worker
    productivity and lower worker participation rates, we need
    older workers in the workplace and so, there is not as much of
    a barrier as there has been when it comes to ageism, but it is
    alive and well for people who have their own biases.
        The Chairman. That makes sense. Now whenever you are going
    to run for re-election, everybody wants to run for your office.
    They want you to move on. They have something else for you.
        Mr. Taylor. That is right.
        The Chairman. Mr. Fichtner, there is a problem with how the
    Retirement Earnings Test is discussed with beneficiaries. It is
    complex and not very transparent. What does research show about
    how well older Americans actually understand these rules?
        Mr. Fichtner. It is a great question, Senator and as you
    guessed, it does not--the research shows they don't understand
    it very much at all. In fact, they are confused what the RET
    is. They hear retirement earnings, and they hear tax, not test
    and that discourages work, as Rachel Greszler pointed out in
    her testimony, and you mentioned your opening statements.
        What is interesting, and this is also what my colleague
    mentioned, that 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 is a tax. They don't understand,
    potentially, they might get it back and that, technically, it
    is actuarially neutral but no one likes to hear, well it is
    actually neutral.
        We will take it out today and give it back to you tomorrow.
    No one likes that idea, so it discourages work. We are not sure
    the research shows why it actually--if people are not working
    because they are confused about it, or if they just don't want
    to work. If they do want to work and then claim Social
    Security.
        The language we are using we know is confusing, Senator and
    that is why we very much want to change the language on the
    Claiming Act and also get rid of the Retirement Earnings Test.
        The Chairman. Makes sense. Mr. Adcock, how can employers
    better recognize and leverage the experience and institutional
    knowledge that older workers bring?
        Mr. Adcock. Well, I think it is kind of a mixed bag. I
    think that especially with workers who are professionals and
    who are white collar jobs, I think at minimum they are in tune
    to the idea of trying to bring people back and value that
    bringing back older workers and the experience they have.
        Also being flexible about how they bring them back, because
    some workers may not want to work full time. They may want to
    have a glide path toward retirement, so maybe for five years,
    they want to work part time or as a consultant and I think if
    employers do that, I think that is the case.
        I think where it 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.
        I don't know that a lot of that is happening in that
    particular part of employment but certainly, if workers are
    physically able to do it and can, they should.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, you lead an
    organization that represents hundreds of thousands of H.R.
    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 60 to help them be viewed as an asset rather than
    a problem?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are three things in
    particular. One, screening practices, such as focusing on
    graduation dates and people's resumes. You are 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
    conclude the age of a person.
        We are advocating for individuals to actually exclude
    graduation rates from their resumes. That is something
    employers can do. Second, coded language that we use, like
    digital native or fast paced environment, words that suggest we
    are looking for younger people without saying younger people
    explicitly, which would violate, obviously, ADA and other laws,
    local and state laws.
        Then excluding older workers from upskilling opportunities.
    There is this really interesting practice that we had
    historically, which was we provide a lot of training and
    development opportunities for newer workers and then when you
    hit about 55, we stopped sending you to training because you
    were on the other side of your career.
        What we are 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 are not messaging to them that they have outlived their
    shelf life.
        The Chairman. Senator Kim.
        Senator Kim. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for coming
    out here. 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.
        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 in terms of taking care
    of their loved one and depending on when the caretaker leaves--
    a caregiver who believes a workforce, this can often
    shortchange Social Security benefits.
        There are other also increased challenges for older
    caregivers who are living on Social Security alone upon
    retiring. In either scenario, it is often the case that
    benefits are often not enough to get past daily expenses, let
    alone expenses associated with caregiving.
        I guess I just 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?
        Mr. Adcock. Thanks, Senator Kim. I agree, that is a great
    question. First, for somebody who is still working, 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, is that there be a Social Security caregiver credit.
        Because if you are leaving the workforce to care for either
    a child or an elderly parent, it means for every year that you
    are out of the workforce, your Social Security record is
    reducing your Social Security benefit for the future.
        Legislation has been introduced in the past, which would
    provide basically 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. I think once somebody has
    retired and is on Social Security benefits, I think that is a
    harder-to crack. I mean, obviously, with regard to Social
    Security itself. That is why we, you know, obviously as an
    organization, we are concerned more than just about Social
    Security, about Medicare and Medicaid and the Old Americans
    Act.
        Those programs, various of those programs have various
    supports for caregivers that we think are really essential and
    need to be beefed up, especially home and community based care
    that the Medicaid program provides and ensure that that program
    is there for the long haul, and that the Old American Act also
    is enabled to provide family caregiver support, which it has
    inadequately been funded in the past and it needs to be fully
    funded.
        Senator Kim. Yes. As you said, there are different
    scenarios in which this happened and for instance, you know, 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 that we are trying to think through,
    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? What you raised are
    important questions that 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, be thinking
    through those different scenarios.
        Mr. Taylor, I would like to just turn to you. Just kind of
    building off of some of the questions that the chairman asked
    about--you know, about older Americans who want to be able to
    continue on to work and just thinking through, you know, what
    kind of policy should we be considering and pursuing here at
    the federal level to advance accommodations or flexible
    solutions that could increase workplace accessibility for older
    Americans.
        You know, you talked about some of these different ideas
    that are out there, including some of the, you know, the
    language side of things. I am just wondering if there are
    certain tactics or tools that you have seen, or opportunities
    for policies that you think are ones that we should be
    considering from a legislative standpoint.
        Mr. Taylor. Senator, our belief in SHRM is that from a
    private employer perspective, that there are sufficient
    legislative policies in place to address age discrimination.
        Frankly, employers are best positioned, as it stands, to
    audit themselves, looking at hiring and talent practices, to
    remove biased language, for example, from job descriptions and
    postings, to ensure equal access to training and development
    opportunities, as I mentioned earlier. Frankly, there is not a
    sense that any piece of additional legislation or policy is
    going to solve for that.
        Employers need the talent. They are convinced of it. We are
    past the day of saying that, you know, people have outlived
    their value to us. What we have got to do is just be very
    intentional about ensuring that our practices don't
    unintentionally exclude people from the workforce because of
    their age.
        Senator Kim. Yes. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you so much to
    our witnesses for being here today. We really appreciate it. In
    Florida, as you know, we have a very 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--you know, I want to say
    over 50 percent of returning seniors to work talk about extra
    money and I think it is--in Florida, thankfully, we have a
    thriving state, very easy to start a business, number one, in
    entrepreneurship--new business formations, we rank high in the
    Nation. A lot of opportunities. You know, 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 want to understand how we might be able to as lawmakers
    address current law to allow for that, so they don't fit--they
    don't feel 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 wrong and we need to fix it, because we
    know that this has become--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 that I am a baby boomer,
    and I keep assuring them that I am not but I think, by 2034,
    seniors will outnumber children for the first----
        [Laughter.]
        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 then.
        I want to start working on that now. I am so grateful--our
    chairman, I think this has been the most active Aging Committee
    maybe in the history. It makes sense since we have a chairman
    from Florida. We know that more and more workers over age 65
    are coming into the employment sector, and it has grown by 117
    percent within 20 years, so giving these realities, I want to
    hear from you.
        I mean, you are the experts. Again, the chairman has put
    together a great panel. What are the main impediments? Why if
    someone wanted to work, they wanted to earn the extra income,
    and we know that cost of living is going up--and specifically
    related to health care and drug prices.
        We are trying to do everything we can to address that, drug
    pricing transparency, all of the things that we are doing to
    address that but, you know, as they are wanting to make more to
    cover these increased costs, what is the main impediment that
    they are facing if they want to go back into the workforce? I
    will start with you, Ms. Greszler.
        Ms. Greszler. Thank you. I would like to talk about two and
    first is that Retirement Earnings Test and so, somebody who is
    making a modest amount, $29,000 per year, facing a 74 percent
    marginal tax rate, in terms of what they get from that
    additional dollar that they work and earn.
        When you see that only $0.26 of a $1.00 coming in in a
    paycheck, that encourages people to just stop working, and so,
    just eliminating that test is just a common sense one, and it
    would improve the economy. It would improve Social Security, so
    getting rid of the penalty first.
        Senator Moody. You think that is the number one thing to
    do?
        Ms. Greszler. I think that combined with----
        Senator Moody. For triaging our approach.
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, that is the first thing 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, enabling
    them to first be able to have that opportunity, so things like
    clarity and what is an independent worker versus an employee.
        There are two bills on that, the Modern Worker Empowerment
    Act and 21st Century Worker Act, that would just provide that
    clarity to make those opportunities available and then
    addressing the benefits side of things.
        If somebody is, say, 62 and they want to start
    transitioning out, but they don't want to lose access to their
    health insurance and maybe they still want to have a retirement
    account, having those types of portable benefits be an option
    through independent work as opposed to the formal employer are
    things you could do.
        Something like Unlocking Benefits for Independent Workers
    Act, so just expanding the flexibility. Neither of these things
    are like new mandates on employers. They are just removing
    current barriers that the Government has created.
        Senator Moody. Does anybody else want to comment on that?
        Mr. Taylor. That is what the Government can do, but what
    private employers can do--we know specifically that there are
    four things that older workers say are barriers to them
    returning to the workplace. One is flexible working hours. We
    as employers have the ability to impact that.
        Second, 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, that are age-appropriate, if
    you will. Third, phased retirement options.
        Being able to do this--you don't have to go from, you know,
    80 to 0 in terms of miles per hour that you can take this down
    and maybe do it over a period of time and then fourth, part
    time scheduling opportunities.
        Dr. Fichtner. If the chairman will indulge me with 30
    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 65 and you retire and I think that is
    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 are here, you are 62.
    Do you realize this is a minimum monthly benefits?
        They would say, wait, minimum? What do you mean, that I can
    get more? The framing is very important and 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 in retirement, when to claim Social
    Security that is best for them without confusing them with
    confusing language.
        I think that is something Congress can do, and we should
    all do culturally, is maybe we retire the word retirement.
        Senator Moody. I am out of time, but I don't think the
    Chairman would let me end with just you on the end.
        Mr. Adcock. Yes. Well, thanks, Senator and just to say it
    briefly, I think probably the biggest impediment is age
    discrimination. I think that there are situations where people
    really do want to go back to work, but their potential employer
    doesn't value their work, and so that is a real problem. In
    terms of, you know, what my colleague just said, I think that
    is a really huge deal.
        You know, we are talking today about repealing the earnings
    test and for some individuals, that might make sense but I
    think the bigger problem is just misunderstanding of how all
    this works and how it is a good thing or a bad thing for
    individuals and especially that people need to go into this
    with their eyes wide open.
        That they need to understand that they actually do get this
    money eventually back. It is currently withheld by the
    Retirement Earnings Test and if it was repealed, would it make
    sense for them to do that?
        Also, they need be cognizant of the fact that if they
    decide to claim benefits early, that that is going to change--
    you know, that that is going to 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.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. You think they do?
        Mr. Adcock. What was that?
        The Chairman. Do you think people know?
        Mr. Adcock. I think sometimes they do. I think, sometimes,
    they don't. That is why, if your legislation became law, I
    think it is really going to be incumbent on the Social Security
    Administration to educate potential beneficiaries about what
    decision is in their best interest.
        The Chairman. I am trying to think, I don't think on what--
    I get a form every so often, right. I don't think it has ever
    talked about survivor benefits that I remember. I have to look
    at it. Senator Warren.
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, so when he ran for
    President in 2024, Donald Trump repeatedly promised that he
    "wouldn't touch Social Security." 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.
        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 customer service crisis, and
    the Trump Administration and the Republicans are still looking
    for ways to cut Social Security.
        Their current approach is making 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, "everything is
    being considered and will be considered." Mr. Adcock, you are a
    Social Security expert. How would raising the retirement age
    affect Americans' benefits?
        Mr. Adcock. Simply put, it is a benefit cut. Doesn't matter
    whether you claim Social Security benefits at 62, or 70, or how
    long you live, it is a benefit cut in any way you slice it.
        For every year you decide that you are going to raise the
    retirement age, you are taking about--well, you are losing
    $24,000 of income for every year but then in your future
    benefits for every year that it is increased, you are losing
    about seven percent of your benefits.
        Senator Warren. Raising the retirement age on Social
    Security by one year cost $24,000, and over your lifetime is
    about a seven percent benefit cut. Is that--?
        Mr. Adcock. For each year.
        Senator Warren. For each year.
        Mr. Adcock. Yes, that is right.
        Senator Warren. For each year, okay.
        Mr. Adcock. Because some of the proposals that are being
    discussed would raise it from 67 to 69, or 67 to 70.
        Senator Warren. If you go to 70, if you do the math, how
    big is the cut?
        Mr. Adcock. Well, the math ends up being--it is a 20
    percent future cut.
        Senator Warren. A 20 percent future cut.
        Mr. Adcock. Yes.
        Senator Warren. Okay. Frank Bisignano 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, Dr. Oz said
    the way we dig out of a deficit is having, "the average
    American work a year later" and not retire. Mr. Adcock, how
    many Americans without a college degree work in physically
    demanding jobs?
        Mr. Adcock. In that category, if people don't have college
    educations, about 41 percent of them.
        Senator Warren. What does it mean to work an extra year?
        Mr. Adcock. Well, it means an extra year that you don't
    have benefits and especially when we are talking about this
    particular group of people who need to retire early, generally
    their longevity isn't as long. I mean, I think I have seen
    studies where when you take the bottom half of the income
    scale, they live about five years less than the people at the
    top end of the income scale, and especially the other part of
    this is that if you do have a physically demanding job, and you
    are likely also to be from a community of color, in these
    situations it means that you are going to need to claim
    benefits early.
        Today, under current law, if you claim early at 62, you are
    taking about a 30 percent cut to your benefits, had you not
    waited until your full retirement age currently at 67 but if
    you were to raise the retirement age to 70, we are talking
    about a 50 percent cut.
        Senator Warren. Wow, wow. I just want to add in this, there
    are obviously also people who have college degrees who also
    have physically demanding jobs.
        Mr. Adcock. Sure.
        Senator Warren. Am I right on that?
        Mr. Adcock. Oh, yes, absolutely. Yes.
        Senator Warren. Right. My favorite example are kindergarten
    teachers. Try it sometime. Unsurprisingly, Dr. 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 are just physically spent and look, I
    am 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 Mr. Adcock, how could we pay for
    bigger Social Security benefits?
        Mr. Adcock. Our preferred solution would be making the
    wealthy pay their fair share.
        Senator Warren. Yes. That seems right to me. Look, we have
    got to 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, Elon Musk,
    pays as much in Social Security taxes as someone who makes
    $175,000 a year.
        I have got a bill to fix that, and it would raise enough
    money to increase benefits by $200 a month for every senior and
    help stabilize Social Security to 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.
        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 are going to keep fighting back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Raking Member Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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.
        On March 10th, the Washington Post reported that Social
    Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General is
    investigating a whistleblower 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 allegations in 2025 from SSA's then Chief Data
    Officer regarding the improper actions and storage of SSA
    beneficiary information. In November 2025, and again in
    February 2026, joined by Senators Schumer and Alsobrooks, we
    requested that the IG initiated investigation determine once
    and for all the scope of the personal information that was
    compromised.
        Mr. Adcock, can you discuss the potential risk to both
    Americans, individual Americans, and our national security of
    having the most sensitive and personal data insecure?
        Mr. Adcock. Sure. I mean it is something we hear from our
    members quite a bit from that they are concerned about it,
    along with other chaos that has happened because of DOGE and
    the managing of the Social Security Administration.
        Yes, you know, they understand so much of their personal
    information, both health care and other, and Social Security is
    part of that data base and before, they believed that that was
    a pretty secure site, that they didn't really have to worry
    about it but now, basically, because of this information
    disclosed in court cases that it has been sold to third
    parties, I think it is very troubling for a lot of our members.
        They are really concerned about how this is being managed
    and it speaks to just the overall data base itself in terms of
    proposals to try to take it from the current system to 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 is there, like work histories that determine benefits,
    that that stays pristine and that still is enable--that that
    data base is intact so that we can ensure that benefits are
    really what they should be.
        I mean, that is why for instance people have been--we have
    advised our members to go on to Start My Social Security
    account and to save all their work history, so in case that
    information was ever lost by accident or what is going on at
    the Social Security Administration, they would have that.
        Senator Gillibrand. Yes, we hear--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 very hard to get
    your benefits sometimes, so I think this data protection is a
    very big issue that we all have to be concerned about. Mr.
    Fichtner, would you like to add to anything?
        Dr. Fichtner. Actually, I would, Senator. This is a very
    important issue on privacy, and I am a little bit out of the
    loop on this one. It has been a while since I was digging in
    this, but when I was at the Social Security Administration, we
    were so concerned that working with Congress, I think that is
    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 is linked to everything you do. It is on your tax return. It
    is on your employment records. It is everything. Maybe it is
    time to start thinking about how you can segment those.
        You can have a separate number for your tax return,
    separate number from Medicare, for Social Security, so if some
    hacker gets one number, they don't get your entire life and I
    am very concerned about this from an administration standpoint,
    because you are putting so much information now into Social
    Security, which also processes W-2s for the IRS.
        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.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. I now want to address some
    of the issues that we talked about earlier in terms of
    improving the public's access to Social Security
    Administration.
        The Social Security Administration lost 7,000 workers,
    which is a lot, because DOGE encouraged and pushed them out,
    and pushed out the more experienced workers, the ones who had
    more years. I have heard from New Yorkers, they have really
    struggled to be able to talk to somebody at the Social Security
    Administration and hard to get an appointment. In March 2026,
    the approximate wait time in an office--for an office
    appointment was 35 days.
        The agency has limited publicizing its casework metrics, so
    we just don't have a lot of insight into this, so one potential
    burden reduction on Social Security Administration would be to
    eliminate the need 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.
        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 are talking about? Why
    don't you start, Dan, and then we can go down the line.
        Mr. Adcock. Yes, no clearly, we have been, you know, for
    more than a year now that we have received lots of calls from
    our members that have made similar complaints. That 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.
        Now that is being compromised in some sense because in
    order to make an appointment at a field office, you can't do it
    individually with an individual field office. It is being
    switched now to a national call center in which you have to
    make those appointments. I think the same is true in also
    accessing the 800 number, awaiting a really long time in order
    to get calls.
        You know, obviously, Social Security disability insurance
    claims, we don't work as much on those as other organizations
    do, but we have heard that the lengthy period of time in which
    it takes to adjudicate those cases has really increased too, so
    yes, all of these things have been a huge problem in terms of
    people being able to talk to the agency and--transact business
    with the agency.
        Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Fichtner.
        Dr. Fichtner. It is a great question, Senator and the one
    thing I would point out is that before I was asked to testify
    on this hearing about the Retirement Earnings Test, I have been
    working with some advocates about the possibility of moving the
    administration of the RET over to the Internal Revenue Service,
    because this is an income based issue we are talking about.
        Who is better to manage income-based issues when it comes
    to working is the IRS, not SSA and IRS also has funding
    challenges as the Social Administration but as Rachel Greszler
    pointed out in her testimony, the agency spends $70 million
    administering the RET. If they are not administering RET, that
    is $70 million they can put on someplace else, including
    customer service.
        I think one of the things, to now channel my old boss,
    Commissioner Mike Askew, who came before you, you know, the
    Committee on the Hill, on the Senate and the House, asking for
    more money and said, here is what I need, and here is how we
    will demonstrate and prove to you that we are doing what we say
    we are going to do--hold the agency accountable.
        If the agency needs more money, have the Commissioner come
    in and say, here is what I plan to do with this money, and here
    is how I will report to you how we are coming along, which
    could be public hearings.
        For a while, the agency was putting on YouTube its
    operational meetings so you could see their metrics. That is no
    longer there. I would love to see that back. It was very much a
    transparency issue to see what the agency is doing in their
    metrics instead of hiding them--making them public.
        The Chairman. Why aren't they doing it?
        Dr. Fichtner. Very good question, Senator. I do not know.
        Senator Gillibrand. We could maybe do a letter on that,
    asking them why. Mr. Taylor, anything to add?
        Mr. Taylor. Wouldn't add anything.
        Senator Gillibrand. Ms. Greszler.
        Ms. Greszler. Yes, so from 2019, we know that the RET
    affects--could affect about five million people and about
    500,000 individuals did have their benefits reduced or
    completely eliminated.
        That is 500,00 individuals who many are going to be
    confused and are going to call the SSA, try to schedule a
    visit, so by eliminating the test, you could immediately
    eliminate all of those things and so, it is a very kind of
    quick simplification.
        The one thing that you would need to do is those who are
    already in that 62 to 66 age range who have had some benefits
    held back, you would have to figure out how are we going to get
    those back to them? Is it going to be an immediate, like one-
    time refund, or are they going to be in the old system and
    still move forward and wait until their full retirement age?
    That is a pretty easy fix to make.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes. I am fine. I mean, we ought to get the
    information. I mean we ought to find out.
        Senator Gillibrand. Yes, I agree.
        The Chairman. You know, both of our states have a lot of
    seniors. Ms. Greszler, can you speak a little bit about the
    positive potential impact that repealing the RET will have on
    the trust fund?
        Ms. Greszler. Yes. It is a modest impact. I have estimated
    up to about $8 billion additional dollars per year and this is
    because individuals are working longer and as they work longer,
    they are paying additional payroll taxes. That boosts Social
    Security's revenues, Medicare's, state and local income taxes,
    federal income taxes, so it is really kind of a spillover, not
    just to Social Security, but to all the other Government
    revenues as well.
        The Chairman. Mr. Taylor, from your perspective, what are
    the most common misconceptions employers have about older
    workers, and how do those perceptions differ from the evidence
    you seek?
        Mr. Taylor. Number one, it is that they are unwilling to
    learn new ideas, and particularly in this AI environment and
    what we have learned is there are just reticent. Obviously, 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 older
    workers.
        It is two-way, so some of that has some value to it. The
    reality is I am one of those, right. I was born a Blockbuster
    kid, another Florida company, and the world is just different,
    right. My 15-year-old has to teach me how to do things but I am
    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.
        That younger generations have more youth vitality and
    therefore are willing to put in more hours and actually, the
    data would suggest the opposite but that is some of the
    perception, so much of the work that we are doing is around
    narrative building and storytelling.
        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 than some of the younger workers at this
    point.
        The Chairman. I think my generation, I think probably
    everybody thinks their generation is the hardest working. I am
    sure my parents thought their generation was the hardest
    working and I think it could actually--it could be true, right.
    Who knows. Mr. Fichtner, can you explain how repealing the RET
    test would also provide freedom and flexibility for older
    Americans when making benefit claims?
        Dr. Fichtner. Oh, definitely. Thank you, Senator. One of
    the issues people see is they still have this cultural issue
    that when they stop working, they have to claim Social
    Security. If they claim Social Security, they stop working.
        One, if we disconnect that, that is the first thing. When
    they see the Retirement Earnings Test, they think, whoa, I am
    going to be taxed for me working after 62. Why am I even
    bothering to work then? Most of them take the benefits and 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 have
    been working on this issue for almost 20 years now, so I really
    want to thank you for your efforts with this, and Ranking
    Member Gillibrand as well. Because one of the things I did at
    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.
        To give an idea how important the claiming decision is for
    income, if you were scheduled to get just $1,000 at age 67,
    just $1,000, claiming at age 62 would give you $700. That is a
    30 percent reduction in your monthly benefits for the rest of
    your life. If you claim at 70, it is $1,240 benefits. That is
    24 percent increase. Now, for those who can't do math quickly,
    the difference between that 62 benefit and age 70 is a 77
    percent increase in your month benefit that is inflation
    protected for the rest of your life.
        When may 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, then telling people, look, you can work and get
    Social Security. You cannot work and get Social Security.
        You can do whatever you want. The idea is not thinking
    about income as the outcome, and how to help you to make a more
    informed decision and again, I applaud you for your efforts in
    this.
        The Chairman. Does anybody want to add anything?
        Ms. Greszler. I would 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 2032, the most recent
    projections, and that is an across the board 23 to 28 percent
    benefit cut. The reality of that is that even if you waited
    until 70 to start collecting your benefits, you would not get
    what the current program pays today.
        Dr. Fichtner. Mr. Chairman, if I can because the comment
    came up--I am sorry----
        The Chairman. No, please, please.
        Dr. Fichtner. Whether or not to touch Social Security, like
    hands off Social Security. What I would encourage the Senate is
    to put their hands on Social Security because the default is
    trust fund depletion.
        The Chairman. The default is horrible.
        Dr. Fichtner. The default is horrible. It is roughly a 23
    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 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 20
    years. The sooner Congress acts, the better, so I would
    encourage----
        The Chairman. It is really not fair. I mean, it is not fair
    to people that, you know, that rely on it. I was Governor of
    Florida, and I think when I went in, the pension plan was like
    80 to 83 percent funded and people act like that is okay, so
    wait a minute. How is that okay?
        Dr. Fichtner. Well, and again, I chaired----
        The Chairman. The private sector can't do that.
        Dr. Fichtner. I chaired the Puerto Rico Pension Reserve
    Trust and out of the bankruptcy of Puerto Rico, their public
    employee pension plans were underfunded to the tune of $0
    dollars, and a $40 to $50 billion of liability, which we are
    turning around but this is important to do things earlier, not
    wait until the last minute.
        Mr. Taylor. The point that I wanted 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 SHRM suggests that there are
    four things. They say, one, I get to stay mentally active and
    engaged.
        Seventy percent of older workers 67 and older say, this is
    good for me, so you may think this is negative, but it is
    actually good. Second, to maintain financial stability. I
    actually want to do this. Not that I need to maintain financial
    stability, vacations, trips, taking care of the grandkids,
    etcetera. Third, to avoid boredom. The reality is people work
    for a purpose in retirement.
        Then finally, to continue using their current skills and
    their experiences, so this idea that it is a bad thing and that
    we are working people to death doesn't exactly sync with what
    older workers are telling employers.
        The Chairman. I mean, some of the jobs are too demanding,
    you know, right. I think, I mean everybody wants to have--I
    don't know anybody that doesn't want to have purpose. I don't
    plan on retiring. I believe we do have to--we have to figure
    out how to preserve Medicare and Social Security.
        I have only been up here seven years. It is pretty hard to
    have a conversation right now. If we don't, it is not fair to
    the people that are relying on it. It is like when I was
    Governor of Florida, I worked hard to get the pension plan
    fully funded, so it is hard. Anybody else? [No response.]
        I want to thank everybody for being here today and
    participating. I look forward to continuing to work with
    members.
        If any Senator has additional questions for the witnesses
    or statements to be added, their hearing record will be open
    until next Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. Thanks each of you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    =======================================================================

                                    APPENDIX

    =======================================================================

                          Prepared Witness Statements

    =======================================================================
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                            Questions for the Record

    =======================================================================

                     U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

                "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce"

                                 March 25, 2026

                            Questions for the Record

                                Rachel Greszler

                       Ranking Member Kirsten Gillibrand

        Question:

        Why in your view is the repeal of the Retirement Earnings
    Test a better policy proposal than further liberalizing it, for
    example by increasing the current dollar exemption amounts?

        Response:

        Increasing the current dollar exemption for the retirement
    earnings test (from the current $24,480 in 2026) would be
    helpful because it would reduce the number of working seniors
    who are hit by the test and who lose Social Security benefits.
    Moreover, among those who continue to lose benefits, it would
    reduce the amount that some of them lose. There are two primary
    reasons, however, why I strongly support complete repeal of the
    retirement earnings test rather than an increase in the
    exemption amount:
        First is that an increase in the threshold contradicts the
    primary remaining justification for the test, which is a
    paternalistic attempt to protect older Americans from making
    decisions that might not be best for them. Specifically, this
    refers to the decision to claim Social Security benefits before
    the full retirement age, thereby exchanging a lower monthly
    Social Security benefit for a longer period of receiving
    benefits.
        The rationale behind the retirement earnings test is: if
    you are still working and earning over $24,480, you may not
    need as much income now from Social Security, but there is a
    chance that you will need a higher Social Security benefit in
    the future when you are less likely to be able to work and may
    have used up other non-Social Security savings.
        In this way, the retirement earnings test essentially takes
    away individuals' choices over when to claim benefits if the
    government thinks that they are A) earning enough to not need
    as much in benefits now, and B) are at risk of outliving their
    savings and may need higher Social Security benefits in the
    future. Increasing the exemption amount eliminates the policy
    for those it is most likely to "protect," while leaving it in
    place for higher earners who are less likely to outlive their
    savings.
        From a fiscal and economic perspective, raising the cap
    would be significantly inferior to eliminating it because
    people who are still working and earning significant incomes
    between ages 62 and 66 tend to have longer life expectancies,
    and thus are more likely to come out ahead, in terms of total
    Social Security benefits received, as a result of the
    retirement earnings test.
        Second, an increase in the exemption does little to reduce
    administrative costs and burdens on the Social Security
    Administration. If any level of retirement earnings test
    exists, the Social Security Administration has to monitor the
    earnings of all beneficiaries between the ages of 62 and 66,
    approximately five million individuals. While the number of
    people affected by the test (roughly 520,000 in 2019) would
    decline, and the SSA would have to withhold fewer benefit
    checks and respond to fewer calls and visits from those
    affected by the test, the SSA would still have to send notices
    to and monitor the earnings of millions of individuals who are
    below the full retirement age. Eliminating the retirement
    earnings test would-in the long run-save the entirety of the
    estimated $70 million per year in administrative costs and
    eliminate all confusion caused by the test.
        In the near term, immediately after elimination of the
    retirement earnings test, the SSA would need to address
    individuals who have had benefits withheld by the test and who
    have not yet reached their full retirement age. The simplest
    way to do this would be to move up the re-calculation of
    lifetime benefits from individuals' attainment of full
    retirement age to the year of implementation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to further explain why I
    believe eliminating the retirement earnings test entirely is
    the best way to help workers and reduce administrative costs
    and complexities for civil servants at the Social Security
    Administration.

                     U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

                "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce"

                                 March 25, 2026

                            Questions for the Record

                               Dr. Jason Fichtner

                       Ranking Member Kirsten Gillibrand

        Question:

        Based on your prior management roles at SSA, what impacts
    would repeal of the Retirement Earnings Test and the Claiming
    Age Clarity Act have on agency operations and budgets, and what
    advice can you share on how best to support effective agency
    implementation of these potential reforms?

        Response:

        I am of the view that the Claiming Age Clarity Act would
    have a negligible impact on SSA's budget and operations. Short-
    term costs to changing terminology in communications and policy
    documents, training staff, etc., are real, but at the margin
    the costs would be negligible.
        If the Agency has not yet shared a cost estimate of
    implementing this legislation, the Senate should ask for an
    official cost estimate. I am also of the view that additional
    appropriations are not necessary to implement the bill. That
    said, a small amount of dedicated funding would likely make
    implementation more effective, and support for that funding may
    address any administrative cost concerns that legislators or
    the Agency has if this bill were to become law. Recently, the
    Bipartisan Policy Center Action submitted a letter to the
    Senate and House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (March 19,
    2026) where they supported "including at least $10 million in
    dedicated funding to improve SSA's communication with
    individuals considering when to claim old-age benefits. This
    funding should support the adoption of clearer, more intuitive
    claiming terminology-consistent with the intent of H.R. 5284
    and S. 1504-and enable updated systems and publications, as
    well as expanded outreach, education, and decision-support
    efforts to help beneficiaries choose the claiming age that best
    fits their individual circumstances."\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://bpcaction.org/wp-content/uploads/BPCA-FY27-LHHS-
    Appropriations-Requests.pdf

        I will add that the act will likely reduce administrative
    costs in the long term because of the increased clarity the new
    claiming language will provide the public.
        Likewise, the repeal of the Retirement Earnings Test (RET)
    would also have some short term costs, including reprograming
    systems, communications and policy documents, training staff,
    etc. In her testimony before the committee during this hearing,
    Rachel Greszler referenced an SSA OIG report that SSA spends
    approximately $70 million annual administering the RET.\2\ If
    the RET were to be repealed, the Agency would eventually free
    up $70 million annually for other administrative purposes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Office of the Inspector General, "The Social Security
    Administration's Enforcement of the Retirement Earnings Test," Social
    Security Administration, February 2, 2024, https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/
    uploads/a-08-21-51049.pdf

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question:

        I am a strong supporter of ABLE Accounts that support
    people with disabilities and empower them to fully engage in
    their communities. From your time at SSA, how can the agency
    better publicize and educate beneficiaries and their families
    about these accounts?

        Response:

        While SSA does provide information on ABLE Accounts, for
    example on the Agency's website,\3\ the Agency could do a
    better job promoting the benefits of ABLE accounts through
    targeted outreach to the SSI community. In a 2023 research
    paper by the Center for Financial Security at the University of
    Wisconsin-Madison, researchers documented "...an array of
    barriers, including financial constraints as well as diverse
    administrative burdens and misperceptions, that deter eligible
    persons from opening ABLE accounts."\4\ Lack of understanding
    and awareness of ABLE accounts was one of the key findings of
    the report, leading to a recommendation that "...state
    administrators might offer stronger campaigns to increase
    overall awareness of ABLE."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-able.html & https://
    choosework.ssa.gov/blog/2023-08-22-able-accounts-what-you-should-
    know.html
        \4\ https://rdrc.wisc.edu/files/working-papers/WI23-10--Working-
    Paper--Pollack-et-al--4.24.pdf

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Senator Elizabeth Warren

        Question:

        During the hearing, you mentioned that the Social Security
    Administration (SSA) under the current administration has hid
    metrics from its operational meetings. What metrics has the
    agency concealed, and what do these metrics show? Please list
    the metrics that are no longer being reported and the function
    they have.
        Under which commissioner, did SSA stop releasing these
    metrics? Have past administrations released these metrics, and
    if so, which ones? How does concealing these metrics impact the
    agency's functions and Americans' ability to interact with SSA?

        Response:

        Unfortunately, I have not kept records on SSA's reporting
    of operational metrics overtime, nor by individual
    commissioners. During my testimony, I mentioned that Acting
    Commissioner Lee Dudek was posting SSA operational meetings to
    SSA's YouTube channel\5\ and offering metrics online, including
    real-time data on hold times and callback times on the 800
    number.\6\ These posts were removed from YouTube shortly after
    Commissioner Frank Bisignano took office. News articles have
    reported some of the information that was presented during
    these meetings.\7\ I personally found this type of disclosure
    to be of benefit to the public. The real-time metrics on the
    800 number were a laudable improvement in the ability of the
    American public to interact with SSA to allow them to make an
    informed decision about when to call the agency or to schedule
    an appointment. The loss of this level of detailed public
    disclosure, as well as the manner in which it was transmitted
    via YouTube videos, is loss of that may make it more difficult
    for the public to view and understand the critical challenges
    now facing the agency. This loss not only impacts the public,
    but also impacts Congress, which could provide oversight,
    instructions, or dedicated funding to address customer service
    challenges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.youtube.com/@SocialSecurity/playlists
        \6\ https://www.ssa.gov/news/en/press/releases/2025-03-24.html
        \7\ See for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/us/
    politics/doge-social-security.html & https://www.londondisability.com/
    ssas-push-for-transparency-youtube-videos-and-more-what-it-means-for-
    your-disability-claim & https://www.youtube.com/shorts/P0--8GK--JJnY
    (accessed April 11, 2026).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question:

        How is SSA deploying call-sharing - or the redirecting of a
    call meant for a local field to a field office in a different
    region - on its national 1-800 hotline?
        Have the older Americans that your organization works with
    reported having their calls redirected, and if so, how does
    this mechanism impact their ability to talk to an SSA
    representative and have their question resolved?

        Response:

        Based on what's been reported, SSA now shifts calls from
    one field office to another once they go unanswered for a
    certain period of time. Other organizations have been
    publishing reports about SSA customer service metrics,
    including the 800 number.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/trump-
    administration-personnel-policies-harming-social-security-customer

        Katie Savin, also a Fellow at the National Academy of
    Social Insurance (NASI),\9\ has been quoted in the New York
    Times,\10\ about how staffing reductions at SSA have made it
    difficult for claimants to get customer service assistance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.nasi.org/fellows/
        \10\ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/24/business/social-security-
    customer-service.html

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question:

        Have the older Americans that your organization works with
    reported increases in the wait time for scheduling an in-person
    appointment at an SSA field office?
        If so, how many days are they waiting for an appointment,
    on average?
        Response:

        Unfortunately, I do not personally have any direct
    knowledge or information to be able to answer this question.
    SSA does report wait times on its website.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.ssa.gov/ssa-performance

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question:

        Reports indicate that the drastic staff cuts the
    administration has made at SSA have forced some rural field
    offices to close. Has your organization heard of any SSA field
    offices closing completely under the current administration -
    or having such limited capacity due to staff cuts that they are
    unable to perform their usual services and are effectively
    closed?

        Response:

        I am not aware of any field offices being permanently
    closed as of this time. SSA occasionally temporarily closes
    field offices to deal with maintenance or other issues and then
    reopens those offices once the issues have been resolved. The
    last SSA public notice I am aware of is dated March 27,
    2025.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://www.ssa.gov/blog/en/posts/2025-03-27-b.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

                "Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce"

                                 March 25, 2026

                            Questions for the Record

                                   Dan Adcock

                       Ranking Member Kirsten Gillibrand

        Question:

        Your organization was closely involved in the successful
    and bipartisan effort to reform the Retirement Earnings Test
    during the Clinton administration. What would you advise
    policymakers to take into account when considering repeal in
    this era?

        Response:

        Earlier claiming reduces monthly benefits for life,
    especially if people do not fully understand the adjustment,
    which has implications for old-age benefit adequacy. In fact,
    the misunderstanding that benefits reduced by the Retirement
    Earnings Test are "lost" continues to be a problem to this day.
    For the current proposal to repeal the RET for 62- to 66-year-
    olds, claiming decisions are more consequential for long-term
    benefit adequacy since early claim results in much lower
    lifetime benefits.
        Finally, the administrative burden of the 2000 RET repeal
    was real. The need to track earnings, withhold, and later
    recompute benefits cost SSA on the order of hundreds of
    millions of dollars annually in operations and contributed to
    beneficiaries' confusion. Given that mass staff reductions at
    SSA and flat funding has hollowed out the agency, it is hard to
    see how SSA could absorb the administrative requirements of
    repealing the RET for 62- to 66-year-olds.

        Question:

        In your view, why ultimately did Congress elect to retain
    elements of the Retirement Earnings Test, and are any of those
    considerations still valid today?

        Response:

        Repeal of the RET was promoted as a way of increasing
    participation in the workforce by older workers, much as the
    current effort to eliminate the RET for those between ages 62
    and 66 is proposed. However, research has shown that, while
    elimination of the RET does result in some additional workforce
    participation, it also would result in a significant number of
    workers who claim their Social Security benefit early. This
    decision to claim early has two major consequences -
    permanently reduced benefits for those workers least able to
    afford to lose this income, and potentially accelerated
    insolvency of the Social Security Trust Funds. Both of these
    concerns would have been known to the authors of the 2000 RET
    repeal and presumably influenced their decision to retain the
    RET for those claiming benefits at ages 62 to 66.

        Question:

        Do you see any potential positive outcomes from a renewed
    repeal initiative?

        Response:

        We know from seniors we have talked to at townhall meetings
    across the country that repealing the rest of the Retirement
    Earnings Test would be popular. In some cases, claiming
    decisions motivated by repealing the RET might benefit some
    people but before this legislation is approved and enacted,
    Congress must determine if there are ways to mitigate the
    permanent loss of benefits for those workers and their families
    who might be hurt by the change (like improving survivor
    benefits), if there are really jobs available for people ages
    62 to 66 when age discrimination in employment is pervasive,
    and what will be the short term impact on Social Security Trust
    Fund solvency if the RET is repealed.

        Question:

        How can we best protect and strengthen Social Security for
    retirees, the disabled, and survivors, and what should we bear
    in mind regarding the program's annual cost-of-living
    adjustments, particularly at a time of soaring costs for
    Americans?
        Response:

        The best way to protect and strengthen Social Security for
    retirees, the disabled, and survivors, as well as for all
    workers and their families, is by extending Social Security
    solvency and improving benefits by finally making the wealthy
    pay their fair share in FICA contributions. Because of decades
    of stagnate middle class wages, income inequality and the
    erosion of employer sponsored retirement benefits, a growing
    share of Americans will depend on Social Security for all or
    most of their income in retirement. That's why any conversation
    about Social Security reform must include benefit adequacy if
    the program is going to allow retirees to maintain a modest
    standard of living in retirement.
        The number one benefit improvement our members tell us
    would be to make the COLAs more accurate so that they take into
    consideration the disproportionate share of income seniors
    spend on out-of-pocket health care costs. Undervaluing the COLA
    has significant long-term impacts as its' effects compound over
    time. That leaves the oldest retirees, who presumably are the
    least able to work, and are the most likely to have exhausted
    any other resources and have the highest health care costs,
    with the deepest financial burden caused by years of
    underestimating the inflation they experience.

        Question:

        Last year, the Secretary of the Treasury stated that
    efforts to build wealth were viewed as "a backdoor to
    privatizing Social Security". However, Americans can best be
    served in retirement with support from both Social Security and
    private savings. In your view, how can Congress move the needle
    on expanding access for the millions of Americans currently
    shut out of the retirement system?

        Response:

        There are many proposals - some well-meaning - that would
    help workers save for retirement. It is commendable that
    lawmakers are trying to fill the gap in retirement savings left
    by some employers that don't help their employees plan for
    their golden years. Part of the challenge remains that so many
    workers are struggling to simply afford the daily costs of
    living, that even when retirement savings plans are offered by
    their employers, they simply do not feel they have enough
    disposable income to take advantage of them but the wheel does
    not have to be reinvented if we have a highly successful
    retirement program that could be enhanced if benefits were
    improved - and that program is Social Security.

                            Senator Elizabeth Warren

        Question:

        Has the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund been
    accelerated under the current Trump administration?
        If so, what actions taken by the administration have
    contributed to this acceleration?

        Response:

        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included a temporary
    additional deduction of $6,000 per eligible individual age 65+
    through 2028. Because of how this tax cut indirectly results in
    less taxation of Social Security benefits and since this
    taxation helps fund benefits, the trust fund will receive $30
    billion less revenue a year which will accelerate insolvency.

        Question:

        Do you expect the unprecedented levels of workforce
    reductions at SSA, and the ripple effects these reductions have
    had on key agency services, to also contribute to accelerating
    the trust fund's insolvency?

        Response:

        Potentially, yes. We have heard from some people in their
    60s that they have claimed benefits earlier than planned
    because of what might happen to the program as a result of the
    mass staff reductions and chaos caused by DOGE at SSA. The next
    Social Security Trustees Report may show whether such early
    claiming is having an impact on solvency.
        While not related to accelerating solvency, we are
    concerned that the DOGE staff cuts and mayhem at SSA could
    soften public support for the program which would make it
    easier for some lawmakers to enact legislation to cut earned
    benefits.
        Question:

        How is SSA deploying call-sharing - or the redirecting of a
    call meant for a local field to a field office in a different
    region - on its national 1-800 hotline?
        Have the older Americans that your organization works with
    reported having their calls redirected, and if so, how does
    this mechanism impact their ability to talk to an SSA
    representative and have their question resolved?

        Response:

        The National Committee has not heard from members about
    redirection because they may not even know it is happening and
    it only becomes apparent when the caller is ill-advised and
    shows up at their local field office. In other words, if a call
    is redirected, the SSA employee does not say where they are
    physically, so the claimant/beneficiary has no idea and that
    adds to the risk of not knowing local information (e.g.,
    claimant/beneficiary's local records, state taxation of
    benefits, etc.) and this is all very compounded by the
    reassignment of SSA personnel into these front-line jobs by
    staff not properly trained or acclimated. Very general
    questions work well with call redirection, but specific,
    personal issues do not and the consequences of bad information
    can be huge.
        As for the reassigned SSA staff, whatever work they did in
    their former jobs is likely to be neglected, particularly
    because of the mass staff reductions. For example, the SSDI
    backlog will grow if adjudication staff were reassigned to the
    national call center. Likewise, overpayments could become a
    greater problem if operations staff are now answering calls.

        Question:

        Have the older Americans that your organization works with
    reported increases in the wait time for scheduling an in-person
    appointment at an SSA field office?
        If so, how many days are they waiting for an appointment,
    on average?

        Response:

        We don't have a good number from our members about how much
    wait times have increased, but what we hear anecdotally is that
    beneficiaries are waiting months for an appointment.

        Question:

        Reports indicate that the drastic staff cuts the
    administration has made at SSA have forced some rural field
    offices to close. Has your organization heard of any SSA field
    offices closing completely under the current administration -
    or having such limited capacity due to staff cuts that they are
    unable to perform their usual services and are effectively
    closed?

        Response:

        While the SSA website lists multiple field office closures
    in 2025, some field offices still open are effectively closed
    because many of their staffers were let go by the DOGE mass
    staff cuts. That means seniors and people with disabilities -
    many with mobility issues - are traveling farther and waiting
    longer for an appointment at a field office.

                            Senator Raphael Warnock

        Question:

        Since January 2025, the Trump administration has cut more
    than 7,000 Social Security Administration (SSA) employees, and
    Georgia lost nearly 10 percent of its SSA workforce between
    Fiscal Year 2024-2025. Due to limited workforce, older
    Georgians must wait weeks to schedule an appointment with the
    SSA field office and an average of 11 months for their
    disability claims.
        How can Congress improve the SSA workforce capacity and
    address the declining quality of customer service in states
    like Georgia?

        Response:

        Because the appropriation process tends to be bipartisan in
    the Senate - unlike the House - there are more opportunities
    for Democratic Senators to call for increasing appropriations
    for SSA and for including instructions in the Labor-HHS
    appropriations bill for SSA to more adequately staff field
    offices, including in Georgia.

        Question:

        According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy,
    the average driving-age person in the South will pay $39 more
    per month in higher gas prices, compared to $34 nationally or
    $24 in the Northeast. Food prices have also increased by over
    23 percent compared to 2020, and nearly 10 percent of Georgians
    age 65 and older are food insecure. Seniors in Georgia are
    facing a calculus of whether they will have enough money,
    through Social Security or savings, to retire.
        What steps can Congress take to address the concern over
    rising costs of living among seniors and ensure older Georgians
    have a pathway to a financially secure retirement?

        Response:

        Congress can enact legislation that would base Social
    Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) on a fully
    developed Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E). The
    CPI-E would more accurately measure the spending patterns of
    seniors, including the disproportionate share of income they
    spend on out-of-pocket health care expenses. Georgia seniors
    could also better afford rising costs if Congress passed S.
    3078, the Social Security Emergency Inflation Relief Act which
    would increase Social Security benefits by $200 per month.
    =======================================================================

                           Statements for the Record

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              [all]