U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–086 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–746

BREAKING THE SILVER CEILING:

A NEW GENERATION OF OLDER AMERICANS

REDEFINING THE NEW RULES OF THE

WORKPLACE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC

SEPTEMBER 20, 2004

Serial No. 108–43

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

(

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

MIKE ENZI, Wyoming 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Ranking 

Member 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

LUPE WISSEL, Staff Director 

MICHELLE EASTON, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator John Breaux ......................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig ..................................................................... 3

Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch ......................................................................... 8

PANEL I 

Hon. John Glenn, Former U.S. Senator, The John Glenn Institute, Columbus, 

OH ......................................................................................................................... 6

Jack Valenti, former president, Motion Picture Association of America, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 10

PANEL II 

Ken Dychtwald, president and chief executive officer, Age Wave, San Francisco, CA ................................................................................................................ 16

Sharon A. Brangman, M.D., professor of medicine and division chief, Geriatric 

Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, on behalf of 

the American Geriatrics Society ......................................................................... 40

Douglas C. Holbrook, vice president/secretary-treasurer, American Association 

of Retired Persons, Washington, DC .................................................................. 47

Victoria Humphrey, executive direction of Human Resources, Volkswagen 

of America, Inc. and Volkswagen Canada, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI .................. 76

Edward E. Potter, president, Employment Policy Foundation, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 81

APPENDIX 

Statement of Emily DeRocco, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration ...................................................................................... 109

(III) 

(1)

BREAKING THE SILVER CEILING: A NEW GENERATION OF OLDER AMERICANS REDEFINING THE NEW RULES OF THE WORKPLACE 

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, Washington, DC. 

The committee convened, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 

SD–628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Craig, Breaux, Hatch, and Kohl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN BREAUX, 

RANKING MEMBER 

Senator BREAUX [presiding]. The committee will please come to 

order. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this hearing of the 

Senate Special Committee on Aging. We are glad we have so many 

guests for this very important hearing this afternoon. 

We are here to talk about how older Americans are breaking the 

silver ceiling in our nation’s workplace. Since 1985, there has been 

an upturn in the number of older Americans who are choosing to 

work past the age of 65. These people are better educated, they are 

healthier, they are living longer than previous generations. They 

aren’t ready to sit in a rocking chair just because they happen to 

be 62 or 65 years of age. 

However, over the past 50 years, both corporate and Federal policies have encouraged workers to leave the workforce as early as 

possible. Social Security benefits allow people to retire as early as 

62, with normal retirement age currently at 65. Today, 75 percent 

of Americans apply for Social Security benefits at age 62. Companies built their pension plans to favor early retirements and to encourage the hiring of younger workers. I say that it is time to reevaluate these outdated policies because they do not reflect modern 

society. 

We have millions of talented, healthy, and energetic older Americans who want to keep on working, and it is a good thing that our 

older Americans want to work because there is a labor shortage 

looming in our country. As baby boomers reach retirement age in 

a few years, the economy will start to experience negative effects 

of mass retirements. There will be fewer younger workers to fill the 

mass vacancies of the older, experienced workers. 

2

The rate of workforce growth peaked in the 1970’s at nearly 30 

percent. However, it is now at 12 percent and expected to drop to 

less than one-fourth of 1 percent by the year 2020. Even if we increase immigration significantly, we would still need millions of 

older workers to remain in the workforce. 

Right now, this is still what I would call a sleeper issue and 

much of corporate America has not recognized the need to retain 

and recruit older workers. Some companies have, and they are listed in AARP’s list of top employers for workers over the age of 50. 

Many older workers want to work part-time or on and off throughout a particular year. They want to telecommute. They want to 

continue to provide services where they can, even on a part-time 

basis. Benefits like retraining, elder care locator services, and time 

off to care for relatives are important to them. 

Phased retirement is a concept that sounds appealing to most 

workers, but as we will hear today at this hearing, it is still more 

of a concept than a reality due to Federal obstacles. 

I strongly believe that it is time our country’s labor and pension 

policies reflect the new health and dynamism of older Americans. 

Let us break down these barriers and move past ageist stereotypes 

to allow more Americans to achieve their potential no matter what 

age. 

I would point out that as I look forward to changing careers, as 

opposed to retirement in my own profession, this is an area that 

I become more and more interested in each day. Indeed, I am very 

typical, I think, of millions of Americans as they look to new and 

different careers and they do not want to just sit on the porch and 

rock. They want to be involved, and we need their services and we, 

as a government, need to make sure that there are not governmental and legislative impediments toward them being able to look 

at new and exciting second, third, and even fourth careers in their 

lives. They have very valuable services that they can offer to our 

country. 

With that, I would like to recognize Senator Craig. We share duties. He has been very kind. This is the only committee, I think, 

in the entire U.S. Senate where we actually both serve as chairman, depending on the hearing, and Chairman Craig has been 

very, very generous in that because he agrees with me that this 

question of aging is neither Republican nor Democrat. We age 

equally, and this committee has been run in that fashion and I 

thank him for that. Senator Craig.

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG, CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. John, thank you very much. For those of you who 

were confused for a moment, please don’t be. John has just explained the method by which we operate the Special Committee on 

Aging. We tradeoff depending on issues that we are individually or 

collectively interested in as to who is chairing the hearing, because 

as John has pointed out, I am much younger than he—— [Laughter.] 

But I would never challenge him in a game of tennis. [Laughter.] 

But I am going to add my comments to the hearing for the 

record, Mr. Chairman, and why I have asked for the microphone 

is to say something about a fellow legislator who has spent a good 

deal of his time serving us and serving the country, and I am talking about my colleague, John Breaux. 

The valuable contribution that he has rendered for the good citizens of Louisiana, but as importantly for the country, is testimony 

to a great leader and one that I view as John Breaux, the senior 

Senator from the State of Louisiana. 

It is even more unfortunate that the English language is always 

found wanting when one desires, I think, to give a proper tribute. 

However, I hope that you will accept these words of recognition, 

John. 

John Breaux, you are Louisiana’s, I think it is pronounced ‘‘lagniappe.’’ That is Cajun for gift to the country in general and to 

the Senate in particular. Your reputation for honesty and political 

integrity and hard work were matched in your stellar 32 years of 

service here in Congress only by your renowned political acumen, 

keen legislative judgment, and good and sincere heart for all our 

nation’s citizens. 

It has been my pleasure to serve with you such as you have demonstrated here today that we found ourselves very willing to work 

together and to share the responsibilities of this committee. 

We share in common the first humble legislative beginnings in 

the House. While we were in the House, recognizing its importance, 

for some reason, we aspired to the Senate. In that time, I had the 

opportunity to watch John’s leadership. I was in the minority and 

I recognized his talent then, and, of course, in the Senate he has 

continued to serve this country extremely well. 

While your retirement from service in the Senate I think is a sad 

note, I think we are all happy for you and wish you success in a 

new and challenging life. We are going to hear from some folks 

today who have retired more than once in life, only to go on to 

greater careers and greater achievements for themselves and for 

mankind, and I think that, John, you have that in your future. 

So while you will continue to contribute and while I want to assure you that you leave behind respect and admiration and a deep 

gratitude from all of our colleagues and our staffs and our friends 

here in the U.S. Senate, your work has been exemplatory and we 

appreciate it all a great deal. 

Now, he reached over and took the gavel away from me today 

and I don’t want him to go wanting for a gavel. So what I have 

done, or more importantly, what I should say, the staff, the joint 

staff of the committee has done is made sure that John Breaux 

doesn’t want for a gavel in a future life. 

4

Senator John Breaux, Special Committee on Aging, 1985 through 

the year 2000, John. Here you are. Let me put this in right so we 

can grab a picture of it. Here you go. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Larry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. [Applause.] 

Now I will get out of the way and let him chair the committee. 

Senator BREAUX. I will give you the old one back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I got my gavel back! [Laughter.] 

All right. That one is not to be dented. Here. You had better use 

this one. This may be a raucous hearing today. 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I will yield 

back the balance of my time and ask my full comments be a part 

of the committee record. 

[The prepared statement of the Chairman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Good Morning. All too often we come together to discuss a multitude of problems 

affecting senior Americans. On this Committee we get heavily involved in such 

weighty questions as the cost and benefits of medicare, health care in general and 

nursing home care in particular and concerns with social security. We are, because 

of our mission, often times consumed by the study of these problems and overlook 

the invaluable contributions seniors give to our country. 

Senior citizens seek to live comfortably in their advancing years as well as meet 

the rising financial costs associated with medical care and everyday living expenses. 

As our population ages we are seeing trends where people in their senior years 

yearn to continue participation in our country’s vibrant economy so as to meet their 

needs. Therefore, we need to focus our attention on these trends and to study the 

value of the contributions made by seniors in our workforce. I commend Senator 

Breaux and his staff for what they place on our oversight table today for public consideration. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. This a most important 

inquiry and I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Senator BREAUX. Thank you so very much. I really do appreciate 

it. It was a surprise. I am delighted. It will be something that will 

always be a reminder to me of the work that we did on this committee together. If other committees had the opportunity to have 

that same type of rapport, I think the Congress would indeed be 

a much better place. So I thank you for your cooperation and your 

friendship. 

We are very delighted to be able to welcome this afternoon two 

outstanding and very distinguished Americans to be our first two 

witnesses this afternoon. The first is our former colleague and dear 

friend, John Glenn. I note that Annie, his wife, is in the audience. 

Annie, we are delighted to have you with us, as well. I understand 

Annie’s sister is also here, so we are delighted to have both of you 

as well as to have John. 

Everyone knows that—all of us in this Congress, and indeed this 

country, know that John Glenn is truly a national hero, a person 

who has served his country and continues to do so, a military Marine, an astronaut, United States Senator, and now continues his 

work of public service as a public service advocate and so well respected. 

He came to the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 1974. He served here 

for 24 years and did something extraordinary and so unusual when 

he volunteered and went back into space at the tender age of 77 

something that men half his age did not have the capacity to do. 

That was a 9-day Discovery shuttle mission where he worked just 

5

as hard as any other astronaut and made great contributions on 

that very important mission. But as important as the science was 

on the mission itself, it sent a signal to the people of this country 

that we are still capable of performing outstanding duties at whatever age you happen to be. 

It is interesting that Senator Glenn was talking with Elaine on 

our staff, who had worked with him and now works with us on the 

committee. John Glenn served on this committee, on the Aging 

Committee, and very important service it was, as well. 

He is now an advocate for public service and public policy 

through his platform at Ohio State University, where he presides 

over the John Glenn Institute. It is indeed a pleasure for this committee to welcome you, John. Please come up and take your place 

at the witness table. 

I would like to, at the same time, present another legendary figure in our nation, a man who has also led several different lives, 

and each one of them has been more remarkable than the previous 

one, and that is Jack Valenti. Jack served as a World War II bomber pilot with great distinction. He has had his own advertising 

agency, which he founded. He was an outstanding political consultant. He has been a special White House Assistant to President 

Lyndon Johnson, of which he truly is a legendary expert in that administration and the things that President Johnson did. 

He is also an outstanding leader in one of the most important industries in our country, and that is the motion picture industry, 

where he has led that industry with great distinction around the 

world, and particularly here in the Congress. He held that post for 

38 years until recently, but he still remains chairman and chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Ratings Association, which he 

started, and still is so very important. 

Most recently, I noted that Jack was in Paris where the French 

government conferred upon him the very highly prized honor of the 

French Legion of Honor Award. 

In addition, he is also president now of the Friends of the Global 

Fight for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and he has also been 

awarded something that is very unique and very special, his own 

star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, something a lot of us wish 

we could do, but it is not in the cards. [Laughter.] 

Senator BREAUX. We welcome both of these gentlemen, and Jack, 

if you would come up to the table. 

I really just ask both of them, because they sort of epitomize 

what we are talking about, how you can have a second career, how 

you can have a third or even fourth career, and how you can still 

be a very valuable contributor to society that people can learn 

from. There are no finer two witnesses than both John Glenn and 

Jack Valenti. 

John, Senator, if you would like to go ahead and get started.

6

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GLENN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR, 

THE JOHN GLENN INSTITUTE, COLUMBUS, OH 

Senator GLENN. Thank you, John, very much. Thank you, and let 

me add my congratulations to you, too, for the long service on this 

committee. I know how you feel because I was on this committee 

for 24 years. I requested it throughout my whole Senate career. I 

asked to go on the committee when I came here, requested it because of problems I had seen in my own background, my parents 

and some of the difficulties when they were elderly and had cancer 

and some things like that. So I asked to go on this committee because I wanted to get into some of those matters and I was on the 

committee for 22 years. 

Elaine, you already pointed out back here—hold up your hand. 

That is Elaine Dalpiaz, who started out on my staff and is now 

with your committee full time. Diane Lifsey, back over here, Diane 

was my staff member on this committee for 22 years, so she has 

been on this subject for a long time and is still working in this particular field in the private sector now. 

She reminded me that the Senate Special Committee on Aging 

has a long history of looking at older worker issues, because over 

20 years ago, we held a series of hearings called ‘‘Work After 65: 

Options for the 80’s.’’ As part of this series, I chaired a hearing on 

April 30, 1980, that was titled, ‘‘How Old is Old? The Effects of 

Aging on Learning and Working.’’ So maybe the farther we go, the 

more things stay the same. 

It is time, though, we did something about older workers. We 

have been into this issue for a long, long time. As part of that series, I chaired that particular hearing, and Dr. Robert Butler, who 

was then the head of the National Institute of Aging—he was the 

founding Director of the National Institute of Aging, part of NIH—

and other witnesses discussed ways to gain a better knowledge of 

older persons’ capabilities so they would be encouraged to participate and contribute in meaningful ways. 

I will quote one of my own comments from that hearing.

It said, ‘‘With our unemployment statistics as high as they are today, it is hard 

to imagine the time when our society will depend more on older workers, but 

we will. As the birth rate declines and the aging segment of our population increases, our workforce will depend more and more on older workers for reinforcement.’’

That was from 1980, in those hearings a long time ago, and we 

are still here and I think it has become more urgent than ever that 

we now do something about this and recognize the situation we are 

in. 

I was asked by the letter I received from the committee to specifically comment on a couple of things about my experiences as a 

Senator and running for President past the age of 65, the Space 

Shuttle Discovery mission and that experience. That can get into 

so much detail, I think rather than try and use up my allotted 5 

or 6 minutes we can get to that in the questions. 

I would just say I wanted to put to lie, though, some of the rumors that went around after my last space flight in 1998. I was 77 

at the time of that flight, and I wanted to make sure everyone understood that it was not true that NASA would not let me go out 

7

on the spacewalk because they were afraid at my age I might wander off someplace. [Laughter.] 

It also was not true—the rumor went around that time—that I 

was the oldest male to ever leave Florida in something other than 

a Winnebago, and that is not true, either. [Laughter.] 

But it was a great experience and I will just say how it happened. Then we can go on with Jack’s statement and get onto 

whatever you want to discuss. I was preparing for some of the 

NASA debate on the Senate floor back in those years and it struck 

me that some of the things that happen to younger astronauts up 

in space are the same things that happen as part of the natural 

process of aging right here on earth. 

Your body’s immune system changes, for instance. You become 

less resistant to disease and infection. Osteoporosis sets in up 

there, even with the younger astronauts. The body’s ability to replace protein in the muscles changes dramatically, and, that 

changes here on earth just part of the routine of getting old. 

When astronauts come back from orbit, they recover within a 

short period of time, depending on the mission. The mission that 

we were on as part of the Discovery flight in 1998 was 9 days, 

which is not one of the lengthier missions but it is long enough for 

these changes to start happening. Osteoporosis sets in, also, after 

5 or 6 days in orbit. 

The younger astronauts recover over a period of a week or 10 

days or something like that. The objective of my going up in space 

and the purpose of it was not just to give an elderly Senator a ride 

in space, which I would have welcomed anyway, but to really do 

research in these particular areas to see what impact the space experience would have on somebody who had already experienced immune system and the protein changes and other changes. Would it 

be additive? What would be different about it? 

The ultimate objective was to try and find out what within the 

human body turns these systems on and off so that maybe we could 

find a clue as to why this happens and maybe increase the body’s 

immune system. What would that do with regard to disease and 

age and cancer and things like that if we could find within the 

human body what turns your immune system up and down? Could 

we find something that would give us a clue as to how we could 

affect changes right here on earth and maybe make people more resistant to disease than we are right now. We were looking for the 

same thing with osteoporosis and protein replacement in the muscles and so on. That was the real reason for being up there on the 

flight. 

It was a lot of work that year. I was back and forth to keep up 

with my Senate work and to be here any time there was going to 

be a close vote in the Senate that might require my vote. I had 

made a commitment here in the Senate, of course, to honor that 

and fly back here, which I did. I didn’t have to do it very many 

times. It was a long year, a very busy year, but I found at the age 

of 77 then that I could keep up with the younger astronauts. I wish 

that I had started flexibility training about 30 years before that because I found going through hatches difficult. Where they bent over 

and went through, I had to slide down on my tail end and slide 

8

through. It was very difficult sometimes like that, and they used 

to kid me about it some down there, too. 

But we were able to keep up all right and do all the experiments. 

On that second flight, we had some 83 different research projects 

on board in addition to the half-dozen that were being done on me 

personally. So it was a very busy time period and very different 

from the first flight back in 1962, our first earth orbit. 

I think that probably is a little more than my 5 minutes, and so 

I will be glad to answer any questions after Jack’s statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator John Glenn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN GLENN

As part of this series, I chaired a hearing, ‘‘How Old is ‘Old’? The Effects of Aging 

on Learning and Work.’’ Dr. Robert Butler, who was then head of the National Institute on Aging, and other witnesses, discussed ways to gain a better knowledge of 

older persons’ capabilities so that they would be encouraged to participate and contribute in meaningful ways. 

At the time of this hearing in April 1980, I commented, ‘‘With our unemployment 

statistics as high as they are today, it is hard to imagine the time when our society 

will depend more on older workers. But we will. As the birth rate declines and the 

aging segment of our population increases, our work force will depend more and 

more on older workers for reinforcement.’’

Now, 24 years later, we must renew our efforts to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by our increased longevity. We need the skills and expertise of 

older workers to benefit all society, including our children and grandchildren, as our 

population continues to age. 

As we are discussing today, it is important to provide opportunities and incentives 

for today’s older Americans and the baby boomers who are nearing retirement to 

continue to work, if they choose to do so, for personal and/or economic reasons. 

In addition, older workers will benefit Social Security as they continue to contribute to the trust funds and the growth of our economy. The extent to which older 

workers chose to remain in the labor force could have a large impact on the economic projections that are made regarding Social Security’s long-term solvency. 

That is one more reason we should be very careful about making changes to the 

current Social Security program, one of our country’s most successful income protection programs.

Senator BREAUX. Thank you very much, Senator Glenn. 

I notice we have been joined by Senator Hatch. Orrin, do you 

have any comments now? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN HATCH 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so happy to see 

you in that seat, although it is for this limited time. I want to start 

off by expressing my regard for you and all the great work that you 

have done here in the U.S. Senate. It has been terrific. We are all 

going to miss you and we are going to wish you the very, very best. 

I understand this is the last hearing you will be chairing, and I appreciate you and Larry and the work that you are doing on this 

committee. 

I also appreciate these two wonderful men. John Glenn, no question about it, has been a hero to everybody in America. We miss 

you around here, John, but I know that you have gone on to better 

things. 

Jack Valenti, it doesn’t get any better than Jack. I think the Motion Picture Association has been greatly blessed all these years to 

have you as their leader. Of course, you have done so many important things for many, for millions and millions in this world with 

9

regard to making sure that that organization was run properly and 

has very lasting value. 

Both of these wonderful men are friends of all three of us up 

here and we admire both of you very much. We admire what you 

are doing here for senior citizens and for others and we wish you 

both the best in your respective careers as you continue on. 

But I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are going to miss 

you around here. We think the world of you and we will look forward to seeing you again. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HATCH

May I start off by expressing my gratitude to Senator John Breaux for his invaluable contributions to this Committee, and for his distinguished career of 18 years 

in the United States Senate. Thank you. 

I am pleased that today’s hearing will examine the issue of retirement against the 

backdrop of a tend of older Americans staying in the workforce past the age of 65. 

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the message of this hearing is that the aging 

of the Baby Boom Generation is going to transform retirement in America as we 

know it and that the tax, pension, and labor laws in this nation need to be examined and adjusted so they encourage, rather than penalize, older Americans to keep 

working if they want to. 

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average life expectancy rate was 

61.7. The government set the full retirement age at 65. Today, even though the life 

expectancy is 77.6 and expected to rise to 82.7 in 2030, Social Security benefits 

allow people to retire as early as 65. Here is the core of the challenge: the first wave 

of 77 million baby boomers to turn 62 will do so in just four years. In 2008, millions 

will retire and thereby worsen the American labor picture. There will not be nearly 

enough young people entering the workforce to make up for this exodus. As a result, 

experienced workers will be harder to come by. 

According to a recent survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, 

two-thirds of U.S. employers don’t actively recruit older workers. Additionally, more 

than half do not actively attempt to retain key older employees. If this trend continues, our country will experience a severe shortage of talented workers in a very 

short time. 

Whenever a worker retires, he or she takes with them valuable skills, knowledge, 

and experience that take time and money to replace. In order to attract and retain 

these valuable workers, we must create a workplace culture that values their experience and capabilities. To help accomplish this, Congress must remove the obstacles 

that impede employers from offering flexible retirement packages to its employees. 

These obstacles start with pension and benefit rules but also include other regulations. 

I am reminded of Dr. Russell B. Clark, of Orem, UT, who at age 102, was America’s Oldest Worker for 2003. As a retired physician, Dr. Clark continues to spend 

his time managing an industrial park and other real estate investments, writing his 

life history, and volunteering when needed. Now almost 104, Dr. Clark is the epitome of making the most out of life, and certainly does not allow age to determine 

his circumstance. Like millions of other older Americans who are still working, his 

knowledge and experience benefit employers, other employees and our entire country. 

Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. This is an important issue 

that merits our attention. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today.

Senator BREAUX. I appreciate that very much, Senator Hatch. 

Mr. Valenti, you are on the stage.

10

STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI, FORMER PRESIDENT, MOTION 

PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VALENTI. I want to thank you, Senator Hatch, for the kind 

words, and join with you, Senators Craig and Hatch, in complimenting Senator Breaux. I have known Senator Breaux since he 

came to the Congress as a fresh young-faced Congressman out of 

Louisiana. He has gone on to greater things. The only thing he 

hasn’t done is make the Davis Cup, but he could have if he chose 

to. [Laughter.] 

I am from Texas and proud of it, and Senator Breaux is from 

Louisiana. Sometimes we think alike and our politics is pretty 

much the same, which is why I say that if I die—— [Laughter.] 

I want to be buried in Texas because I want to remain politically 

active. [Laughter.] 

These are obviously scrambling and unquiet times and there are 

a lot of issues that come before the American people and the Congress that are vapory and imprecise and burdened with uncertainty. You just don’t know how to deal with them. But then there 

are some other issues where the arithmetic is clearly understood by 

everybody and we can forecast with great accuracy. 

That brings me to Social Security, which, of course, is the molecular connection to millions and millions of Americans who rely on 

it for a good life, or at least a pleasant life, and not a destitute one. 

But the numbers that come out lately, this committee knows 

them far greater than I. Americans are growing older. I read somewhere where in the next 15 to 20 to 30 years, those living over 100 

years will rise with startling speed and they are going to be there 

quite a long time. 

What comes out of these demographics, these bleak and surly figures, is the fact that while there might be three Americans supporting one person on Social Security, in a few years, there will be 

two Americans supporting one on Social Security. Then after that, 

the outlook gets a little soggy. 

I think, as Senator Breaux said in his opening statement, there 

are many, many Americans over the age of 65 who don’t want to 

retire, who find their work illuminating and good, although there 

are a lot that are probably living lives of quiet desperation because 

they don’t like what they do. 

So I think that there are two big intruders in the future now 

that we have to deal with, and that is older people, their lack of 

energy, and the other one is the fact that they are doing something 

they don’t like and so they are ready to retire. But I don’t think 

it need be that way. 

Whenever I speak before college audiences, and I do a lot of 

that—I haven’t been into Utah lately, Senator Hatch, but I am 

going to see that you fill that omission for me——

Senator HATCH. We will take care of that. 

Mr. VALENTI [continuing]. I always tell students, I am only going 

to give you one piece of advice, unlike most commencement speakers or older people. My advice is this. Never take a job just for 

money. Always try to strive to find a job that you really love to do, 

you have a passion for it. If it is money you seek, you are going 

to have people who will offer you barrels full of it, because if you 

love what you do, the chances are you will do it with such splendor 

11

that the offers will come and just avalanche you, and I believe that. 

I think it is so important to do what you love to do, particularly 

as you grow older. 

I have found in my own life that I find retirement a synonym for 

decay. I remember when I left the White House after serving 3 

years as a Special Assistant to President Johnson—I don’t recommend working for a President, only slept about 4 hours a night. 

So when I left the White House, I was a physical mess. Lack of 

sleep and pressure and stress, it just fell up on you like jaguars 

springing out of a tree. I was absolutely ill-nourished. 

I decided then that I was going to change the shape and form 

of my daily life, and the first thing I was going to do was to get 

physically fit, and I became kind of a fanatic about it and I got me 

a trainer and I started every day in a new religion, which means 

that—you go to church on Sunday. I went to church—I go to church 

every morning about a quarter to six in my gym or wherever I am 

on this racked and weary old planet. I stay in a hotel that has got 

a gym. I do 40 minutes to an hour every day, even though there 

are some days I want to say, ‘‘Oh, enough of this,’’ and I try to push 

myself to extremes. I think if you start doing that and give yourself 

about 25 or 30 years at it, it pays off. 

So I just think that it is important for people to understand that 

if you do something you like and if you stay physically fit so that 

you can go 15 hours a working day without collapsing, and I know 

that I am in far better physical shape now than I was 25 years ago, 

and as a result, I find that the brain can’t function when it is fed 

by fatigue. You lose a sense of direction when you are tired and 

when you are worn. 

Now, as a result of staying physically alive, I enjoy being around 

me. I find that to be kind of a delight. I have left the MPAA because after 38 years, I think that—and I was just getting the hang 

of the job, I might add, too—— [Laughter.] 

But I am going on to some other careers now, and when I finish 

them, I will start another one. I think when I sit beside Senator 

Glenn, I am just awestruck. I met him first time when he was in 

the original group of the seven, wasn’t it——

Senator GLENN. Yes. 

Mr. VALENTI [continuing]. Mercury astronauts. John, you haven’t 

changed since then, as a matter of fact——

Senator GLENN. You lie. 

Mr. VALENTI. I think you look about the same. 

At any rate, I thank this committee because I think you are 

bringing up something that is absolutely crucial to the future of 

this country. If we don’t find a way to deal with older workers and 

the pressures that are on Social Security, and Chairman Greenspan has outlined the bleak particulars to us that we need to look 

at and fix, and I think the Congress will do that. I am sure Members of Congress will perform and act wisely, that is, Mr. Chairman, after they have discarded all the other alternatives, they will 

do that. [Laughter.] 

So I am here to answer whatever questions you might have. 

Senator BREAUX. To Senator Glenn and Jack Valenti, thank you 

so very much. I think every senior in the country this is being televised should have a copy of the tape of both of you, at your point 

12

in life, being able to talk about the future is so very important, because people, I think, at whatever age, as you said, Jack, need to 

be involved, need to be active, need to be thinking, and both of you 

are really credits to that particular philosophy. 

The thing that has concerned me is that back in 1935, 70 years 

ago, when Congress passed the Social Security legislation for retirement purposes, Congress magically took the number 65 as the 

eligibility age. Now, Congress really knew what they were doing, 

because in 1935, the average life expectancy in 1935 was 61.7 years 

of age. So Congress said, when you get to be 65, we are going to 

give you a retirement check, and the average person only lives to 

be 61.7 years of age, so it wasn’t going to cost us a lot. But guess 

what. Over the years, life expectancy now is projected to be approximately 83 years in the year 2030. 

So a number that Congress picked 70 years ago, 65, as being appropriate for retirement purposes has been carried through for 70 

years without really a lot of updating as far as the concept of when 

I can retire. If anything, Congress makes you eligible for retirement now at 62. 

The problems that that presents are enormous. The projections 

are we are only going to have two working-age people for every person 65 or over by the year 2030. Today, we have seven people 

working for every person who is over 65. But as people retire earlier and earlier, there are fewer and fewer working to take care of 

more and more who are not working because they are retired. So 

it is truly a huge problem. 

John, let me just ask you one question. A lot of people will make 

the argument that you have to let them retire because there is danger in some of these professions and an older person can’t keep up 

either mentally or physically. I know people, however, that are 40 

and are senile, and some people who are both of you gentlemen’s 

age and are alert and articulate and vibrant. 

So how did they check that with you when you became an astronaut again at 77? We were talking about pilots having to have 

mandatory retirements and police and firemen because of the danger of the job. I think the argument on the other side is, well, if 

they have that type of a job, let us test them and make sure they 

can handle that. How did they do that with you? 

Senator GLENN. Well, I had to pass all the tests. One of the 

things that Dan Golden, who was running NASA at that time, said 

was that if this went through—if the doctors thought this was a 

good project to run, the National Institute of Aging doctors as well 

as NASA, and then they put this out for peer review for over a year 

before that decision was made—I would have to pass any physical 

that the younger people would pass, and that was fine with me. 

They shouldn’t give me any waivers on that, and they didn’t. In 

fact, I had more checks that were done on me than the younger 

people normally have before they go up on space flight. Heart, they 

were particularly concerned about that and I had every heart check 

there was. 

I think the same thing, what you basically said a moment ago, 

airline pilots are required to retire at 60. I think you had a hearing 

on that a short time ago——

Senator BREAUX. Last week. 

13

Senator GLENN [continuing]. I think your statement on that indicated that you would favor upping the age on that. I certainly do, 

too. I think there is a lot to be said for experience. I think that 

adds a lot. Back when some of those rules were set earlier on airline pilots, for instance, the average age was lower. People were not 

living as long as they are today and they are much healthier today 

at the age of 60 than the average person was back when the airline 

industry, starting back in the 1930’s and 1940’s. 

So I think there should be good testing of a person’s capabilities. 

Airline pilots is a good example because they have great responsibility and we don’t want somebody up there who is going to get sick 

or likely to pass out or whatever with a whole load of people on 

the airplane. But I think you can devise tests that not only are 

tests like I had to go through that show your physical condition, 

are you able to take whatever the stresses might be, but also, I 

think there could be some psychological tests given as to whether 

people are having any problems or not. 

I don’t think that would be any problem at all, and I would favor 

upping the airline age myself. I would favor upping that because 

I think those people have a lot of experience. I think it is a shame 

to put pilots out to pasture prematurely. Some of the union people, 

I think, the airline unions of some of the younger members, like to 

see earlier retirement so that they can move up, so there is that 

end of it that has to be dealt with, too. 

But as far as the physical ability to do work, measure the physical ability, whatever it is, whether it is airline pilots or whatever 

the person’s job is. You don’t want someone staying in a job where 

it is dangerous to that person or other people. But I think you can 

devise tests to determine if it is safe for older people to continue 

contributing through their job. 

Jack talked about the advantages of exercise, and I agree with 

that 100 percent. People say, what are the two things you advise? 

Well, far be it from me to advise people on how to get old. I am 

having trouble enough coping with it myself. But if there are a couple of things that I think are very, very important, there are two 

things. 

One would be exercise, as Jack said, every day. You don’t have 

to have to have a gym like Jack does. You can get out and walk 

down the street, or you can take flour sacks or something and do 

exercises and get enough. The doctor advised me years ago to get 

up a little sweat. That shows your body is adapting to the exercise 

condition that you are in. If you can, do that 4 or 5 days a week. 

I like to get out and walk. The doctor said, don’t jog anymore because all you are doing is banging up your knees and your bones 

and your joints. But you can do fast walking and get a sweat up. 

So do a couple of miles; I try to do that 4 or 5 days a week, usually 

hit it. 

Second, I think that it is important what your attitude is. If you 

get up in the morning and say, ‘‘Oh, gosh, I am going to go sit on 

the porch,’’ as Jack said, or are you going to rock. [Laughter.] 

Your biggest objective of the days is maybe waiting for the mail 

to come in at 5 o’clock in the afternoon well, you are probably going 

to dwindle pretty fast, I think. 

14

It is important to have something you enjoy doing, and everybody 

can have that, whether it is reading to the school kids, going down 

and helping somebody at the church or helping with the military 

or whatever it is. Everyone can have a project that you look forward to every day, enjoy doing, and you are doing it. 

I think exercise and attitude enable people to live to an older age 

and be productive at that time. 

Senator BREAUX. That is a great summary. Just as a follow-up, 

Jack, on the question about the exercise that you do, I mean, I 

know people in your category age-wise that just have shut it down 

as far as any type of physical activity at all, even though they are 

healthy and even though they would otherwise be able to do it 

physically. They are just thinking, well, I got to be 65. I am not 

supposed to do that anymore. I am supposed to get to the rocking 

chair and not do anything. 

How important was this whole exercise regime in keeping you 

going to the extent that you are today? How important was that 

to you? 

Mr. VALENTI. I think, as Senator Glenn pointed out, that attitude, a state of mind, is so very important. I guess I look back on 

my President, President Johnson, who left office in January 1969 

and he was dead 4 years later. I think retirement is absolutely—

it despoiled him and it crushed him. People don’t realize that he 

was only 64 years old when he died. So I have that in my memory. 

But I think it is doing things that you like to do. I have a lot 

of things I enjoy doing and a lot of things that I find exciting to 

do. Changing into a new career is exciting. It keeps you alive, 

keeps you vibrant, keeps you flexible. I certainly second what Senator Glenn said, that attitude in life, where you can’t wait to get 

up in the morning to be about whatever task you have, not because 

you ought to but because you want to, big difference. 

I have to say, I have never spent a day in my life doing a job 

that I didn’t like. I said earlier, I used the Rose great quotation. 

Most people lead lives of quiet desperation, mainly because they 

really don’t enjoy the 24 hours of each day that they are living in, 

and I think that is quite sad. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you both, gentlemen. 

Senator Craig. 

The CHAIRMAN. The one question I had proposed to myself to ask 

of both of you was the advice you would offer to those about to retire. You have already answered that abundantly, I do believe. 

Senator GLENN. Don’t. 

The CHAIRMAN. Exercise—don’t. That is correct. [Laughter.] 

Exercise and attitude make a lot of difference. There is one question in all of that, because over the years, I have found the value 

of exercise and try to do it very regularly now. Is it exercise and 

physical fitness bringing an improvement in one’s attitude? Would 

you not agree with that? 

Mr. VALENTI. I certainly would. I think you are absolutely right. 

When you are feeling physically fit, you just enjoy life better. There 

is no question about that. 

Senator GLENN. You just have more energy. 

The CHAIRMAN. There you go. I agree with that. It is an energizer, and I think that we are certainly finding that now in many 

15

of our senior communities and senior centers, the emphasis on exercise and people who were fairly sedimentary are all of a sudden 

out and busy and exercising and spinning off and doing other 

things and generating a great deal of energy proves that exercise 

is extremely valuable. 

Gentlemen, thank you for coming to the committee and offering 

your advice and being examples of a good many citizens across the 

country who are not retiring but changing jobs at an older age and 

finding it very rejuvenating and exciting as you continue on your 

life. But we thank you for being here today. 

Senator BREAUX. Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both 

of you for being here. I can’t think of two better examples of people 

who have made the most out of their lives than the two of you; 

your advice is really, really good. The people who really do live 

longer and have higher qualities of life are those who keep busy in 

doing what they really enjoy doing. 

I have been around both of you, and I have to say that you both 

do exactly that. Now, you could be a little less active, John, in this 

Presidential campaign. Laughter.] 

And Jack——

Senator GLENN. I am working on Jack’s problem with Social Security. [Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. We are working on it. I just want to thank you 

both for being here and again express my high regard for the distinguished chairman here today. We are all going to miss him, and 

frankly, we are going to miss you at the MPAA, Jack, very, very 

much. You did a job there that I don’t think anybody else in America could have even come close to achieving. I feel sorry for poor 

Mr. Glickman. He has got to succeed you and he has got to do the 

job of three people because that is the way you worked all the time. 

[Laughter.] 

It will take at least three people to do what you were doing, but 

hopefully we can all help him. 

Thank you both for being here and thank you for standing up for 

senior citizens. We appreciate it. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Senator. 

John Glenn, Jack Valenti, the committee thanks you. Your country thanks you, as well. Thank you. 

Senator GLENN. Thank you. 

Mr. VALENTI. Thank you. 

Senator BREAUX. I would like to welcome our panel up next, consisting of Dr. Ken Dychtwald, who is a psychologist, a gerontologist, and a best-selling author of 10 books about lifestyle and 

marketing and workforce implications of the age wave. He is founding president and CEO of Age Wave, a firm created to guide the 

Fortune 500 companies and government groups and product and 

service development for the baby boomers. 

Dr. Sharon Brangman—Dr. Brangman, please join us at the 

table—is a professor of medicine and Division Chief of Geriatric 

Medicine in the Department of Medicine at the SUNY Upstate 

Medical University in Syracuse, NY. She is also the director of the 

Central New York Alzheimer’s Disease Assistance Center and the 

16

geriatric medicine fellowship program at SUNY. She was elected to 

the Board of the American Geriatric Society in May 2002. 

Mr. Doug Holbrook—Doug, welcome—is vice president and secretary-treasurer of the National Leadership Conference. He was 

previously a member of AARP, Andress Foundation Board of Trustees, and AARP Insurance Trust of AARP Health Care Options Program and a member of the AARP National Work Opportunities Advisory Committee. 

Ms. Victoria Humphrey, welcome. She is the head of the human 

resources for Volkswagen of America and also Volkswagen of Canada. In her executive leadership position, Ms. Humphrey oversees 

the human resources for the company’s approximately 3,000 employees. Prior to joining Volkswagen, she worked for American Bell, 

AT&T, Lucent Technologies, Northwestern Bell, and also WinnDixie. 

Ed Potter—Ed, thank you for being with us—is president of the 

Employment Policy Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan economic 

policy research foundation that promotes sound employment policy. 

He is an economist and labor law attorney who has extensive experience on employment issues in a global economy. He has testified 

many times before the Congress and is a frequent media commentator, as well. He currently serves as a U.S. employer delegate to 

the International Labor Organization Conference. 

Gentlemen and ladies, we appreciate your being with us. Ken, do 

you want to start and we will go left to right and start with you. 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. Sure. 

Senator BREAUX. Welcome back. We are glad to have you. 

STATEMENT OF KEN DYCHTWALD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AGE WAVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. Thank you, Chairman Breaux and Co-Chairman Craig, for the honor of testifying today. I am going to organize 

my comments around six key points. 

First, we are in the midst of an extraordinary longevity revolution. Throughout 99 percent of all of human history, the average 

life expectation worldwide was less than 18 years. In the past, most 

people didn’t age, they died. 

Thanks to extraordinary advances in the 19th and 20th centuries 

in sanitation, public health, better distribution of nutrition, foods, 

and modern medicine, now most of us will have the experience of 

living very long lives. Life expectancy, as you mentioned, has lifted 

from 47 to 77 during the past 100 years, and I would point out that 

this longevity evolution is not over. With every decade that has 

passed, the average life expectation is elevated 21⁄2 years, and the 

older we get, the longer one lives, as you point out. It is conceivable 

that in the years to come, breakthroughs in the life sciences will 

allow more and more of us to live into our eighth, ninth, tenth decade and beyond. 

I would point out that two-thirds of all the men and women who 

have ever lived past 65 in the entire history of the world are alive 

today. Knowing what to make of aging, longevity, knowing when to 

stop working, these are challenges the entire world is beginning to 

scratch its head and contemplate for the very first time in history. 

17

Increasing longevity doesn’t necessarily mean we will have more 

old people who will be old longer. In fact, if you look at the population in the surveys, people are now beginning to think that old 

age begins somewhere between 75 and 80. People are electing to 

stay young longer, to be middle-aged for decades, to postpone old 

age. 

I would also point out on this first point that this longevity revolution, at the end of the day, may have a larger impact on our 

lives, our work, our economy, our families, our communities, than 

either the industrial or technological revolutions of previous centuries. This is a big one. 

Second point, there is a coming brain drain. In the years ahead, 

as the boomers born between 1946 and 1964 start hitting their 60’s 

and contemplating retirement, there simply won’t be enough talent 

to fuel the American workforce or to fuel its productivity growth. 

I would add that boomers are paying about 60 percent of all the 

personal taxes at this particular time, and to cause that generation 

to no longer be earning and no longer able to contribute in those 

ways could be devastating economically. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects, and it is hard to imagine 

this particular moment in time, but projects that we will have a 

10 million worker shortfall over the next decade. Can we afford to 

lose so much skills, talent, so much legacy? 

My third point has to do with ageism. It is well known that ours 

is a culture that glorifies youth, in our language, in the way we 

talk to each other, in the models that we see on television, the people we see in ads. It is so much a part of our society, we hardly 

even notice it. But let us think of it in terms of the workforce. It 

is conceivable that this ageism is blinding employers so that they 

are literally driving their companies and organizations off a demographic cliff. 

Currently, two-thirds of U.S. employers don’t actively recruit 

older workers. More than half don’t really try to keep the older 

ones. Eighty percent don’t offer any special provisions to appeal to 

their concerns. How about training? If we are going to talk about 

reinventing one’s self, 55-plus workers receive on average less than 

half the amount of training than any of their younger cohorts. 

Ageism can start with recruiting, with such ads as to talk about 

energy and fast paced and fresh thinking, which are clearly ageist 

comments in disguise, and it can end with a golden parachute, in 

which people are simply ushered out the door quietly. Let us get 

them out of the way. 

I will give you an example. Ageism is so widespread in our culture, we really don’t even notice it. One of the most popular TV 

shows last year was a show called ‘‘American Idol.’’ It was the 

American dream. People could be brought out of their communities, 

their neighborhoods, and have a chance to show their talent and 

achieve success, except you couldn’t be over 28 to join. We wouldn’t 

tolerate that if it were sexism, if it were racism, and yet it is OK 

with Ageism. It is not OK. 

Mature workers are attracted to cultures that honor their experience and capabilities. Too few companies pay much regard to this 

theme. 

18

My fourth point, is that I actually think we are in a moment of 

a tipping point. We are seeing a new model of work and retirement 

emerge and we don’t even really have the language to describe it. 

Let us remember, as has been pointed out, that retirement was not 

created so that older adults could enjoy decades of leisure. It 

emerged during a time in history where the unemployment level 

was 25 percent and there was a huge movement in America to rid 

the workforce of what were then called ‘‘geezers.’’ 

There was an ageist spell in the roaring 1920’s. Roosevelt had an 

interesting challenge. By trying to find jobs for the young, the only 

obvious solution was to allow older adults, who mostly had lived a 

life of physical toil, to step out of work, and if they were lucky 

enough to have some longevity, to experience a few years of rest 

before they passed on. 

Inadvertently, perhaps, by selecting age 65 and institutionalizing 

retirement, we have also institutionalized old age itself. We have 

removed older people from the sense that they might contribute. 

We have removed younger people from working side by side with 

people generations older than them. We have broken the bridges 

between generations that used to exist in the workplace. 

Today, with rising life expectancies, the average American retires 

at around 62 and will then have 20 more years of life. According 

to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, to retire means to disappear, 

to go away. Is that good for anybody? 

One-half of today’s retirees say they are bored and restless. They 

are worried about their economics. Last year, the average retiree 

watched 43 hours of television a week. 

People historically have lived linear life plans. When life was 40 

or 50 or 60 years long, you learned once, you worked for a spell, 

and then you either passed away or had some retirement. I think 

what people are dreaming of in the future is a more cyclic arrangement in which they might go back to school at 50. They might retire and start a whole new career. We have seen extraordinary examples of that today with Senator Glenn and Mr. Valenti. Perhaps 

retirement in the future will still be there as a kind of a turning 

point through which people pass and then reinvent themselves in 

a whole new phase of life. 

Fifth, I made up the phrase ‘‘silver ceiling’’ a few years ago as 

I was hearing so much concern about glass ceilings. Eighty percent 

of boomers expect to keep working at least part-time during their 

retirement, both because they will need the income and because 

they like the idea of staying involved. Older earners, let us remember, keep a stimulated economy, something that is going to be extremely important in the decades to come. 

But they are looking for different blends between work and play. 

They have reached a point in their life where perhaps they would 

like to work 4 days a week or 8 months a year, work on a project 

for a while and then step out, maybe work a few hours a day, 

maybe even volunteer. 

Truly flexible retirement is not yet possible for most employees, 

and perhaps that is a serious problem that is readily fixable. According to the Employment Policy Foundation study, one of Mr. 

Potter’s studies, 65 percent of employers would like to offer such 

flexible retirement, with phased retirement and flex-time and partVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Jan 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\97086.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
19

time and retraining and rehirement, but most feel blocked by pension and benefits regulations. Even the IRS, ERISA, and ADEA 

currently have provisions that get in the way. 

My last point, is that there is no question that there is an age 

wave coming and old most certainly isn’t what it used to be. In last 

fall’s World Series, the winning Florida Marlins were led by 72-

year-old Jack McKeon, called out of retirement early in the season 

to turn around an under-performing club. He is not alone. Sixtyfive-year-old John Reed was named Interim Chairman and CEO of 

the New York Stock Exchange. Barbara Walters continues to expand her media range and burn up the airways in her 70’s. Warren 

Buffett is widely viewed as the most respected investor in the 

world at 75. Of course, the Fed’s Alan Greenspan remains capable 

and wise at 78. 

This late achievement is not a new idea, but it is multiplying. 

Grandma Moses didn’t start painting until she was 80. Groucho 

Marx launched his career on television at the age of 65. Galileo 

published his masterpiece, Dialogue Concerning the Two New 

Sciences, at 94. Noah Webster was 70 when he published An American Dictionary of the English Language. Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Guggenheim at 91. Mahatma Gandhi was 72 when he 

completed successful negotiations with Britain for India’s independence. 

I think we must realize that in this new era, people don’t simply 

lose talent and experience over a lifetime at the flip of a switch. 

It is not good business to push people out the door just because 

outdated ageist policies say it is time. Perhaps late blooming 

should be celebrated, not penalized. Perhaps it is time to retire retirement. 

I would like to say in closing, a personal comment. I want to 

thank you, Senator Breaux, for the extraordinary wisdom and vision you have brought to this role over the past several decades. 

It is my honor to be here with you today. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. Thank you. 

Senator BREAUX. I appreciate it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dychtwald follows:]

20


97086.001
21


97086.002
22


97086.003
23


97086.004
24


97086.005
25


97086.006
26


97086.007
27


97086.008
28


97086.009
29


97086.010
30


97086.011
31


97086.012
32


97086.013
33


97086.014
34


97086.015
35


97086.016
36


97086.017
37


97086.018
38


97086.019
39


97086.020
40

Senator BREAUX. Dr. Brangman. 

STATEMENT OF SHARON A. BRANGMAN, M.D., PROFESSOR OF 

MEDICINE AND DIVISION CHIEF, GERIATRIC MEDICINE, 

SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, SYRACUSE, NEW 

YORK, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY 

Dr. BRANGMAN. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I am 

Dr. Sharon Brangman. I am a board-certified geriatrician, professor, and division chief of geriatrics at SUNY Upstate Medical 

University in Syracuse, New York. I appreciate the opportunity to 

participate today on behalf of the American Geriatrics Society, an 

organization of approximately 7,000 geriatricians and other health 

care professionals dedicated to the care of older adults. Geriatricians are primary care-oriented physicians who are experts in caring for older adults. 

Our country is aging rapidly, as we have heard. Compared to 

about 35.6 million aged persons today, by 2030, it is projected that 

this number will double, to about 71.5 million older persons. The 

implications of this demographic imperative are dramatic. 

Public health measures, prescription drugs, and advances in 

medicine have allowed our citizens to live longer. Americans can 

now live for many years with multiple chronic illnesses, whereas 

a generation ago, most people died rapidly from an acute illness. 

This means that more people are able to work despite a chronic 

disease or disability. Technological advances can allow the workplace to be adapted so that these individuals can continue gainful 

employment. 

For many older Americans, age does not pose a major barrier to 

working. While health problems do increase with age, these are 

usually gradual processes that can be managed by current medical 

care. As a clinician, I see many patients who are able to work in 

some capacity. In many instances, working would allow for a person to do what we call aging successfully. Geriatricians typically 

evaluate the physical, social, and psychological aspects of their patients’ lives since all of these elements are critical to our patients’ 

ability to age successfully. 

First, we need to look at workplace involvement and how it creates more opportunities for community involvement that maximizes 

interactions with the outer world, allowing for greater physical and 

mental stimulation for older adults. 

Second, workplace involvement creates opportunities for important intergenerational exchanges that have a positive social and 

psychological impact on older adults. It is important to emphasize 

that this works both ways, since the younger worker also benefits 

from the mentoring and experience of older workers. 

Third, workplace involvement has a physical benefit. Individuals 

who do not have enough activities to occupy their day are more 

likely to sit at home and focus on all their aches and pains, which 

allows these ailments to have a greater significance in their dayto-day functioning. 

Another physical benefit of working is the increased physical activity that results from going to work. A recent study that appeared 

in the Archives of Internal Medicine indicated the importance of 

physical exercise in the elderly as a way of reducing physical deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Jan 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\97086.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
41

cline and enhancing quality of life. The current 65 and older generation is not as likely to go into a gym or engage in formal exercise as younger adults do. However, employment can provide physical activity that can be just as beneficial as formal exercise. I am 

reminded of a patient who delivers flowers 6 days a week and benefits from the walking involved in his job. 

Fourth, workplace involvement has a psychological benefit, specifically preventing or reducing the onset of depression. Depression 

is not a normal part of aging, but unfortunately, it is very common 

in the elderly. In addition, advancing age is often accompanied by 

the loss of key social support systems. Because of this loss of social 

support and the fact that they are expected to slow down, some elderly persons are more likely to get depressed. Depression in later 

life frequently coexists with other medical illnesses and disabilities, 

which can make them worse. 

Persons who stay in the workforce feel valued. They have a 

strong sense of accomplishment, and they feel that it is important 

to remain contributing members of society. Almost universally, my 

patients state that they don’t want to be a burden to their children 

or others. Studies have shown that the mental activity associated 

with working can allow for greater brain function and decreased 

rates of depression. This means that individuals will be more likely 

to remain functional and independent within their families, communities, and societies. 

I have two patient anecdotes that are relevant to today’s hearings. The first patient is a highly successful and unmarried businessman who left his home State and retired to Florida at age 75 

to live with his five sisters. In Florida, his family pampered him, 

a lifestyle that was new to him, and he became very depressed and 

lethargic. He ultimately left Florida, returned home, and started a 

new business, which has become nationally known, and he continues to work at age 85. 

The second patient is a retired Spanish teacher in her 

mideighties with over 35 years of teaching experience. She currently teaches adult Spanish classes four nights a week. She is an 

active gardener and a volunteer in her community. She enjoys a 

sense of accomplishment she has by working daily, and the continued interaction with others keeps her sharp and engaged. She 

could never imagine herself sitting home and doing nothing. 

I would be remiss if I did not discuss the needs of geriatrics and 

the acute shortage of trained physicians this profession is facing. 

Today, there are approximately 6,700 certified geriatricians in our 

country. Some studies indicate that we currently need about 13,000 

more, with as many as 36,000 by 2030. Senator Breaux and other 

members of this committee have supported legislation that provides incentives to train more geriatricians, and we certainly respect and appreciate that support you have given us. 

Thank you for allowing me to address the committee today, and 

I look forward to working with you on this issue in the future. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Dr. Brangman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brangman follows:]

42


97086.021
43


97086.022
44


97086.023
45


97086.024
46


97086.025
47

Senator BREAUX. Doug Holbrook, we are glad to have you. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS C. HOLBROOK, VICE PRESIDENT/

SECRETARY-TREASURER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HOLBROOK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 

am Doug Holbrook, vice president and secretary-treasurer of 

AARP. Before I begin, Senator Breaux, I would just like to say on 

behalf of AARP we deeply appreciate your years of service and we 

will miss you here on Capitol Hill, and we thank you for convening 

this hearing to highlight one of our nation’s most under-used resources, the older worker. 

AARP is the largest organization representing the interest of 

Americans age 50 and older and their families. About half of AARP 

members are working either full-time or part-time. All of our working members, as well as those that want to work, have a vital interest in being able to remain on the job and to contribute to society without facing age discrimination by their employers. 

Protecting and expanding the rights and opportunities for older 

workers was a founding principle of AARP. Today, we work to 

eliminate age discrimination in employment and improve employment conditions and policies to all workers. We collaborate with 

employers to increase job opportunities for those age 55 and over 

and serve as an information clearinghouse. 

Older workers are similar to other workers. They work in comparable professions. They want a good income with benefits. They 

strive to balance job and family life. Indeed, family obligations are 

a key reason these workers are interested in flexible schedules, 

part-time work, and non-traditional arrangements, and older workers are very concerned about age discrimination in the workplace. 

The number of workers age 55 and over is growing in real terms 

and as a percentage of the overall workforce. As of this past July, 

more than 23 million persons aged 55 and older were on the job. 

By 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects the participation 

rate for 55- to 64-year-olds to jump from 61 to 65 percent. 

There are basic economic reasons older workers choose to remain 

in the workforce. Earnings are often necessary to supplement inadequate income from savings and pensions, and this is especially 

true for women. The increase in the age for collecting Social Security benefits to 67, which affects those born after 1937, also means 

that many people will continue to work to avoid receiving a reduced benefit. Still others will work to have health coverage. 

Given projected labor shortages, we believe businesses will need 

to do more to attract and retain older workers. Some employers already are ahead of the curve and have adopted practices that address older workers’ needs. 

Four years ago, AARP established an annual award program to 

recognize these companies. On Thursday, 35 businesses and organizations will be honored as AARP’s best employers for workers over 

50. They have formal and informal arrangements that allow older 

workers flexibility, such as job sharing and compressed work 

weeks. They also tailor programs to older workers, such as medical 

screening by employers who are health care providers. 

48

In addition, AARP has begun working with employers to expand 

job opportunities. For example, the AARP Foundation’s Senior 

Community Service Employment Program formed a partnership 

with Home Depot to place qualified applicants with Home Depot 

stores that have open positions. CSEP serves people age 55 and 

over living near or below the Federal poverty level that need training to re-enter the labor force. Although it is relatively new, the 

program has generated a great deal of interest. 

Over the next decade, population growth will be most pronounced 

among individuals age 55 and older. Many will retire fully; many 

will not. One of the challenges for employers who want to stay competitive is to make work more attractive to those mature workers. 

Employers who understand this and adapt their work environment 

will find themselves better positioned to reap the benefits of this 

potential resource. 

The challenge for Congress is to establish policies that complement the innovative policies of employers who have successfully 

attracted older workers. For example, legislation protecting the retirement and health benefit of older workers will encourage these 

workers to remain in the workforce. Recognizing the needs of workers age 55 and over will help Congress develop policies to meet 

these growing needs. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Holbrook. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holbrook follows:]

49


97086.026
50


97086.027
51


97086.028
52


97086.029
53


97086.030
54


97086.031
55


97086.032
56


97086.033
57


97086.034
58


97086.035
59


97086.036
60


97086.037
61


97086.038
62


97086.039
63


97086.040
64


97086.041
65


97086.042
66


97086.043
67


97086.044
68


97086.045
69


97086.046
70


97086.047
71


97086.048
72


97086.049
73


97086.050
74


97086.051
75


97086.052
76

Senator BREAUX. Ms. Humphrey. 

STATEMENT OF VICTORIA HUMPHREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. 

AND VOLKSWAGEN CANADA, INC., AUBURN HILLS, MI 

Ms. HUMPHREY. Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss the value and appreciation Volkswagen of America has 

for its older workers. 

Volkswagen of America, or VOA, was founded in 1955 and is 

headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. We employ approximately 2,200 people in the United States who are responsible for 

various aspects of the design, testing, marketing, and service of 

Volkswagen group products, including Volkswagen, Audi, and 

Bentley brands. Our financial services subsidiary, VW Credit, Inc., 

provides financing for our products. Our retail network comprises 

about 840 independent dealers, and each year, VOA buys more 

than a half-a-billion dollars worth of American-made parts and 

components. 

One thing that makes Volkswagen different from other car manufacturers is our success rate in retaining employees, old and 

young alike. Nearly one-quarter of our U.S. workforce is over the 

age of 50 and employee turnover is just 5 percent. Recently, the 

AARP recognized us as being one of the top companies for older 

workers. 

Our attitude toward older workers is different from most companies. In the mid-1990s, it became common practice for companies 

to actively recruit young professionals with MBA degrees in order 

to bring in what was commonly referred to as ‘‘new blood,’’ which 

always meant young. As many companies started to turn their organizations around, they became dismissive toward older, more experienced workers. This attitude is, in fact, a form of ageism, and 

ageism can be just as destructive as any other ‘‘ism.’’ In fact, in today’s job market, older workers trying to make themselves more 

competitive are obscuring dates on their resumes so their age isn’t 

so apparent. 

I had the experience of joining VOA at the age of 53. Knowing 

I was one of six candidates, I was concerned that my age might be 

an issue. I later learned, during the discussion of candidates, age 

was never mentioned. It was then that I knew I had joined a company that valued experience, knowledge, and skills over anything 

else. 

I was asked to talk today about the benefits VOA offers our older 

workers and what we do to retain them. The truth is that there 

is no magic benefit. Rather, it is the magic of treating all employees with decency and respect. 

However, we have several programs of special interest to our 

older workers. As an example, we give special bonuses for 25-year 

and 35-year anniversaries. We provide ongoing training. We offer 

flexible work options. We actively encourage our older workers to 

mentor our younger workers. We provide opportunities for employees to gain retirement planning advice. 

However, we mainly attribute our good record of retaining employees to a positive corporate culture. Employees feel they are 

part of a larger family and we have a clear policy against discrimiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Jan 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\97086.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
77

nation of all kinds, including a strong commitment to diversity supported by our Diversity Council. Our anti-discrimination policy is 

taken very seriously, starting with our CEO, Gerd Klauss, and is 

a hallmark of our entire organization. 

The best human resources professionals understand human nature, and part of human nature is that people appreciate feeling 

valued. Companies that demonstrate an appreciation for older 

workers will retain them, as well as their experience and knowledge. Older employees hold a vital key to success, a solid understanding of the business that cannot be gained any way other than 

through experience. 

Data shows that when communication fails, 93 percent of the 

time, it can be attributed to a lack of relationship building rather 

than a lack of technical expertise. Clearly, companies that understand the importance of relationship building will have a competitive edge over those that do not. VOA is a company rooted in relationships, which can explain why employees who join tend to remain with us for a significant period of time. 

Why are we a company that has such a capacity for valuing differences? It is a tough question, but perhaps it is based on our culture and unique history. We have always been an emotional brand, 

even an icon to some generations. People root for the Beetle, and 

most everyone has his or her own VW story. 

In conclusion, we understand that the keys to success are great 

products and great people. Our teamwork has the power to ensure 

that our successful car brands continue going strong. We place a 

high value on our older workers and that is our magic. Older employees want to work at VOA, and in turn, that makes us successful. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share a little of our culture 

with you today. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Ms. Humphrey. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Humphrey follows:]

78


97086.053
79


97086.054
80


97086.055
81

Senator BREAUX. Mr. Potter. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD E. POTTER, PRESIDENT, 

EMPLOYMENT POLICY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. POTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The previous witnesses 

have documented the contribution that older workers can make to 

the workplace and have discussed the consequences of the great demographic changes that are taking place that will result in a labor 

skills shortage in the United States over the next 30 years. 

One of the ways in which you can deal with a labor and skills 

shortage is to increase participation rates in the labor force, including increasing overall hours of work of older workers who would 

otherwise be retired. The focus of my testimony is on the private 

sector, where a number of legal and regulatory obstacles limit the 

ability of older workers to shift gradually from full-time work to 

full retirement through the use of phased retirement programs 

with their current employer. 

Phased retirement is any human resources program that allows 

older workers to reduce their hours and eases the transition to full 

retirement if that is what the workers’ preference is. Phased retirement programs offer a win-win strategy to meet the needs of retirees, companies, and this country. 

Because of legislative and regulatory obstacles, virtually no company offers a seamless phased retirement program in which the 

employee gradually shifts from full-time employment to retirement. 

As a consequence, most phased retirees are retired employees from 

other firms or former employees who return after several years or 

months break in service as independent contractors or part-time 

employees. The rules are sufficiently complex that many companies 

are unwilling to consider phased retirement strategies for fear of 

jeopardizing their qualified pension benefits programs. 

The legal and regulatory obstacles to phased retirement arise 

primarily from ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, IRS rulings, 

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Social Security, 

Medicare, and tax policy are also important factors, particularly 

from the employee point of view. 

The most significant barrier to phased retirement, at least those 

administered through qualified defined benefit plans, is the prohibition against pension distributions to active employees who have 

not attained normal retirement age. This is entirely a regulatory 

question. Because the IRS considers the restriction of pension distributions to be a qualification issue, the consequences of premature or inappropriate distribution of benefits could disqualify 

the defined benefit plan, resulting in disallowance of deductions for 

employer contributions to the plan as well as taxation of trust 

earnings and participants’ vested benefits. 

Most companies with modified phased retirement plans require 

at least a 6-month break in service with maximum annual hours 

of 1,000 hours. If the phased retiree works more than 1,000 hours, 

the pension benefits are cutoff. Some companies require a year 

break in service. Some companies have ruled out modified phased 

retirement entirely because their legal conclusion is that there is 

no break in service that is long enough to remove the pension plan 

from jeopardy. 

82

ERISA requires employers to adhere to rules promoting uniformity and standardization in the treatment of employees and the 

types of benefits offered, and that is a good thing. However, when 

we are looking at this question of phased retirement, we are looking at an entirely different question in which the distribution of 

critical skills across the labor force are not equally distributed. 

The limits of the benefits payable from the defined benefit plans 

are much more complex to administer and affect phased retirements. The most significant issue is the lack of clarity regarding 

application of limits when a portion of participants’ benefit begins 

with phased retirement and the remainder on full retirement. The 

phased retirement payment option in a qualified plan is an optional benefit covered by the anti-cutback rule. This is a very complicated, complex rule in which there is no experience in dealing 

with it in the context of phased retirement. 

Employers are also susceptible to potential lawsuits under the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Phased retirees are likely 

to be part-time workers. Employers frequently provide different 

benefit packages to part-time workers than to full-time workers. 

Even a nominal difference in benefits could serve as a basis for an 

age discrimination suit. 

For a phased retirement to flourish to meet the skill and labor 

needs of employers and the retirement and work-life balance needs 

of older Americans, legislative and regulatory phased retirement 

policy must be flexible to accommodate the varying needs of workers and employers. There should be flexibility in what is considered 

to be the normal retirement age in order that length of service considerations for the current employer can be taken into account. 

Legislative and regulatory phased retirement policy must be voluntary for workers who may elect phased retirement and employers who may choose to offer it as a retirement benefit. Business 

conditions, realignment, new lines of business, and labor demographics will be critical considerations in whether to offer a phased 

retirement program. Phased retirement should not be considered a 

permanent entitlement nor should there be an expectation of early 

retirement subsidies or health insurance as part of the phased retirement program. 

Until the legislative and regulatory hurdles are removed, most 

companies will be unlikely to offer more extensive phased retirement options because of the lack of flexibility, potential cost, and 

liability. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Potter follows:]

83


97086.056
84


97086.057
85


97086.058
86


97086.059
87


97086.060
88


97086.061
89


97086.062
90


97086.063
91


97086.064
92


97086.065
93


97086.066
94


97086.067
95


97086.068
96


97086.069
97


97086.070
98


97086.071
99


97086.072
100


97086.073
101

Senator BREAUX. Thank you very much, all the panel members, 

for your presentation. After listening to all of this, I feel like I almost have a conflict of interest in chairing this committee on retirement while I am in the midst of doing that—— [Laughter.] 

But it has also all been very helpful, both personally and as a 

chairman of the committee, to hear your thoughts. 

The issue you just talked about, Mr. Potter, was really very interesting because, it seems like there is either a statute or regulation that really makes it more difficult for people to continue in a 

phase-down type of employment operation, so it is not being done 

very much. There are not a lot of people, I take it, taking advantage of a phase-down retirement work schedule? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, the issue, frankly, is that because of the break 

in service requirement, that there is no straightforward way, particularly for those employees who are eligible for defined benefit 

plans, to do this kind of gradual phase-down. They must leave their 

employer for some period of time. 

Senator BREAUX. How long is that period? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, it is not clear what it is. I would say the center of gravity is around 6 months, but——

Senator BREAUX. So they could leave, as I understand it, they 

would have to actually depart and sever their relationship with 

their employer for approximately 6 months——

Mr. POTTER. Six months. 

Senator BREAUX. Then they could come back legally, I guess? 

Mr. POTTER. You can see that is quite an obstacle. By that time, 

if you need to work, want to work, you are going to go someplace 

else. 

Senator BREAUX. In your opinion, would Congress have to act to 

change that, or is that something that is done by regulation and 

is not likely to be changed because of the bureaucracy? 

Mr. POTTER. This particular issue really is entirely a regulatory 

issue. Obviously, Congress can provide advice here. This issue also 

really is more than just a revenue issue, and so consideration ought 

to be given to giving joint jurisdiction to the Department of Labor 

and IRS to work out the——

Senator BREAUX. Yes. It seems like these decisions which affect 

individuals’ working conditions is being regulated by the Internal 

Revenue Service as opposed to, say, the Department of Labor, 

which would look at it from a different perspective as far as the 

workforce is concerned. 

Mr. POTTER. That is right, and there is precedent for this kind 

of joint jurisdiction. It has been done in other circumstances and 

it ought to be done here. 

Senator BREAUX. I wonder if it would take more than just changing jurisdiction. I wonder if it would require perhaps a legislative 

endeavor by the Congress to send a message that this is how it 

should be considered. 

Suppose you were in charge of writing the rule and you had the 

pencil and you were ready to write it. How would you structure 

what you think would be a preferable way of handling this particular problem that you spoke about? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, I think that you would want to start with 

some kind of amendment to ERISA, because not only do you want 

102

to address this break in service issue, but you want to lay down 

some guidance on the issue of discrimination in benefits and what 

you do in a phased retirement context. You want to make clear 

what Congressional intent would be with respect to the anti-cutback rule in this respect. 

So I think what you would want to do is, and I think this could 

easily be a bipartisan activity, I think this is not—I mean, the 

thing that is interesting to me about this hearing is everybody is 

on the same page here. I think there is a consensus across the 

country that would make something like this quite possible. 

Senator BREAUX. Perhaps we could ask if you could—I know you 

address it in your statement, but if you could synthesize it into sort 

of a recommendation, I think the staff would like to take a look at 

it. There is still some time left in this Congress for things that 

have to be done legislatively, and perhaps something like this could 

be placed in legislation that is working its way through the Congress, i.e. an appropriations bill or an omnibus appropriations bill 

where just maybe if we could do it in a bipartisan fashion, which 

I think we may be able to do, we could really make a difference 

at this late hour. So if you could give us a more synthesized recommendation on what you think would be helpful, then the legislative staff could take it and maybe we could find a place to put it. 

Mr. POTTER. I would be glad to do that. 

Senator BREAUX. I saw a TV program the other day. I would like 

to ask you to comment on the substance of it in the sense that 

there was an employer who specialized in seeking out people over 

65 to work in their shop, and they basically, not to talk in details 

about who it was—I honestly don’t remember—but they were making widgets, making small pieces of product—I am not sure whether it was jewelry or whatever it was—but it was basically a hands 

type of craft. The employer basically only hired seniors. 

But his reason for doing it wasn’t because so much as he was trying to help the seniors. He was trying to help his company, and the 

logic he had was that—sort of cold-hearted as it sounded—I don’t 

have to provide them health insurance because they are all on 

Medicare and they already all have health insurance. Therefore, by 

hiring 65-year-old people who are on the Medicare program with 

health insurance, I was actually—he said—I am actually able to 

beat my competition, who is hiring employees who they have to 

provide health insurance for. It is a huge savings. It makes my 

company much more profitable. 

Do you have any comments on that? Ken. 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. That is a great example. There are a few pieces 

to it that perhaps are worth commenting on. First, there is generally the point of view that older workers are less reliable, less 

productive, or more likely to injure and hurt themselves on the job. 

I am sure the other panelists could comment that this is all kind 

of a myth. 

In general, older workers tend to be more loyal, more reliable, 

less likely to hurt themselves on the job, less likely to miss work. 

They are pretty terrific workers. 

To the point of an employer saying, ‘‘Hey, why not recruit more 

of these people, they pretty well get the job done’’, I think you are 

actually going to see more and more of that. 

103

To the point that people are thinking, well, gee, if I hire an older 

adult at that particular age, then they get their insurance sort of 

picked up by the government, or if they are over 55, they can use 

their AARP discounts and get cheaper rate on car rentals when 

they are out making sales calls and get the low rates on the airlines—— [Laughter.] 

I mean, some people are going to figure out how to game the system and actually find out that not only are older people pretty darn 

productive and valuable, but there are some benefits they bring 

along with them. The question is, is that fair or just? I think it is 

legal, but I think you are going to see more of it. 

Senator BREAUX. I mean, this guy was saying, ‘‘Look, I am not 

doing this for any reason other than it makes my business more 

profitable.’’

Mr. DYCHTWALD. Sure. 

Senator BREAUX. The people show up on time. They are not late 

for work and they are dependable. They already have health insurance, so I am not having to pay for it, so this helps me in beating 

my competition. 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. I would add that most older adults are emptynesters and so they are not having to take time off from work to 

look out for their children. They are not having to worry about 

child care. They make——

Senator BREAUX. They are not taking maternity leave. 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. That is right. So when you add up the new 

equation and you remove some of these false biases, they are actually a pretty attractive group of candidates. 

I would add also, if I might, as your drafting what conceivably 

could be the new regulations, that some older people are keen on 

the idea of phasing their work down, phased retirement, maybe 

going from 5 days to 4 days to 3 days to 2 days. As was pointed 

out, with many companies, the only way you can accomplish that, 

is to first quit, or be fired, or retire, and then what people often 

do is just go work across the street, where you can startup the next 

day, which is a little bit ridiculous because employees are giving 

up the legacy you have invested in. 

But there are many people in the boomer generation who envision a more flex version of retirement, where instead of simply having to pare down each year, they might want to work 6 months out 

of a year and have a big time off and maybe work in cycles. I would 

hope that any new regulatory considerations would accommodate 

that, as well. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLBROOK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BREAUX. Yes, Mr. Holbrook? 

Mr. HOLBROOK. If I may, I think there are a lot of myths associated with the fact that older Americans should not be working, but 

the fact of the matter is, I think that Ken has pointed out some 

of those myths. But the fact of the matter is, there are problems 

that some employer is going to hire someone on the basis that they 

are not going to have to pay any type of health care. 

Unfortunately, at the present time, people are not fully covered 

under Medicare, particularly for prescription drugs, which is a real 

serious problem for many of our seniors in this country, and many 

104

of them have to have and need and do have supplemental coverage. 

That is one of our major concerns, is that they have these health 

benefits provided. I don’t know that you would declare that employer selfish, but I think it is a little unwise to use that as the 

only criteria to go and use for your business, is that they do not 

have any health—we do not have to pay health coverage. 

Senator BREAUX. Well, this person really talked about the other 

aspects, too. He said, ‘‘Look, they are dependable. They do good 

work. I can count on them showing up. In addition, they already 

have health coverage.’’ So he was complimentary about the work 

ethic they had, as well. 

Dr. Brangman, give me some discussion, if you might, on any potential connections between retirement and depression. I mean, it 

seems to me that, and I think Jack Valenti and John Glenn both 

referred to it, but if you are staying active physically by working, 

your body is active, you have a better attitude, more positive attitude, et cetera. How many of the people who we find that are clinically depressed, I mean, how much of a contribution do you think 

the fact that they don’t have a job, they don’t have something to 

do every day that they wake up to, contributes to that? 

Dr. BRANGMAN. I think that is a large contributor to depression 

in old age. It is still vastly under-diagnosed and under-treated, but 

for people whose identity has been their job and their work and 

that suddenly stops, they lose a lot of their social connections, their 

outside contacts with the world, their sense of purpose. If they 

didn’t have any other interests or activities that they had cultivated during their working life, everything kind of comes to a 

stop. 

Most of my patients tell me that they want to feel like they are 

contributing to the world around them. They don’t want to be a 

burden. They want to remain independent. When they don’t have 

those feelings and they have time to sit by themselves, I think that 

depression is a significant issue. 

Senator BREAUX. What about the possibilities of people who find 

themselves in an assisted living type of facility continuing to work? 

I mean, it would seem to me that with all the outsourcing that we 

are doing out of the country, it seems to me that we could attempt 

to utilize and provide work for people who are in assisted living 

type of facilities and not being fully utilized. It seems like you can 

only play so much golf in a retirement home or what have you. Is 

there any potential in that area for doing something like that? 

Dr. BRANGMAN. Well, I think so. Generally, patients, or people 

who are living in assisted living facilities just need minor supervision. They are still fairly healthy and can move around and take 

care of most of their needs. They have vast periods of time with 

very little activity. I have many patients who tell me they never 

want to play Bingo or shuffleboard. If we could become creative 

and figure out ways that they can contribute, volunteer work, there 

are a number of jobs that are done by telephone, other things that 

can be looked at that could give them a reason to be excited when 

they get up in the morning, something to look forward to, and 

something that they feel most importantly connected to that they 

can contribute to. 

105

Senator BREAUX. I think that is all very important. I have been 

a big participant and promoter of the Senior Games, the so-called 

Senior Olympics, and you find that in talking to these people that 

have these challenges out there that it is such a motivation for 

them to get out and try and improve and compete against people 

in their own age category. I think it is incredibly good. 

Ms. Humphrey, tell us a little bit about how Volkswagen of 

America, has been involved in employing older Americans. Do you 

segregate the type of work they do? Are they hired for the same 

work disciplines as someone who is 25, as opposed to someone who 

is 65? How does it work? I mean, does human resources say, ‘‘All 

right, here are all of our 65-year-old employees. Let us go find 

something to do for them that is fitting for a 65-year-old.’’ Or are 

they spread throughout the workforce indiscriminately? Can you 

comment on how they are placed and what they do? What is the 

structure of Volkswagen’s use of older Americans? 

Ms. HUMPHREY. As I said in my remarks, it truly is a remarkable 

environment in the sense that not only do we not discriminate, but 

in the automotive industry today, which is getting increasingly 

more complicated, it is the experience that matters. So we try to 

keep our younger workers away from complicated stuff, and I say 

that in jest, but it is a very complicated business. It is the older 

workers that are so critical to our success and they are the mentors 

for our younger workers. So there is absolutely nothing that we do 

that separates our workers——

Senator BREAUX. So there is no separate division for people over 

65 that is the senior division of Volkswagen that you have segregated out? [Laughter.] 

Ms. HUMPHREY. Not at all. 

Senator BREAUX. I appreciate your comments about the experience. I remember when I ran for Congress 32 years ago, my slogan 

at that time was ‘‘experience makes the difference.’’ Of course, I 

was 28 years old. [Laughter.] 

I am not sure how I got away with that slogan, but we did. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator Kohl, we have had a terrific hearing. We had our former 

colleague, Senator John Glenn, here, and Mr. Jack Valenti talking 

about keeping active and how important it was and how they felt 

about retirement, and they didn’t retire, they just changed jobs. 

That is kind of what I am doing, too. This panel was very helpful 

in discussing some of the opportunities for the utilization of seniors 

as well as some legislative and regulatory prohibitions about allowing them to do phased retirement, working less and less but continuing in the workforce, which we may try to address. Do you 

have any comments or questions? We welcome you here. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Senator Breaux. 

As I understand it, the demographics indicate that in the years 

to come, looking out ahead 5 and 10 years, the number of people 

leaving the workforce are likely to be far larger than the number 

of people entering the workforce. If that is true, isn’t that going to 

create a whole new situation with respect to the need for people 

who are older remaining active and busy? 

I think that while it is true in terms of the advice given to people 

who are about to retire, they need to stay busy and active and enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:45 Jan 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\97086.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
106

ergetic and engaged, there needs to be, isn’t it true, in the final 

analysis, a real need for people to stay working, and if there isn’t 

a real need for it, then it is awful hard to create ways in which 

people who are retiring can stay engaged. But if, in fact, there is 

a real need for people in the workforce, then, of course, you will 

have more people in the workforce. My understanding is that the 

numbers indicate that there will be a real need. 

Do you know anything about that? Do you have any comments 

to make on that? Yes, sir? 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. Yes. Very often, we imagine that economics and 

workforce flow have a great deal to do with technology and immigration and geopolitical dynamics, all of which they do. But we 

often think that demography is flat like a lake. Quite the opposite. 

It is convulsing like an erupting lava flow. 

During the 1990’s, the number of 18- to 34-year-old Americans 

actually shrank by 9 million people while the number of 50-plus 

Americans grew by 12 million people, and that movement, brought 

on, of course, by increasing longevity, the aging of the baby boom 

and the baby bust that began in the mid-1960s, is going to be a 

powerful engine that reshapes workforce talent. 

So yes, you are 100 percent right. In the years to come, more 

than ever before, we are going to need those 57, 62, 74, and 80-

year-olds who, by the way, may have enormous contributions to 

make. But we may need to construct the kind of flexible work arrangements and remove the obstacles so that they can do that. 

I think there is another side we have to be careful not to hammer on, which is I don’t think we are saying, any of us, that everybody must work until their last breath. I think what we are saying 

is, for those who wish to work, who wish to earn a livelihood, cashflow often takes a little bit of the worry off of dependency and who 

is going to pay for this, that we remove the obstacles, both psychological and workforce and regulatory, so that folks may continue to 

be gainfully employed in some way, should they wish. 

We will need the talent and the capability of our aging workforce. Eighty percent of the growth in the American population over 

the next 25 years will come from people over the age of 50. That 

is an event that has never occurred before. This is a very serious 

issue. 

Mr. POTTER. Senator, another way to look at your question is 

that, on average, each individual in our country contributes 

$78,000 worth of value each year. To the extent that that value is 

taken out of the economy, that is how much smaller our gross domestic product will be. So if you take the projection in 10 years 

that we may be short as many as 10 million workers, 10 million 

times $78,000 is about $0.7 trillion off of the national gross domestic product. So we are talking about standard of living, per capita 

income, ability to deal with hard social problems. 

Senator KOHL. Will we need to make some different financial arrangements with these people as they get older, so a person who 

reaches 62 or 65 or whatever wants to continue to work, the employer may want to continue to have that person working, but 

maybe with different kinds of money considerations? 

Mr. DYCHTWALD. For the elder himself, there is the good news 

and the bad news. The good news is, as Mr. Potter has identified, 

107

there are some regulatory shifts that I think must occur in order 

to ease the obstacles to people who want to continue working. 

But from the employer’s point of view, there is a concern about 

merit-based versus tenure-based pay. In other words, if two people 

are holding a camera for my network and one of them is 27 and 

she is quite good and one of them is 67 and she is quite good, but 

I am paying the older one four times as much, I may want to remove the older one to get competitive rates. 

So the idea of everybody taking a deep breath and saying, we can 

make these rules more fluid, but on the other hand, people 

shouldn’t expect just because they have been around the planet 

longer that people are going to be willing to pay them enormous 

amounts, and that is a bit of a bite the bullet. 

I might also add that it is not just compensation-related work, 

that today, seniors have the lowest volunteer level of any age group 

in America, and perhaps we might think of those 40 million retirees as an enormous national treasure that could be reinserted back 

into our culture for everyone’s advantage. Having a productive 

elder population is a substantial link to our future. 

Senator KOHL. You made a point that I think is indisputably 

true. If you have a person 67 and a person 27 and they are equally 

productive and the person 67 is making 50 percent more than the 

person 27, as an employer, you almost have no option but to try 

and move the person 67 off your payroll, right? If you are running 

a business on behalf of your shareholders——

Mr. DYCHTWALD. Or you might go to another country to find 

workers, or you might fire that older person and then hire them 

back as a contract consultant in order to get around the ERISA and 

ADA and IRS restrictions. But yes, you are encumbered to try to 

find a way to be competitive, and a lot of older workers, their fee 

scale is difficult for employers. 

Mr. HOLBROOK. It would seem to me, Senator, that if the elder 

worker is doing the same work as the younger worker, I have a serious concern when you say, let us get rid of the older worker and 

give the younger worker more money. That is an argument that 

would be very difficult in my mind to live with. If the older worker 

is doing the job, producing the way that they should be producing 

and would be producing, I don’t understand the logic of saying, we 

will take away their salary benefits or any of their fringe benefits 

that they might have. 

Senator KOHL. But if you can, as an employer, at some point hire 

someone who is younger and just as productive at less cost, employers are almost required to think seriously about that because 

that is just the way the marketplace works, isn’t that true? I am 

not suggesting what the morality is. We are talking about the requirements of people running businesses who need to make profits. 

Not to say that you should move the person out, but you make rearrangements of sorts to keep that person employed rather than 

have a situation where you are forced to move them out even 

though you may not want to move the person out. 

Mr. HOLBROOK. Well, we in AARP do not believe in mandatory 

retirement, so that takes care of that problem for us. 

Mr. POTTER. Senator, in the context of this hearing, I think your 

example is actually going to be the exception in the future. I think 

108

the future is going to be the situation you are going to need a critical skill that is not available by any age demographic in your 

workforce and you are going to need to keep that older worker in 

order to maintain the competitiveness of that business. 

Ms. HUMPHREY. I would like to add, too, that the more complicated the job is, the more important it is to have that experience. 

You may not run into a critical situation every day where you need 

to draw on that experience, but when it happens and you have the 

right experience, it can be worth its weight in gold. That is why 

we try to partner our older workers with our younger workers, because there is just too much complexity in our environment. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Senator Breaux. 

Senator BREAUX. With that, I thank very much the panel and I 

appreciate their nice and generous comments. 

With that, this committee will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(109)

A P P E N D I X 


97086.074
110


97086.075
111


97086.076
112


97086.077
113


97086.078
114

Æ


97086.079