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

28–186 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–493

BRIDGING THE GENDER GAP: ELIMINATING

RETIREMENT INCOME DISPARITY FOR WOMEN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC

MARCH 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–19

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

(

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Chairman 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

CATHERINE FINLEY, Staff Director 

JULIE COHEN, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Gordon Smith ....................................................... 1

Opening Statement of Senator Herb Kohl ............................................................. 2

Opening Statement of Senator Ken Salazar ......................................................... 4

PANEL I 

Jean Chatzky, editor-at-large, Money Magazine, and financial editor, The 

Today Show, NBC ................................................................................................ 5

Cindy Hounsell, president, Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement ............ 11

Barbara B. Kennelly, president and chief executive officer, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare .............................................. 21

Jack VanDerhei, research director, Employee Benefit Research Institute Fellows Program ........................................................................................................ 26

PANEL II 

Karyne Jones, president and chief executive officer, The National Caucus 

and Center on Black Aged, Inc ........................................................................... 48

Sara Cole Hart, director, Corporate Benefits, CNF Services Company .............. 54

Lynn Rollins, senior advisor for Women’s Issues to New York Governor 

Pataki .................................................................................................................... 69

APPENDIX 

Prepared statement of Senator Mel Martinez ....................................................... 77

Statement submitted by Kimberly A. Strassel, Celeste Colgan, and John 

C. Goodman .......................................................................................................... 78

Statement submitted by the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) ............ 92

Information submitted by Prudential Financial ................................................... 99

Statement submitted by Business and Professional Women/USA, Women Entrepreneurs, Inc., Women in Farm Economics and Women Impacting Public 

Policy on behalf of Americans for Secure Retirement ....................................... 110

(III) 

(1)

BRIDGING THE GENDER GAP: ELIMINATING 

RETIREMENT INCOME DISPARITY FOR 

WOMEN 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Smith, Kohl, Carper, and Salazar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORDON SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, and we thank you all for coming. 

We are here today to discuss a topic of growing concern in America, 

women and retirement security. We will explore reasons why there 

is a gap in retirement income between men and women and the 

factors behind why women face greater financial risk in retirement. 

Preparing for retirement and achieving financial security are 

daunting tasks for all Americans, to be sure. However, women face 

many unique challenges. For example, women still perform the primary caretaker role in our society. As a result, many women spend 

significant periods of their lives out of the workforce raising children or taking care of elderly parents, and significantly diluting 

their earning power. Women also are more likely to work part time, 

or work in industries where employers are less likely to offer retirement benefits; Women generally earn less than men. In 2004, 

women earned 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. 

All of these factors have a significant impact on what women receive from Social Security and pensions, as well as what they are 

able to accumulate through personal savings. The bottom line is, it 

is harder to accumulate retirement savings income when you are 

making less money and working for fewer years. As a result, 

women receive significantly less during retirement income than 

men. This is true for all three legs of the retirement income stool: 

Social Security, pensions, and savings. 

In 2004, the median annual income of women over the age of 65 

was $12,000. Men, on the other hand, had an income of about 

$21,000. Although this figure is extremely low for men as well, 

women received almost half of what men collected in retirement. 

2

This income gap is further exacerbated by the fact that women 

generally live longer than men, and therefore need to stretch their 

income over a longer period of time. 

Equally disturbing is the high rate of poverty among older 

women. Of the 3.5 million Americans over the age of 65 who were 

in poverty in 2004, about 70 percent of those were women. 

Due to many factors, including high divorce rates and the fact 

that women generally live longer, many women will spend a portion of their retirement years without a spouse or significant other. 

However, living alone can have serious consequences on one’s financial security. In 2004, the poverty rate for married women over 

the age of 65 was 4.4 percent. For unmarried women, the poverty 

rate was 17.4 percent, almost four times higher. The rate is much 

higher for single Black and Hispanic women. 

I have spent a great deal of time over the last year examining 

the issues of retirement savings and security. Last June, I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota 

dealing with this issue. Although the bill is aimed at increasing 

savings and ensuring greater financial security in retirement for all 

Americans, many of the proposals address the unique challenges 

that women face. 

Our bill encourages employees to adopt automatic enrollment in 

401(k) plans. It also expands the credit which encourages low and 

moderate income individuals to save. Another key component provides incentives for lifetime payments. 

Although these are good first steps, more needs to be done, and 

I am currently developing legislation with the specific goal of narrowing the retirement income gap between men and women. 

To assist in drafting this bill, I have organized a kitchen cabinet 

of retirement experts who are concerned with the financial security 

of women. This group includes benefits attorneys, financial services 

companies, advocacy groups, and organizations representing employers. My hope is that by bringing together this broad coalition, 

we will be able to develop a bipartisan solution to this very challenging problem. 

Last, I would like to thank our witnesses who join us this morning. I am eagerly anticipating your testimony, and look forward to 

a productive dialog on ways that we can begin to eliminate the retirement income gap. So, with that, I am pleased to turn to my colleague, the Ranking Member of this committee, Senator Kohl of 

Wisconsin, for his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. As we will hear today, women tend to receive less income during their retirement years than men. In fact, they get only 

about 53 percent of what men receive. The poverty rate for single 

women of retirement age is a staggering 17 percent. 

Retirement security is often thought of as a three-legged stool: 

Social Security, employer pensions, and private savings. But it is 

clear that for too many women facing retirement, that stool is 

shaky. We must strengthen all three legs, and also promote a 

fourth leg—the opportunity to continue working past retirement 

age for those who need to do so. 

3

Social Security is the foundation of retirement security for everyone, especially women. In fact, it is the only source of income for 

over one-quarter of single elderly women. Social Security provides 

a guaranteed benefit, which is even more important now that individuals are bearing more risk in defined contribution plans. Furthermore, Social Security benefits are protected from inflation and 

guaranteed to last a lifetime. This is especially important for 

women, who on average live about 5 years longer than men. Finally, Social Security is progressive—it replaces a larger share of 

earnings for low earners, and women tend to earn less than men. 

Social Security is a lifesaver for many women, so we must protect 

and strengthen it. 

But because Social Security was never meant to be the sole support after retirement, we must also strengthen employer pensions 

and private savings. Women are more likely than men to work part 

time, and therefore are less likely to be covered by a pension plan. 

Women are also increasingly at risk of outliving their savings because, unlike traditional pensions, few defined contribution plans 

offer to pay out benefits as an annuity—an income stream that is 

guaranteed to last a lifetime. We should encourage 401(k) plans to 

offer an annuity payout, and encourage participants to choose this 

option. In addition, we should extend and expand the Saver’s Credit, so we can help lower income people, many of whom are women, 

better save for retirement. 

Even with such improvements, many baby boomers will choose 

to work longer. Some will work to stay healthy and productive, and 

some will work because they need to build more savings for a 

comfortable retirement. This new fourth leg of the retirement 

stool—continued work past traditional retirement age—will be especially important for women, who tend to live longer than men. 

Yet for several reasons older women are less likely to participate 

in the labor force today, making saving for retirement more difficult. First, women are more likely to seek part-time and flexible 

work schedules, and companies are less likely to provide pension 

plans for part-time workers. Second, many women are responsible 

for caring for elderly or disabled relatives. Caregivers reduce their 

earnings, Social Security benefits, and pension benefits—on average a total loss of about $659,000 over a lifetime. 

I have introduced legislation that would address these barriers 

and expand the time that older workers have to work, save, and 

secure a more comfortable retirement. The bill would provide tax 

incentives for businesses that hire and retain older workers, offer 

them part-time and flex-time opportunities, and include them in 

the company’s pension and health insurance plans. It also seeks to 

ease the burden on caregivers, who more often tend to be women, 

by giving a tax credit to workers for the care of their senior family 

members. 

So we face an enormous challenge, but if we can work together 

for common sense reform and encourage businesses to adopt best 

practices, we can ensure that all four legs of the retirement stool, 

including the opportunity to work, stand firm for women. I look forward to continuing that dialog with our guests here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Kohl. 

4

Senator Salazar of Colorado. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KEN SALAZAR 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Kohl, for holding this important hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to shine a spotlight on the unique challenges 

facing women as they prepare for retirement. 

For me, I have a personal agenda in part here because I have, 

as my progeny, only two daughters who are now 17 and 18 years 

old. I look forward to them at some point, after a long, productive 

life in the workforce, to be able to retire with security. 

Today we have in my State 431,000 individuals over the age of 

65. Fifty-six percent of that entire number represent women in my 

State. Colorado is a relatively young State. The U.S. Census Bureau has ranked Colorado 48th in the Nation for the ratio of those 

older than 65 to the overall population. I believe that we have an 

opportunity to encourage our younger generations to save and to 

plan for their retirement. 

That said, Colorado is graying like the rest of the country. In 

fact, three Colorado counties, Douglas, Park, and Summit, were 

among seven across the country that saw the number of residents 

age 65 years and older double between 1990 and 2000. 

While the demographics of the next generation of retired Americans will differ from previous generations, the next generation will 

be healthier and have higher levels of education and income, so not 

all the news is negative. Because of a decline in traditional pension 

plans, low accumulated savings, and longer life expectancy, however, we have many challenges and many women that will be retiring ill-prepared for retirement. 

In terms of women and retirement security, there are many complex factors which lead to the continued retirement income gap. 

Since relatively few older women—27 percent, precisely—receive a 

pension income and have accumulated small personal savings, approximately $4,000 annually, social security plays a critical role in 

preventing older women from living in the poverty that we remember from the days of the Depression and before the advent of social 

security. Social security is in fact our country’s most successful government program, and any changes to the program have the potential to dramatically impact women in our society. 

Last year I held a series of town hall meetings to gather the 

views of people from throughout the State of Colorado on the longterm health of our social security system. Time and again in those 

meetings, seniors, and particularly women whose sole source of income is their monthly check from the Social Security Administration, raised concerns about the long-term solvency of the program 

and some of the initiatives that had been proposed to change the 

social security program here in Washington. 

But we must remain committed to fulfilling the promise of social 

security. I believe there are steps we can take to ensure that all 

Americans are more prepared for retirement. I am eager to hear 

from the experts assembled here today. I am eager to work with 

the chairman, Senator Smith, and the ranking member, Senator 

Kohl, to address these issues on behalf of the women of our country 

and on behalf of our Nation. 

5

Again, than you, chairman, and thank you, ranking member, for 

holding this hearing on this very important issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Salazar. 

Our first witness is Jean Chatzky, and it is nice to see you on 

this side of a TV set. She is the editor-at-large for Money magazine 

and the financial editor for NBC’s Today Show. We are honored 

that you are here. As an expert witness on financial planning, Ms. 

Chatzky will discuss investment strategies that help women increase their retirement savings. 

Then we will hear from Cindy Hounsell, who is the executive director of the Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement. She will 

provide a broad overview of the women and retirement security 

issue, including a discussion of the factors behind the retirement 

income disparity. 

Then Mrs. Barbara Kennelly. She is the president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and a 

former congresswoman from the State of Connecticut. She will discuss the importance of Social Security for women, and earnings 

from work as a fourth leg of the retirement income stool. 

She will be followed by Dr. Jack VanDerhei. He is a fellow at the 

Employee Benefit Research Institute, and professor at Temple University in Philadelphia. His testimony will focus on trends related 

to employer retirement plans and Social Security. 

We thank you all for coming, and Jean, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF JEAN CHATZKY, EDITOR–AT–LARGE, MONEY 

MAGAZINE, AND FINANCIAL EDITOR, THE TODAY SHOW, NBC 

Ms. CHATZKY. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Kohl, thank 

you so much for inviting me here to address your committee today. 

It is an honor and a privilege, in particular because you are discussing this morning the issue of financial security for women, and 

that carries a lot of importance to me both personally and professionally. 

It is quite a problem that we are talking about this morning. According to the 2005 Retirement Confidence Survey conducted for 

the Employee Benefit Research Institute, only 40 percent of women 

have even tried to calculate the amount of money they will need 

to live in retirement. 

Of those that have, most seem to be underestimating to quite a 

strong degree their true retirement needs. Nearly 40 percent believe that they will need less than $250,000 to live through retirement, a figure that works out to roughly $10,000 annually for the 

20 to 25 year period that they expect to live during retirement. 

Equally discouraging, just 59 percent of women are actively saving for retirement, which means that 41 percent are not, with only 

36 percent contributing to a workplace retirement savings plan. All 

in all, it is not surprising that just 35 percent of women believe 

that they will have enough money to pay for their most basic expenses in retirement, and an even smaller percentage, just 23 percent, believe that they will have enough to live on comfortably during what are supposed to be their golden years. When you ask 

what percent of women believe they will have enough money to 

fund their health care and long term care needs, the percentages 

are even more discouraging. 

6

I was asked here this morning not to simply outline this crisis—

and I do believe it is a crisis—but to offer specific solutions that 

could help women in particular meet their retirement needs. What 

many people do not understand about women is that we possess innate qualities that make us spectacular investors of our own money 

once we step up to the plate. 

Researchers from the University of California-Davis have looked 

at the discount brokerage records of thousands of investors and 

compared those of women to those of men, and found that women 

are far less likely than men to hold a losing investment too long. 

Women don’t wait to sell winning investments, and men do. Men 

are much more likely to put all, or at least too many of their investment eggs in one basket, while women are more likely to diversify. Men trade securities so often, it is a drag on their investment 

returns. Women tend to buy and hold to their advantage. 

When women do make investing mistakes, we learn from them. 

We are much less likely than men to repeat these sort of destructive behaviors more than once. 

The upshot of all of these positive behaviors is that women make 

more money on their investments than men. The problem is that 

not enough of us are actually getting into this game, and once we 

do get into the game, because we leave the workforce so often to 

care for children or older parents, our stop-and-start retirement 

funds don’t grow to be as large as they might. 

A few simple changes to the way most retirement funds are implemented could change that dramatically. First, we need to change 

the defaults. Today, more than 20 years after the introduction of 

the 401(k), 30 percent of employees still choose not to sign up, and 

in doing so they leave $30 billion annually in employee matching 

dollars on the table. 

Why are we making this mistake? Often it is because people do 

not understand the golden opportunity before them. That is why I 

believe that investing in 401(k)’s and other defined contribution 

plans should be opt-out rather than opt-in. In other words, employers should be able to assume participating is something that employees are going to do. This will, research shows, boost participation rates to 90 percent, and force those people who do not want 

to participate to actively consider their choice. 

Second, defined contribution plan employee contributions should 

increase automatically as an employee’s wage rises over the years. 

This is a fairly new mechanism that some companies have started 

to put in place. Typically, contributions start at 3 percent and rise 

at a rate of 1 percentage point a year. Today only about 25 percent 

of large companies have such large automatic escalation clauses. 

They should be mandatory. 

Third, an age-appropriate portfolio should also be automatic. One 

of the problems women investors in particular face is a reluctance 

to take risks. Unfortunately, a lifetime of savings in low-risk, lowreward money market and bond funds will not provide enough retirement security for most American women. The default instead 

should be a target date retirement or life cycle fund that automatically adjusts the underlying investment mix based on a woman’s 

self-selected retirement date. 

7

Fourth, education needs to be part of the IRA rollover process. 

I applaud the recent change that made IRA rollovers the default 

for plan balances over $1,000. However, while rolling over is good, 

rolling over and continuing to contribute is far better. 

Anyone rolling into an IRA should be educated on the opportunity that they have to continue to make retirement contributions 

into a traditional, Roth, or spousal IRA on an automatic basis. 

Making the continuation of contributions part of the exit interview 

process means that a woman leaving the workforce has one less 

cumbersome step to take. Anything that simplifies that process ensures greater participation. 

These four changes will go a long way to ensuring the retirement 

of women who work for mid-size to large companies and other organizations that offer retirement plans. However, this still leaves selfemployed women and women who are not in the traditional workforce in the lurch. 

Here is what we know: Self-employment is of great appeal to 

women who want to be able to take care of their children, take care 

of their parents, and still earn a living. That flexibility is one key 

reason why women start businesses at twice the rate of men. We 

also know self-employed individuals are less likely to save for retirement. 

Now, I am not very schooled in the way that the government operates, so please forgive me if these next suggestions are a bit 

naive or reaching, but I believe there must be some way for the 

government, just like a large company, to be able to offer these 

women a default option that ensures they are putting some of their 

own money away for retirement. Yes, there are incentives, but the 

incentives aren’t working. I would suggest that the IRS and Social 

Security Administration both be asked to consider whether either 

could be the funnel that drives additional dollars into a place 

where they can be saved and they can be grown. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chatzky follows:]

8


28186.001
9


28186.002
10


28186.003
11

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Cindy Hounsell. 

STATEMENT OF CINDY HOUNSELL, PRESIDENT, WOMEN’S 

INSTITUTE FOR A SECURE RETIREMENT 

Ms. HOUNSELL. Chairman Smith, Senator Kohl, Senator Salazar, 

and Senator Carper, I very much appreciate the opportunity to be 

here today and thank you for holding this hearing. 

My testimony will briefly cover the reasons women face economic 

insecurity in retirement, and a lot of those issues have been 

brought up by the Senators already. We will offer recommendations 

for actions that policymakers, employers, and individuals can take 

to provide access to employer-sponsored plans, long-term care, 

spousal benefits, and to reduce the risks of losing retirement income along the life course. 

We believe this is also a crisis. The fundamental issues for 

women are that they work fewer years, earn less, live longer—we 

have heard the litany—and are likely to live alone in old age, 

which is highly correlated to poverty. While it is well-established 

that women tend to live longer, with living longer comes the very 

real prospect of living alone and needing care, and needing more 

income to obtain that care. Most older men will die married; most 

older women will die single. That is the story. 

Women continue to serve as the primary family caregivers. They 

take care of children, parents, in-laws. A recent study shows that 

there are 13 years of zero earnings in the computation of social security benefits. Providing family care is still not recognized in this 

country as an economic contribution. 

Women lose out, and it affects every aspect of their lives. Single 

women caring for elderly parents are likely to end up living in poverty. Married women are likely to end up impoverished after caring 

for a spouse. Divorce and widowhood is also a threat. Minority 

women, who work as the majority of the Nation’s caregivers, have 

few benefits and will likely live out their lives in poverty. 

There are two important fact that are well-known, but they bear 

mentioning today: Older women living alone are much more likely 

to be poor, and that fact has not changed for decades. But the big 

problem coming along, and the issue for baby boomer women, is 

that there is going to be a major expansion of that group likely to 

live in poverty. 

The age 85 plus group is expected to double, and the numbers 

are daunting. At age 65 today there are about 6 million more 

women than men. Think of that tripling. At age 75 and older, 4 

million more women than men. At age 85, nearly 2 million more 

women than men. 

Now, everybody talks about the huge influx of women in the paid 

workforce and how it should be better in the future, but it is actually likely to be worse. At the same time that women were entering 

the workforce, the trend toward greater out-of-pocket payments for 

health care benefits and for retirement savings increased. 

We have already talked about what women earn, and half of all 

women earn less than $31,000, but the figures on net worth tell the 

story. Married households had a median net worth of about 

12

$136,000, while households headed by single women had a net 

worth of under $30,000. 

We need to find a better way to educate people. Women, along 

with their male counterparts, tend to lack basic financial knowledge, and studies show that this is often the reason for not planning for retirement or for making serious financial mistakes. We 

hear from women all the time who thank us just for giving them 

the very basics so that they don’t have a financial disaster. 

One of the stories I always like to tell is about Stan Hinden, who 

is a Washington Post financial reporter who says that the biggest 

mistake that he made, and he didn’t understand, was not choosing 

a survivor benefit for his spouse. If Stan Hinden didn’t know how 

to figure this out, people really need help on these issues. 

So women need the best information so that they do not make 

financial mistakes, and this information has to be targeted as 

spouses, as caregivers, and as employees. As policymakers, we need 

a vision to create new policies. As the distribution of wealth is so 

highly skewed, it is important for Congress to take the steps that 

will benefit a larger number of moderate-income workers. 

Many of the incentives in the retirement system are not being 

utilized. The number of people who contribute the maximum to 

their 401(k)’s is barely 11 percent, and the number contributing to 

IRA’s is even less. 

Social security programs should retain the income support figures on which low and moderate-income Americans most rely. Social security could also be improved by providing credits for years 

devoted to caregiving; changing divorce benefits to make sense for 

and recognize more frequent divorce; change widow’s benefits to 

make sense for two-earner families. 

I won’t repeat the suggestions, but I agree with the Saver’s Tax 

Credit, all the things that Jean said in the opening statement, but 

we also need to encourage annuities not only generally but as an 

investment and distribution option, to make sure that people keep 

that money. 

We also need to promote incentives for older workers to continue 

working, and improve the employment training programs. Most of 

all, we need to address the spiraling health care costs, including 

the cost of long-term care, by recognizing that there can be no retirement security in the absence of health reform. 

Also, employers can make it easy and financially attractive for 

employees to get their benefits as an income guaranteed for life, 

and include a survivor option. It is important for women to know 

how to hold onto their assets, because they are much more likely 

to take a lump sum and spend it before retirement. 

Women also need to make retirement planning a priority, and 

learn as much as they can about their benefits on the job and their 

spouse’s benefits, educate themselves about longevity risk, as this 

is a serious issue. Every woman we hear from who ends up running out of money will say the same thing: I never thought I would 

live this long. We look in our neighborhoods and we see people, 

aunts, sisters, who are living way beyond their expectation. Women 

of all ages need your help, but the coming generations need it most. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hounsell follows:]

13


28186.004
14


28186.005
15


28186.006
16


28186.007
17


28186.008
18


28186.009
19


28186.010
20


28186.011
21

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Cindy. 

Barbara Kennelly. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA B. KENNELLY, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO 

PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE 

Ms. KENNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

me here, Ranking Member Kohl and Senator Salazar and my dear 

friend Senator Carper. I am honored to be here this morning. 

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is a grassroots organization of 4.6 million members and supporters. Our mission is to advocate for issues that affect the quality 

of life for American retirees. I have outlined the critical role that 

social security plays in our retirement, especially for women, in my 

written testimony. This morning I would like to focus on seniors 

and employment. 

As you know, we hear it constantly, we stand on the eve of the 

baby boomer retirements. According to the Census Bureau, almost 

8,000 people a day will turn age 60 just through 2006. As we live 

longer and healthier lives, many workers expect to continue working well into their retirement years. 

Surveys, including one just released by AARP, show that more 

than two-thirds of today’s older workers and 80 percent of baby 

boomers plan to work in retirement, yet a report released by the 

Census Bureau just last week shows that the reality is quite different. While nearly half of all men over age 65 were working in 

the 1950’s, that number has dropped to one in five in 2003. Only 

10 percent of women have kept working after 65, and that has been 

consistent over the last two decades. 

Nationwide, over 40 percent of the United States workforce will 

be eligible to retire over the next 5 years, and over one-half of employers believe this will lead to a workforce shortage, yet only 14 

percent of employers have any kind of formal program to retrain 

or attract older workers. Although employers understand the value 

of a stable and experienced workforce, the cost of employing older 

workers is a pervasive concern. Not only do they have higher salaries because of their long service with the employer, but the cost 

of their health care and pension benefits is also higher than that 

of younger workers. 

On the employee side, assuming the worker is healthy and financially secure enough to have a choice, the top three priorities for 

older workers are health care coverage, continued participation in 

the retirement system, and the ability to strike a balance between 

work and home. As you can see, some of the same items employers 

find most burdensome are the employees’ highest priorities. Unless 

this conflict is resolved, I believe the clash between older workers’ 

expectations and reality will continue. 

That is why I find the proposals such as Senator Kohl’s Older 

Worker Opportunity Act extremely helpful. The centerpiece of his 

bill acknowledges the desire of older workers to have a better balance between work and home by providing a tax benefit for employers who allow them to work part time, and he addresses the concerns of both parties by helping subsidize the cost of allowing these 

older workers to continue receiving health care benefits and particiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:15 Jul 25, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\28186.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
22

pate in company pension plans. By addressing the concerns of both 

parties to the employment equation, I believe this bill could help 

pave the way for significant increases in older worker employment. 

Another provision in the bill which I know you have worked on, 

Mr. Chairman, is the creation of an interagency task force to review impediments to keeping older workers employed. This provision is a critical first step toward identifying the legal and administrative road blocks to senior employment. It is the pension bill currently in conference, and I certainly hope that it is retained. 

Mr. Chairman, as our society ages, the need to keep older workers employed will become a much higher priority for both workers 

and employees. Unless we can significantly increase the resources 

women have when they retire, they need to continue to keep working or we can reach a crisis. 

Now is the time to explore the impediments for senior employment and begin removing them. This hearing is, in and of itself, 

an important step in highlighting the problem, and I believe the 

bills such as the Older Worker Opportunity Act are good first steps 

toward achieving that goal. 

I was in Congress from 1982 to 1998, and we looked at many of 

these issues starting back then. But, as you know, in 1983 we also 

were faced with a crisis in Social Security which we solved for decades. As a result of that effort, it is the only program that has a 

surplus right now. The challenges of an aging society are not new. 

Some of these things, Senator Kohl and Senator Smith, that you 

are talking about, I worked on years ago. 

We did raise the retirement age as part of our solution. I have 

a daughter that was born in 1960. She won’t get her social security 

until age 67. But we cannot continue to raise the retirement age 

indefinitely. What we need to do is address the fact, and I am Exhibit A, that older women can continue to work, but we have to 

make sure that the laws provide protection and the ability to keep 

working. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kennelly follows:]

23


28186.012
24


28186.013
25


28186.014
26

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. That was excellent. 

Jack VanDerhei. 

STATEMENT OF JACK VanDERHEI, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, 

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE FELLOWS 

PROGRAM 

Mr. VANDERHEI. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kohl, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

I have been asked to discuss gender disparity with respect to employer retirement plans and social security. 

Most of the points that I had made in my written testimony with 

respect to those who have already retired, have already been made 

by previous comments by the Senators this morning. So if you don’t 

mind, I will just skip ahead to gender disparities in retirement program participation among current workers. 

Although there is certainly a substantial amount of gender disparity among those already age 65 with respect to those receiving 

pension income, as has been mentioned earlier, it appears that this 

disparity will decrease sharply and for some worker types actually 

reverse. For example, in 1987, 40.7 percent of female wage and salary workers ages 21 to 64 participated in an employment-based retirement plan, compared with 51 percent by males, but by 2004 

that gap had decreased from 10.3 percentage points down to only 

3.7 percentage points. 

But if you look at where most of the retirement income is probably going to come from in the future, 401(k) plans, there are still 

many gender disparities. For example, there is a higher participation rate among those that are eligible. Males tend to participate 

5.2 percentage points more than females. When they do contribute, 

they contribute a larger percentage of their compensation, .4 percent of compensation more for males than females, but by and 

large these differences are explained by income disparities among 

the genders. 

While all the previous material documented all these different 

component parts of the accumulation process while you are still 

working, working toward retirement income, I would submit that 

the real question from a public policy perspective should be whether both current and future retirees will be able to afford an adequate standard of living in retirement, which reflects many of the 

previous comments. 

EBRI’s unique analysis models what percentage of retirees will 

have sufficient retirement income wealth to pay for a basket of 

non-luxury goods. We are not talking about replacing a particular 

portion of your pre-retirement income. We are talking about expenses that the elderly incur from a basic need or want of daily 

life, in addition to those that are exclusively health-related events, 

such as admission to a nursing care home, that are going to occur 

occasionally if ever for many retirees. 

So if I could turn your attention to Figure 8 on the chart, you 

will see a large number of percentages for various birth cohorts. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’m sorry. What is Figure 8? 

Mr. VANDERHEI. Figure 8, are you able to see? Figure 8 is referring to the overall percentages of compensation that individuals are 

going to need to save while they are working, to be able to afford 

27

adequate retirement income for basic expenses in retirement, plus 

potential health care expenses, 75 percent of the time. 

The point that we are trying to make here is that these are percentages of compensation that individuals would need to save every 

year from now until the time they actually retire. Even more importantly, this is compensation they would need to save in addition 

to what they are already putting away in 401(k) plans, to what employers are already putting away on their behalf in 401(k), if they 

have defined benefit, and the social security income under status 

quo. 

There are four very important points to take away from this 

analysis. First, the median individuals in these graphs that are on 

the verge of retirement, so people who are on the left-hand side of 

that graph, have little chance of saving a sufficient amount of 

money to achieve this definition of retirement security unless they 

are very high- income, unless they are in the highest 25 percent. 

But, second, the results improve substantially for most groups as 

you move to the right of the chart, to the younger birth cohorts, 

because obviously the longer you are able to accumulate these monies, the more you are going to have for retirement. 

Third, for each age group, the higher income individuals need to 

save a significantly lower percentage of their income for retirement 

security. Again, this is because we are dealing with retirement security, not simply a specific replacement ratio target. 

But probably most importantly for today’s hearing, for every 

age/income quartile that is displayed in those graphs, single 

females would have to contribute significantly more than single 

males to achieve the same level of retirement security. Oftentimes 

that is going to be due to such things as already mentioned: increasing longevity for females, and the fact that overall they tend 

to earn less than males during their working careers. 

Now, if that is not depressing enough, Figure 9, which is the 

same type of analysis, but instead of focusing on just having 

enough retirement income such that three chances out of four, you 

will have enough income during your retirement, this increases it 

up to 9 chances out of 10. As you will see, all the various contribution rates that would be required for the individuals are going to 

increase. 

In conclusion, I would just like to turn to the last figure, which 

is highlighting analysis which we just completed last week for 

EBRI to try and deal with the whole concept of pension freezes. As 

I am sure you are aware, many large corporations within the last 

few months have terminated their defined benefit plans and substituted in their place 401(k) plans. 

What we have done at EBRI is go back and simulate, for all defined benefit participants currently holding these plans, what 

would need to be contributed on an annual basis as a percentage 

of their compensation to actually financially indemnify them for the 

pensions that they would otherwise have received. 

We have broken it down by two different types of plans that you 

may be familiar with, career average plans and final average plans. 

Final average plans tend to look at only the last few years of compensation you have with an employer; career average is spread 

over the entire time that you are with the employer. We have done 

28

two different types of rates of return. On the left-hand side you 

have 4 percent; on the right-hand side you have 8 percent. 

The point being, there are substantial amounts of additional 

compensation that would need to be contributed, whether from the 

employer, whether from a combination of employer and employee, 

to indemnify them for the benefits that they are no longer going 

to be accruing under the defined benefit plans. The one good news, 

though, is that because females do have a tendency to have lower 

tenure with an employer, they do tend to lose less as a result of 

these pension freezes. In fact, in every one of the cases we have 

simulated, at least the amounts that they are going to have to contribute will be slightly less. 

So I appreciate the opportunity to share this information with 

the committee, and look forward to assisting you in your important 

role with additional research in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. VanDerhei follows:]

29


28186.015
30


28186.016
31


28186.017
32


28186.018
33


28186.019
34


28186.020
35


28186.021
36


28186.022
37


28186.023
38


28186.024
39


28186.025
40


28186.026
41


28186.027
42


28186.028
43


28186.029
44


28186.030
45


28186.031
46

The CHAIRMAN. Jack, I guess we all chuckle that you are finding 

a silver lining in that black cloud. The point is well taken, but it 

is tragic that the black cloud is there. 

First of all, we really appreciate the very insightful testimony 

each of you have given. But probably all of us in our lives have had 

a relative who is in a worst case circumstance. 

I am thinking specifically of a sister-in-law who was married for 

20 years and had three children. Her husband was an independent 

contractor selling insurance and securities. I think she often just 

did clerical work, and I don’t think any withholdings were ever 

made for her. The marriage broke up. She is now in another relationship—a part-time bus driver. I doubt, as she enters her 50’s, 

she is in any way vested in Social Security or in a pension. To Barbara’s point, we have got to do whatever we can to change the law 

so she can keep working, because she just has no other prospects. 

Jean, you talked about an idea you thought might be overreaching. I wonder if you can expand on your ideas of what we 

ought to do and how a woman like her might fit into those? 

Ms. CHATZKY. I don’t have a very good grasp of what the mechanism would be. I am focused a little more on the end result. 

What we know about people and saving and the fact that we 

have such a dismal savings rate right now in this country, is that 

if you can manage to get the money out of people’s hands before 

they have the opportunity to spend it, that is a good thing. Even 

small amounts of money, if they are withdrawn automatically or if 

they are deducted from paychecks automatically, or moved out of 

a checking account into a savings account automatically, all of 

those mechanisms actually work to help people put something 

away for the future. 

So in trying to come up with a solution for people who are not 

in corporations or other employment situations that would help 

them save something for the future, I just sort of started thinking 

about the IRS and Social Security and other organizations that do 

have a hand in the pot already. If there were any way, as political 

contributions are sometimes taken out of tax filings, to enable people to just check a box and put something small away for the future, it may motivate them to help them save something more in 

years to come. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a good idea. Maybe we will add it to the 

bill. Because, I despair for this woman, and I know too many like 

her in rural places—that just utterly are unprepared for being 

alone and having any income. 

Ms. CHATZKY. Right, and people don’t think that they can save 

until they actually try it, until they actually accomplish it. Then 

they think that they can do a little more, but it is a little like a 

diet. You need to sort of see those initial results before you feel 

that you are actually able to tackle the next five pounds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator Kohl? 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Ms. Kennelly. I appreciate 

very much your support of the legislation that I have introduced 

with Senators Cochran and Durbin, called, as you know, the Older 

Worker Opportunity Act, which would help older Americans work 

longer if they choose and remove barriers that make it harder for 

them to do so. 

47

You noted in your testimony the importance of work as the new 

fourth leg of today’s retirement stool. Could you elaborate just a little more on why you think expanded work opportunities are particularly important for older women? 

Ms. KENNELLY. Well, I think, Senator, as I said in my testimony, 

we are living longer, but fortunately many of us are living 

healthier lives, so that we can work beyond the age we used to 

work at. When I hear cases like the one you mentioned Senator 

Smith, I feel terrible. But you need to know that is an unusual 

case. Most people who have worked are covered by Social Security 

because they pay throughout their working lives. Yours is an unfortunate and very rare case. 

But the fact of the matter is, while social security is extremely 

important to women, it’s not perfect. It is a very moderate program, 

and if you are living on social security alone you are not living a 

huge wonderful life. You are living on the basics. 

So women want to work longer, but it’s hard to because of the 

barriers. For example, we have laws that say if you retire from a 

particular company and you want to stay at that company part 

time, you can’t be part of the pension plan. You have to get out of 

that company. In your bill I think you address this, that we can 

have part-time work and have benefits. 

Another thing I love about your bill is that you include tax incentives to encourage companies to offer benefits for health care and 

benefits for retirement so we’re be able to keep the older person 

working. As we see in all the studies, people who are 65 and older, 

they want to work but they don’t want to work full time. Let me 

tell you something, women have to work. 

So if your bill was to become legislation, employers would be 

much more willing to keep people on part time, and that is a big, 

big advantage for an older worker. Not everybody, as they get 

older, can work full time. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much. 

Cindy Hounsell, in your testimony you recommend encouraging 

annuities in defined contribution plans, expanding the Saver’s 

Credit, and promoting incentives for older workers to continue 

working. For any or all three of these recommendations, could you 

elaborate on what proposals seem promising to you? 

Ms. HOUNSELL. You mean existing proposals or—well, I think 

there are a number of bills out there that actually provide tax incentives for people to purchase annuities. I think one of the problems is that people just don’t understand how annuities work. 

You know, we see that, that every time there is a lump sum opportunity, people just take that money because they think they 

need it in their hands, and then as soon as they get it, they don’t 

know what to do with it. They are either looking for somebody else 

to manage it or where to put it. So I think, you know, having it 

become an option that people have on the job, and get some education from employers, is crucial. 

I mean, I would just like to add to what Jean said. Recently I 

was talking to someone and they said, ‘‘You know, what we need 

is a campaign, because in the 1980’s when the first IRAs were deductible for everyone, if you can remember those times, I myself, 

personally I would have never started an IRA, but everybody was 

48

talking about it.’’ ‘‘You’ve got to do this. You’ve got to do this.’’ ‘‘I 

don’t have $2,000.’’ ‘‘Well, you have to put something in.’’ 

We need something like that right now, to get so that everybody 

is talking about you have to do this, even if it is only for a year. 

We just need something to get people talking about how to do it. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This was 

a very good panel. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me thank you as well. You have each contributed to our understanding, and highlighted many of the things 

Senator Kohl and I are trying to do in different bills that will help 

improve the situation. Your testimony, and obviously C–SPAN covering it, is important and we hope that your wise counsel will encourage more provident living and people making choices in their 

lives that will provide for their retirement and not their poverty. 

So thank you so very much, and with that we will call up our next 

panel. 

Ms. KENNELLY. Senator Smith and Senator Kohl, we thank you, 

because we can’t do it. You can. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you helped us do it. 

Our next panel will consist of three women: Ms. Karyne Jones, 

who is president and chief executive officer of the National Caucus 

and Center on Black Aged, Inc. Ms. Jones’ testimony will focus on 

the challenges minority women face preparing for retirement. 

Then Ms. Sara Hart, the director of Corporate Benefits at CNF 

Service Company in Portland, OR, and as my constituent I doubly 

welcome you here. Ms. Hart will discuss the role that employers 

play in helping women prepare for retirement. 

Ms. Lynn Rollins is a senior advisor on Women’s Issues to New 

York Governor Pataki. Ms. Rollins will discuss her personal story 

of widowhood and the challenges she has faced. 

We thank each of you for being here. Karyne, the microphone is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF KARYNE JONES, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE NATIONAL CAUCUS AND CENTER 

ON BLACK AGED, INC. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you very much, Senator. Senators, it is a 

pleasure for me to be here. The National Caucus and Center on 

Black Aged is pleased to testify before this committee on the special challenges of women preparing for financial security in retirement. NCBA has a 36-year history of focusing our efforts on improving the quality of life for elderly, low-income minorities in this 

country. 

Retirement planning is important for everyone, but it is especially important and challenging for minority women. Minority 

women are less likely to work in jobs covered by pensions. Only 15 

percent of black and 8 percent of Hispanic older women received 

pension incomes in 2000. For those working today, 38 percent of 

black women, 26 percent of Hispanic women, and 38 percent of 

Asian/Pacific Islander women are covered by a pension plan. This 

rate drops sharply when looking at part-time workers: 11 percent 

of black women, 7 percent of Hispanic, and 10 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander women are covered in pension plans. 

49

Despite the overall decline in poverty rates among older Americans during the last several decades, many older women remain 

poor. Approximately 12.4 percent of women age 65 and older are 

poor, compared to 7 percent of men in this age group, and the likelihood of a woman being poor in retirement increases with age. 

The poverty rate for single black women over the age of 65 is 

41.5 percent, and for a single Hispanic woman it is 49.2 percent. 

twice the rate of white women. The reality is that many women 

rely on social security as their primary source of income for their 

retirement. In fact, social security is the only source of retirement 

income for 45 percent of unmarried black women and 46 percent 

of unmarried Hispanic women over the age of 65. The problem is 

that social security is not designed to be the retiree’s sole source 

of income, but instead was meant to provide only a bare minimum 

of protection. 

We understand the current push for Americans to save. However, 

women’s lower earnings often leave them with few resources to invest. Women usually have little or no money left to save for retirement after paying their bills. Furthermore, the current generation 

of elderly women of all races has little in the way of savings and 

investment for their retirement. In fact, half of all unmarried older 

women have less than $1,278 a year in asset income, which is only 

about $106 a month. 

Now, it is our hope that women would in fact start to save 

money, because on an average they live about 4 years longer than 

men. Therefore, they will need more money to support themselves. 

However, older women are also more likely to have higher expenses 

for health care and prescription drugs. 

Unfortunately, women average lower earnings and spend more 

time out of the workforce for caregiving, which all of our previous 

panelists have mentioned. In return, this makes it more difficult 

for women to save the amounts needed for retirement, much less 

have the resources to make later contributions. 

Experts are projecting that by the year 2050 there will be at 

least five times more minority women and men ages 65 and older, 

and about 13 times more who are aged 85 and older. Minority populations are also living longer, and minority women will comprise 

larger percentages of older populations in the years ahead. 

Minority women with limited work histories or who have lived on 

the margin economically, the retirement picture looks particularly 

bleak. For example, minority women who might have worked in domestic capacities or were day laborers probably did not earn 

enough money to contribute to a personal savings account and certainly did not have a pension plan. 

Women overall have made many financial improvements over the 

past 25 years, and some are finding reason for optimism, but a recent survey of African American women on behalf of the Fannie 

Mae Foundation suggests that while half of African American 

women are struggling to make ends meet, they are optimistic that 

their financial situation will improve over the next year. 

Younger minority women who spend many more years in the 

workforce and in higher-paid jobs will most likely be able to save 

and plan for a financially secure old age. Most women, though, regardless of race or ethnicity, will need to plan carefully in order to 

50

deal with the risk of outliving their assets, and to manage carefully 

to cover the high cost of health care and longer life spans. 

NCBA has focused our attention on educating young people on 

preparing old age in hopes of addressing these concerns. One of the 

things that I always say to young people when I speak to them is 

that aging is not just old people; aging is all of us if we are blessed 

with a long life. 

The harsh reality remains that as long as most minority women 

earn less money than other women and men and have fewer opportunities to save, they will have less retirement income and face the 

highest risk of poverty in old age. Some of the suggestions that we 

would like to give you—and we also commend the bill that you are 

working on, Senator Kohl, and the efforts that you have made, Senator—many improvements can be made by policymakers to provide 

low-income minority women with greater retirement security. 

Some of the pension reform proposals currently under consideration by lawmakers that could enhance women’s retirement security include increasing pension coverage for lower-wage, part-time, 

and temporary workers; increasing survivor benefits; making pension division upon divorce more equitable for women; and giving 

women credit for caregiving. 

As society, we have an obligation to provide older women with 

the opportunity to live out their later years with adequate resources that will lead to a dignified retirement. However, as long 

as most minority women earn less money than other women and 

men and have fewer opportunities to save, they will have less retirement income and face the highest risk of poverty in their old 

age. 

I thank you for this opportunity, and we hope that we can work 

together on this very, very important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]

51


28186.032
52


28186.033
53


28186.034
54

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Karyne. Just a question that is on 

my mind, so I don’t forget it in my old age. You talk about how 

pensions are divided at divorce? Generally, what would the split 

be? Are women getting less than half? 

Ms. JONES. In most cases. I don’t have my statistics right in front 

of me, but I am a victim of that. I was married for 25 years and 

didn’t work for about 15 of those, and so I am in a catch-up phase. 

When we did go for a divorce, he had done some other things with 

the retirement and they hadn’t gotten my permission, and when 

they did divide it up, he ended up getting more than I did. 

Fortunately, I am able to work, and I am able to still be able to 

take care of myself, and I am playing catch-up right now, and I am 

worried about my financial security. But to take it away from the 

personal attention on me, for the women that I represent with my 

organization, they don’t even have the benefit of that. Usually they 

just want to get out of the marriage for whatever reason. 

The CHAIRMAN. There may not even be a pension to split. 

Ms. JONES. There might not even be a pension to split. 

The CHAIRMAN. But to the degree there is, do you think courts 

are mindful of this issue? 

Ms. JONES. I would hope that we could look very carefully at the 

laws to determine that there is—I know in the military they are 

very, you know, judicial in that fashion. But I have to check. I don’t 

want to make a statement on the record that——

The CHAIRMAN. No, your comment just raises a question. 

Although divorce is governed by State law, maybe we need to put 

in some directives as it relates to some of the Federal matters. Perhaps there is something we could do. 

Ms. JONES. Well, I have got a lot of upset friends who have been 

through this process, and they don’t feel they got a fair shake. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. 

Sara, thanks for coming all the way from Oregon. 

STATEMENT OF SARA COLE HART, DIRECTOR, CORPORATE 

BENEFITS, CNF SERVICES COMPANY 

Ms. HART. Thank you very much, Senator Smith and Ranking 

Member Kohl. Sheridan, OR, to be precise, a small town. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important issue of the special 

challenges of retirement facing women. 

Some of the testimony from the Senators and from the other presenters has been very powerful, and I don’t want to take up this 

time to go over some of the issues that we all pretty much concur 

on: that women live longer; they are subject to greater risk in retirement; they have interrupted, noncontiguous work; by living 

longer, they are more subject to the risk of losing their earnings 

to inflation; and particularly the risk of higher medical bills, longterm care issues, and the issue of not being able to live independently. 

We think that the power of government taking action to establish 

a national retirement policy, partnered with private employers, can 

change millions of lives. I want to spend a few minutes talking 

about the recommendations that we have from the employer side 

to help women and other retirees throughout their career and 

through the retirement process. 

55

First and foremost from where we stand is to support and encourage education, including a financial curriculum, as early as primary school. In order for employers to grow the economy and 

achieve optimal productivity, employers must have an available resource of educated, talented individuals. Addressing the retirement 

issues facing women must begin as early as possible in order to 

mitigate the lost opportunities by the lack of a strong education. 

We encourage that the EGTRRA pension retirement savings provisions be made permanent, permitting Americans to save more in 

employer plans and in IRAs. EGTRRA provides significant administrative relief to employers who sponsor plans and enhances the 

portability among the various plans. 

Women are particularly benefited by the Saver’s Credit, which 

assists low-income savers, and also by the catch-up contributions 

that permit older workers to save more. This is, of course, if those 

individuals have the money to save in the retirement plans. 

Federal income tax code discourages saving. Savings opportunities must be simplified and incentivized for savings to be established. Employers are particularly constrained by cumbersome pension and benefit regulations imposed by the IRC, ERISA—the erosion of ERISA protection—and the ADEA. Employers need flexibility in age and service eligibility to maintain retirement benefits. 

Women covered by employer plans will benefit from the transition from defined benefit to defined contribution plans because the 

structure of a defined contribution plan supports savings accumulation in earlier years of employment and generally will vest earlier. 

We urge Congress to promote the establishment of a 401(k) type 

benefit at a Federal level or at least simplify the various 401(k) 

type plans to make it easier for employers to sponsor those plans. 

Additionally, there are several proposals in play right now that 

could have the potential to undermine the chance of individuals 

achieving a successful retirement. To balance these proposals, we 

urge the following: 

We urge Congress to help employers and individuals attain some 

kind of annuity which assists in the protection of income during 

one’s lifetime. Lump sum payments often jeopardize income security, especially for women who live longer. 

Second, we urge you not to support proposals that make it easier 

for active employees to take money out of their retirement savings 

programs for any reason. Employees have historically understood 

that defined benefit plan accumulations were not available for preretirement expenses. Defined contribution assets should be treated 

the same way. 

We also encourage the Senate not to adopt the House-sponsored 

benefit for distributing retirement income to military reservists, as 

this is a short-term proposition that could have long-term, significant negative effects for our military personnel. 

We urge you to strengthen rules permitting a rollover from an 

employer-sponsored plan to an eligible IRA or other qualified retirement plan, and increase disincentives for taking distributions 

prior to retirement. 

Early on, when 401(k) plans were established, defined benefit 

plans were the rule, and it was deemed necessary for employers to 

offer loans, hardship withdrawals, and other withdrawals to enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:15 Jul 25, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\28186.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
56

courage participation in a 401(k) plan. Now, with the transition to 

defined contribution plans as a primary retirement savings vehicle 

offered by employers, and the prevalence of the defined contribution plans, we must curtail loans, withdrawals, hardship withdrawals, and other mechanisms that allow people to borrow against 

their retirement savings. Curtailment of these types of withdrawals 

is crucial, and education about the adverse effects of early withdrawals is essential. 

We urge support of the auto enrollment process and auto increases in a 401(k) plan, encourage and support establishing a safe 

harbor for employers that provide those automatic benefits. 

Employers need 404(c) relief. We urge the DOL to affirm permissible asset classes and investment types for default investments in 

the 401(k) plans. 

Employers need a fiduciary safe harbor for employers who select 

qualified independent investment advisors to assist workers. Education, and particularly financial education, is extremely important 

for an individual to be able to accumulate retirement savings. Tax 

advice and investment advice is invaluable. 

We also encourage promotion of changes to ERISA, the tax code 

and the labor code that simplify and permit more flexibility. There 

are so many required notices that even participants don’t pay attention, and many of the required notices are no longer either important or applicable. 

We support expanded benefit statements and the DOL web site 

for retirement planning, and encourage simplified 5500 and other 

Federal reporting. 

Employers recognize that the defined benefit system is in serious 

financial trouble and jeopardizes the pension benefits for millions 

of people. The PBGC obviously has a substantial deficit. However, 

the concept of insurance in the PBGC is truly broken, and the few 

DB plan sponsors that are left among employers are required to 

pay higher premiums, submit to substantial administrative, accounting, reporting and funding changes that make it much more 

difficult to sponsor a defined benefit plan. The increased volatility 

produced by the combination of reduced smoothing and elimination 

or restriction of credit balances are further disincentives for employers to continue to sponsor DB plans. 

Employers would like to see a resolution in the social security 

funding issues. Benefits sponsored by employers as a share of 

workers’ earnings are expected to decline. Medicare premiums, 

which are subtracted from social security benefits, as we know, 

have already begun to be means tested. That is rolling out next 

year. Social security benefits could be further reduced or have a 

risk of being further reduced to solve short-term funding crises. 

We urge elimination of the rules and incentives that discourage 

employees from continuing to work beyond retirement age. The current social security system contains many benefits that must be 

maintained and strengthened, including the full cost-of-living adjustments, guaranteed lifetime benefits, a progressive benefit formula, and spousal, disability, and widow’s benefits. Social security 

improvements must maintain these guaranteed benefits and consider them equity of pension benefits and retirement security for 

women. 

57

We also support social security credits for time spent as a nonpaid caregiver, and we propose that this could be funded by means 

testing for wealthier retirees. Consider a type of retirement account 

open to people without earned income so that caregivers could hold 

something in their own names. 

We encourage the implementation of phased retirement programs, and particularly Senator Kohl’s proposals. Currently retirement programs, defined benefit programs, defined contribution programs, do not allow an individual to take down or draw down their 

pension plan while they are working for their current employer, so 

this is a talent drain for employers. In addition, what it really 

forces employees to do is go work for somebody else when they 

want to use phased retirement, if they need to get part of their retirement income. 

Recognize that the traditional concept of retirement is changing 

from the work, save, and retire model and being replaced by a life 

style change. Gradual transition keeps talent in the workforce and 

helps employers retain productive, educated workers while they are 

transitioning to retirement with lower hours and reduced responsibility. Seasoned employees want to continue to make a difference. 

We support regulations that eliminate the confusion and allow for 

the establishment of phased retirement. 

Employers are also looking to Congress to affirm established 

precedent in hybrid plans, as well as settle the issues surrounding 

hybrid plans on a prospective basis. 

Women face special challenges in finding a new job, a career, an 

employment path, and maintaining a place in the workforce to become economically self-sufficient. Congress must support maximization of ongoing training opportunities that balance the retirement 

of a modern workforce with the income, civic, family and social 

needs of individuals. Tax incentives for employers to hire and train 

women returning to the workforce are undoubtedly a win-win cause 

and a solution to the under-utilization of women’s talent. 

Today, with so much attention focused on the issue of retirement 

and pension reform, we have a meaningful and powerful opportunity to strengthen, not strangle, employer-sponsored retirement 

systems, thereby offering stability to women and other workers. 

Thank you for having me today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hart follows:]

58


28186.035
59


28186.036
60


28186.037
61


28186.038
62


28186.039
63


28186.040
64


28186.041
65


28186.042
66


28186.043
67


28186.044
68


28186.045
69

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Sara. Those are many excellent 

ideas, some of which we have in our bills, and maybe some we 

ought to add to them. 

Lynn Rollins. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN ROLLINS, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR 

WOMEN’S ISSUES TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR PATAKI 

Ms. ROLLINS. Do I recommend legislation to keep men alive 

longer first or last? 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Kohl, thank you very much 

for inviting me to testify. I am one of the many faces of widowhood. 

I always did what I was told to do. 

I grew up, I got good grades. When I asked my father for guidance in college, he said to major in what I loved. My purpose in 

being there was to be a well-educated housewife. I married. I 

wasn’t too old. I produced beautiful and healthy children, one of 

each sex. I did not fight with my mother-in-law. 

My first job in New York City was as a computer programmer 

and then I became a systems analyst. I was capable of taking care 

of myself. I gave up working when my first child was born, and I 

then moved cross-country four times and did five kitchens from 

scratch. During this time I accumulated 13 years of zeros in my social security average. 

When I was 44 and my husband was 47, he was diagnosed with 

cancer and I was told he had 2 weeks to live. At that point we had 

one child about to go to college and one in high school. I lived in 

an affluent community in Westchester County, and my husband 

had $125,000 worth of life insurance. He was a marathon runner 

and he had not thought about mortality. 

We were very lucky. He lived almost 4 years, and though our 

savings were depleted by the end of those years, the company he 

worked for changed insurance carriers during that time and he had 

a one-time opportunity, without a physical, to buy more life insurance. In addition, the company he worked for did not put him on 

disability for over 3 years. 

Two years after his death, with my children’s permission, I 

moved into New York City and because I was lonely, I went back 

to school. I took financial planning courses and ended up taking 

the national exam to become a Certified Financial Planner. As I 

was taking these classes, I was horrified, one, that I wasn’t left a 

multimillionaire and, two, that I looked back at some of our mistakes. I want to note that my husband was an Ivy League graduate 

and he was fiscally very conservative. He didn’t know any more 

than I knew. 

What were a few of our worst mistakes? Well, we lived in Texas 

during the oil crisis, when property values were falling 11⁄2 percent 

per month. So when we had to move back East, in order to buy a 

house for us my husband cashed in his 401(k). I remember writing 

a check to the government for $125,000 worth of taxes, but I had 

no idea what I had just done. We didn’t know that if you pay your 

own disability premium, the money comes to you tax-free. I now 

know that more people need disability during their lifetime than 

life insurance. 

70

We clearly had no idea about the adequate amount of life insurance. One woman I know whose husband dropped dead on the golf 

course was told by her husband’s lawyers to take her life insurance 

money and flee to Florida. She had signed a loan against her home 

for her husband to invest in a business, and because her name was 

on the loan, his life insurance belonged to the bank that held the 

note. What wife would not have signed that note, unaware as we 

would have been of the consequences? 

In addition, my husband worked for an investment bank for 10 

years. He had an annuity with them that they made me take as 

if he had taken it when he turned 55. My widow’s half for these 

10 years of his work is a taxable $168.31 a month. I did receive 

a $250 death benefit from social security and nothing more, because my youngest child had just turned 18. 

I had many part-time jobs over the years, but it was a completely 

different world trying to go back into the workforce. Computers had 

changed in 20 years. But in that area I have been most fortunate. 

I have been working for Governor George Pataki for 11 years on 

women’s issues, and it has been extraordinarily rewarding. 

I now have interns who work for me during the summers or 

school year, who get financial planning immediately. One of them 

told me recently that she had used information I had taught her 

in a talk she gave in her college class. She said the teacher commented that she wished someone had given her that information 

at an early age. I had another intern who left her business card 

and a big note for me on my desk that said, ‘‘I have a Roth IRA 

and a 401(k). Hurrah!’’ I don’t know that I would have made different life decisions, but with more knowledge like the financial 

education program that WISER gives, my husband and I would 

have been better able to plan for our family’s future. The point is, 

I didn’t understand the decisions I was making, and more importantly, not making. 

I suppose I could say I would have been well taken care of if life 

hadn’t taken an unexpected turn, but unexpected seems to be more 

of the norm than not. Has my standard of living changed? May I 

just say that I am not making today what my husband was making 

25 years ago. 

I was married 26 years and I have been a widow already for 14, 

and I have decades more to go. The average age of widowhood in 

this country is 56, and though I was younger than that, I am only 

one of thousands of widows who are facing a retirement for which 

they did not prepare. 

On a lighter note I want to end that when you really get passionate about this, which I am, and you start talking to your children about it, and the first question you ask them when they tell 

you about a significant other is, ‘‘Are they funding their IRA?’’ you 

will get very strange looks sometimes. [Laughter.] 

I was actually very interested to know whether Senator Salazar 

was funding his 18-year-old daughter’s IRA, because she is old 

enough to start. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rollins follows:]

71


28186.046
72


28186.047
73


28186.048
74

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Lynn. Yours is both a sad story but 

also very helpful because of what you have done with your life’s 

choices. 

Ms. ROLLINS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just hope that every woman in America could 

hear what you just said. Do you have a sense of when public 

schools ought to be teaching these provident living principles? I 

mean, several witnesses have commented, I think, that our economic literacy is just appalling. 

Ms. ROLLINS. Well, you know, it is interesting because there are 

I think like 9 million high school students in this country, and of 

those 9 million, 500,000 drop out of school every year. So if you 

really want to teach everybody just a little bit about it, you clearly 

need to start it either in middle school, elementary school, or certainly before high school is finished, because otherwise there is a 

whole group of people who are probably going to be on the lower 

income level, who aren’t going to have any knowledge of it at all. 

My experience has also shown—and I have lots of anecdotes—

that men don’t know anything more than women. It is just that 

they don’t live as long and they make more money. So they need 

to be educated, too, and I would say you need to get everybody really early. 

The CHAIRMAN. I know you are not in the public school system 

in New York, but working with the Governor and as a financial 

planner concerned with women’s issues, are you aware of whether 

New York is doing anything on this in the curriculum? 

Ms. ROLLINS. I actually know that there is a Council on Economic Education that Robert Duvall is in charge of, that is trying 

to get economics taught in all of the high schools in the United 

States, and they have curriculum. It is there. 

There is also a economist in the Buffalo area who went to the 

local school board and said, ‘‘I’d like to do this program. It’s not 

going to cost you anything.’’ He put it on the internet. He paid 

teachers like $125 to come for training, and then all the teachers 

said to the students is, ‘‘This is going to count toward 20 percent 

of your grade.’’ So they all went on the internet and they went 

through this class that he had. So it didn’t cost the school system 

anything, and he actually got funding to pay for the teachers to go 

for training. 

So the curriculum is out there for people to be taught, and there 

are actually a lot of States that are beginning to require economics 

to be taught. I am not positive how much financial planning is in 

that, but it certainly is a possibility to get it. It is available. The 

curriculum is available lots of places. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just an observation from my own family life. My 

daughter did reasonably well in school, and she is now a junior at 

Brigham Young University. She recently commented to me that, 

‘‘You know, I took algebra all those years, and calculus and some 

other things.’’ She just recently got married and she said, ‘‘It 

doesn’t mean anything to me now.’’ 

I mean, I know it is good to learn for the sake of learning, but 

what she was saying is, ‘‘I wish I had had a class in just finance 

for daily life or business math, how to calculate interest, how to understand these policies that are coming in, and what compounding 

75

interest, means and what is good and what isn’t good.’’ I just think 

our Nation ought to look at some fundamentals, and not denigrating these other math courses, but how about just basic business math? 

Ms. ROLLINS. Well, and you might say that parents ought to be 

teaching their children. 

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe the parents don’t know. 

Ms. ROLLINS. But the parents don’t know it either. Sometimes I 

get interns, and I had one whose father is really pretty famous, 

and I said to her, ‘‘You tell your father to fund your IRA if you 

can’t.’’ So she went home and she said, ‘‘Dad, Lynn says you need 

to be funding my IRA.’’ But if you teach your children about compound interest, if they start at—I mean, there is that story that if 

you fund your IRA from 18 to 26 and you never fund it again, you 

will be ahead of that person who starts at 26 and funds it the 

whole rest of their life, simply because of that last 7 years of compound interest. So we need, as soon as kids start making money, 

they need to be taught to put X amount of dollars away, to begin 

saving that money. Parents don’t know, either. 

So you could begin by teaching the whole Senate, and then go to 

the House, and they should go home to their constituents. My 

daughter is actually one of your constituents. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, OK. Give her a hug for me, because I am not 

supposed to. 

Ms. ROLLINS. You are not supposed to. 

The CHAIRMAN. I won’t. 

Sara, I think I heard you say that defined contribution plans 

were in fact proving more beneficial to women. Is that true? 

Ms. HART. Two things. First of all, a defined benefit plan, which 

is generally always paid out in the form of an annuity, does benefit 

women because they live longer. However, most defined benefit 

pension plans don’t have COLAs, so the erosion of the purchasing 

power of that lifetime benefit is much more serious for women. 

The CHAIRMAN. Don’t they also tend to favor the fellows at the 

top? 

Ms. HART. Absolutely not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. 

Ms. HART. We have non-discrimination rules. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Ms. HART. As far as defined contribution plans, I think there is 

more opportunity for women who come in and out of the workforce, 

particularly because they can save—in a defined benefit plan the 

biggest part of the benefit is earned in your last 5 years of employment, so it does benefit people who stay in an employment situation for a career or a long period of time. Defined contribution 

plans are much more portable, and significant accounts can be 

built up by people who are in the work force for shorter periods of 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very good. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Ms. Rollins, how much longer do you anticipate 

you are going to have to be in the work force in order to get the 

financial security you will need to retire, and how difficult will it 

76

be for people like yourself to find that kind of work as time moves 

on in your life? 

Ms. ROLLINS. Well, it is interesting you ask that question because I am out of a job at the end of this year because the Governor is out of office. So I will let you know next year if there is 

age discrimination in the workforce. 

I would like to work, I am 63 years old now and I would like to 

work until I am 70. I am in really very good health, and I am hopeful that I will be able to find a job, but I am perfectly aware that 

there is age discrimination. So we will see what happens, but I will 

let you know soon, if you would like. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Ms. Hart, you mentioned in your testimony that women covered 

by employer plans will benefit from the shift to a 401(k) or a defined contribution plan arrangement. As you know, we need to get 

the most benefit for the buck with respect to the kinds of tax arrangements we make, and I was interested in your opinion on the 

Saver’s Credit as an important provision to help lower income 

women save. Do you feel strongly about the Saver’s Credit being 

a priority? 

Ms. HART. Absolutely. The Saver’s Credit is a huge priority and 

should be made permanent. The only problem with the Saver’s 

Credit is like an earlier witness testified: People don’t know about 

it, and if they don’t know about it, they are not going to use it. So 

even though we try in our company to educate people, it needs a 

lot more attention and a lot more communication so people understand what the effects of the credit are for people. They essentially 

can save more. It is very important. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate so much you coming and sharing your advocacy and your recommendations and obviously, Lynn, 

your very heartwarming personal story. Each of you have added 

measurably to the Senate record today, and we hope those women 

listening in might take all the good advice that you have offered 

here today. Obviously Senator Kohl and I have work to do to make 

sure these things happen, and facilitate your jobs and your future 

and your advocacy. 

So with that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MEL MARTINEZ

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking member Kohl for having this 

hearing. Planning for retirement is something that all Americans need to be engaged in, regardless of age. While there certainly are discrepancies in regards to 

earned income and retirement income between men and women, I think the focus 

of this hearing should also address a larger issue prevalent in both genders. 

Americans simply do not save enough, for retirement or otherwise. Unfortunately 

the latest survey from the Financial Services Forum paints exactly that picture. The 

report released two weeks ago indicates that more than half of all Americans (52 

percent) are worried about their retirement security. 

The poll also indicates that they are worried for good reason: 

Nearly a third of Americans saved nothing for retirement last year. 

One out of four Americans in their peak earning years, and nearing retirement 

(age 50–65), saved nothing for retirement in the last year. 

To add to this, last year was the first full year since the Depression that Americans spent more than they earned, for a negative savings rate. 

So the question that needs to be asked is: Would Americans save more if the federal government streamlined the current abundance of tax breaks for saving? A report by the president’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform suggests boiling all 

the current retirement plans into three simpler ones, all of which would be allowed 

to grow tax-free. 

Another suggestion worthy of discussion is for the government to encourage employers to automatically enroll workers in 401(k) accounts and allow them to opt out 

if they choose. Studies have shown that automatic enrollment increases workers’ 

savings amounts, especially among the younger and lower-income workers who are 

the least likely to save in the first place. 

Last week this committee had a hearing regarding the importance of long term 

care planning, an issue that is often over looked when doing overall retirement planning. Long-term care is truly a women’s issue. A typical scenario: A woman cares 

for her increasingly frail husband, eventually outliving him. She then needs care 

herself, but there’s nobody to help and she ends up in a nursing home. 

According to studies, people who spend years in a nursing home tend to be single, 

female, over age 80 and suffering from dementia. Their spouses have died and they 

don’t have family support, so they are unable to live independently. This highlights 

the need to consider these scenarios while constructing an overall retirement plan 

and it is why I am a cosponsor of legislation, S 1706 by Senator Allen, that would 

allow individuals to use their 401(k), and 403(b) plans to purchase long-term care 

insurance with pretax dollars at any age and without early withdrawal penalty. 

Under this legislation, the consumer has the option to purchase long-term care 

insurance at the most appropriate levels for their own needs and their spouses. Congress should also consider providing a tax credit to individuals who purchase long 

term care insurance, as Chairman Smith and others have proposed. I hope that both 

of these proposals as well as retirement security legislation will soon get consideration in the Finance committee. 

All of these ideas need to be considered as we look for ways to increase personal 

saving while also addressing our complex tax code. I look forward to hearing the 

panelists hear today, and I ask that my remarks be included in the record. Thank 

you.

78


28186.049
79


28186.050
80


28186.051
81


28186.052
82


28186.053
83


28186.054
84


28186.055
85


28186.056
86


28186.057
87


28186.058
88


28186.059
89


28186.060
90


28186.061
91


28186.062
92


28186.063
93


28186.064
94


28186.065
95


28186.066
96


28186.067
97


28186.068
98


28186.069
99


28186.070
100


28186.071
101


28186.072
102


28186.073
103


28186.074
104


28186.075
105


28186.076
106


28186.077
107


28186.078
108


28186.079
109


28186.080
110


28186.081
111


28186.082
112

Æ


28186.083