Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

[GAO-02-85 ] Older Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and Workers , Part 2/2

0 views

Skip to first unread message

in...@www.gao.gov

unread,

Nov 28, 2001, 6:30:51 AM11/28/01

have pension benefits start even though he or she continues to work. 30
These programs also include other pension plan revisions as well. At the
state level, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Ohio have all adopted
incentives for older teachers to stay on the job rather than retire.

A growing number of state and local public employers have implemented, or
are considering implementing, DROP pension features as incentives to
encourage older employees to remain on the job. 31 Although employers have
used these for other public employees like firefighters or law enforcement
personnel, many have focused on the retention of elementary and secondary
public school teachers. For example, Arkansas has a DROP program in which
all teachers who meet length- of- service requirements can have 70 percent
of their monthly pension payments deposited into an account that is payable
as a lump sum along with other options for payment. 32 Teachers can stay in
the DROP program for up to 10 years. The state also allows teachers who are
eligible for retirement to draw their full pension and a full salary if they
work in one of four subject areas deemed to have a critical shortage of
teachers (math, science, foreign language, and special education) and if
they separate from employment for 30 days. 33

Louisiana has a variety of programs to encourage older teachers to stay on
the job, and 4,300 teachers participated in them last year. The DROP

30 Under a DROP, instead of paying a pension benefit directly to the
participant, it is placed in a separate account in the individual?s name.
This individual account is also invested so that when the participant ceases
employment and accepts retirement, he or she receives the accumulated
account balance in addition to the ongoing pension benefit. DROPs allow a
pension participant, generally for a fixed maximum period, to have his or
her pension benefits start on a particular date even though he or she
continues to work with the employer providing the pension. After that
period, either the participant is expected to retire or the pension payments
stop until the participant actually retires. By allowing a pension
participant to gain access to or be credited with pension benefits while
still working, DROPs remove a key incentive for older workers to retire.

31 One organization of public employers identified over 20 public entities
using DROPs. DROP programs are not always established with the intention of
extending workers careers. In some cases, DROP programs are used
specifically to get people to retire at a certain age. This type of DROP
program has been used for police and firefighters in Florida.

32 The Arkansas program was not started with the intention of encouraging
older teachers to stay on the job even though it has served that purpose. 33
States can set their own length of time for what constitutes a break in
service before someone returns to work and draws salary and pension payments
before the pension plan?s normal retirement age. The length of time for a
break in service is supposed to constitute a clear separation of employment.
States have chosen different time periods to meet this requirement.

Page 29 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

program has been popular among the teachers because they can earn a lump sum
in the range of $70,000 to $80, 000 in 3 years. Two- thirds of eligible
teachers participate in the DROP program and may participate for up to 3
years, after which they can continue working and will resume earning pension
credits in their defined benefit system. The myriad of other Louisiana
programs established to retain or attract retired teachers are being phased
out and replaced with one program that allows retired teachers to earn their
full pension while continuing to teach after a 12month break in service.

Some public employers are using other pension incentives to retain teachers.
For example, facing a projected shortfall of 300,000 teachers over the next
decade, the California legislature enacted several measures modifying the
state teacher pension plan to encourage older teachers to continue to work.
Starting in 2001, teachers who retire and then separate from employment for
1 year can return to teaching and earn a full salary while continuing to
receive full pension payments. In addition, pension benefits have been
enhanced in 3 ways: a longevity bonus of up to $400 per month has been added
for 30 to 32 years of service; a 0.2 percent addition to the pension benefit
has been granted for each year beyond 30 years of service; and 2 percent of
salary is paid into a supplemental retirement account which is then payable
as a lump sum. 34

Nearly 10 percent (17,000 teachers) of Ohio?s teaching workforce consists of
rehired retirees. Ohio teachers can draw a full salary and full pension
benefits after a 2- month break in service. This provision also applies to
other Ohio public employees in the event of a future shortage of employees.

Internal Revenue Code requirements regarding pensions may discourage private
employers from adopting DROP plans and other programs that could encourage
workers to extend their employment after retirement eligibility. In 2000,
the ERISA Advisory Council identified current ERISA and IRC regulations that
could constrain private employers in implementing flexible employment
arrangements, including regulations

34 This supplement does not reduce the benefit paid by the defined benefit
pension plan. All participants that are covered by the pension plan are
receiving this supplement, not only older teachers. Federal Regulations May

Inhibit Private Employer Use of DROP Plans

Page 30 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

prohibiting in- service distributions of defined benefit pension benefits
and rules governing nondiscrimination. 35

Pension regulations prohibiting in- service pension benefit distributions
can discourage the employer?s formation of DROP programs. Defined benefit
pension plans sponsored by private employers are not allowed to pay pension
benefits to older workers who become eligible for retirement income before
the plan?s normal retirement age. Therefore, it would be difficult, if not
impossible, for a private sector employer to provide a defined benefit DROP
plan to workers who are younger than the pension plan?s normal retirement
age. 36 To address this issue, the Council recommended relaxing the IRS
rules on in- service distributions to facilitate the formation of phased
retirement plans, although concern was expressed by some witnesses that
workers might outlive their retirement savings by beginning benefits at an
earlier but lower rate. 37

The ERISA Advisory Council also found that federal regulations governing
nondiscrimination in pension benefits or contributions can restrict
employers from offering phased retirement programs. For example, some
employers reported to the Council that they did not establish flexible
employment programs because of concerns with violating federal pension
regulations governing nondiscrimination in benefits or contributions. The
concerns are based on the likelihood that a higher percentage of highly
compensated employees would be participating in the programs because their
skills are more desirable. To the extent that older workers are more likely
to be owners or highly compensated employees than younger workers, a DROP
plan could disproportionately include the employer?s highest paid employees.
In such a case, the employer?s pension plan could be deemed as
discriminatory and potentially lose its tax- qualified status. To alleviate
these concerns, the Council recommended that the IRS relax

35 Advisory Council Working Group Report on Phased Retirement, November 14,
2000. 36 The issue with in- service distributions would extend to employers
who sponsored defined benefit plans and wished to set up other phased
retirement programs. In this case, workers eligible for early retirement
benefits would have to choose between continuing to work for the same
employer or collecting their benefits. The extent of compensation depends on
the structure of pension benefits, but often the increase in benefits that a
worker earns for continuing to work past the full eligibility age is not
sufficient to compensate them for the foregone benefits. Some older workers,
of course, can avoid these restrictions by taking early retirement and
working for a new employer while collecting pension benefits from their
previous employer?s plan.

37 Advisory Council Working Group Report on Phased Retirement, November 14,
2000.

Page 31 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

its rules on nondiscrimination if the intent of the plan amendment was
clearly not to be discriminatory. 38 Recognizing the complexity of this
issue, the ERISA Advisory Council also suggested that the Secretary of Labor
organize a task force to focus on the obstacles within ERISA and other
relevant federal laws that inhibit private employers from instituting DROPs.

A variety of factors contribute to discouraging the continued labor force
participation of workers after a certain age. These factors include the
following:

Some employers may have negative perceptions of older workers and
discriminate. Past surveys have found that some managers possess negative
perceptions about the productivity of older workers. For example, managers
have expressed a perception that age reduces workers? physical stamina and
ability to learn new skills. 39 Under the ADEA, it is illegal to
discriminate in employment on the basis of age, but evidence suggests that
such discrimination does still occur. In 2000, the EEOC received 16,000
complaints of age discrimination, with nearly 3,000 merit resolutions and
cumulative monetary damages of $45 million. Because some employers might
seek to avoid hiring older workers because of potential litigation, the
ERISA Advisory Council proposed that an interagency task force be convened
to determine if any of the laws dealing with older workers? pension
benefits, including the ADEA, the IRC, and ERISA, need to be amended in
order to encourage the continued development of flexible retirement
alternatives for older workers. 40

Employers perceive higher costs associated with hiring older workers.
Employers may feel that it is more difficult to recoup the costs of hiring
and training older workers. The shorter potential length of time an older
worker may remain with an employer, compared with a younger

38 Advisory Council Working Group Report on Phased Retirement, November 14,
2000. 39 However, a recent survey of human resource managers found that
older workers were compared favorably with younger workers in most areas
except technological expertise. See Taylor, Humphrey J. ?Older Workers: A
Valuable Resource for the Workplace,? in

Working Through Demographic Change: How Older Americans Can Sustain the
Nation?s Prosperity, William Zinke and Susan Tattershall eds. Human Resource
Services, Inc.: Boulder, CO. 2000, pp. 5- 14.

40 Advisory Council Working Group Report on Phased Retirement, November 14,
2000. Many Other Factors Inhibit

the Employment of Older Workers

Page 32 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

worker, implies that these up- front fixed costs are greater for older
workers because of the shorter time period for employers to recoup their
investment. 41 Moreover, all other things being equal, older workers can
raise an employer?s cost of providing health coverage. 42 To address these
issues, the ERISA Advisory Council recommended that legislation be developed
that would extend Medicare to workers between the ages of 55 and 64. 43

Older workers have more health problems that inhibit work.

According to CPS data on self- reported health status, 17 percent of persons
age 55- 64 have a work- limiting health problem compared with 9 percent of
persons age 40- 54 and 5 percent of persons age 30- 39. 44

Older workers play a key role in the labor market and their importance will
only grow in the years to come. By 2008, 1 out of every 6 workers in the
American labor force will be over age 55, and this ratio is estimated to
reach over 1 out of 5 by 2025. Older workers will comprise a progressively
larger number of our nation?s managers, supervisors, and executives.
Employers will have to rely more heavily on this segment of the labor force,
as their experience and ?institutional knowledge? become an increasingly
valuable resource. Thus, older workers will become a critical labor force
component in maintaining future productivity and economic growth,
particularly if, as projected, labor force growth continues to slow.

Yet, employers have taken little action so far to prepare for this
demographic transition. We identified few employers with well

41 R. M. Hutchens, ?Do Job Opportunities Decline with Age?? Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1988), p. 89- 99. 42 However, it is
uncertain whether employers actually pay this higher cost or whether older
workers pay it. In response to a survey conducted by the Society of Human
Resource Management and the American Association of Retired Persons, 33
percent of the respondents agreed that older workers increase the health
care costs of their organization, 36 percent disagreed, and 31 percent were
undecided. Furthermore, section 4( f)( 2)( B)( i) of the ADEA, 29 U. S. C.
623( f)( 2)( B)( i) permits an employer to offer lower levels of benefits to
older workers than to younger workers when the cost of benefits increases
with age. Thus, in some instances, older workers may not be significantly
more expensive than younger workers with the same rate of pay.

43 Advisory Council Working Group Report on Phased Retirement, November 14,
2000. 44 For more information on the implications of declining health at
older ages, the ability to continue working and the effects of extending
employment on the solvency of the Social Security trust funds, see Social
Security Reform: Implications of Raising the Retirement Age, (GAO/ HEHS- 99-
112). Conclusions

Page 33 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

established, formalized programs to encourage older employees to work
longer. Some private employers have indicated an awareness of the need to
retain older workers and are experimenting with different options to extend
the work lives of their older employees. However, these programs remain
small and are often administered on an ad hoc basis. Flexible employment
programs also remain to be addressed by employers and workers in the
collective bargaining context. Public employer efforts to retain or rehire
older workers have been broader and somewhat more common, largely in
response to localized labor shortages in skilled occupations like teaching.

Part of this inaction may be because these demographic changes, while
inevitable, remain largely on the horizon. Most employers are not yet facing
labor shortages or other economic pressures requiring them to consider
phased retirement or related programs. For this reason, time is available to
develop sound policies, programs, and practices to respond to this
demographic challenge. Some public discussion on this matter is already
taking place. For example, Labor?s ERISA Advisory Council has received
testimony from employers and other interested parties as to how federal
policy and laws should be changed to address phased retirement, and the
older worker issue generally. From this testimony, the Advisory Council has
made recommendations to the Secretary of Labor, particularly with regard to
current pension law and policy.

The ERISA Advisory Council has already urged that the Secretary of Labor
convene a task force that would focus on issues concerning the extension of
DROP plans to private employers. However, many of the recommendations
suggested by the Advisory Council are beyond the purview of the Labor
Department and would require action by other agencies or the Congress for
implementation, as well as raising cost implications. Additional expert
assessment and input from those agencies charged with administering the
affected laws and regulations would help ensure that these recommendations
are both carefully crafted and represent sound policy, particularly those
calling for far reaching legislative changes. Expertise and input from
outside agencies could also help to identify any unintended consequences of
the actions that could be taken. For example, amending the ADEA to
facilitate the expansion of phased retirement programs might result in some
older workers losing legal protection against age discrimination in ways not
previously recognized or understood. It also raises the risk that workers
might outlive their retirement savings by beginning benefits too early.

Page 34 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

Finally, greater input from other agencies could help to identify other
aspects of the issues already explored and additional recommendations not
addressed by the Advisory Council. This is particularly important given that
the diversity among firms and industries suggests a need for a range of
solutions. For example, what may work for public employers- creating
incentives to extend employment through alterations in the design of their
defined benefit pension plans- may not be helpful for private employers who
do not have such plans or could not afford such redesign.

The challenge of how to extend the work lives of older employees in a manner
that balances the competitive imperative of business with the life realities
of older workers presents many opportunities. By focusing on the development
of the policies, programs, and employment arrangements necessary to extend
the work life of the growing numbers of older employees, the nation can
ensure future supplies of skilled workers, bolster economic growth, and help
secure retirement income adequacy for many working Americans.

To address the potentially serious implications of the aging of the U. S.
labor force and avoid possibly acute occupational labor shortages in the
future, the relevant government agencies should work together to identify
sound policies to extend the worklife of older Americans, including those
legal changes that would foster creative solutions to extending workers?
careers. Specifically, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor convene an
interagency task force to develop legislative and regulatory proposals
addressing the issues raised by the aging of the labor force. This task
force would include representatives from Labor, and other agencies that have
either regulatory jurisdiction or a clear policy interest, bringing together
the expertise necessary to consider fully the implications of each proposal.
It would solicit input from employers, unions, and other interested parties
and carefully balance the concerns of older workers, employers, and the
general public. The task force would also serve as a clearinghouse of
information about employer or collectively bargained programs to extend the
work life of older workers.

We provided the EEOC, Labor, Treasury, and the Social Security
Administration the opportunity to comment on the draft report. EEOC provided
us with written comments, which appear in their entirety in appendix II.
EEOC agreed with our findings, strongly supporting the goal of encouraging
older workers to remain in the labor force and endorsing our recommendation
for the convention of an interagency task force. The Recommendations

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 35 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

agency also provided us with several technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. Labor, Treasury and the Social Security
Administration provided us with technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate.

We are providing copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Social Security, and the
Commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Copies will be
made available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512- 7215,
Charlie Jeszeck at (202) 512- 7036, or Jeff Petersen at (415) 904- 2175, if
you have any questions about this report. Other major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours, Barbara D. Bovbjerg Director, Education, Workforce

and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Data on Employment of Older Workers

Page 36 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

Table 7: Earnings and Work Status of Workers Age 55- 64 and 65- 74, 1999
Median annual earnings for workers Percent working full time Occupation Age
55- 64 Age 65- 74 Age 55- 64 Age 65- 74

Executive, administrator, manager $ 46,000 $ 25,300 83 54 Professional $
45,760 $ 35,000 71 53 Administrative support $ 23,000 $ 12,300 72 41
Services $ 15,000 $ 8,000 62 30 Sales $ 25,000 $ 13,000 72 41 Production,
craft, repair $ 32,000 $ 18,000 83 54 Machine operator, assembly $ 22,880 $
13,800 85 52 Transportation $ 30,000 $ 9,672 69 30 Farm, forest, fishing $
14,500 $ 5,000 65 43 Laborers, handlers $ 20,800 $ 14,000 71 45 Technicians
$ 36,400 $ 18,000 81 43

All occupations $ 28,900 $ 14,329 74 44

Source: March 2000 CPS.

Table 8: Selected Percentages of Workers in an Occupation That Are Age 55 or
Older, 2000- 08 Occupational group

2000 (percent) 2008 (Projected

percent) Executive, administration, and managerial occupations

Executive/ admin/ managers 14.6 22.3 Property/ real estate managers 28.1
36.2

Professional specialty occupations

Scientists/ engineers 12.6 15.5 Computer professionals 5.4 10.9 Doctors/
other health diagnosis 19.3 26.3 Nurses/ other health treatment 12.0 18.0
Post- secondary teachers 23.3 27.0 Teachers (through secondary) 12.8 18.5
Lawyers and judges 16.9 26.0 Clergy/ religious workers 27.4 35.5 Other
professionals 14.2 18.4 Technicians 7.7 10.4

Sales occupations

Real estate sales 30.3 41.2 Other sales occupations 13.2 16.1 Administrative
support occupations Administrative support 13.3 15.8

Service occupations Personal Services

Household services 20.6 20.2

Appendix I: Data on Employment of Older Workers

Page 37 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

Occupational group 2000

(percent) 2008 (Projected percent)

Security and crossing guards 23.5 26.6 Other protective services 6.9 8. 8
Food service occupations 8.1 8. 1 Health service occupations 13.7 15.6
Cleaning/ building services 18.8 20.6 Personal services 13.5 15.5

Precision production, craft, and repair occupations

Mechanics/ repair 11.7 13.3 Construction/ extraction 9.3 10.9 Production
14.4 15.8

Operators, fabricators, laborers

Machine Operators/ assemblers 11.4 12.6 Transportation 16.2 18.3 Laborers/
handlers 8.2 9. 2

Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations

Farmers 42.0 48.3 Other agriculture/ forestry/ fish 12.2 12.3

All occupations 13.2 16.6 Total employed - all ages 135,500,000 148,319,000
Total employed - 55+ 17,930,000 24,568,000

Source: GAO projections. See Appendix III.

Appendix II: Comments From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Page 38 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

Appendix II: Comments From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Page 39 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

Appendix III: Scope and Methodology Page 40 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

Most of the survey data used in this report are from the March Current
Population Surveys (CPS). The annual March CPS is a source of income
estimates for the United States and also includes employment and demographic
data. We used the CPS because of its large sample size, its inclusion of
detailed information on the economic and demographic characteristics of
labor force participants, the timeliness of its data, and its collection
frequency and consistency, which allows the opportunity to show trends over
time and construct projections. We used CPS Basic Monthly Survey data from
1983 through 2000, March supplement data from 1989 through 2000, and
February supplement data on displaced workers and job tenure and
occupational mobility from 1996, 1998, and 2000. The Health and Retirement
Survey (HRS) is composed of persons born between 1931 and 1941, and the
respondents are questioned every 2 years. The first wave of questions was
conducted in 1992. We used HRS data from Wave III that was conducted in
1996.

The sampling errors for the estimated percentages used in this report from
CPS data are less than plus or minus 1 percentage point at the 95 percent
confidence level. This sampling error does not apply to our projections of
occupational distributions or wages. Although widely used and a rich source
of detailed data, CPS and other surveys that are based on selfreported data
are subject to several sources of nonsampling error, including the
following: inability to get information about all sample cases; difficulties
of definition; differences in the interpretation of questions; respondents?
inability or unwillingness to provide correct information; and errors made
in collecting, recording, coding, and processing data. These nonsampling
errors can influence the accuracy of information presented in the report,
although the magnitude of their effect is not known.

Data were grouped into the age categories of 30- 39, 40- 54, 55- 64, and 65-
74 when the sample size was large enough to make calculations based upon
these age groups. When the sample size was too small to support these age
categories, we chose to group the data by over 55 and under 55.

We based our occupational projections to the year 2008 on methods developed
by the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1 In order to
do occupational projections by age group, we used 5- year age

1 See, U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Projections and Training Data, Bulletin 2521, May 2000, pp. 74- 77. Appendix
III: Scope and Methodology

Survey Data Projection Methods

Appendix III: Scope and Methodology Page 41 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

cohorts from 1988- 93 and 1994- 98 CPS Basic Monthly Survey data,
calculating net replacement needs for 5- year intervals to 2003 and 2008. We
made adjustments for the irregular size of bottom and top age groups. To
compensate for missing historical data to project the younger age cohorts to
2008, we used BLS projections of the civilian labor force in 2008 for the
16- 24 and 25- 34 age groups and then we subtracted the percent unemployed
as of 2000 for these age groups. We then distributed the projected employed
by the percentage of those age groups in each occupational group in 2000.
The accuracy of our model was checked by running projections from earlier
data to the year 2000 and comparing the 2000 projections with actual 2000
data. We also adjusted our projected labor force numbers for 2008 by BLS?
labor force projections for 2008. To project earnings to 2008 for age groups
over 40, we calculated mean earnings by occupation, age group, and year from
1989 to 1999. We then inserted a variable to control for the business cycle,
projected the earnings by occupation and age group to 2008, and merged the
projected earnings with our age group specific 2008 occupational
projections. A potential shortcoming of our projections is that the cohort
effects (e. g., the baby boomers are different from older generations)
cannot be separated from age effects (e. g., the baby boomers labor force
behavior will change as they pass from middle to old age) using cross-
sectional data.

We identified companies with flexible employment programs for older workers
through interviews with experts and reviewing literature on the subject. We
then interviewed officials from 13 companies who were knowledgeable about
the programs. Public employers were identified and interviewed on the same
basis. Private and Public

Employer Information

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO- 02- 85 Older Workers

Barbara Bovbjerg, (202) 512- 5491 Charles Jeszeck, (202) 512- 7036 Jeff
Petersen, (415) 904- 2175

Other contributors to this report include Don Porteous, Roger Thomas, and
Howard Wial. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(130006)

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO E- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and
complete the easy- to- use electronic order form found under ?To Order GAO
Products.?

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (301) 413- 0006 Fax: (202)
258- 4066

GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission