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

35–528 PDF 2007

S. Hrg. 110–75

TRANSIT BENEFITS: HOW SOME FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ARE TAKING UNCLE SAM FOR A RIDE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 24, 2007

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

ELISE J. BEAN, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ZACHARY I. SCHRAM, Counsel 

MARK L. GREENBLATT, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Minority 

C. JAY JENNINGS, Senior Investigator to the Minority 

MARY D. ROBERTSON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 1

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Unit, U.S. Government Accountability Office, accompanied by John 

J. Ryan, Assistant Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investiations Unit, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 6

Linda J. Washington, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation ............................................................................ 17

Michael L. Rhodes, Deputy Director, Administration and Management, Director, Washington Headquarters Services, U.S. Department of Defense ........... 18

Hon. Calvin L. Scovel, III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 20

Thomas F. Gimble, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense ...... 22

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Gimble, Thomas F.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90

Kutz, Gregory D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of Mr. Kutz and Mr. Ryan ............................................. 35

Rhodes, Michael L.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73

Ryan, John J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of Mr. Kutz and Mr. Ryan ............................................. 35

Scovel, Hon. Calvin L. III: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80

Washington, Linda J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 63

EXHIBITS 

1. Excerpts from eBay auction selling Metrochecks ........................................... 97

2a General Services Administration Public transportation Benefit Program 

Application ..................................................................................................... 98

2b U.S. Department of Defense Public Transportation Benefit Program Application .......................................................................................................... 100

2c U.S. Department of Transportation National Capitol Region Public 

Transit Benefit Program Application ............................................................ 101

3. GAO Chart, Example of Metrochek and Warning Statement Excerpts ......... 102

4. GAO Chart, Excerpts from Department of Commerce Transit Benefits 

Application ........................................................................................................ 103

Page

IV

5. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to The 

Honorable Calvin L. Scovell III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 

Transportation .................................................................................................. 104

6. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to Linda 

J. Washington, Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ............................................................................. 108

7. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to Thomas 

F. Gimble, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense ............. 111

8. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to Michael 

L. Rhodes, Deputy Director, Administration and Management, Director, 

Washington Headquarters Services, U.S. Department of Defense ............... 116

9. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to Gregory 

D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations 

Unit, U.S. Department Accountability Office ................................................. 120

(1)

TRANSIT BENEFITS: HOW SOME FEDERAL 

EMPLOYEES ARE TAKING UNCLE SAM 

FOR A RIDE 

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

U.S. SENATE,

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman of 

the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Levin and Coleman. 

Staff Present: Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; 

Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk; Zackary I. Schram, Counsel; Mark 

L. Greenblatt, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Minority; 

Mark D. Nelson, Deputy Chief Counsel to the Minority; Jay Jennings, Senior Investigator to the Minority; Ruth Perez, Detailee, 

IRS; Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Counsel to the Minority; Timothy R. 

Terry, Counsel to the Minority; Emily T. Germain, Staff Assistant 

to the Minority; and Thomas Richards (Senator Akaka). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. The Subcommittee this afternoon looks at the 

Federal Transit Benefit Program. This fairly little known program, 

I would say, was established less than 10 years ago. It was designed to encourage Federal employees to use public transportation 

for the purposes of reducing road congestion, air pollution, gasoline 

consumption, and our dependence on foreign oil. Nationwide, the 

program encourages nearly 300,000 Federal employees to commute 

to work using mass transit systems. More than half of these employees work in our Nation’s capitol. The program is not free, however. Last year it cost about $250 

million and there is evidence that tens of millions of those dollars 

in benefits are the subject of waste, fraud, or abuse. 

The program works like this. Each employee who wants transit 

benefits submits an application to their agency and certifies that 

they are a Federal employee, that they will use the subsidy for 

their daily commute on public transportation to and from work, 

that the amount of the benefit will not exceed their commuting 

costs, and that they will not transfer the benefit to anyone else. 

Their agency is supposed to verify the information and then supply 

the transit subsidy. The maximum benefit is $110 per month. 

2

In the National Capital Region, for example, employees receive 

vouchers called Metrocheks that can be used to purchase farecards 

for local transit systems. Each Metrochek states that it is nontransferable. 

Last year Senator Coleman, who was then the Chairman of the 

Subcommittee, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

to investigate possible misuse of these transit benefits. The GAO 

has found that some Federal employees were abusing the program 

by selling their transit benefits on the Internet or falsely claiming 

excess benefits, distributing benefits to friends and family, or by receiving benefits while on extended leave or after leaving the Federal workforce. 

The GAO identified one employee at the Department of Defense, for example, who sold his transit benefits on eBay taking in $6,000 

over several years. The GAO found another individual who received 

$4,000 worth of transit benefits from the Department of Commerce 

after she had left the agency. The GAO has found other examples 

of Federal employees who gave their transit benefits to friends or 

family, apparently unaware that they are not allowed to transfer 

their benefits. The GAO estimates overall the waste and fraud in 

the Federal Transit Benefit Program amounts to tens of millions of 

dollars a year. 

The program is marked by weak internal controls over the distribution of transit benefits. For more than 4 years, agency audits 

have been identifying this problem. A 2005 inspection of the Transit Benefit Program by the Naval Audit Service, for example, found 

‘‘important internal control weaknesses that made the Department 

of the Navy vulnerable to increased waste, fraud, and abuse and 

expenditure of dollars.’’ 

A 2004 audit by the Inspector General of the National Archives 

wrote that the agency ‘‘lacked adequate internal controls to validate that the employees were not abusing the program.’’ 

Six agency audits in 4 years have urged the establishment of 

stronger controls but they have not been implemented. In some 

cases, agencies are apparently confused as to their responsibilities 

to prevent misuse of the benefits. Over 100 Federal agencies have 

entered into contracts with the Department of Transportation to 

help administer the Transit Benefit Program. In the National Capital Region, depending on an agency’s contract with the Department of Transportation, DOT either distributes Metrocheks directly 

to qualified and registered employees or provides an agency with 

Metrocheks for further distribution to their employees. 

Apparently some agencies thought that the Department of Transportation was also responsible for conducting oversight of the program to prevent abuse. The Department of Defense, for example, 

which is the largest user of transit benefits and contracts with the 

Department of Transportation, told the Subcommittee that it 

thought the Department of Transportation was overseeing the program as well as administering it. 

DOT told the Subcommittee, however, that oversight was not 

part of its contract with the DOD. Today we will hear from both 

agencies and hopefully resolve that issue. 

The problems identified today are ones that can and should be 

promptly solved. Commonsense solutions to curb the waste, fraud, 

3

1See Exhibit No. 2a, 2b, and 2c which appears in the Appendix on page 99–101. 

and abuse include stronger internal controls and better agency 

oversight. For instance, program administrators should verify that 

beneficiaries are still on the agency payroll and not simultaneously 

receiving parking permits. Another easy improvement would be for 

the government to standardize across agencies the application process and internal controls to use to monitor the distribution of benefits. 

One lead agency could also provide a website with comprehensive 

information on the Federal Transit Benefit Program. Education 

should be emphasized. Every employee enrolled in the program 

should be clearly informed that the transit benefits are not transferable and should not exceed the cost—and may not exceed the 

cost of their daily commute. 

Like many programs with a good purpose, steps need to be taken 

to prevent waste and abuse in this program’s operations. If significant waste and abuse are allowed to continue then the program 

itself is not sustainable. 

I want to commend Senator Coleman for initiating this investigation into the Federal Transit Benefit Program and for working with 

the agencies involved to identify the problems and possible solutions. 

Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me start 

by thanking you for your active participation in our bipartisan effort to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and assure that American 

tax dollars are spent wisely. 

As you have noted, today we turn our attention to the Federal 

Transit Benefit Program. As you said, this is a program with good 

purpose. It is designed to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion 

by providing Federal employees with an incentive to commute 

using mass transit rather than driving. 

The Federal Government spends $250 million each year on the 

program and the concept is simple. Eligible employees get subsidies 

that can be used in their local transit systems to offset commuting 

expenses. The subsidies are tax-free and do not cost the employee 

a dime. In exchange the employees must certify that they will use 

the cards only to commute by mass transit and will not transfer 

or sell the cards to anyone else. In addition, employees may not receive more in these tax-free benefits than they actually spend commuting. This is, after all, a subsidy rather than a handout. 

What I have are some exhibits just to show the application forms 

that employees must submit to request the benefits.1

It is a good thing I had my Lasik vision over here because I 

think I can see that. [Laughter.] 

But they do require in clear language, there is a line I certify I 

am employed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. I certify 

that I am eligible. I certify, etc., a series of certifications here. That 

they are employees, that their requested subsidy does not exceed 

their actual commuting expenses, and that they will not give, sell, 

4

1See Exhibit No. 1 which appears in the Appendix on page 97. 

or transfer the benefits to anyone else. Employees sign these certifications under penalty of perjury. 

Unfortunately, these explicit certifications are not enough to prevent waste and abuse in the program. Our investigation, along 

with the hard work of the Government Accountability Office, has 

revealed rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in this program, costing 

the American tax payer tens of millions of dollars every year. 

It is interesting, previous PSI investigations specifically uncovered fraud amounting to the hundreds of millions, cases where individuals owe millions back to the government. We have done that 

with contractors who have not paid their Federal taxes. We dealt 

with the Chairman’s efforts on offshore tax shelters, lots of dollars. 

So when you look at something like this, the maximum benefit of $110 a month, you may ask why are we looking at this? There 

is an old adage that I heard once from a family in retail, small 

business, that says watch the pennies and the dollars will take 

care of themselves. In this case, we have not been watching the 

pennies and millions of American tax dollars are ultimately being 

lost. 

The Chairman has already described some particularly egregious 

cases of fraud and abuse, including Federal employees who brazenly sell their transportation subsidies on the Internet using sites 

like eBay. In just 3 days GAO contacted 20 individuals who were 

selling Metrocheks on eBay. Every single one of them was a Federal employee. 

A couple of other examples in addition to the ones the Chairman 

has articulated, in one a relatively senior IRS employee received 

transit benefits since February 2004. This employee also, however, 

received parking benefits from the IRS and drove to work. As a result, he sold his Metrocheks for nearly $1,000 on eBay. When GAO 

investigated this seller, they discovered that he had also stolen numerous computers and computer parts from the IRS and sold them 

on eBay, as well. The employee has been placed on administrative 

leave indefinitely without pay. 

Moreover, our investigation uncovered a seller who admitted he 

was selling his transit benefits in order to pay for his parking. His 

eBay auction e-mail is presented in an exhibit.1 When asked how 

he obtained the farecards, he said ‘‘Oh, I got the cards from the 

government.’’ He then went one step further and said, ‘‘I sold the 

cards to pay for my parking.’’ 

These Federal employees are taking Uncle Sam for a ride. Unfortunately, the problems uncovered by GAO in our investigations are 

not limited to these examples. GAO examined only one very narrow 

category of fraud, recipients who obtained the maximum benefits 

even though they are entitled to a lesser amount. They found that 

25 percent of all distributions in Washington, DC alone were abusive. 

This program is nationwide. It is not just in Washington. But we 

focused here, in our investigation, on a very narrow part of the entire program in one geographic locality. 

In the Department of Defense, the rate of fraud and waste related to this one narrow category reached 35 percent in just the DC 

5

area. Thirty percent of distributions of both the Department of 

Treasury and the Coast Guard were similarly improper. Common 

sense dictates this pattern of fraud would extend beyond the narrow scope of this investigation. 

The obvious question is how did this happen? The answer is disturbing. No one is minding the store. No governmental entity actually oversees the program in terms of dealing with concerns about 

waste, fraud, and abuse. This is worth repeating. Despite the fact 

that this program disburses roughly $250 million each year and 

nearly 300,000 Federal employees receive the benefits, no agency 

is tasked with managing the program. No agency is tasked with ensuring that the program runs efficiently. No agency is tasked with 

preventing waste, fraud, and abuse. 

The Department of Transportation administers the program for 

75 percent of Federal agencies but views its role as a mere administrative conduit between the agencies and local transit systems. 

Individual agencies, which are perhaps in the best position to 

verify individual subsidies, do little to certify whether its employees are eligible for the program or validate the amount of benefits 

claimed. Inspectors General in most agencies do nothing to audit 

these programs to uncover waste and fraud. In fact, although more 

than 100 Federal entities participate in this program, we could 

only identify six Inspectors General that reviewed the program in 

any way. 

It is not a case of someone being asleep at the switch. It is a case 

of no one being at the switch at all. For far too many Federal employees, this program is free money. 

Americans expect their government to use their tax dollars wisely. As a direct result of poor government oversight, tens of millions 

of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse went undetected. While tens 

of millions of dollars in context of our billion-dollar budgets may 

seem like a drop in the bucket, no degree of government waste, 

fraud, and abuse is acceptable. We have a solemn obligation to ensure that every single text dollar is spent wisely. 

I do not believe that the government is inherently inefficient. To 

the contrary, I believe government can work well. The silver lining 

today is that the fixes should be simple. The Chairman himself 

talked about what we called common sense solutions. It seems obvious. Before enrolling employees in this program, agencies should 

check that the employees are, in fact, employed there. We have 

some instance where folks were receiving benefits and are not employed by the agency, in some instances having left the agency for 

a number of years but still receiving benefits each and every 

month. When an employee leaves the agency or is on extended absence, the agencies that administer the transit benefit should be 

notified. Agencies should confirm that their employees are not receiving parking passes and transit benefits at the same time. There 

should be an effort to confirm employees’ commuting expenses, 

such as requiring applicants to present records to establish their 

commuting expenses or using employees’ addresses to estimate reasonable commuting costs. Supervisors could be required to approve 

applications. 

Clearly, as the Chairman indicated, employees should be better 

educated on the proper uses of transit benefits and the penalties 

6

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kutz and Mr. Ryan appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

for violating the rules should be made clear. Inspectors General 

should be encouraged to conduct audits of the program to prevent 

waste and fraud. And most importantly, there should be greater 

clarity on precisely which agency or agencies are responsible for 

running this program. 

All in all, these fixes seem relatively easy. I look forward to the 

witnesses’ testimony today to examine how we can tighten this 

noble program to ensure that we are still encouraging our employees to take mass transit on the one hand, but at the same time preventing the waste of American tax dollars on the other. 

In closing, I should mention my sincere appreciation for the hard 

work of GAO’s Forensic Audit and Special Investigations Unit 

which has consistently provided this Subcommittee with invaluable 

assistance. I look forward to hearing their testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you so much, Senator Coleman. 

Let me now welcome our first panel and would ask them to 

stand. All the witnesses before this Subcommittee are sworn in, as 

our witnesses know. 

Our first panel is made up of Gregory Kutz, Managing Director 

of the Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Unit at the Government Accountability Office and Special Agent John Ryan, an 

Assistant Director with the Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Unit. 

We welcome you back. You have been here before, both of you, 

and you are welcome and we appreciate your good work, as Senator 

Coleman has said. 

Let me now administer the oath. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you will give before this 

Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do. 

Mr. RYAN. I do. 

Senator LEVIN. We will be using a timing system today. We 

would ask that your oral testimony be no more than 10 minutes. 

Approximately a minute before the red light comes on, you will see 

the light change from green to yellow, giving you an opportunity 

to conclude your remarks. Your written testimony will be printed 

in the record in its entirety. 

And we again appreciate the work that you do, not just on this 

project but on the other projects that the GAO is involved with. We 

understand, Mr. Kutz, that you are going to be presenting the 

GAO’s testimony. We would ask you to proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF GREGORY D. KUTZ,1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

FORENSIC AUDITS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

JOHN J. RYAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FORENSIC AUDITS 

AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Chairman and Senator Coleman, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss Federal transit benefits. Federal agenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Jul 09, 2007 Jkt 035528 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35528.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7

cies are required to provide employees with tax-free transit passes 

to cover commuting expenses. More than 120,000 Federal employees in the National Capital Region claim over $140 million of benefits annually. 

The bottom line of my testimony is that we found substantial 

fraud and abuse by Federal employees here in the National Capital 

Region. 

My testimony has two parts. First, the results of our investigation; and second, the magnitude of fraud and abuse. 

First, our investigations resulted from cases that we identified 

from three different sources. First, the Internet auction site eBay. 

Second, Craigslist, a website that is very popular that items are 

sold on. And third, we used data mining to identify fraud and 

abuse. 

I have in my hand a paper Metrochek, which is also shown on 

the poster board. Hopefully you will not need your Lasik to see the 

wording on this. 

Metrocheks are issued with a warning that they are to be used 

only by the individual that they are issued to and that resale is illegal. 

Transit passes are issued to Federal employees either in the form 

of these paper Metrocheks or debit cards called SmarTrip cards. 

SmarTrip cards now also carry warnings similar to paper 

Metrocheks. 

The next poster board shows an application from a fraud case 

that we investigated which is similar to applications used by many 

Federal agencies. Note that this employee certified that she would 

use the Metrocheks to commute to work and would not transfer 

them to anyone else. Also note the Title 18 Section 1001 warning 

for false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements. 

For eBay, we investigated 20 of 58 individuals selling 

Metrocheks during several days in late 2006. We investigated these 

20 because we knew for certain that they were Federal employees. 

These individuals worked for the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, and Treasury. We 

found in all 20 eBay cases fraud and false statements made by 

Federal employees. Examples include an IRS IT specialist with free 

parking that drove to work; an attorney at Transportation that accumulated excess benefits while on maternity leave; a specialist at 

Transportation that admitted to slugging or carpooling with another driver, thus incurring no commuting expenses; and a husband and wife team from the Department of Defense that sold 

$6,000 of Metrocheks on eBay. Note that even though our investigators interviewed these two, they continued to sell their benefits, 

moving now to Craigslist. 

We question the suitability of any of our case studies to hold security clearances. You might say, Mr. Kutz, is this not a bit harsh? 

My answer is no. My evidence is the IRS IT specialist that I mentioned and Senator Coleman mentioned. In addition to transit benefit fraud, he confessed to selling stolen government property. Specifically, he sold several dozen IRS computers on eBay between November 2004 and September of 2006. 

8

We also executed three undercover buys from Federal workers 

selling Metrocheks on Craigslist. These individuals worked at Air 

Force, Commerce and State. 

Based on our data mining we found additional transit benefit 

fraud including individuals admitting that they deliberately falsified their applications, several dozen individuals receiving benefits that did not work for the Federal Government, former Federal 

employees continuing to receive benefits after leaving the government. For example, the Commerce Department sent $65 a month 

to an individual that left the government in 2001. They did not 

stop mailing her benefits until she moved in 2006. Another Commerce employee picking up $300 of transit benefits 

on July 3, 2006 and then left the government on July 5, 2006. 

Excess benefits were used for personal travel, sold to government 

contractors, and given to friends and family. 

This all leads up to my second point. How many dollars of fraud 

and abuse are there in this program? Based on our analysis of limited data, we believe that the number is at least $17 million annually for seven large agencies. Note that this is a conservative number as it excludes a substantial portion of this program and many 

of the types of fraud that I have just discussed. 

In conclusion, I believe that the vast majority of Federal employees are honest and do not abuse the Federal Transit Benefit Program. However, our work has shown that thousands of Federal 

workers here in the Washington, DC area have taken advantage of 

the opportunity to commit fraud. How has this been allowed to 

happen? Because of ineffective management oversight and internal 

controls at Federal agencies. 

Mr. Chairman, this ends my statement. Special Agent Ryan and 

I look forward to your questions. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kutz. 

In your testimony at the top of page 20, you indicated that you 

looked at one agency and looked at the benefits that were claimed 

and found that $1 million of the transit benefits of the individuals 

out of $4 million claimed by the 4,000 individuals were potentially 

fraudulent. That is a 25 percent rate. I think that was at seven 

agencies. I misspoke. 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. Extrapolate that. If that were true for all of the 

agencies here and for all of the employees here. Is that where you 

get the $17 million figure? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. We extrapolated that for the seven agencies 

which represent about $70 million of program. So that is about half 

of the total program. 

One other point is that the $140 million and the $250 million 

total for the program, that is the part that the Department of 

Transportation has records on. Keep in mind the program is bigger 

than that because there are other agencies that administer their 

own programs and get their benefits directly from WMATA or their 

transit programs across the country. 

Senator LEVIN. So the $250 million is not the total cost of the 

Federal employee program? 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct, it is bigger. 

Senator LEVIN. What would be the estimate of that? 

9

Mr. KUTZ. We have no idea. We just do not have any other 

records. So that is the part that the Department of Transportation 

administers. So the $17 million is low end here. If you extrapolate 

that, we are talking about $20 million or $30 million or more. 

Senator LEVIN. Out of the $250 million, but $250 million is only 

part of the Federal program? 

Mr. KUTZ. Right. 

Senator LEVIN. And that does not get into the private program. 

The private sector has a program, as well. 

Mr. KUTZ. No, there are other Federal agencies that administer 

their own programs outside of—— 

Senator LEVIN. I understand. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, the private sector also has programs. 

Senator LEVIN. What I am saying is that the $250 million is only 

part of the Federal program. 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. On top of the Federal program the private employers have their own program. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. And we came across a lot of private sector employees selling their benefits. We could have gone after them, too, 

but that was not the scope of this job. 

Senator LEVIN. That was not the scope. Do we know how much 

the private sector benefit total cost is to the Treasury? 

Mr. KUTZ. No. 

Senator LEVIN. And the cost to the Treasury is that the benefit 

is not part of taxable income; is that correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. So there is a cost to the Treasury, but you do not 

know what it is? 

Mr. KUTZ. We do not know what percentage of companies participate in the tax-free transit program. 

Senator LEVIN. We asked the—let me see if I got this right, because it just came in. I think we got a figure from the President’s 

2008 budget and this, I think, was a CRS figure which we just got. 

If I am reading this right, the value—and this is our own notes, 

so I am not reading something from CRS but this is what CRS estimates. The value of Federal income tax revenues foregone as a result of combined Federal and private Transit Benefit Programs was 

estimated in the President’s 2008 budget analytical perspectives as 

$710 million. 

Mr. KUTZ. That is a lot of money. 

Senator LEVIN. In 2009, $790 million; 2010, $880 million; 2011, 

$960 million; and 2012, $1.3 billion. So we are talking here about 

a significant amount of money. If there is anything close to a 25 

percent rate of abuse, if that figure can be used for the rest of the 

Federal program and for the private program, and if the total cost 

of all of the programs is $710 million in fiscal year 2008, you are 

talking about perhaps $150 million to $200 million of waste in 

2008. 

Now that involves some estimates and extrapolations but that is 

a very significant problem. We have either got to cure this problem, 

it seems to me, or forget the program. The question is what will 

it take to cure the problem? You have given us some of the recommendations on how to cure the problem. 

10

But one way it seems to me, Senator Coleman and I both listed 

a number of ways of making sure this program is used for the purpose intended, would be to make it clear that it is illegal. It does 

not say anywhere in a law directly, does it, that this is illegal to 

transfer these benefits? Are we not relying on an act which says 

that a false statement to the Federal Government will subject you 

to a crime? But is there anything in the law that specifically says 

it is illegal to transfer this benefit? 

Mr. RYAN. I think what we have to do, Senator, is on the Metro 

transit it has that statement. What that statement directly ties 

into is the application. The application specifically states that they 

are not supposed to sell or transfer. By selling or transferring, they 

basically have violated Title 18, 1001. 

Senator LEVIN. That is the false statement? 

Mr. RYAN. That is the false statement. Also, the pure fact that 

they sell them, they are converting that into a personal use under 

title 18, 641. 

Senator LEVIN. Both indirect. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, both indirect. 

Senator LEVIN. Neither one violates a statement which says it 

shall be a crime for anybody to take a card and to transfer it to 

anybody else. That is not, in and of itself, a crime; is that correct? 

Mr. RYAN. I would believe that you are correct. I think it is the 

certification that they are making on their application which is 

Title 1001, filing of the false statement. 

Senator LEVIN. One way or another, if this program is going to 

continue, since there is obviously a lot of abuse here just from your 

own estimate, it has got to be corrected. There is no use having a 

program where anywhere close to 25 percent is abuse. That is not 

a program we can sustain or should sustain. So we have either got 

to—assuming that figure is anywhere close, and admittedly that is 

based on estimates and so forth, there has either got to be some 

commonsense way of ending the abuse in this program or, as far 

as I am concerned, we ought to forget the program. 

What percentage of Federal employees use this program? 

Mr. KUTZ. We do not know. 

Senator LEVIN. Give us an estimate. How many in the DC area? 

Mr. KUTZ. There was 120,000 that used it, so I do not know how 

many there are in the DC area. We can respond for the record to 

that. 

Senator LEVIN. I would appreciate that. Is it fair to say that 

there is probably a greater percentage in the DC area that use the 

program than in any other area? Would that be a safe statement 

that there is probably a greater percentage of Federal employees in 

the DC area that use this program than would be true in any other 

area that you can think of? 

Mr. KUTZ. Certainly this is the biggest part of the program, $140 

million out of $250 million managed by the Department of Transportation. So presumably, your conclusion would be correct. 

Senator LEVIN. Then the question becomes what percentage of 

Federal employees in this area, compared to other areas, use this 

program? And there it would seem to me that a larger percentage 

of employees here, given the mass transit system we have in this 

city, would be using this system than would be true in any other 

11

city except perhaps New York or Chicago or Los Angeles, someplace that has a comparable mass transit system. I would think 

that common sense would tell us that. 

Maybe you could give us some statistics for the record on that. 

Mr. KUTZ. We can do that. 

Senator LEVIN. The final statistic, which is also intriguing to me, 

gets to the question of what percentage of Federal employees would 

take mass transit anyway, without the subsidy? Somewhere in my 

notes here is a figure—it is either your estimate or somebody’s estimate—that 10 percent of the people who use this subsidy would be 

driving by themselves. Is that a figure that has come across——

Mr. KUTZ. We are not aware of that. 

Senator LEVIN. You do not know where that figure comes from? 

I am not sure where it comes from either. Maybe our second panel 

has that figure. 

But is there anyway of you estimating—it is a CRS evaluation. 

So it is CRS evaluation of April 18, 2007. That is fairly recent. 

Mr. KUTZ. Pretty fresh, yes. 

Senator LEVIN. It says here that according to a survey done as 

part of that evaluation—and I will get to that in a moment if I can 

figure out what they are referring to—11 percent of the participants in the program had switched to transit from commuting in 

single occupancy vehicles. 

Now we are getting down to a pretty small benefit ratio here. My 

hunch is a fairly small percentage of Federal employees use this. 

According to this survey, which was done I think for the Department of Transportation—and we will ask them in a moment—only 

11 percent of the participants had switched to transit from commuting in a single occupancy vehicle. 

At this point if we are going to be spending $1 billion to help a 

fairly small percentage of Federal employees switch from single occupancy vehicle to mass transit, and in any event a fairly small 

percentage of Federal employees period, and if there is a lot of 

abuse going on in this program it seems to me there is a heavy 

burden on people who support this program to either clean it up 

or I do not see how we sustain it. That is my bottom line. 

Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, some discussion—and by the way, in essence this is 

free money. In other words, you have the pass, you do not need it 

to cover any of your costs in the cases that you have examined. You 

can convert it into cash simply by going on eBay or Craigslist and 

people give you cash for it, or checks or cash. I presume your investigation did not go this far but would you venture what the odds 

are that any of the folks you investigated are paying taxes or declaring? Did you look at that? 

Mr. KUTZ. We did look at that, actually, and none of the ones 

that would answer the question had declared it as taxable income 

but it is taxable income. 

Senator COLEMAN. One of the things in the GAO report you had 

a chart or comparison of written transit benefit controls on page 

17. The chart shows the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, Treasury, Internal Revenue, 

State, Defense, Homeland Security, and Coast Guard. What you 

12

have is a series of checks as to what is required on the application, 

on the verification, and the implementation. 

It is fair to say that there is a great deal of inconsistency among 

the agencies as to what they require so that all of them, by the 

way, give the false statement warning. I think that is the only one 

that I see—that and the certification statement. Those are the two 

uniform requirements. 

But everything from home address to work address to commuting 

cost breakdown to verification of commuting cost to eligibility 

verified by approving official. That is not uniform. Not each and 

every agency requires those particular steps; is that correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. In terms of implementation, applicants 

checked against parking benefits record, only three of the nine 

agencies that you looked at required that. 

And then, in terms of removal from Transit Benefits Program including an exit procedure—in other words, you are leaving and if 

you have this benefit we are going to stop it—actually only two of 

the nine, Department of Transportation and the Internal Revenue 

Service, do that. Is that correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. One of the obvious changes would be if folks 

are leaving or go on extended leave, you know you are giving this 

benefit. If you deal with that, you remove that—what did you have, 

at least two instances of folks getting paid for what, a period of 

about 4 years, even though they were no longer employed by the 

agency. 

Mr. KUTZ. We had cases just like that, yes. The Commerce Department example I mentioned in my opening statement. 

Senator COLEMAN. Of these program controls would you list—do 

you have a sense of what are the key ones that each and every 

agency should implement in order to prevent waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the program? 

Mr. KUTZ. I think both of you mentioned in your opening statements just making sure that someone works at your agency, that 

they have not left your agency, that they are not parking in the 

basement or in the free parking lot. Those are just very basic 

things and I do not think it would cost much. You also have to consider cost/benefit in doing fraud prevention controls but certainly 

there are some very easy things that could be done. 

I think your line of questioning also leads to another potential 

solution, some sort of standardized government policies and procedures that could be used so you would not see these checkboxes 

here, such inconsistent application across the government. 

Senator COLEMAN. I think why we end up with these inconsistencies is the lack of clarity of who is responsible for dealing with 

the issue of fraud, dealing with the issue of verification. Who is responsible? Is it specified anywhere as to whether the Department 

of Transportation or another agency is specifically responsible for 

verifying whether the employees are using this program properly 

or not? Is there anywhere where it identifies the agency that is responsible for oversight of this program? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do not think so. And I think that the reality is the 

Department of Transportation provides certain services but interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Jul 09, 2007 Jkt 035528 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35528.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13

nal controls is not one of them. And so the responsibility falls upon 

the agencies whose budget is getting hit by these charges. 

Senator COLEMAN. Did you raise that question with agencies, as 

to who was responsible? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, and I think that they would believe that they are. 

There may be some confusion with the Departments of Defense and 

Transportation. 

Senator COLEMAN. When you say there may be some confusion, 

what does that mean? 

Mr. RYAN. When we started the work, we actually went to the 

Department of Defense and spoke to them. And there was concern 

on their part that they were paying a large fee to have the 

Departmentof Transportation come in and distribute these benefits. 

It was their impression that the Department of Transportation was 

more involved in the overseeing of the program than actually the 

Department of Defense. And that is an issue that——

Senator COLEMAN. Transportation—you said Transportation was 

more involved than——

Mr. RYAN. The Department of Defense thought the Department 

of Transportation was more involved in the process and they really 

were not. 

Senator COLEMAN. Do you know if that has been clarified? 

Mr. RYAN. I think that the second panel can handle that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Which government agency then would be the 

best to provide oversight? Is the agency where the employee’s 

work? Is that your testimony. 

Mr. KUTZ. I think OMB is the place that could help set policy, 

possibly. But the actual agencies themselves are going to have to 

implement, is our view. 

Senator COLEMAN. Was the lack of implementation simply because it is a small benefit per employee? I am trying to understand 

how we get a point where if you look at a program, that ultimately 

if you look at the sum total that it is significant dollars according 

to the figures the Chairman indicated, perhaps a billion-dollar program in the next 5 years. But were you able to get a sense of why 

there has not been oversight? 

Mr. KUTZ. Not really. Some of the IGs, and some of them coming 

up to the table here, have done oversight and reported to their 

management that there are problems. So it is not really surprising. 

We actually raised, in a predecessor program to this, in 1993 certain issues about controls with respect to a predecessor program 

that was optional. This program is required, that program was optional. 

I think you said it well, that there was no one at the switch. It 

was not that people were asleep at the switch. There was really no 

one looking at fraud, waste, and abuse in this except us and IGs. 

So it is really a lack of management oversight. 

Senator COLEMAN. Is that a cost issue? You talked about cost/

benefit analysis. To do the oversight here, is this costly? Perhaps 

more costly than the benefit? 

Mr. KUTZ. No, not at all. I think there is certainly some cost to 

oversight but we are not talking about elaborate types of controls 

here. We are talking about making sure the people actually work 

at your agency. I do not see how that can be more than a short 

14

exercise. But we had agencies, surprisingly, that took months to 

tell us they could not figure out who the people were that they 

were paying. That, to me, is not a good thing. 

Senator COLEMAN. So again, we are looking for solutions here. If 

OMB were to grab the bull by the horns here and say for this program we are going to perhaps recommend or require agencies to do 

A, B, C, and D, some sense of uniformity, that would go a long way 

to providing what I am hearing, what I believe to be after reviewing your report, pretty simple steps that in the end could prevent 

at least $17 million a year in waste and probably a lot more than 

that if one looks at all the figures. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, I think that is part of the solution. If I could just 

mention one more thing along Senator Levin’s line of questioning, 

is that also the people that are caught cheating here, there has to 

be consequences for them or people are not going to believe—first 

of all, there is the risk of detection. If there is no risk of detection, 

people are going to try to get away with it. But once people are actually detected, something has to happen here, whether it is their 

security clearances are revoked or they are suspended from work 

for a month without pay, or are terminated. Something has to happen. 

Now certainly the IRS case I mentioned, the stolen computers, 

that individual has been indicted. Not necessarily for what we 

found in the transit but for what we found on the computers. 

But it really is a matter of can we trust these people and should 

there be severe consequences? And those should be published, also. 

People should be told that people were caught cheating in the program, there are certain consequences for those people, and therefore people will maybe think twice about doing this. 

Senator COLEMAN. Are you aware of any government-wide policy 

guideline that addresses the appropriate disciplinary actions for 

employees inappropriately receiving or selling transit benefits? 

MR. Kutz. No, and this is something that we have seen in other 

programs, too. All of the issues we had with travel cards, purchase 

cards, and other things like that, oftentimes people that are involved with small frauds, the U.S. attorneys will not take the 

cases. Nothing ever happens to them. 

Senator COLEMAN. Are you aware of any agency that perhaps 

has a model of administrative disciplinary action for inappropriately receiving or selling transit benefits? 

Mr. KUTZ. No. 

Senator COLEMAN. So there is no model out there? 

Mr. KUTZ. Not that we are aware of. 

Senator COLEMAN. There is not a single agency that says we 

know this is a problem, we want to deal with the problem, we are 

going to provide for certain penalties for those who are found doing 

these kind of illegal things? No clear statement of actions, consequences for this kind of action? 

Mr. KUTZ. Not that we are aware of. You may ask the second 

panel if the Departments of Transportation or Defense have that 

but we are not aware of anything that specific. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. Here is just a last thought. I remember, I was a prosecutor for many years and I remember when 

Mayor Giuliani was Mayor of New York. One of the things that he 

15

did is early on he kind of jumped in and got folks to—forced folks 

who were going through turnstiles and not paying, to pay. And it 

was not a lot of money. 

But by doing that it did kind of set a standard. And what I am 

hearing from you is if we make it clear that this kind of conduct 

is illegal, violates specific conditions that you have agreed to, that 

if you make that clear and you act on it, then down the road you 

can prevent a lot of other worse things from happening. Is that a 

fair statement? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, we would agree with that. 

Senator COLEMAN. And in addition, save the government a lot of 

money. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. This Transit Benefit Program exists in the private sector, as well; correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN. But that was not part of your job? 

Mr. KUTZ. No, but it came up a lot. There were a lot of cases but 

we intentionally tried to limit. So we really cannot speak much to 

what happens outside the Federal Government. 

Senator LEVIN. In the private sector program, the farecards to 

the employee are deductible as an expense to the employer; is that 

right? 

Mr. KUTZ. I believe it would be, yes. 

Senator LEVIN. But it is not income to the employee? 

Mr. KUTZ. It depends on how their program is set up. If they follow the Federal program that would be the case. I believe that 

there are some that would do that. Whether they all do it that way 

or not, we do not know. 

Senator LEVIN. What other way is there? 

Mr. KUTZ. There could be a way where you could just use taxfree dollars to buy them versus actually get them for free. So there 

is a number of possible ways that you could do it and I believe that 

those are multiple types of programs out there. 

Senator LEVIN. If it is the way I describe, where the employer 

hands out the benefit in the form of farecards— 

Mr. KUTZ. That would be deductible as an expense for the employer, that is a legitimate expense, yes. 

Senator LEVIN. But it is not income to the employee? 

Mr. KUTZ. Because I believe that the law that was passed would 

apply to private sector people, also. 

Senator LEVIN. Can you check with the IRS and ask them what 

they know about this deduction? How common is it? What is the 

estimated cost? Just try to give us a feel for that and as to whether 

or not they feel that, in fact, there is abuse? Can they tell anything 

about the employees’ use of that benefit? How many employees 

would use that benefit properly? How many evade paying tax if 

they sell it? Is it illegal to sell a privately dispensed benefit if they, 

for instance, include the income in their tax return? Would the employee be violating any law? 

Mr. KUTZ. We can research that and get back to your staff on 

that, if you would like us to, yes. 

Senator LEVIN. That would be great. Thank you. 

16

Senator COLEMAN. If I could follow up on that because I was trying to figure out—I went on eBay and looked at a bunch of these 

actions. But it would appear that in order to make any money on 

eBay, if you use this program the way, Mr. Kutz, you describe with 

tax-free dollars and the employer has already paid for it, the only 

benefit the non-government employee has is the tax savings. So it 

would seem to be improbable that somebody could sell $100 worth 

of Metro cards for $65 since they do not have a $35 or even a $25 

tax benefit. They would have to be in a pretty high—it just does 

not work out. 

So either all of the individuals or most on eBay are Federal employees or there are employees then who have to do this like the 

Federal program. Otherwise, there would be no benefit for the individual if they paid dollars and the only benefit they are getting is 

pre-tax, then they could not sell it at a 25 percent or 35 percent 

discount. Is my math correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. Your math is correct because the highest incremental 

tax rate is in the 30s. So if people are getting 70 cents, 75 cents 

on the dollar, it would make no sense to buy them and then sell 

them. 

Senator COLEMAN. Like the Chairman, I would be interested to 

look on the private side to see what the scope of this is and whether there are additional tax issues here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you so much. We will excuse our first 

panel with our thanks and call our second panel. 

Let me now welcome our second panel of witnesses. We have 

with us Calvin Scovel, the Inspector General with the Department 

of Transportation; Linda Washington, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration at the U.S. Department of Transportation; Thomas Gimble, the Acting Inspector General at the Department of Defense; and Michael Rhodes, the Deputy Director of 

Administration and Management and Director of Washington 

Headquarters Services at the Department of Defense. 

As I mentioned for our first panel, Rule 6 of this Subcommittee 

requires that all witnesses who testify before the Subcommittee are 

required to be sworn. So at this time I would ask all of you to 

please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I do. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. I do. 

Mr. GIMBLE. I do. 

Mr. RHODES. I do. 

Senator LEVIN. The same timing system will be used here but because we have a larger panel, we would ask you to limit your oral 

testimony to no more than 5 minutes and we will have that same 

yellow light come on that will give you some warning. 

Ms. Washington, we are going to have you go first, followed by 

Mr. Rhodes, then Mr. Scovel, and then Mr. Gimble. And then we 

will turn to our questions. Ms. Washington. 

17

1The prepared statement of Ms. Washington with attachments appears in the Appendix on 

page 63. 

TESTIMONY OF LINDA J. WASHINGTON,1 DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Coleman, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to 

testify on the Department of Transportation’s role in implementing 

the Federal Transit Benefit Program. My statement today will address both the Department’s own participation in the Transit Benefit Program and its role as the home agency for TRANServe, the 

organizations used by 108 Federal entities nationwide to distribute 

transit benefit fare media. 

The Transit Benefit Program is a proven means to help increase 

the use of mass transit in line with DOT’s strategic objective of reducing congestion. Estimates indicate there are 163,000 participants in the National Capital Region accounting for nearly half of 

the Federal workforce in the area. The Transit Benefit Program’s 

importance is particularly evident when considering specific transportation alternatives in the National Capital Region. 

For example, the Virginia Railway Express (VRE), a growing 

commuter railroad serving the National Capital Region, relies on 

transit benefits for about 65 percent of its revenue, with fiscal year 

2006 average daily ridership of nearly 15,000 people. Federal employee’s transit benefits used on the VRE alone are responsible for 

removing a significant number of motor vehicles off of the highly 

congested I–95 and I–66 corridors in Virginia. 

TRANServe has evolved over the years to offer transit benefit 

distribution services nationwide to organizations throughout the 

Federal Government. It now distributes over $200 million in fare 

media annually, servicing over 230,000 participants nationwide. 

TRANServe enters into a customer agreement with each of the 

Federal entities it services, specifying that TRANServe will obtain 

and distribute transit fare media while it is the customer agency’s 

responsibility to verify the eligibility of its employees to receive the 

transit benefits. 

Participating agencies are responsible for identifying eligible employees, determining the amount of eligibility, and overseeing the 

participation of their employees in the Transit Benefit Program. 

TRANServe recognizes that the fare media it distributes is actually 

cash equivalent and has an extensive system of internal controls to 

provide oversight for inventory and distribution management. Its 

internal controls have been tested and strengthened through the 

years with the help of independent auditors and security experts. 

Recently TRANServe hired an internal controls officer specifically responsible for monitoring the organization’s internal controls 

and sharing best practices with customer agencies. 

Each time a transit benefit recipient receives his or her fair 

media, he or she must sign for it. On the form there is an explanation of general requirements for continued participation in the 

program and recipient responsibility. 

In August 2006, TRANServe began distributing to DOT recipients a plain language reminder highlighting requirements that 

18

1The prepared statement of Mr. Rhodes appears in the Appendix on page 73. 

they must not be on a parking permit, the benefit is only for commuting to and from work, the amount does not exceed actual cost, 

and that it is a violation of law to provide false or fraudulent information to obtain transit benefits or to transfer or sell transit benefits. 

Last year DOT initiated the first of what is now an annual recertification requirement to maintain current accurate information on 

transit benefit recipient commuting costs. In addition, by July 2007 

DOT will require its National Capital Region employees using the 

Metro system to transition to Smart Benefits which will reduce 

program cost and further improve internal controls. 

Mr. Chairman, we recognize that it is in the best interest of the 

Federal Government, the taxpayer, and commuters, in general, to 

make the Transit Benefit Program work as effectively as possible. 

We have initially identified areas for improvement including participant education and administrative remedies. For example, 

TRANServe is developing an electronic learning package that will 

be pilot tested with DOT employees. It will reemphasize recipient 

responsibilities, identify prohibited practices, and enumerate the 

potential penalties for inappropriate actions. We are working to incorporate this tutorial into DOT’s online annual recertification 

process and will be required to be completed each year before recertification can occur. 

We believe that the vast majority of Federal employees who participate in the program do so honestly, responsibly, and with integrity. However, we recognize that there may be individuals who are 

intent on using the system for personal gain at taxpayers’ expense. 

DOT is prepared to deal with such individuals. I have already met 

with our Office of Human Resources and our Office of General 

Counsel to discuss appropriate administrative penalties for proven 

instances of misuse, and I have instructed them to act swiftly and 

decisively. 

In conclusion, the Federal Transit Benefit Program is an important tool to help address congestion, air pollution, and save fuel. 

DOT is prepared to deal with any of its employees again who are 

misusing the program, and we stand ready to work with your Subcommittee to take all appropriate measures within our authority to 

make this program work as intended for the American people. 

I would be happy to answer any of your questions. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you so much. Mr. Rhodes, you are next. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL L. RHODES,1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE 

Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, Senator Coleman, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss transit benefits for Department of Defense 

personnel in the National Capital Region. 

My organization, Washington Headquarters Services, provides a 

broad range of administrative, infrastructure and support services, 

and programs for defense personnel and organizations in the National Capital Region. 

19

Washington Headquarters Services has overall responsibility for 

administering the Transit Benefit Program in the National Capital 

Region. We execute this responsibility with and through the multiple military components and organizations in the area. We, and 

the approximately 40 designated points of contacts for these organizations, all have specific roles and responsibilities concerning implementation of the program. 

The Department of Defense program in the National Capital Re- gion has 34,000 participants. They average approximately $83 per 

month in subsidy benefit per participant. In fiscal year 2006, the 

Department of Defense program was $35.9 million in expenditures 

in the National Capital Region. 

To effectively execute this program we established a partnership 

agreement with the Department of Transportation. They provide 

an efficient means of implementing important administrative and 

logistical functions. Of note among these are acquisition and distribution of the fare media, maintaining the database of program 

participants, and providing detailed reports for validation and reconciliation by our components and organizations. 

If I can just highlight a few steps in our process, when a program 

application is completed, but before it is forwarded to the Department of Transportation for inclusion in their program database, we 

first search our Pentagon Force Protection Agency parking roster 

to ensure the applicant does not have a parking permit. As an ongoing safeguard, our Force Protection Agency parking office also retains an up-to-date database from the Department of Transportation which lists those who are participating in the program. And 

this is referenced every time someone applies for a parking permit 

to ensure they are not also enrolled in the transit subsidy program. 

Another aspect of the transit subsidy program that you both 

mentioned in your opening comments is the self-certification. And 

this, as you stated, is where the employee attests to their eligibility, to the fact that they will only use the benefit for specified 

and authorized purposes, and that the amount that they received 

does not exceed their costs. In addition, it has a warning statement 

that describes the punishment involved for false or fraudulent certification. 

I wanted to highlight that in addition to this certification, each 

time an individual receives their transit benefit on a quarterly 

basis they sign a roster that restates their self-certification. Further, at the time they receive their benefit, the individual participant must present their Department of Defense identification to 

confirm their identity and their employment status. 

I would also highlight that the Department of Transportation 

provides detailed reports of participants and these are instrumental. These are instrumental in allowing reconciliation by the 

military departments and Defense components. We receive these 

reports monthly and the individual components reconcile those 

with their employment and payroll records to ensure currency. In 

addition, they go through other steps to confirm appropriate program and eligibility issues and then they use this reconciliation 

process to pay the cost of their employees’ participation. 

Last, I would mention that in 2003 the Department of Defense 

Inspector General conducted an audit and at that time they did 

20

1The prepared statement of Mr. Scovel appears in the Appendix on page 80. 

identify a need to strengthen our reconciliation procedures for a 

few of the components. Subsequently, we worked with those components to modify the report that they receive in a manner that enhanced their ability to implement reconciliations. 

We look forward to the information from the GAO investigation 

report to determine if there are weaknesses applicable to our Department of Defense National Capital Region program. We are always looking for sound and effective improvements. This program 

is an important benefit to a significant number of our personnel 

but at the same time we want to ensure we are prudent stewards 

of the resources entrusted to us. 

I look forward to your questions. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Rhodes. Next will be Mr. Scovel. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III,1 INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Coleman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify 

on opportunities to improve internal controls over the Federal 

Transit Benefit Program. Of foremost concern of all participating 

agencies is to maintain the integrity of this important program and 

to ensure that it remains free of employee fraud and abuse. 

The GAO’s current work found weaknesses in Transit Benefit 

Programs at several agencies that make the program susceptible to 

employee abuse or fraud. Those findings underscore the need to review and improve internal controls at all agencies participating in 

the program. Today, the DOT Transit Office facilitates the distribution of about $200 million in annual benefits for 108 Federal organizations to provide transit incentives to over 230,000 Federal employees nationwide. 

An important point is that while DOT provides support for other 

agencies, it does not manage their Transit Benefit Programs. Each 

agency is responsible for ensuring the integrity of its own program 

and establishing appropriate internal controls. We see the role of 

the Inspectors General in the Federal Transit Benefit Program as 

one of oversight to ensure that internal controls are sufficient and 

that they are adhered to. 

Today, I would like to discuss two points regarding the Federal 

Transit Benefit Program. First, the strengths and weaknesses of 

DOT’s internal controls over the program. DOT has implemented 

internal controls designed to prevent potential fraud or abuse within the program. For example, DOT has established a series of initial controls to ensure that employees are eligible to receive benefits. These include completing an application that includes information about an employee’s city of residence, work location, mode of 

transportation, and commuting costs. A significant weakness in the 

current process is that DOT has no uniform process to check the 

accuracy of information provided on an employee’s transit benefit 

application. Instead, DOT employee applications are approved by a 

transit coordinator who is responsible for approving benefits for an 

entire agency. 

21

We think involving supervisors in the application process could 

help prevent cases where employees misrepresent their commuting 

methods or distance and obtain more transit benefits than they are 

eligible to receive. Supervisors are in a better position to know information about employees such as their home location, commuting 

methods, and schedule. Our investigations over the last several 

years have uncovered several cases of this type of abuse and we are 

currently working several other cases recently referred to us by 

GAO. 

DOT also recently established a new internal control to check 

that employees remain eligible for the amount of benefits that they 

were originally authorized to receive. Last month DOT began requiring DOT employees to recertify annually their eligibility for 

transit benefits. Participants are required to update and verify 

such items as their mode of transit and monthly commuting costs. 

However, other than employee’s self-certification, no procedure 

requires employees to update personal information for changes 

when they occur. Changes such as commuting method or work 

schedule affect the amount of benefits an employee is eligible to receive. In our opinion, DOT should require employees to update 

their information and recertify whenever meaningful changes in 

their commuting methods or schedules occur. Requiring an employee’s supervisor to review and approve this information, too, will 

help improve this aspect of the process. 

Second, opportunities to improve internal controls over the program throughout the Federal Government. Our work at DOT has 

identified areas where the Department, as well as other Federal 

agencies, can proactively improve controls over their programs. We 

see five specific actions that should be taken. 

One, include the program in agencies’ assessments of their internal controls during the A–123 process. OMB Circular A–123 requires Federal managers to assess the adequacy of internal controls of their programs to include the government purchase and 

travel card programs. In DOT’s case, the Department includes controls over safeguarding paper fare media as part of its A–123 process but it does not include an assessment of other aspects of its 

Transit Benefit Program, such as the application and distribution 

processes. Including an assessment of the internal controls over the 

program in the A–123 process could be an effective means for 

proactively preventing fraud or abuse. 

Two, require employees to recertify annually their eligibility. As 

I just mentioned, DOT recently initiated an online process to require its employees in the Washington area to update and recertify 

their enrollment information annually. All Federal agencies that 

have not already done so should implement a similar recertification 

requirement to ensure the accuracy of program data and to clearly 

communicate the responsibilities of program participants. 

Mr. Chairman, I am nearly out of time. If I may ask for another 

minute to 2 minutes, I will wrap up. 

Senator LEVIN. Sure thing. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you. 

Three, review and apply appropriate lessons learned in other 

government programs. For example, in 2002 OMB made significant 

government-wide improvements to both the government purchase 

22

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gimble appears in the Appendix on page 90. 

card program and the travel card program. Those programs are 

also susceptible to fraud and abuse by employees and OMB directed agencies to evaluate their internal controls and develop remedial action plans. In both cases, well developed training programs were key to reducing the risk of fraud and abuse. 

For example, all Federal employees must complete a training 

course before they are authorized to use government purchase 

cards. We think similar trainings should be established for the 

Transit Benefit Program. 

Four, develop and enforce consistent administrative policies. 

While potential criminal and civil penalties could result from transit benefit fraud, this type of fraud is unlikely to be prosecuted. For 

this reason, it is important that management pursue appropriate 

disciplinary action. However, there are no required or recommended disciplinary actions for transit benefit fraud. The development of uniform recommended penalties including suspension or 

debarment from the program and consistent enforcement of those 

penalties will be important steps to prevent this type of abuse. 

Five, mandate the use of electronic fare media or SmarTrip 

cards. These are rechargeable fare cards that have benefit amounts 

electronically loaded each month. SmarTrip cards reduce the potential for fraud and abuse because it is more difficult to sell or transfer benefits compared to paper fare media. 

Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by noting that each of these actions 

do not require mandates from OMB or legislation and could be 

taken by agencies today to improve internal controls over their programs. 

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

happy to address any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator LEVIN. Thanks so much. Mr. Gimble. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS F. GIMBLE,1 ACTING INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. GIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coleman, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today 

to discuss the Department of Defense (DOD) National Capital Region Transit Subsidy Program. The DOD Transit Subsidy Program 

was established in fiscal year 2000 and paid out about $35.9 million in benefits in fiscal year 2006. The work performed by the 

DOD Inspector General (IG) and the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) indicates that the program does not yet have the internal controls needed to limit the susceptibility of transit benefits 

to fraud, waste, and abuse. My testimony this afternoon will describe the work my office is performing to assess the effectiveness 

of internal controls for the program. 

The DOD Inspector General became aware of the potential abuse 

of the DOD program through the complaints received through our 

hotline and these allegations involved employees transferring 

Metrocheks to friends or selling them through the Internet or to coworkers. 

23

In response to a hotline complaint received in January 2003, we 

conducted an audit on allegations concerning controls over DOD 

transit subsidies within the National Capital Region. The final report was issued on October 14, 2003. We substantiated allegations 

that there was no verification of applicants’ employment and that 

DOD employees could be selling or giving away their transit subsidies. 

The audit partially substantiated the allegations that controls 

had not been established to ensure employees do not receive transit 

subsidies while receiving subsidized parking and that the billing 

information received from the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

did not include sufficient detail to facilitate the reconciliation of the 

quarterly DOD billings. 

We recommended that the military departments and the Defense 

Logistics Agency (DLA) develop procedures to require the reconciliation of all transit subsidy billings received from DOT and that 

DLA develop a policy to check transit subsidy applications against 

its parking permit roster. 

In early 2005, during the regular meetings between GAO and the 

DOD IG, we discussed allegations of abuses in the Transit Benefit 

Program that included the sale of Metrocheks on eBay. In February of 2006, we announced a data mining review to research this 

issue for DOD within the National Capital Region. We performed 

tests to determine whether DOD program enrollment data and disbursement data substantiated the individual’s eligibility for the 

Metrochek program and that the amount of the benefit was received by the individual. We identified the following potential 

issues: That employees were receiving Metrocheks while using subsidized parking; over reliance on the honor system where employees self-certify and submit the program application without review; 

individuals were receiving benefits in excess of the monthly costs; 

individuals outside the National Capital Region were receiving the 

benefits; and there was insufficient data to validate the benefits for 

over 28 percent of the active participants. 

We continue to coordinate and share information with GAO, 

which has been conducting an investigation into the Transit Benefit Programs in the National Capital Region. 

Based on the data mining review we conducted and investigative 

work by GAO, we announced an audit in November 2006 of the internal controls of the DOD Transit Subsidy Program within the 

National Capital Region. Specifically, we are reviewing internal 

control activities over the transit subsidy application process, including the initial enrollment, status changes, and de-enrollment 

from the program, management of the enrollment database and retention of the supporting documentation to comply with audit requirements. 

We have also performed analysis to test the accuracy and completeness of the data elements within the enrollment database, including the calculation of the allowable monthly transit subsidy 

benefit by the DOD participants. Furthermoe, we have reviewed 

the transit subsidy policies and procedures. We plan to issue our 

report in July 2007. 

Investigative work by GAO identified potential abuse of the 

agency Transit Subsidy Programs within the National Capital 

24

1 DOD 16 Note: Should be the Department of Transportation. 

Region, including the DOD Transit Subsidy Program. We have recently met with the GAO investors and anticipate receiving information on specific abuses they have identified. The cases will be referred to the appropriate investigative agency within DOD for further investigation. Additionally, we expect to make referrals to our 

Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) as a result of our 

audit work. 

The Transit Benefit Program is a valuable program which, if 

properly administered, can help alleviate traffic congestion and reduce automobile emissions. However, the continuing abuse of the 

use of the transit benefits make clear the need for additional controls to help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. We believe that the 

work that we are performing in our audit will assist the Department in identifying areas needing further improvement. 

That concludes my statement. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Gimble. 

You made reference to a meeting that you are going to be having 

with the GAO coming up to review the problems and the need for 

additional safeguards? 

Mr. GIMBLE. Yes, sir. What we also are doing is getting a referral. They have identified, I think, eight or so individuals, DOD employees, that have potential abuses. 

Senator LEVIN. In terms of the process used in the Department, 

you will be meeting with the GAO. Can you give us a report after 

that meeting as to what steps you will be taking? 

Mr. GIMBLE. We can do that. 

Senator LEVIN. Ms. Washington, there was a Department of Defense 1 report that I made reference to before that the number of 

Federal employees participating in the Transit Benefit Program 

rose from 53,000 prior to an Executive Order, which I believe was 

2003, to 114,000 within a year after the order was being signed. 

Do you know approximately how many Federal employees now 

use Metro? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Throughout the Nation? 

Senator LEVIN. No, Metro in Washington. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. About 106,000. 

Senator LEVIN. That would be less than it was a couple of years 

ago. OK, say 106,000. 

Then it said, according to the survey done as part of the DOT 

evaluation, 11 percent of the participants had switched to transit 

from commuting in a single occupancy vehicle. What percent of 

that population was already taking Metro? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. I am not sure, sir. I do not know the answer 

to that question. I am familiar that there was a study done that 

mentioned 11 percent but I do not have the information on that. 

Senator LEVIN. Do you know whether that study identifies what 

percentage of the Federal employees, which was approximately 

114,000 at the time of the survey, what percentage of them were 

taking Metro anyway? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. No, I do not. 

Senator LEVIN. So we do not know really what affect this subsidy 

has had. We can tell what percentage of employees are riding 

25

Metro but we do not know what percentage of employees would 

have ridden Metro anyway? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. That seems to me to be one of the real problems 

with this program, it is hard to identify what percentage of employees were moved or attracted or given an incentive to leave either 

a single occupant vehicle or a multiple occupant vehicle or a carpool or whatever, moved to Metro as a result of this subsidy. 

If only 10 or 15 percent of the Federal employees who use Metro 

are using it because of an incentive, and 80 percent or more would 

have been using Metro anyway, you do not need the incentive for 

80 percent of the employees. And then you have got to compare 

that with what Federal employees may or may not get in other 

parts of the country who do not have Metro or do not have the access to a mass transit system. And so there is an equity issue in 

terms of Federal employees, too, that I believe has to be placed on 

these scales. 

Do you have any idea in the Department of Defense what those 

numbers might be? The number of people that use Metro at the 

Department of Defense or other mass transit that would otherwise 

be in a single passenger vehicle or in a multiple passenger vehicle? 

Mr. RHODES. No, Senator, I do not. 

Senator LEVIN. Is there a way practically to find out without surveying the whole world? 

Mr. RHODES. Short of surveying, I do not know, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. I think that you made reference, Mr. Gimble, to 

an audit by the Department of Defense Inspector General back in 

2003 which said that ‘‘controls over the transit subsidies program 

within the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Defense Logistics Agency needed improvement’’ as the IG said. And then you quoted the 

following line ‘‘that our review substantiated the allegations that 

there is no verification of an applicant’s employment and that DOD 

employees could be selling or giving away their transit subsidies.’’ 

What steps have been taken since that audit to avoid that, to improve internal controls? 

Mr. GIMBLE. Several of the Defense components have implemented reconciliation procedures which would be a big step in accomplishing that. The idea of stopping people from selling or moving the card—giving their cards away. That is a little tougher to 

deal with. 

What we did there is initiate a data mining project, but you have 

to weigh the benefit that you get. 

Senator LEVIN. I am not following you. You have to weigh the 

benefit, what did you say after that? 

Mr. GIMBLE. You have to weigh the benefits, the costs versus the 

benefits. 

Senator LEVIN. I got that part, but what came after that I could 

not follow. 

Mr. GIMBLE. Abuse of transit benefits is a fairly low occurrence. 

Through our data mining we are able to capture some of these 

occurances. Also, GAO has identified 8 or 10 people that go out on 

eBay. But in DOD we have not had a widespread occurrence of 

that. So either that control is there as one that—if you do not identify it by data mining, it is really kind of hit or miss, is the point. 

26

Senator LEVIN. Are you saying that basically the benefits here 

may not justify the cost of doing that kind of a survey? Is that 

what you are saying? 

Mr. GIMBLE. That, but there is a benefit of doing the reconciliations and the verifications of employment and I think the comparison to the subsidized parking. Those are fairly cheap ways to 

do things. And I think these are some of the better internal controls that you can have. 

Senator LEVIN. That has not yet been done? 

Mr. GIMBLE. Many DOD organizations are doing those. It is my 

understanding the Army has still not formally issued their policy 

but it has issued draft guidance which is being coordinated with affected Army organizations. But everybody else has issued reconciliation procedures. And also, I think Mr. Rhodes alluded to the parking lot scans. 

Senator LEVIN. Back to you, Ms. Washington. You said that there 

is proven value to this program and you said there are 163,000 participants, nearly half the work force. But you are not able to say 

what percentage of those participants would have been on mass 

transit anyway? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. That is correct. 

Senator LEVIN. Then how do you say there is great proven value 

to the program when you have no way of assessing how many people were motivated by the program to do something and may have 

done it the same way anyway? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Well, we are looking at some of the statistics, 

as I mentioned, on VRE. You are absolutely right, Senator, we cannot empirically say that they may have taken VRE anyway. But we 

are looking at 65 percent of the riders on VRE or 15,000 people 

take VRE from outlying areas in Virginia. I would venture to say 

that WMATA probably has some similar figures, as well. 

But you are absolutely right, we cannot say empirically that it 

has been proven that it is increased. What it has done is taken—

into account the earlier study that the Texas Department of Transportation, which did say that there was less congestion on the 

roads, that there was less fuel emissions and things like that. But 

you are absolutely right, we cannot empirically say that it has 

taken more people off of the road. 

Senator LEVIN. That study in Texas, is that a recent study? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. It was actually conducted in 2003. 

Senator LEVIN. Could you furnish that? I do not know if we have 

that study or not. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Absolutely. 

Senator LEVIN. That is one of the intriguing aspects of this matter, it seems to me, is it is kind of hard to state with any confidence as to how many people would be riding Metro or some other 

form of mass transit who otherwise would not be. We know there 

are a large number of Metro customers who are using these tickets, 

these cards. VRE apparently has a whole lot of folks that are riding 

VRE who use these cards. But we have no idea how many of those 

folks would be using those cards, would be paying for it themselves. 

And that raises the equity issue, it seems to me, because if there 

are a lot of people who are getting their transportation paid for by 

27

the government, who would have paid for that mass transit from 

their own pay, where you have other folks in other parts of the 

country without mass transit who work for the Federal Government who do not have that benefit, it seems to me there is an inequity there. And so there are a lot of intriguing aspects to this 

program in addition to the question of waste, fraud, and abuse, the 

misuse of the cards by sale or by transfer to other people. 

We will leave my role there and turn this over to Senator Coleman, again with our thanks. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first get to the question of or the issue of who is responsible for checking into waste, fraud, and abuse. Ms. Washington, 

what is the Department of Transportation perspective? Who has 

the responsibility in individual agencies for determining whether, 

in fact, employees are complying with the rules for this program? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. It is the individual agency. We actually order 

and disburse the fare media, but the individual agencies are to certify and account for the use of the fare media within their organizations. 

Senator COLEMAN [presiding]. You do the program for 75 percent 

of the Federal agencies? Do you receive a user fee from the agencies? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Yes, we do. 

Senator COLEMAN. What does that user fee cover? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. I will mention what Mr. Rhodes said earlier. 

We input all of the applications into a database. We provide reports 

for them to help them administer their program. We also negotiate 

with fare media organizations so that we can buy in bulk and get 

discounts for the fare media. So we provide reports to them, we administer it, we go out and we set up the programs within the agencies. So it is administrative oversight. 

Senator COLEMAN. Were you aware of any agencies that thought 

that DOT had the responsibility for oversight and did not understand their own role in managing the program? Has that come to 

your attention? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. It has come to my attention. However, on the 

statements that we give to the agencies each month, and also on 

the memorandum of understanding that we have with every agency, it clearly states who is responsible for what. 

Senator COLEMAN. So when it comes to your understanding, do 

you simply refer them to that statement? What do you do? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Rhodes from the Department of Defense, 

at least it appeared that GAO, in their investigation, had the belief 

that Defense thought it was somebody else’s responsibility. Can 

you give me your understanding of who has responsibility for oversight regarding waste, fraud, and abuse in this program? 

Mr. RHODES. Sir, my organization has responsibility for implementation, which means, I think we have responsibility for that as 

well. We partner tightly with the Department of Transportation in 

that those reconciliations—the reports that they provide to do the 

reconciliation, as Mr. Gimble referred to, is a critical piece of the 

process because those are verified every month by each of the military organizations and components to validate that those employVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Jul 09, 2007 Jkt 035528 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35528.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
28

ees that drew the benefit are actually on their rolls and somebody 

that they are paying. Therefore, they reimburse for those costs. 

I believe there was some confusion at one of the exit briefings 

and some of the discussion on who has what role. 

From the Department of Defense there was about 5 percent of 

our costs that went to the administration and distribution fees that 

covered the services provided by the Department of Transportation. 

They allow for distribution of the fare media at 30 different locations around the area. Again, they maintain the databases for us. 

They provide reports that are customized and modified to facilitate 

some of the reconciliation process that we have there. They also 

provide a daily download of DOD enrollment data to our Pentagon 

Force Protection Agency so they can continually cross check against 

the parking records, whenever anybody is applying for the subsidy, 

which is another one of the safeguards in the process. 

Senator COLEMAN. Ms. Washington one of the concerns that I 

have as I look at the GAO report, do you have a copy? Could someone give a copy of the report, page 17, comparison of written transit benefit program controls. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir, I have it here. 

Senator COLEMAN. This document reflects a lack of consistency 

across the agencies in terms of application requirements verification implementation. Should anyone have the responsibility for 

ensuring that there is greater consistency in the areas of application requirements verification implementation? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. I definitely think that there should be some 

consistency. For example, in the Department of Transportation 

there is more that we can do to get additional information. Again, 

each department should determine what they need to certify their 

program. But I agree, there should be consistency. 

Senator COLEMAN. The concern, though is individually within the 

departments, as one looks at the state of things as they are today, 

there is a great deal of discrepancy between what is and what is 

not required. How do we deal with that? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Well, I think that once we get the recommendations and we have heard the recommendations from the 

IGs and GAO, then we will work together to have some consistency 

across the board. 

Senator COLEMAN. I am going to suggest, Ms. Washington, since 

you administer the program for 75 percent of the Federal agencies, 

since they may or may not have IG audits, apparently just six of 

the agencies have, that Transportation take the lead in communicating with agencies the list of best practices. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. We certainly can do that now that we have 

our internal controls officer, we can certainly do that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Clearly one of them, among the egregious 

findings are agencies sending payments to folks who have not 

worked for the agencies for 4 or 5 years. There should be a pretty 

obvious one that there should be some kind of system of removal 

from Transit Benefits Program, including exit interviews. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Correct. 

Senator COLEMAN. I would ask that you come back to this Subcommittee with some indication of some kind of uniformity and directions provided to the other agencies. 

29

Ms. WASHINGTON. OK. 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Scovel, Mr. Gimble, I appreciate the very 

specific recommendations, Mr. Scovel in particular, that you have 

laid out. Training programs, appropriate disciplinary actions. I am 

looking for is there a best practice? Is there clearly, as you have 

indicated, the U.S. Attorneys are not going to prosecute these 

cases. Individually, they are not rising to the level of fraud. But 

collectively, they are very significant fraud. But individually they 

are not going to do that. 

What type of disciplinary actions would be appropriate? Do you 

have any recommendation or does any member of the panel have 

any recommendations? 

Has any agency put in place a disciplinary system that effectively deals with folks who violate the terms and conditions of the 

use and sale of their Metrocheks or Smart cards? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Senator Coleman. If I can take first 

crack at your question, in preparing for today’s hearing my staff 

conducted a quick survey around our Department as well as a few 

other departments in the Federal Government. We have found that 

within the Department of Transportation there is no uniform table 

of penalties or system of punishments to take into account DOT 

employees who may have violated the Federal Transit Benefit Subsidy program. 

It is one of our recommendations that departments give serious 

thought to that, realizing of course that discussion belongs with the 

manager and supervisor and, in our Department, the administrator 

of each operating administration. In past cases that my office has 

worked, we have seen penalties ranging the gamut from admonishment and counseling, on the one hand, all the way to termination 

of employment, depending upon the facts of the offense and, frankly, the character of the offender as well. We think those are useful 

benchmarks. 

We think that something that has been lacking, however, is virtually an automatic consideration of suspension or debarment from 

the transit subsidy program. We think that should be step one, in 

fact. But both in our Department and elsewhere we have found 

that that has not been the case. 

Senator COLEMAN. Ms. Washington, I am going to kind of put it 

back on your shoulders. And in part, and I do understand, the 

agreement that you have with the agencies is very clear. It is the 

responsibility of the customer to verify eligibility of the recipients. 

I think it would be helpful, though, to the agencies to have a little 

direction, again not to provide exact specificity of penalties but to 

indicate that there needs to be appropriate action. 

I would think the comments of the Inspector General here that, 

at a minimum, if somebody is violating their agreement that they 

face some sanction regarding participation in the program for at 

least a period of time, something to say this is wrong. 

The case the GAO highlighted was that folks that you investigated, and they were still back on eBay selling the Metrocheks 

even after they understood that they were subject to investigation. 

I think you have got to get people’s attention. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. We agree. At the Department of Transportation, and in fact, we have already initiated meetings with our deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:06 Jul 09, 2007 Jkt 035528 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35528.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
30

partmental director of human resources and our general counsel to 

put in place some guidelines. So we will absolutely do that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gimble, let me get a little better understanding from the Department of Defense. Does the Department of Defense have a uniform policy or do the various branches have their own? Does the 

Navy policy on this differ from the Air Force, differ from the Army 

or any other service branch? 

Mr. GIMBLE. You are talking about the reconciliation process? 

Senator COLEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GIMBLE. As I understand it, each one develops their own but 

there are some basic things that they should have in there. Essentially, you would have the controls over the enrollment application 

process. You would verify the eligibility of the employee for the 

benefits. And it should have a process and method for reviewing 

the applications. What we are looking at now, is once you are in 

the program how often do you go back? If you have a change, is 

that properly handled, for example, if employees drop out? And 

that gets back to your point about the folks that have been gone 

for 4 years and still drawing the Metrocheks. 

So these reconciliations we think will accomplish most of that. 

I would just tell you, back to your other question, we have a fairly low occurrence of referrals to date in the Department. But to 

provide a couple of examples: We had one person that got caught 

up in this and did not receive a promotion. The other paid back all 

of the monies and got a letter of counseling. 

Predating those audits though, when the program first stood up, 

we in DOD IG discovered one of our junior people who was double 

collecting for a couple or three quarters, which cost him his job. We 

removed him from service. 

Senator COLEMAN. I would hope, again, that we have some clarity as to what is allowed and what is not allowed, and clearly it 

is not allowed to sell these, to transfer these. And that there is 

clarity in terms of action will be taken and some kind of disciplinary action. Again, it may depend on the nature, may depend on 

a whole range of things regarding the individual. But I think it has 

to be clear that this is not allowed. This is not legal and there are 

consequences. Otherwise, I think the behavior continues. 

In regard to the Department of Defense, I am just trying to understand the system. In the GAO review, they noted that the Department of Defense does not verify commuting cost by approving 

official, it does not review or does not have benefits adjusted due 

to travel, leave, or change of address. And it does not have a removal of benefits program, including exit interviews. Are those 

things that they do not do, are those across the board or are those 

simply—again, because you have a decentralized program; is that 

correct? 

Mr. GIMBLE. That is correct. We are specifically looking at those 

issues in the audit that we are going to be issuing this summer. 

We are going to deal with the application process to include the initial enrollment, status changes and de-enrollment, also the quality 

of the data in the database and the retention of the documentation. 

So we think if we address those issues along with the reconciliation 

31

procedures that are already in place, we will start having pretty 

good control over the DOD program. 

Now I need to say this: We believe that it is the administrator’s 

responsibility to establish those internal controls. And we believe 

that it is our IG responsibility in the waste, fraud, and abuse area 

to periodically test. So what we would plan to do is periodically test 

the controls of the program. 

Senator COLEMAN. I would hope, though, that based on your review that you can provide some direction to the administrators so 

they have a sense of how best to ensure that this does not occur 

in the future. 

Mr. GIMBLE. Based on our audit done in 2003, we got an excellent response to our recommendations. All our recommendations 

were concurred with and all except one have been completed. 

We would expect this new audit to go a little further and establish some additional controls. 

Senator COLEMAN. Just to clarify again the state of things, you 

state DOD verifies active employment status and whether the employee has parking; is that correct? 

Mr. GIMBLE. DOD? 

Senator COLEMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GIMBLE. We are saying that we are working on the verification. 

Mr. RHODES. Senator, if I might, for the Department of Defense 

for our program in the National Capital Region, the individual participants pick up their fare media on a quarterly basis. At that 

quarterly basis when they pick up their fare media, they have to 

identify a DOD identification to the—though it is the Department 

of Transportation that is facilitating the process for us, our requirement that we lay out for them is they have to identify the personal 

individual identification as they sign for it. 

Additionally, when they sign for it on a quarterly basis, there is 

a reattestation of that certification. So the self-certification happens when they apply and then it also happens each quarter when 

they pick up their benefits. 

Additionally, a third piece of that on the reconciliation that does 

happen at each of the military organizations and components, they 

do that on a monthly basis. That is a roster of all the people who 

were currently enrolled. They compare that against their personnel 

and employment databases to ensure that they are all active valid 

individuals. So if somebody were to have departed but for some 

reason we did not collect their identification badge, within that 

month we would also get the reconciliation process in there. 

Senator COLEMAN. Is anybody aware of anyone ever returning 

excess benefits upon departure? 

Mr. RHODES. Yes, Senator. That has occurred. 

Ms. WASHINGTON. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Tell me about that, how that works? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. In our system, it is part of our exit process 

and employees have to go through the Transit Benefit Office; they 

do indeed turn in their benefits. 

Senator COLEMAN. So the key though is, particularly in Transportation, you have that as part of your exit process? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. That is correct. 

32

Senator COLEMAN. And agencies that do not, I do not think the 

Defense has it as part of their exit process. Mr. Rhodes, are you 

aware of folks turning back any benefits? 

Mr. RHODES. Yes, I am, Senator. And in fact, each of the—again, 

we have 70 military components and organizations that is subdivided down to we use 40 points of contact in those organizations. 

But in that element we do have requirements that they include 

that in their out-processing process. So I am not sure of what criteria exactly got you a check on the box. We may not have specifically formed it in the manner that gets a check in the box on the 

GAO report, but we do have that as a requirement in our processes. 

Senator COLEMAN. The GAO indicated, at least the review in the 

DOT program, they estimated that 35 percent of DOD employees 

are improperly receiving the maximum amount of transit benefits. 

Does that number surprise you, Mr. Gimble? 

Mr. GIMBLE. It does, frankly, a little bit. But our data mining effort that we ran on the 2005 records indicated about 28 percent of 

the data was not verifiable at that point in time. So I really do not 

have an opinion as to whether that is high or low. 

Mr. RHODES. Senator, at the last check, about 51 percent of our 

enrollees have self-certified for the maximum benefit. I am not sure 

if the 35 percent is of that 51 percent. 

Senator COLEMAN. I think of those receiving the maximum. The 

investigation for GAO only focused on those receiving maximum 

benefits. It did not include any others. So this whole GAO report 

really focuses on just a small slice of the universe of folks involved 

in the program. 

Mr. RHODES. I know that we have about 51 percent that are certified for the max benefit, that they have self-certified and identified that amount. So if it is 35 percent of that number, that seems 

high. It will be interesting to see the information to try to see what 

we can do to modify. 

Senator COLEMAN. The Subcommittee found at least one of the 

Federal employee unions actually offered to be helpful and work on 

this issue. They see it as a good program and there is concern 

about whether the program continues. What role, anybody, either 

Ms. Washington or Mr. Rhodes, role for the unions in helping to 

avoid some of the problems that the GAO found in this program? 

Ms. WASHINGTON. We will certainly consider that. We had not 

considered that before. We certainly will consider that. 

Senator COLEMAN. I think it would be, again, worth having the 

discussion. 

I think I will conclude my questioning. I do believe again that 

Transportation can play a more active role in educating the other 

agencies about their responsibilities and providing them with some 

understanding of the types of things that should be done in application requirement verification and implementation, to have perhaps a better system of uniform and consistent penalties, again 

providing some leeway, obviously. But there should be some bottom 

line in all of this. 

I think all of those would help prevent some of the abuse that 

the GAO report found. So I appreciate the efforts that have been 

already accomplished. I think there is more work to be done. I 

33

would expect the agencies to file these materials with the Subcommittee and we will go from there. But I want to thank all of 

the witnesses for their testimony today. 

With that, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X 


35528.001
36


35528.002
37


35528.003
38


35528.004
39


35528.005
40


35528.006
41


35528.007
42


35528.008
43


35528.009
44


35528.010
45


35528.011
46


35528.012
47


35528.013
48


35528.014
49


35528.015
50


35528.016
51


35528.017
52


35528.018
53


35528.019
54


35528.020
55


35528.021
56


35528.022
57


35528.023
58


35528.024
59


35528.025
60


35528.026
61


35528.027
62


35528.028
63


35528.046
64


35528.047
65


35528.048
66


35528.049
67


35528.050
68


35528.051
69


35528.052
70


35528.053
71


35528.054
72


35528.055
73


35528.056
74


35528.057
75


35528.058
76


35528.059
77


35528.060
78


35528.061
79


35528.062
80


35528.029
81


35528.030
82


35528.031
83


35528.032
84


35528.033
85


35528.034
86


35528.035
87


35528.036
88


35528.037
89


35528.038
90


35528.039
91


35528.040
92


35528.041
93


35528.042
94


35528.043
95


35528.044
96


35528.045
97


35528.063
98


35528.064
99


35528.065
100


35528.066
101


35528.067
102


35528.068
103


35528.069
104


35528.070
105


35528.071
106


35528.072
107


35528.073
108


35528.074
109


35528.075
110


35528.076
111


35528.077
112


35528.078
113


35528.079
114


35528.080
115


35528.081
116


35528.082
117


35528.083
118


35528.084
119


35528.085
120


35528.086
121


35528.087
122

Æ


35528.088