Federal Reports

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) oversight of Amtrak (the company) programs and operations. Although the Amtrak OIG is relatively small, I am proud of our extensive oversight record made through our audits, investigations, and other activities.

The company finds itself in a position unprecedented since it began operations in 1971. Not only is it charged with providing safe, efficient, and effective transportation to its customers, but it is now advancing the largest capital portfolio in its history. With access to as much as $66 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),1 the company is in varying stages of modernizing its fleet, tunnels, bridges, stations, and technology systems. At the same time, the company is pursuing ambitious goals of doubling pre‐pandemic ridership to 66 million by fiscal year (FY) 2040 and expanding service to as many as 160 new communities, all while adapting to changes in customer demand in the wake of the pandemic.

The volume of federal funds, the creation of a capital delivery function, and the massive hiring of workers to execute its plans present significant implementation risks and oversight challenges. That said, while the company is pursuing this once‐in‐lifetime effort, it must still meet obligations that are difficult under the best of circumstances: running a safe, efficient passenger railroad, pursuing financial stability, and providing excellent service to its customers. Our work demonstrates that Amtrak recognizes the complexity of this moment and is taking steps to proceed responsibly. Nevertheless, the scope of this undertaking is daunting and, in my opinion, requires robust, coordinated oversight by the OIG, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Amtrak’s Board of Directors, and Congress.

As I reported in the last three semi‐annual reports to Congress, Amtrak’s Board of Directors is an important element in ensuring the company fulfills its mission effectively and efficiently. The Senate’s recent confirmation of three Board members is encouraging and will help give Amtrak, the Administration, Congress, and the American taxpayers additional assurance that Amtrak has the necessary oversight as it implements historic federal investments. Notwithstanding this progress, the three other Board members are serving far beyond the five‐year terms of their Senate‐confirmed appointments, and we continue to emphasize the urgency to identify, nominate, and confirm additional qualified candidates to help oversee the company during this unprecedented era in passenger rail.

Finally, we trust that our work helps inform congressional oversight, as we provide additional information and insights regarding Amtrak’s stewardship of taxpayers’ funds. Among other duties, our office independently and objectively identifies risks and vulnerabilities that affect Amtrak’s mission and its responsibilities to its partners and the travelling public. With about 100 employees, we strategically align our resources to identify and address Amtrak’s most serious management and program challenges and develop recommendations for improved performance. The remainder of my written testimony focuses on the areas where we currently see the greatest challenges facing the company. These are: (1) running a safe and secure railroad, (2) responsibly executing its historic capital improvement plans, (3) maintaining efficient, reliable, and financially sound operations, and (4) reducing the ever‐present risk of fraud. I will also describe the issues our office has already addressed and the areas it plans to assess in the near future to help Amtrak meet these challenges.

This report presents the results of our audit of the Mail Theft Mitigation and Response – Chicago, IL.

Objective: To determine whether the Social Security Administration ensured the representative payee information in its Electronic Representative Payee System was accurate.

During the week of May 13, 2024, we performed audits at the Kansas City Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) and three delivery units serviced by the P&DC in the Kansas City, MO, area. The delivery units included the Hickman Mills Station, Kansas City, MO; the Robert L. Roberts Station, Kansas City, KS; and the Shawnee Mission Post Office, Mission, KS.We issued individual reports for the three delivery units and the P&DC. We issued another report summarizing the results of our audits at all three delivery units with specific recommendations for management to address.

The Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program is VA’s largest program for transitional housing. It awards grants to community partners that provide veterans experiencing homelessness with temporary housing and supportive services, such as mental health and substance use disorder treatment and assistance in obtaining permanent housing. With a budget of over $275 million, the GPD program served almost 24,000 veterans in fiscal year 2022. Given the importance of the GPD program and VA’s reliance on data from the program’s Homeless Operations, Management, and Evaluation System (HOMES), the OIG conducted this review to determine whether VHA has reliable data to monitor grantee performance, veteran outcomes, and progress in preventing the recurrence of veteran homelessness.The review team estimated that HOMES outcome data were unreliable for about 888 (21 percent) of the 4,151 veterans recorded as having exited the program for permanent housing. In these cases, HOMES data did not match VA medical records, did not match the grantee’s files, or lacked supporting documentation. Additionally, HOMES data did not accurately capture all negative exits—case outcomes where veterans are discharged from the GPD program under negative circumstances. Reasons for the inaccuracies included GPD liaisons not verifying grantee-reported information, liaisons not following the HOMES data definitions guide when they recorded veterans’ housing arrangements, and medical facilities not validating data that the liaisons entered.Although VHA took steps to improve data reliability, additional controls would improve leaders’ ability to make informed decisions on the services unhoused veterans need and allow VA to hold grantees accountable for improving their services for veterans.The OIG recommended policies and procedures for GPD liaisons to obtain reliable discharge information from grantees, controls to ensure HOMES data are consistent with grantee files and VA medical records, and quality reviews to check for accuracy.