@@@@@@ "the

recovery act has energy guysed working people of all companies in a lifeline of americans who work in construction that have been especially hard hit by the recession. the hoy way portion alone of the recovery act will eventually create or sustain jobs throughout 2012. you talk about the recovery act and how important it is.

>> we have a fund that 23 action is not taken, actions will show that we won't be able to sustain the payments in the normal manner. actions are important and needed soon taking the stime in the 18 months to deal with the

initial crisis an develop that approach is the appropriate way to proceed. >> mr. chairman might continue probably not for this hearing. we are talking about the jobs and what the recovery act has been doing for this great country. i'd like to know if you can revide with the inaction of dealing with the authorization bill, what negative affect that will have. looking at your positive statement on your money and the jobs that this recovery act is doing. the inaction and lack of leadership on behalf of the administration, i'd like to know the negative affect it is going to have the longer we put oven act. i know you can't answer that question today. i would like to know what

negative affect it will have if we can doe lay the inaction. if you could provide that to the committee, i appreciate it. with that, i want to thank you for your proactive way that you are dealing with our infrastructure, needs and i look forward to working with you as we move forward not only on the economic recovery act as moving forward through the highway authorization bill. with that, i yield back. >> thank you for those comments and that important question the

key thing to keep in mind is that as the recovery act winds down next summer or fall, trust fund will be at its lowest eb and there will be no reauthorization. under the exitting law with their plan would stay in affect. that meeps funding at a substantially lower level than authorized in the 2005 bill. >> it is important to point out

that the president is concerned. as jeff pointed out the eminent bankruptcy of the trust fund. that will happen this august. if we want to worry about those states slowing their spending. the preds president put forward an 18-month extension. in fairness, the president's budget for 2010 has an up tick in funding for transit and for

highways.23ç he's putting forward a program to put us forward. we understand you are a good soldier. thank you. we understand very well that the end of august will be a $2.3 million request from states we understand it grows

by september 11. the request will remain at $2.3 billion. the revenue available in the trust fund it will be less. that's why we move through july. all the members of the committee on both sides will be working so hard for the new program not just for the next two months or through the end of the fiscal year but for six years with the excemption of

the money spent on the stimulus money, the stimulus has been a flophouse. don't take my word for it. look around you.

florida's unemployment rate 10.2%. can anybody tell me that's a good thing or be happy with that? unemployment is higher now than if congress had taken no action. not my numbers.vcñ the president advisors number. there's no doubt that would have had a positive impact and

created a lot more jobs for a lot less money. we are where we are. i bring that up because by the way with a letter or without, i think the state felt where the situation was. i appreciate the letter. i think it is good. i don't think that was rediscovering the med terrainian. with that in mind, i want to tell you i dropped the bill. it would rezind the unspent, non-transportation american recovery funds and put them in the trust fund. it would cree a jobs and prepare this country for the long cablet. i want to bring that out there. there is an area we all agree on. that's something we have to do

and something that's working. i want to thank all of you for the job you are didding. more importantly, i need to thank you. we may have some differences but have you been sted fast on not only fighting for more money for transportation. but also doing everything in your pow tore make sure the money is well spent. again, we may have our differences from time to time. you have listened to everybody on this committee. in this day and age when the situation is so difficult.

that is more important than ever. i want to thank you for that. >> i am thankful forer for those thoughtful comments. >> my question to all of you is how can we be assure that those numbers are indeed accurate? do we have mechanisms in place? do you just rely upon them or do have you some other way to

ensure that we in fact, that those jobs are being retained or created. my second question is whether we are meeting the goal with respect to the job retention and creation aspect of the recovery act. we've created what we call recovery act data system. by which the data starts with the contractor who employees the workers. that data is then reported to the state. the state compiles the data from the individual contractors or individual office, working closely with the d.o.t. and reviewing the employment data and loaded into this recovery act database, so it is compiled from across the country. we look at the number of jobs

being reported to identify any >> as was pointed out, we have on obligation deadline we are

collecting a jobs data. >> the f.r.a. is a slightly different animal. to some extent, it makes our job a little bit easier. in fact, we have regular reporter from amtrak and as part of our oversight we do varfy these numbers. >> the numbers i gave you were

a metric >> are we meeting our job with the metric jofment we see the number of projects on the way. those projects are really just beginning. the construction season gets into high gear. it's hard to pin down exactly but all the indicators are that they are heading into a positive direction

>> we are hopeful that that added expansion will allow them to retain those employees and keep them about their business rather than laying off bus drivers. >> that makes sense. thank you. i blobe my time is up. >> on your side. ms. miller is recognized. thank you. i appreciate all of your testimony. i am sorry i missed your testimony. i was at another meeting. i would like to draw your

attention to an a.p. article that was all over the place. the article said the stim luis watch. i like to think of myself as looking at things from a global perspective. can you not blobe how bad things are in the state of michigan. we have had the highest unemployment month after month after month. this article mentioned -- it said 50% more a person with areas with low employment80 jus

knowing the kind of employment we had, i don't know if any of you read the article jofment one of the conditions to give priority to these areas. providing a lot of oversight. i do know information found recently that 77% of the money thus far that has been authorized for projects in areas of michigan. i do think we are seeing the spirit of the legislation that

we adhere to >> no end in site. we are interested in making sure. when we talk about the stim luis, i was one that said it's too bad we had to use the highway trust fund formula if we are trying to get to areas that have economic employment, i made that point. i'd like to make one other point going forward. buzz of the work of this committee and others, we were

able to negate the opportunity for a match. >> our governor just a week or so ago said we were going to forego a week or so of projects because we don't have the match. i don't know if i'm saying you for a response. i did want to mention this. our motorists are already paying this at the gas pump. if there is some way to get a

waiver from the match. it appears as though we are now going to loose almost $800,000 because we don't have the match. i realize i sound like i'm groff eling here i don't know if i can have anyone comment on that. jo just one comment. the depide answer we issue for the high-speed rail grants. no grant also be required.

the time for the gentle lady has passed. >> i guess there's a statement. i'm going to ask for a quick response. in terms of the records kept here. it doesn't sound like we have a red tape problem. do we? >> no, the most resent information we had is that as of last friday, all 50 states managed to meet that test.

15 states have obligated more than 15%. >> it doesn't sound like we have a red tape problem. >> the f.t.a. has a slightly longer period. we have until september 1. currently, we are at just over 21%. the larger part of the money or the figures were well north for the perp. the rail method, we are at a third of the money. we have some money in discretionary grants we will be ob gating this summer and fall. we have 22,097 separate grantees. we are working with each and eefer one of them.

we have more thans;s half the money obligated. >> we have the question of outlays. the state and transit entities after they have scompended the funds we are spending money now

that won't show up on the obligation figures. we feed to look more at the obligation. >> florida actually has zero projects under which work has done. maybe he needs to be talking to his d.o.t. the problem isn't with the federal highway administration. it is somehow, they can't get their budget under way. i'm going to turn now to this proposal, the 18 months which the chairman said you were a good soldier on. i have a particular concern with the mta.

2 questions, if the president is proposing a status quo continuation of the bush era policies across the board for 18 months, what are we going to about cost-effective in this? and i hear some bizarre rumblings from the secretary that someone has the bright idea for some new cost-effective this measure that would be applied to all transit and highway projects, what that might be he didn't explain. that concerns me because we never managed to get rid of

following the law with the existing process in the agency. the policy change they want is to add another bureaucratic step in the process but not reform anything else but the with the existing bureaucracy. how are you going to solve it? >> i am not going to -- i can't agree with what the president is proposing, more of a bullish year a policy. >> on july 22nd, clean bill, no change in policy, just money. for 18 months. you have some administrative leeway, going for an administrative process, the dramatic change, an opportunity to review our bill, how