mr. rogoff?>> we have a slightly longer period we have until september 1st but we see ourselves on track record we we're just over 21% with some of the largest systems which represent a larger part of the money are of figures were the urbanized area were well north of 20% for the so-called real mod program with one-third of the money already obligated. we will be obligated ingersoll-rand -- very little if any money. >> so red tape is not a problem we have more than half of the money obligated, some states at 100% but then we have served the question of outlay. these are both reimbursed after they have extended their owns days their own funds? >> mr. defazio it is different the highway program is a pure reimbursement program and in transit depends on what type of expenditure that we do frankly the transit agencies are not on a situation sitting on cash where they can awaits reimbursement. but i would point* out of a great member have single their using what is prix award authority that enables the

mr. rogoff. the funding is a little different, your full funding agreement for your regular programs, major transit districts for the most part, who have vast capital infrastructure needs, $6 billion of deferred maintenance which is a tragedy here which may have to do with deferred acquisition of new equipment or maintenance. we don't know yet. but if we set an 18 month parameter, how are any of these states going to undertake a project that takes 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, which many major projects do, when they are only guaranteed 8 months funding. we ran into this during the last authorization, we saw a dramatic drop-off in projects, particularly larger, longer-term projects because of the uncertainty created by the temporary extensions, and this essentially would be a temporary, 18 month extension of current funding levels or policies depending on whether we can work things out. so, mr. paniati, how is the state going to have a major project of feral guaranteed 18 months of funding? >> the st

mr. rogoff, i am sure that side of the table is new to you. in your years of service in the other body, the staff have a steep you and the issues of transit and transportation programs and in general transit in particular, and you are more accustomed to being on the other side of the table, preparing questions to grill witnesses. now it's your turn to be grilled. congratulations and welcome and glad to have you here. >> thank you mr. chairman. i know releasing why day elevate the dias. i'm not accustomed to looking up during these events. >> are remember how it was when i was elected. i tickets seaway down there and the chairman, bob jones, let each of those new members say something for one minute. he came to me, and i said well mr. chairman this is a different feeling from when i had real power on this committee when i was administrator. [laughter] >> thank you mr. chairman and i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the recovery act. i do want to take a moment on behalf of secretary lahood, myself and the entire family to express our condo

mr. rogoff, administrator rogoff, described step-by-step the process from notification from office of managementd budget to dot, dot to federal highway, federal transit administration, and they are on through, you described a little process, part of that process. you said the outlay occurs when money is transferred to the grantee when the bus is delivered. that is the point of outlay. but the process is already started. so i want you to walk us through the procedure that is followed. step one. >> specifically for a vehicle purchase, since that's what i focused on in that instance, i grantee will come forward, dallas-based. >> the grantee being lex. >> urbanize, non-urbanites and some cases state applicants who are applying for a universe of role providers. and they'll hurt us that their program of projects will include vehicle purchases. we go ahead and approve that grant at that point when we approve the grant is obligated. >> so you set aside some millions of dollars. >> right. we reserve the fund in our system. we have an automated so-called team system which is a computerized system, and the

mr. rogoff. >> i think obviously i was working in congress when doing those short-term extensions and some of them were as short as a few weeks. part of the administration's thinking in doing a full 18 month extension and not a six months or three months or 12-month is to provide stability during that time. what is for gone here is the centerpiece of that proposal is to get us past the biggest hurdle we face of all and that is the imminent bankruptcy of the highway trust fund with a mass transit account going bankrupt not that long thereafter. and i think, you know -- >> let's not alarm the public too much, they don't go bankrupt, they go into cash flow and sufficiency. there is still in,. >> absolutely but as you pointed out yourself mr. chairman, the states are strapped in ways that have never been before so the state's ability to flow of money while the federal highway trust fund can reimburse them, if they ever had that ability they certainly donau. >> i am well aware of that and that's why we are concerned about 18 months prisses the predictability of enhance investment to begin chipp