mr. levin: i yield such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. levin: the basic fact is that this legislation is very different from the december house republican bill, very different. and any efforts to mask that are false. and that house bill was the main bill before the conference committee. the basic fact is the conference committee made major changes to the house bill that passed in december essentially on a partisan basis. and therefore this legislation is much better for the american people. the speaker said this about this bill, let's be honest, this is an economic relief package not a bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs. that's not an honest statement. it's wrong. this is a bill that relates to the economic growth of the united states of america. we are recovering. and this bill will provide a boost to continue that recovery. it continues the 2% payroll tax through the calendar year. and it is no

mr. levin? >> i'll turn to chris. i just want to say, there are federal employees everywhere. and the house proposal that passed on a partisan basis, there were only a handful of democrats. >> 72. >> i'm talking about the proposal that came over from the house on federal employees. $63 billion. there are two proposals. and we all have federal employees everywhere. chris van holland. >> thank wow, mr. levin. look, i think we all benefit from the federal employees who are doing research at nih into life-saving curious and treatments. i think we all benefit from the folks in the intelligence community, who help track down osama bin laden. i don't think this is an issue of whether or not we represent a small number or a lot of federal employees. again, i think we all benefit and i think the american people benefits from that. let me start with the vote mr. upton referenced in the house. the reasoned that such a big vote, i think the gentleman knows is because you coupled a freeze on congressional s

mr. levin: i yield such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. levin: the basic fact is that this legislation is very different from the december house republican bill, very different. and any efforts to mask that are false. and that house bill was the main bill before the conference committee. the basic fact is the conference committee made major changes to the house bill that passed in december essentially on a partisan basis. and therefore this legislation is much better for the american people. the speaker said this about this bill, let's be honest, this is an economic relief package not a bill that's going to grow the economy and create jobs. that's not an honest statement. it's wrong. this is a bill that relates to the economic growth of the united states of america. we are recovering. and this bill will provide a boost to continue that recovery. it continues the 2% payroll tax through the calendar year. and it is no

mr. levin, will each control 30 minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i would inquire of the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, whether or not he is opposed to the conference report? mr. levin: i support the conference report. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i claim the time in opposition to the conference report. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 22, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, the gentleman from michigan, mr. leffy, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, will each control 20 minutes. the chair -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks to the conference report to accompany h.r. 3630. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he

. >> mr. levin? >> mr. waxman is going to lead off for us. >> mr. chairman, today we're considering an extraneous provision. it is not part of the major concerns before this group. and what it would do is allow our children to continue to be harmed by toxic mercury pollution. now mercury pollution is more serious than asthma, although asthma is related to this as well. this provision is known as the boiler mact rule. and i don't think it has any place in this bill. i want to review for the conferees one of the untold stories of this congress. over the past year, the house of representatives has relentlessly pursued the most anti-environmental agenda in history. we in the house have voted 191 times to weaken environmental protections, more than one in five of all recorded votes in the house in 2011 undermined the nation's environmental protections. these votes attacked the laws that american families depend on to provide clean air and clean water, protect our public lands and coastal waters. and the house even voted to deny the climate change is occu

mr. levin? >> you know, in a way it's regrettable that these are the three items before us. because i think if anyone leaves here thinking our task is impossible, i hope they're wrong. because we need to act and act within the next few weeks. so let me just say, how much time do we is have on this? >> 38 minutes. >> i want all of us to have a chance. so i'll just say this briefly. i think what senator baucus, you describe the problem very well. whether you call it a tax increase or not. we all know when the exchanges are set up, that some people are going to have to have help. and we've expanded therefore, the coverage of people. and the, the help will be based on income, which will vary from year to year. we knew that there would have to be, some return on an overpayment. that was built into the original law. what has happened is that we have increased in several cases, the amount that has to be paid back. and i think we need to look at the consequences of carrying this one step further, as sena

mr. levin. >> thank you, mr. levin. i just want to start by emphasizing a point where i hope we'll eventually have consensus, which is that our focus and priority should be on the three items that were mentioned, extending the payroll tax cut to 160 americans, extend unemployment insurance for folks who are out of work through no fault of their own and, three -- it seems to me the next round of issues, if there are to be other issues, should be those where there's consensus, where we're not slofing down the priority work on focus on the other three. so we just had a conversation on boiler mack rules. i don't want to get into the substance of it. clearly there was a difference of opinion. concerned that would slow the process down if we failed to meet consensus. with respect to -- i agree with senator crapo. you laid out some of the statistics from the treasury department. it makes sense. there may be some extenders where there can be consensus but i would just put forward this one caveat, which is that we've been focuse

chairman. >> mr. levin. >> the chairman and i and you've agreed will give everybody a chance to say a few words. we don't have this formal allocation of time. >> we have about seven minutes left on the clock on this issue. so it's your time. >> so we'll be brief. there are a few of us who wanted to speak. you want to go first, miss schwartz? allison, you want to go and then henry. >> hearing this conversation, i come into this debate as someone who believes very strongly that we can have a strong economy and strong environmental protections. i don't think it's either or. there are jobs created to repair these boilers and to bring them up to grade and those are real jobs as well. there have been modifications made by the epa, the rules have been responsive, they've tried to work to compliance costs and to increase flexibility and responsive to some of the concerns that were raised. but i also this particular moment in time for this conference committee, this kind of debate should be taking place somewhere th

van hellen just left the committee in one piece. >> thank you, mr. levin. mr. chairman, i apologize for being late. i was at the opening session of the house budget commission with dr. elmendorf, the head of the congressional budget office. i'm pleased there seems to be consensus that we need to move ahead to extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans through the end of this year. i think that is a very important step to make sure people have a little bit more money in their pockets so they can go out and purchase more goods and services so small businesses can sell those goods and services and hire more people. i think that makes sense. i do think that as we pursue this conversation, we should look at a different standard set by certain members of congress with respect to what we pay for and don't pay for. because it has been the position of the republicans in congress that we don't pay for tax cuts for folks at the very top. permanent tax cuts. it is curious to apply a standard when we are talking about a ten month tax cut for 160 million people as

they pay their salary. >> thank you, mr. levin. >> what? >> i think there is a difference -- why don't we let my colleague make his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to me, too rapid a look into what we are supposed to do, does this proposal advance our mission? as far as i can tell, our best tactic is to keep the economy moving forward, rewarding it the hard work of the people who need to make this country be -- even though it has been very tough, helping our middle-class families moving forward, and certainly finding a common- sense solution. and i know we just said the proposal left before us, to tax middle-class workers, up has been proposed before and it had bipartisan support. there are two answers to that. if you cloak the proposal with the faces of the members of congress taking the hit, certainly a lot of people will vote for. if you remove the faces of the members of congress and leave it what it really is, the bulk of the money coming out of the hides of almost 3 million american workers, most of the middle class, i think most

mr. levin, anyone on your side? >> does mr. brady want to say a few words and i'll say a few. >> i'll be very brief, mr. chairman there is a provision in the house package that essentially says if you like your hospital, you can keep it. that isn't the case today. as you know in regions -- every region has a different mix of how they provide health care. some are for profit hospitals. some nonprofit. some academic tied to a university. others are physician owned hospitals. those are all born of a need and meet that need. unfortunately, current law includes a ban on any new physician-owned hospitals. and this hurts patients and hurts the communities. and at the time it was enacted, it actually stopped approximately 40 new hospitals dead in their tracks from being built and actually serve the community they're in. this common sense provision allows these types of hospitals to be created where there is need. so the ban on new hospitals is lifted, as it should be. as importantly, it allows existing own hospitals to grow with the ne

. >> i would just say, listening to the -- before i go to mr. levin, listening to the discussion of discretionary spending is off the table then we have mandatory spending. this is mandatory spending and i think we need to keep many mind we're talking about retireee income and right now at $80,000, that only hits 5% of the seniors with income. so i think while we're throwing around these salary levels it's important to keep in mind these are retireee income legals and that means there's a significant amount of assets behind that income level, mr. levin? >> mr. chairman, i think it's useful that we're having this discussion and i think all of us want to try to really exchange views nessentially say there isn't any give on anything so let's have a good discussion on what this is really about. all due respect, john, this isn't about millionaires and billionaires. i mean, there may be some people who are millionaires. they're not having income over a million in all by a teeny, tiny percentage of cases. we're talking about medicare beneficiaries who have i

>> mr. levin? >> i'm going to ask chris van holland to discuss this but i don't think we should only ask those who have a higher percentage of federal employees than the rest of us to carry the entire load. because this is an issue can that affects all of us and all of the country. there are from employees working everywhere. and i think what ben said is not at all parochial. and what chris is going to say isn't at all parochial. it's something that's national. in that regard, i want to point out that the three issues we're discussing today, basically, hit middle-income taxpayers. there are a few exceptions. i suppose there are some federal employees that wouldn't that be classified as middle income but there are very, very few. and for the bulk, there are very much middle-income taxpayers and middle-class families. and when we talk about health care and pension benefits, for federal employees, those benefits have helped them become an important part of the middle class of this country. and all thr

>> yes, mr. levin. >> just a couple of things. there is an urgency here and there's really no alternative but to succeed. number two, i hope very much that when the republicans receive ideas from us on unemployment insurance, that they'll be taken very seriously. and number three, i think if we're going to succeed, we need to find a way to have a lot of back and forth among all of us, on these issues. and i'm not exactly sure what the procedure is or what the structure will be, but we need to intensify our discussions. i go back to as i said earlier, the only conference i remember, there have been so few here. and this was many years ago, relating to welfare reform. which was a very controversial issue. but we essentially had subgroups that sat down and, and exchanged ideas back and forth. house, senate, democrats, republicans, and i think we need to do the same thing in one way or another on all of these outstanding issues. thank you. >> well, thank you. and i, i very much appreciate the sentiment of the remarks both from mr. lev

. >> mr. levin. >> i am going to ask you to discuss this, but i don't think we should only ask those who have a higher percentage of federal employees than the rest of us to carry the entire load. this is an issue that affects all of us and all of the country. there are federal employees working everywhere. and i think what's ben cardin said is not a parochial. and what chris allen is going to say is not at all parochial. it is something that is national. in that regard, i just want to point now the three issues we are discussing today, basically , hit middle income tax payers. there are a few exceptions. i suppose there are some federal employees that would not be classified as a matter and come, but there are very, very few. and for the bulk, they're very much middle income taxpayers and middle-class and families. and when we talk about health care and pension benefits for federal employees, those benefits have helped them become an important part of the middle-class of this country. and all three

i'll recognize now mr. levin. >> thank you. by the way, congressman van hollen is at a budget committee hearing, so he decided to stay there for a bit. i told him i thought he was using wise judgment, because the importance of that, and he'll be here as soon as possible. we need to extend this program to pick up senator casey with your comments. the last year we have the data for, 2010, only one in five poor children were receiving tanf assistance. one in fife. and that's the lowest level since 1965. i think it also should be mentioned that despite the depth of the recession, and these are the figures that i have, that since the summer of 2008, the tanf caseload has increased only rather lightly from 2008 july through 2011 june, the tanf caseload increased 15%, roughly 250,000 families. and this is at a time, as i said, of exceptionally high unemployment. and we're now trying to gather the figures. we don't have them. as to how many people have exhausted their unemployment insurance. but it's far larger a number than those who

mr. levin? except for the last few questions, we've been really discussing broader issues of tax reform and not book and tax accounting issues. we may be relieved by that because we need to look at it. they're not easy issues. and you're going to have to, i think, have a few seminars with us on that subject as we look at these broader issues. so it's really the broader issues that have been mostly discussed here. and let me just say a word about that. there's no doubt we need to look at tax reform. there's no need, as i said earlier, to look at it with care. and not simply grab ahold of a specific figure without looking at its consequences. because according to the joint tax analysis, when we asked them, they said if the rate were reduced to 28%, half of that reduction would come from ending accelerated depreciation. so when people say they want the rate dramatically reduced, but not at the expense of expensing accelerated depreciation, that doesn't really fit. and it was interesting in the test

thank you, mr. levin. perhaps the thing that is most important to recognize is america is slowly pulling herself out of the tough economic times. we saw 2 million jobs added in the year of 2011. although 2 million may not be a lot compared to the 8 million that was lost in 2007, it is recovery. it is progress. we have to continue that. in fact, the 2 million jobs created last year were the most we have seen in any year since 2005. we all know we still have a lot to do. there are still four americans out there looking for a job for every opening that there is out there today. we know that there are some people who are still unemployed and have been unemployed longer than we have seen in our lifetimes. we have enough to do just to try to work to get this particular extension taken care of. we have far more to do to make sure that folks don't have to reuse the unemployment insurance benefit that they paid for while they were working. i think most of us would agree this is not a common practice for us to have

mr. levin? >> the chair -- >> let me just say there's a cliff on all three programs. so i don't think it's fair to say, well, we're ending the cliff for u.i. i think we're facing a cliff for all three and if we don't act, that cliff goes into effect. >> correct. >> and the question is whether when we address the cliff we're going to leave a substantial part of the cliff. >> i'm not aware that the state benefits will expire. >> that what? >> the state unemployment -- >> no, but the cliff is -- >>

. >> we'll go to mr. levin. if there's no one else, i think we're concluded in this round of discussion on bonus depreciation. i think there might be some other items you might want to discuss. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to submit a senate offering and pass it out. this is with respect to ui. there's been a lot of discussions about work surge requirements, reemployment, eligibility assessment, work sharing, self-employment assistance and it's my suggestion that the house take this offer under consideration and see if perhaps if it's the house position to either agree next session or work out some way where we could at least get these provisions passed. the bigger ui issues of course are not yet being considered, that is number of weeks and not paying for it, et cetera. but this is just a good faith effort to get the ball rolling here. so we're actually doing something on one of the three major issues. >> senator reid? >> excuse me. >>> i want to commend you for setting a tone on a vigorous debate but directing us

mr. levin's points about the proposed cuts to basic state training workers, worker investment, worker training, access to geds, we're sort of saying two things. we're saying we want people to qualify for workers unemployment insurance by signing up for the ged, but doesn't look like we're going to put a lot of money into the states to support the efforts to get everyone so that they could automatically sign up. and get the program. no waiting list, no nothing. we're not making that commitment. so essentially the point i would make is that this becomes maybe a well intentioned but a barrier for people to collect what they assume they were eligible for many, many years. of -- and unless we're willing to fund the support system necessary to get everyone who wants -- and if they're required to get -- sign up for the ged, it puts a lot of people in the difficult position. then you have to ask practical questions too about signing up for a ged and taking the two or three years to finish the ged, is that going to get you the job and we'd like to see people in the work force not two or three years lat

>> thank you, mr. levin. look, i think we all benefit from the federal employees doing research at nih into lifesaving cures and treatments. i think we all benefit from the folks in the intelligence community who help track down osama bin laden. i don't think this is an issue of whether or not we represent a small number of federal employees. again, i think we all benefit and i think the american people benefit from the. let me start that those mr. up to and referenced in the house. the reason that had such a big vote, i think the gentleman knows, is because you couple a freeze on congressional with a freeze on all federal employees salaries as mr. card mention. i think we can all settle the question of the pay freeze for congressional salaries. we can all support that. that chairman was to entertain a motion, we can do that right now but let's not mix up of the to. and the reason you have that vote was come and heard from a lot of my college. they were afraid to be accused of trying to protect their own pay

between shifts but i think you know mr levin very very expensive homes too i tell me you might even be in the one percent they may well be and i think you're misreading and i don't think this is about envy i think it's about genuine concern about social justice richard you're nodding your head i think is a concern about social justice it's a concern about it's not that people who work harder do better i think that is the model that america was made of if you work hard this country will have a great life on fortunately what we've seen is that just not the case the american dream is not dissipate and i think what the occupy movement represents is a yearning for the american dream i think they do because they do pose a problem to republicans going into the two thousand and twelve election because they've changed the way they've got or they've organized themselves they've got a clear clear and clean cut message and the message resonates with people all over the country where this in mississippi or d.c. when it comes to foreclosures which is the new occupy the home thing that they're doing

mr. levin. >> mr. van hollen is going to comment. >> thank you, mr. levin. i just want to start by emphasizing a point where i hope we will eventually have consensus, where our priorities should be on the three items that were mentioned. extending the payroll tax cut, extending unemployment insurance for folks who are out of work, and it deals with the doc fix. it seems to me that the next round of issues, if there are to be any, should be those that we have consensus so we are not slowing down the priority work and focus on the other 3. we just had a conversation on the boiler mact rules. clearly there is a difference of opinion that that would slow the process down. with respect to bonus depreciation, i agree. i think there is a very strong argument to be made for bonus depreciation especially as the economy remains in a fragile state. you laid out some statistics from the treasury department. it makes sense. there may be some extenders with a -- where there could be a consensus. we have been focused here on the policy issues. there is a very important que

mr. levin? >> i think that was a very useful energy. no, seriously. i do not think we need to tie ourselves into knots. how much time? >> 21 minutes remaining. >> how much time do we democrats -- >> we will continue to do rounds. we have 21 minutes. we should be able to get to two more speakers. >> let's put into perspective what this conference is all about. this is not a conference to reduce the deficit. this is a conference to extend emergency measures. people are unemployed through no fault of their own because of a bad economy, a lot of which had to do with the policies of the previous administration, and now we have a situation where these unemployed people are going to lose their benefits. and if we do not extend their benefits, not only they but their families will go without the basic amount of money to survive. secondly, and this is an emergency. therefore, it ought to be treated as an emergency piece of legislation. secondly, we have a middle- class tax cut that we all say we want to support to, and this middle-class tax cut is one that man

congressman levin? >> mrs. schwartz is going to participate. >> all right. >> well, thank you very much. and i -- i'm delighted to weigh in on what is a very, very strong agreement about what we hope to be able to do. and so i just want to make a few comments that we ought to do what we really want to do. we have an opportunity to do that. and i think it is somewhat of a unique opportunity. not just because we're agreeing, but there actually a role way forward. i want to acknowledge senator kyl's marks and mr. price -- dr. price, excuse me, for really stepping out there and really talking about how important this is to finally fix the sgr. and the importance it is not just to the doctor community, but really to all beneficiaries. and there are a lot of seniors out there. and every day there are more of them. so we ought to fix it now. so i -- you all know this, but i want to just reiterate that we are one month away from almost a 30% cut for physicians in this country. so it's not -- it's real. and we have one

mr. chairman? >> yes, senator levin? >> i think i see what senator begich is driving at and can be clarified, i think, by putting into this language what you, mr. chairman, just said. which is it's not limited to these relevant factors. any relevant factor could be considered. and that could be easily inserted by saying if we have this language, in rendering a the arbitration board shall consider any relevant factor including these three. i think that's what you said. and i think that would address senator begich's point. and i think, from what senator collins said, i'm not quite as sure in terms of making this statement as i am about saying that what i'm proposing would reflect what the chairman said. because i know senator collins -- >> i apologize. >> no, no. this is technical stuff, and i'm sorry. in rendering a decision under this paragraph -- this is the bill is -- the arbitration board shall consider and the way it's worded, such relevant factors as. and what i think senator begich is driving at and what i think th

mr. levinis recognized. >> except for the last few questions, we've been really discussing broader issues of tax reform, and not look and tax accounting issues. we may be related by this because we need to look at it. they are not easy issues. and you're going to have to, i think, have a few seminars with us on that subject as we look at these broader issues. so it's really the broader issues that have been mostly discussed here, and let me just say a word about that. there's no doubt we need to look at tax reform. there's no need, as i said earlier, to look at it with care, and not simply grab a hold of a specific figure without looking at its consequences. because according to the joint tax analysis, when we asked them, they said if the rates were reduced to 28%, half of that reduction would come from ending accelerated depreciation. so, when people say they want the rate dramatically reduced, but not at the expense, expense of accelerated depreciation, that doesn't really fit. and it was int

mr. levin: madam president, there's been a great deal of conversation recently about the need to close tax loopholes. this is a welcome development for those of us who have gone after these loopholes for years. it is particularly timely as the public is focusing more and more on how tax loopholes distort economic incentives and often benefit the wealthiest among us at the expense of most u.s. taxpayers. last week president obama released a framework for business tax reform that took aim at many corporate tax loopholes. i look forward to working with the administration and with our colleagues in the senate to make real reform a reality. reform that brings greater fairness to the tax code, eliminates incentives for moving jobs and assets overseas, restores revenue loss to unjustified tax loopholes and helps us reduce the deficit without damaging vital programs for education, transportation, health care and national security. one recent and very public announcement illustrates dramatically our tax

mr. schichtel, you have five minutes. >> thaupg. chairman camp, ranking member levin and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to share our views on corporate tax reform. i'm the senior vice president and chief tax officer for time warner cable. i'd like to first tell you about our business and the impact of taxes and tax policy on time warner cable. then i'll explain why we believe that less complexity and a lower rate will benefit our investors, employees and customers as well as the overall economy and americans at large. time warner cable is a fortune 150 capital intensive domestic company that provides high speed data, video and voice services to over 14.5 million customers. we have over 48,000 employees in 29 states. we offer our workers secure jobs and wages and benefit packages that are competitive and that support families, dreams and retirements. last year we hired over 7,300 people including hundreds of veterans. we are part of our nation's communications backbone that enables domestic companies to compete regionally, nationally and

camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 10 minutes. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. mr. gingrey: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, it's been more than two years since the class act was first debated as part of the president's health care takeover debate. we knew then that the program was flawed and unworkable, yet, the democratic controlled congress ignored these concerns and instead rushed the class program through as part of the president's health care law. now, two years and more than $800 billion later, we have finally heard from the president and his administration that while they have wasted taxpayer dollars, this program is in fact not implementable. surprised? well, you shouldn't be. unbiasedage ised such as the american academy of actuaries have raised concerns of the program some five months before the president's plan was even considered on the senate floor. members from both sides of the aisle also

senator levin. >> mr. chairman and ranking member, thank you for taking the initiative on this with other colleagues. thank you, madam secretary, for all the work the white house did on a similar bill which you worked on which i understand is basically part of now this pending bill which is on the calendar. i'm trying to understand what the objections are to the bill. it seems to me as if a whole bunch of protections in here for the private sector. i haven't read the bell yet but read a summary. there's a self-certification or third-party assessment of compliance with the performance requirements. i understand there's an appeal of those requirements if there's objection to it. i understand and believe the owners of covered critical infrastructure that are in substantial compliance with the performance requirements are not liable for punitive damage, which arise from an incident related to a cybersecurity risk. so, you have here something unusual, i believe, actually for the private sector, which is a waive

senator levin. >> mr. chairman and ranking member, thank you for taking the initiative on this with other colleagues in thank you madam secretary for all the work the white house did on a similar deal that you worked on which i understand it's basically part of now this pending bill, which is on the calendar. i am trying to understand what the objections are to the bill because it seems to me there are a whole bunch of protections in here for the private sector. as i read the summer of the bill and i have not read the bill yet, there is a self certification or third-party assessment of compliance with the performance requirements. understand there is an appeal of those requirements and there is objection to it. understand and believe that the owners have covered critical infrastructure and they are in substantial compliance with the performance requirements and not liable for punitive damage, which arise from an incident related to a cybersecurity risk. so you have here something unusual i believe actually

paul of the science and technology committee chair, his ranking member, mr. levin, ways and means committee for their assistance and our committees in congress who had important parts and provided assistance to our transportation and infrastructure committee to get this bill done. . i must thank also the staff. might look a little bedraggled this morning, our staff is probably even more so. almost all the members of the t.i. committee stayed through a markup that ended at 2:49 a.m. this morning. and they are here bright and chipper this morning. i appreciate all of the staff, and i want to particularly thank holly lyons who is our staff director on the f.a.a. subcommittee. mr. jim coon, our staff director on the full committee, amy smith, who is our policy director, bailey edwards, and i have to give special thanks to our legal counsel who last night informed me she's resigning today. that was about 2:00 a.m. in the morning. but it was with good plans for her and her family and her future. she served the committee well. we'll miss her. it wasn't as a result of us s

senator levin. >> mr. chairman and ranking member, thank you for taking the initiative on this with other colleagues. thank you, madam secretary, for all the work the white house did on a similar bill which you worked on which i understand is basically part of now this pending bill which is on the calendar. i'm trying to understand what the objections are to the bill. it seems to me as if a whole bunch of protections in here for the private sector. i haven't read the bell yet but read a summary. there's a self-certification or third-party assessment of compliance with the performance requirements. i understand there's an appeal of those requirements if there's objection to it. i understand and believe the owners of covered critical infrastructure that are in substantial compliance with the performance requirements are not liable for punitive damage, which arise from an incident related to a cybersecurity risk. so, you have here something unusual, i believe, actually for the private sector, which is a waive