i sincerely respect the intent of the authors of the amendment . 
i am just trying to point out that even on a cursory examination , there are things that were just kind of hastily put together . 
they have not been vetted . 
the underlying bill has been through countless hearings . 
the energy and commerce markup took 3 1/2 days . 
the base text is the conference report from the last congress that was extensively reviewed both inside and out of the conference . 
at this stage of the game , to adopt this , even as well intentioned as it is , would not put the congress in the best light . 
so i really would hope that we would vote it down . 
i do want to say one thing about the gentleman from michigan 's amendment on great lakes drilling . 
he offered his amendment in committee . 
we had a fair debate on it . 
it was rejected . 
i do not remember the vote . 
it was a fairly close vote , but it was rejected . 
then we took a rogers of michigan amendment as a substitute that gives the states the right to ban drilling if they wish . 
it is my understanding , and i could be incorrect about this , that michigan wishes to ban drilling in the great lakes and ohio perhaps does not . 
i did not learn whether new york wanted to or did not want to . 
i think that canada does allow it . 
but the base bill allows a state the right to ban drilling on their portion of jurisdiction of the great lakes if they so wish . 
