mr. speaker , let me respond to my colleague , the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton )  , and simply say this is an unfunded mandate .  the cbo says so .  here is the letter we received yesterday , and it says very clearly that this is an unfunded mandate .  i know my colleagues all have great confidence in the cbo .  my colleague , the gentleman from texas ( mr. sessions )  , made the following statement on cbo just a few months ago .  he said , the congressional budget office is a professional organization that assists the united states congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way those impacts on the laws that we pass .  well , here it is in black and white .  cbo says this is an unfunded mandate , and people need to understand that if they do not vote for what we are saying here today , they are supporting an unfunded mandate .  u.s. congress , congressional budget office , washington , dc , april 19 , 2005 .  dear mr .  chairman : based on a preliminary review of h.r. 6 , the energy policy act of 2005 , as introduced in the house of representatives on april 18 , 2005 , cbo estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $ 1.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $ 0.4 billion over the 2006-2015 period .  cbo and the joint committee on taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce revenues by $ 4.0 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $ 7.9 billion over the 2006-2015 period .  the estimated direct spending and revenue effects are summarized below .  a table with additional details is attached .  implementing this legislation also would affect spending subject to appropriation action , but cbo has not completed an estimate of the potential discretionary costs .  h.r. 6 contains numerous mandates as defined in the unfunded mandates reform act ( umra ) that would affect both intergovernmental and private-sector entities .  based on our review of the bill , cbo expects that the mandates ( new requirements , limits on existing rights , and preemptions ) contained in the bill 's titles on motor fuels ( title xv ) , nuclear energy ( title vi ) , electricity ( title xii ) and energy efficiency ( title i ) would have the greatest impact on state and local governments and private-sector entities .  cbo estimates that the cost of complying with intergovernmental mandates , in aggregate , could be significant and likely would exceed the threshold established in umra ( $ 62 million in 2005 , adjusted annually for inflation ) at some point over the next five years because we expect that future damage awards for state and local governments under the bill 's safe harbor provision ( title xi ) would likely be reduced .  as explained below , that provision would shield the motor fuels industry from liability under certain conditions .  section 1502 would shield manufacturers of motor fuels and other persons from liability for claims based on defective product relating to motor vehicle fuel containing methyl tertiary butyl ether or renewable fuel .  that protection would be in effect as long as the fuel is in compliance with other applicable federal requirements .  the provision would impose both an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as it would limit existing rights to seek compensation under current law .  ( the provision would not affect other causes of action such as nuisance or negligence. ) under current law , plaintiffs in existing and future cases may stand to receive significant amounts in damage awards , based , at least in part , on claims of defective product .  because section 1502 would apply to all such claims filed on or after september 5 , 2003 , it would affect more than 100 existing claims filed by local communities , states , and some private companies against oil companies .  individual judgments and settlements for similar lawsuits over the past several years have ranged from several million dollars to well over $ 100 million .  based on the size of damages already awarded and on information from industry experts , cbo anticipates that precluding existing and future claims based on defective product would reduce the size of judgments in favor of state and local governments over the next five cbo can not determine whether the aggregate cost of the private-sector mandates in the bill would exceed the threshold established in umra primarily for two reasons .  first , some of the requirements established by the bill would hinge on future regulatory action for which information is not available .  second , umra does not specify whether cbo should measure the cost of extending a mandate relative to the mandate 's current costs or assume that the mandate will expire and measure the costs of the mandate 's extension as if the requirement were new .  the bill would extend the existing mandate that requires licensees to pay fees to offset roughly 90 percent of the nuclear regulatory commission 's annual appropriation .  measures against the costs that would be incurred if current law remains in place , the cost to the private sector of extending this mandate would exceed the annual threshold established in umra ( $ 123 million in 2005 , adjusted annually for inflation ) .  if you wish further details on this estimate , we will be pleased to provide them .  the cbo staff contacts are lisa cash driskill , ( for federal costs ) , who can be reached at 226-2860 , theresa gullo ( for intergovernmental mandates ) , who can be reached at 225-3220 , and patrice gordon ( for private-sector mandates ) , who can be reached at 226-2940 .  sincerely , douglas holtz-eakin , attachment .  