mr. speaker , i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for raising this point of order .  when the current majority took over the control of the congress , one of their first actions was to pass the unfunded mandated reform act ; and as a state legislator , i applauded their efforts because it was appropriate and fitting .  the bipartisan legislation provided a funding cap that congress could impose on states and local governments .  mr. speaker , here , today , i believe that we are breaking that commitment to our local governments and to communities if we pass this energy bill without moving to strike the legislation to mtbe .  unless we impose a spending cap , we are imposing too great of a financial burden on local government that is already hard pressed throughout our country .  there is no doubt that the mtbes pose a significant environmental health threat to our communities .  if released into the water table , a small portion of mtbes can ruin a community 's supply of drinking water .  in addition , exposure to this has resulted , as we know , in a number of cases of cancer , birth defects , and other illnesses .  mr. speaker , it is also evident that the legislation , i believe , is a direct violation of the unfunded mandated reform act .  the mtbe provisions presented in the energy bill would restrict the existing rights of states and communities to seek compensation under the law .  the same provisions would impose larger financial costs of the cleanup of those communities throughout our country ; and notwithstanding the argument of a member of $ 50 million , that is but the tip of the iceberg .  approximately half the members of our house have served in our state legislatures .  i was a past president of the national conference of state legislatures .  i will enter into the record at the end of my statement their opinion , in fact , that this is a violation of the unfunded mandates act that they , too , supported in the mid-1990s when the majority enacted this very important piece of legislation .  for my own district , the 20th district in california , we believe the costs could exceed $ 150 million because of the large number of sites that we have .  this bill eliminates my district 's ability to hold producers liable for the problem and help them assist in cleaning up .  on top of this , i believe that this does little to deal with the threats .  i urge that we support the point of order of the gentleman from massachusetts .  state legislatures , april 20 , 2005 .  dear representatives : the national conference of state legislatures urges you to support a point of order against h.r. 6 for its inclusion of unfunded federal mandates that would be imposed on state and local governments with the adoption of this legislation .  ncsl further urges you to strike those sections that include these unfunded mandates that exceed the unfunded mandates reform act threshold as identified by the congressional budget office 's preliminary review of h.r. 6 , the energy policy act of 2005 .  during the 108th congress , unfunded federal mandates exceeding $ 51 billion were imposed on state and local governments .  the house 's fy2006 budget resolution , h. con .  res. 95 , would impose unfunded mandates of over $ 30 billion in fy2006 alone if adopted by a conference committee .  the unfunded mandates proposed in h.r. 6 would serve to worsen what already is an unacceptable situation .  thank you for your consideration of our concerns and we are hopeful you will vote not to impose further unfunded mandates on state and local governments .  respectfully , representative joe hackney , senator beverly gard , 