in this case i'm simply filling the shoes of my esteemed predecessor, senator john warner, who i know for 20 years probably has had this battle and my colleagues have gone through some of the twists and turns. i want to simply make two or three comefntses, not take long today. i'll have more to say on monday. one is, while national and dulles serve our nation's capital, they also serve -- they're the local airports for people in virginia, d.c., and maryland. and there have been a number of issues, the unique nature of national airport in terms of sound keynes, in terms of traffic concerns, in terms of safety concerns. i also say that dulles, we've seen dulles, those of us who have lived in this area for decades, have seen dulles grow from being somewhat of a foresight or white elephant over the last 30 years to grow to be an international hub, an airport that has enormous potential, enor opportunity and has candidly benefited from the maintenance of the perimeter rule. an airport that this government has invested in heavily. i also have to recognize that technology has changed. the na

accomplish, shutting down fossil fuels, you had mccain, lieberman, warner, boxer, sanders, all of those bills. now you have got this thing with john kerry? they're all the same. look at the evaluation that was put on by the wharton school, mit, the cia. what would it cost america? somewhere between $3,000,000,000.-294966343 dollars every year. constituting the largest tax increase in the history of america. what do you get for it? the people understand. even lee said jackson says that if you pass it, it will not reduce co2. obviously. that is only the united states. china, india, mexico, they have no restrictions, so it would increase co2. honestly, when i look at what little i have seen specifically from lindsay gramm and john kerry, there's nothing specific they're, but what they are trying to do is pick. they tried this before. start out with natural gas. the idea of cap and trade, if you stop to think about it, if your desire was to reduce co2 emissions, just put a tax on the emissions, right? that is what james hansen said, the only thing i've ever read with a month. why do they not do it? because people would then understand

accomplish, shutting down fossil fuels, you had mccain, lieberman, warner, boxer, sanders, all of those bills. now you have got this thing with john kerry? they're all the same. look at the evaluation that was put on by the wharton school, mit, the cia. what would it cost america? somewhere between $3,000,000,000.-294966343 dollars every year. constituting the largest tax increase in the history of america. what do you get for it? the people understand. even lee said jackson says that if you pass it, it will not reduce co2. obviously. that is only the united states. china, india, mexico, they have no restrictions, so it would increase co2. honestly, when i look at what little i have seen specifically from lindsay gramm and john kerry, there's nothing specific they're, but what they are trying to do is pick. they tried this before. start out with natural gas. the idea of cap and trade, if you stop to think about it, if your desire was to reduce co2 emissions, just put a tax on the emissions, right? that is what james hansen said, the only thing i've ever read with a month. why do they not do it? because people would then understand

then waoetd warner-lieberman -- then we had the warner lieberman bill in twaeufplt the boxer-sanders bill in 2009. now it looks like we're going to have the john kerry and lindsey graham bill that's up. what do they all have in common? it's all cap-and-trade. i have a respect for james hansen. the only thing that i really respect is that he has made this statement about cap-and-trade. he said, you know, cap-and-trade is a devious ways for getting away from the issue. the main issue is we've got to do something about greenhouse gas emissions, co2. if we're going to do that, why not go ahead and have a tax on it? there's a very good reason that the cap-and-traders don't want a tax. the american people would know what it's costing them. what does it cost? with regard to any of these bills i mentioned, it's approximately the same because cap-and-trade is cap-and-trade. you've got to somehow make everyone think they're winners and other people are going to be the losers. so we had the ranges come up from the wharton school of economics, from m.i.t., from the c.r.a. and the range is always somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. that

we're never going to outdo the fierceness with which both senator warners, the senator john warner who preceded and now the senator mark warner fight for their constituents and for the interests of two really national airports, in a sense representing us all, and we certainly appreciate the -- the single mindedness with which now-senator mark warner has pursued those interests but also his recognition that obviously some times change, there are some needs for other parts of the country and that through comity and conversation perhaps things can be worked out without having any detriment to anybody, and that's obviously the goal that we would seek to accomplish. in any event, we'll have an amendment on the floor that can discuss this. perhaps we'll vote on it. in any event, the object would be to vote on final passage of the bill on monday evening. mr. dorgan: mr. president, we don't yet have a script with respect to a unanimous consent on the monday 5:30 vote, but just all of us are understanding that we want to conclude this legislation monday beginning with the 5:30 vote. i think tha