Post. , there has been a lot of weird climate events over the last couple of months and beyond. You have asked, not only just recently, but for the last couple of years, for President Biden to declare a Climate Emergency. What do you mean by that . What would you like to see . Quick certainly the impact of the summer has been very clear. July 4, the hottest day in human history. The last nine years, the hottest nine years in human history. And we see all sorts of other impacts in terms of trauma and loss of snowpack and stronger storms. So when you look at that collective impact, this is a global emergency, its the biggest threat humanity has ever faced. Even before biden was inaugurated, i was arguing in that first speech to layout the challenge that the United States has to set the example and has to work in lead other countries there put less country in the outlets less carbon in the atmosphere. We have to have an example lead and help the world take this on. But instead, what we have seen is the Biden Administration has regarded two and all of the above strategy. They are green lighting more fossil projects after another, more drilling in the gulf of mexico, a new export facility in alaska. Nor speed drilling operation called the willow project. The Mountain Valley gas pipeline. And it failed to absolutely educate americans about the immediacy of the challenge and how dramatically we need to operate in order to take it on. So while theyve done many things that i like to a great deal, what they havent done is to be the bold leader on climate that the United States is. A Climate Emergency would declare a lot more powers, which you could exercise as you saw appropriate as issues develop. Things like oil experts or activating their production act. To me, the goal that biden laid out for 2035, in terms of whats generated by renewable energy, if half of that comes from solar, then we have to deploy nearly 3 billion solar panels between now and 12 years from now. We are nowhere close to having their Production Capacity to do that. We are not even a tiny bit of the way there. So theres more that the president can do, he could tip funds to accelerate r d on battery, accelerate transmission lines needed to connect across the country, he could send a message to investors and send a message to universities and send a message to the public that he is going to fight this battle as fiercely or more fiercely then President Trump continued to raise issues about our southern border. What does the administration say to you when you ask why they are not doing this or when they respond to your letter about this issue . Yes, they give very vague answers, you understand were we are following. I will say, no, i do not understand. Yes, i realize this senate is split in the last section session of congress. I understand that producing bills that will require essentially every democrat to be on board. I understand this, but i do think that people rally around a leader who lays out a clear and powerful vision and says how urgent it is. And that is more important, more needed than a little bit of cooperation that some senator will come in and talk to you. So, i really think that, quite frankly, President Biden and his team do not understand the level of challenge we are facing, and that, really, President Biden as one nasa and play said, he is the last president who can keep the earth from exceeding 1. 5 degrees, which we are hurtling towards so rapidly. Does President Biden need a primary challenger to push them on this issue . It probably wouldnt hurt, if there was an activist who had a very clear reputation and a very solid grassroots connection to be in the campaign to be making these points. But realize President Biden at this point really does have the primary tied up. The major environmental groups endorsed early. They were afraid that a challenger would undermine President Biden their way ted kennedys campaign damaged jimmy carters reelection. So laborers are onboard, reproductive Rights Groups are on, major environmental groups are on board. I think what we are seeing now is the president has the primary well in hand, but those climate groups that did that early endorsement, they should go back and say, you dont want just our endorsement, you want our activists knocking on doors. You want the sunrise room to be passionately excited about your campaign. It is to bit, say no to any more fossil projects. For example, right now, the fossil fuel world wants to double the capacity of a pipeline that runs through oregon and washington, and ive been working to get them to say no because they havent demonstrated a need for that additional fossil methane gas in california or oregon or washington, so i am lobbing the white house, those environmental groups that have endorsed him say, heres a great example of making the pivot right now. Do not allow them to double the pressure of that pipeline and double that gas. This is a place where the administration wants to pretend that fossil gas is somehow better for the climate than coal , and that is a fallacy. A recent study said that if a fossil gas, natural gas lets call it fossil methane gas, if it has. 2 leakage rate, then it is as bad for the climb as coal. So they are essentially equivalent or possibly fossil gas is worse because methane, the primary component of fossil gas is so effective with trapping the heat, so do not pretend that somehow fossil gas is better. Do not pretend that plastics expansion of plastics is ok, or fossil hydrogen. Those are all things that will be climate killers, and the president has to help educate the United States and, again, take us back to that core example and our persuasive ability with other countries. John kerry was in china recently to talk about the economy and the climate envoy with the ministration and they talk about climate change. Did he do enough . He came back from that trip without much success. Did he do enough to try to move the chinese on a Climate Mission . I love john kerry and the expertise he brings. Hes a great person to have in this job, but most of whats been happening as countries have been setting goals for 20, 35 2035 and 2050. Earlier when i was in vietnam and indonesia they tracked about their 2035 and 2050 goals. Those goals are mirages on the horizon. Having country sign up for that is meaningless. What matters now is a vast pipit off of fossils. Stop producing more fossil infrastructure, rapidly deploy renewable infrastructure. The real test of how the world is doing is how much each year does the carbonate go up for whats in the atmosphere, and it went up more last year than any year in human history. We havent even begun we havent even started, we havent even got in the slightest start on ending the acceleration of carbon into our atmosphere. And that is so powerfully destructive to the world that our children will see, our grandchildren will see, it will get worse and worse, think about how bad it is now compared to 25 years ago. This will accelerate to another place, so the kind of agreements that carrie needs to get our real, on the ground commitments of changes that immediately stop new fossil projects and accelerate renewables, but how can the u. S. Ask for that when we are approving a whole lot more fossil projects here at home. That is the fatal flaw in the direction the president is headed on this most important issue facing humanity, team biden is failing. There is talk about permitting reform trying to get done this congress, some climate activists say that it is necessary to do this permitting reform that would help all Energy Sectors in order to advance renewable energies. Where do you stand on that . Very dangerous to have permitting reform that proceeds to unleash even faster fossils. Wrong message to the world, wrong message on the ground, yes , we need improvements on electric transmissions, or interconnecting different parts of the country, much of that can be done by putting taller towers in and wider cuts on existing pathways rather than new pathways. Thats much easier to do. But if you unlace more fossils more quickly. We just undermine everything at home and everything abroad. Moreover, the house leaders have said they arent going to talk about permitting reform or transmission reform, which would help with the electricity equation, the grid, unless there is a massive curtailment of the clean water will thats not going to fly. In other words, the Republican Party the key public master of the republican master is the fossil fuel community. That is the big challenge we face. Last year they had some 300 billion in profits. They put 1 of that and the political system as an investment in campaigns, thats 3 billion, the Republican Party is controlled by the fossil fuel world, and its going to take a clear message from biden in his reelection that the path that he is on is serving the American People in the future of our children and grandchildren, other shortterm profits of the fossil companies, they have to be painted as the bad guy because they are the bad guy, they are the force that is determined to keep on a path that is destroying our world. Quick senator, i want to change topics, another issue youve been working on on capitol hill is tsas facial recognition. As more record level of travel for some americans this summer, more more airports are using this facial recognition mechanism through the tsa process. What are your concerns about it . Im shuri concerned about a government creating a surveillance state where they track americans everywhere you go. At what the tsa had in their 2018 plan was, hey, we want to experiment with this and have an opt in option where in individual could choose instead of having their face identified by the tsa agent to have the camera identify them, but they have gone from opt in to opt out. In effect, they really have opt out. What they have done is the agent directs you in front of the camera, but they have no sign in the line as you approach saying, hey, you will have an option and you dont have to have the camera, they dont have a sign under the camera and the four last times ive gone to Reagan National each time i posted about it and i documented this signage on my last trip, last friday, they have no sign at the kiosk, what they did have was assigned that had been turned sideways and squeezed in between two kiosks so nobody could read it. And if you did read it when its a facial recognition and it wouldnt say you have a choice, so we are way down the fine print, there is an indication that you can opt out, you can volunteer to opt out but the completes the complete system is set up to force you. When i had said to an agent this is not required, you are supposed to inform people that this is an option, theyve set, no we are not and ive said, im choosing not to be in front of a camera and i hand them my drivers license and i have an agent say to me, you are going to hold up yourself and the entire line, which is not true. It takes four seconds for the agents to look at your face and your card. On the second to my last trip the agents that i was taking pictures of what they were doing, which is totally legal, i wanted to protect myself and make sure i wasnt going to be arrested. The agents had me stand aside and i could hear him on tape saying, what will we do about it . They absolutely are at the front end of setting up a surveillance state, we should all be extremely worried about it. Tsa is not honoring the opt in strategy. They are not honoring what they have set as they are informing people. They clearly think we are on a path that we are all concerned about. What would they do with that information . The information initially is used for the computer to say, does the license, which is being scanned simultaneously by the agent, match the picture taken. But then they have basically said they are holding that information temporarily to do a study. What does temporarily mean . Where are they holding this . They have been hacked before and theyve lost thousands and thousands of pictures, what may be determined as hundreds of thousands. I dont have a number in front of me, but this situation of being tracked everywhere you go in america is just too tempting. They are going to connect this system up in time to a database of folks that they have an interest in. That means it wont just be to connect your face to your drivers license, this is the first step. Then they connected to the database. They say, now we can connect people wherever they go, people we are looking for. Its tempting, it sounds like criminal justice will be in the hands. You will catch someone that has a warrant on them. Do we want a government with the huge powers to track us everywhere we go what is the cost of privacy, what is the cost in freedom . We see around the World Advanced surveillance like china is exercising with the uighurs, we do not want to live, i dont want to with live and i dont think americans want to live in the freedom constrained environment so we have to ask now. Really quickly before i move onto to another topic, is this something where more oversight could be added to the upcoming reauthorization bill, or is it to different of an issue . You can add any topic into any bill as long as you can get unanimous consent to have the amendment considered. That is the change of the senate that is a big problem. The first problem i sought any person or any senator could raise any amendment on any topic and without unanimous consent. It wasnt the rules changing, it was the social contract. The social contract was utah object my amendment, there was no camera on the floor. That was the superpower to the senator. That was completely gone, now we need unanimous consent of the social contract changing. I will object to your amendment because he will object to my amendment. There is no nonconsent option. It sounds like you cant challenge the powerful nearly as easily as you could a couple decades ago because you could put you saw some wrongdoing, you could put up an amendment and force a vote, the voters recorded, it creates accountability with the american public. That ability is gone. Thats why you cant put up a strong amendment on climate because republicans will object to the consideration of it. They just objected, i had an amendment on the Defense Authorization in the defense to china and the republicans went bananas over and objected to it being voted on. To your point leanne, there is support among democrats and republicans and republicans on this issue. My partner in committee this last week was john kennedy for louisiana, a staunch republican. Im going to have other republicans team up. Talk to senator cruz and senator lee, they are considering weighing in on this privacy. I think we can build a coalition of democrats and republicans who say this is dangerous, this is not a path we want to go down. Since you brought up senate procedure, i do want to ask about the filibuster. This is something that you have wanted in the 50 vote threshold in the senate for a while. There was a lot of talk about in the last congress and in the 5050 senate. There is not so much talk about it now. Why not . The driving force of the last congress was Senate Bill Number one, my bill took on gerrymandering, it took on dark money and defended the balloting process for every american. This was so needed. We had 50 votes in the Vice President supported the bill. We only had 48 votes, however, to go from this secret silent veto, where the minority, they had 41 folks you said no to the debate. No debate required. The big irony there. To go ta lking filibuster, which we have been would have been able to eventually to get to a vote. If i wouldve taken five or six weeks, the senate from the beginning has rules that says eventually you have a full opportunity to have your say, a vote will be held. You can go twice to a specific motion within the same legislative day in the legislative day could go on for weeks. That rule is still in the senate rules. Two senators, senator manchin and senator sinema chose to keep the silent, nonaccountable veto, which discourages cooperation, instead of going to a full talking filibuster, which encourages cooperation because it takes time and effort for the minority to keep up continuous debate and because a majority cant afford to have the floor tied up for weeks and weeks, so it encourages negotiation and compromise, but they chose to veto over the talking filibuster and torpedoed that effort, now we have no chance of getting such a bill through the house. There is a key legislative opportunity of it driving the debate over the restoring of the system of the past, the talking filibuster as an instrument, to be able to drive compromise and get us to a final vote. Finally, we are almost out of time. I want to ask you about an aging senate. Last week we saw the episode by Senate Minority leader Mitch Mcconnell where he was not speaking for several seconds and had to be walked away. There has been questions about senator feinsteins health and her mental capabilities, serving in the senate. Does there need to be an age limit in the senate . Is that something that congress should discuss . No, i dont think that has any possibility. It would require a constitutional amendment. I dont see that getting the super majority it needs in both chambers and three quarters of the states. I do say to my team, when i am at that point, that pivot in my life where you start to see the changes in my abilities, do not let me run for reelection. Think about senator lahey, who just retired. He was the last person there when i was an intern. He was the last senator still serving during the time i am serving as senator. And every single week he was a positive contributor. He brought his humor, he brought his stories about coral reefs bleaching because of his scuba diving, he brought his effectiveness in the judiciary and appropriations committee. He gave us a real sense of how the senate has changed. And so having a few folks who have been around a significant amount of time can help give insight to newcomers that take a long time to acquire. I dont think america wants to say age is the sigel single factor. But if your health is questionable, if your mind is not as sharp as it was 30 years earlier, then maybe it is time to start thinking about not running for reelection. X senator, we are out of time. Take you so much for spending 25 thank you so much for spending 25 minutes with us this morning. I appreciate this fascinating discussion. You are so welcome. Lets go and build a better world. Great. Thank you. Enjoy your august. And thank you for watching. To watch this program again and all of our future programs, please visit washingtonpostlive. Com