President Biden Popular in Europe, Not So Much at Home

[music]

Matt: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Matt Katz from the WNYC Newsroom filling in for Brian Lehrer, who is off today. I hope you had a restful and safe July 4th Weekend. Coming up on today's show, we're going to talk to the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction about the ongoing crisis at Rikers Island. Plus, we'll talk about your digital privacy after the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and what do you do when you're out and about, and you got to go? We'll ask for your tips on where to find a public bathroom here in the city.

First, President Biden is back in the US after completing a week at the back-to-back G7 and NATO Summits, where he, “Basked in the praise of other leaders,” according to Politico. There he agreed on a plan to contribute $200 billion to counter China's global infrastructure plan, and push the soon to be expected NATO alliance with Finland, and Sweden in an effort to stand with Ukraine.

It's a stark contrast to his popularity here at home, where Republicans are bemoaning gas prices in the economy, and Democrats are challenging what they perceive as his weak stance on abortion, and guns. Yesterday, the president responded to the deadly shooting at a 4th of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, in which at least six people were killed and 31 were injured. Let's take a listen to what he had to say in formal remarks.

President Biden: You all heard what happened today, but each day we're reminded there's nothing guaranteed about our democracy, nothing guaranteed about our way of life. We have to fight for it, defend it and earn it by voting.

Matt: By voting. We'll talk a little bit more about that. Joining me now to talk about the latest political news, including everything with President Biden is Jonathan Lemire, host of Way Too Early on MSNBC, and Politico’s White House bureau chief, and the author of the forthcoming book, The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020, which comes out later this month. Welcome back to WNYC Jonathan. Thanks for being here.

Jonathan: Good morning. I'm glad to be here.

Matt: Let's start with the news at home on the end of Roe v. Wade. You and your colleagues reported, “Frustration is building among liberals over what some see as a slow executive response from the President despite weeks to prepare.” Politico published its scoop of the draft majority opinion, which predicted the Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade back at the beginning of May. Jonathan, did the administration do anything between then and the ruling to counter this?

Jonathan: They took a number of steps, but not as many as many Democrats would like. They talked to a number of groups, they talked to NARAL, they talked to Planned Parenthood, they talked to state organizations, city organizations. They talked to states where governors had vowed they would protect abortion rights and to try to effort to help with that, as well as to those states, they felt like those abortion rights would disappear if indeed Roe v. Wade would be wiped off the books and therefore those trigger laws kick in. The president has, and the White House, they've explored some executive actions that they could take but largely, there hasn't been much for them to do.

Now, some of this is of course, outside of the powers of the presidency. This needs to be done by legislation. I think a lot of Democrats at the very least were looking for more fire, were looking for more signal from the president that he understood that this was an existential threat many of them believe to their lives and their health, to their bodies themselves.

I was on the president's trip overseas, which I know we’ll get to more about later. I was in the room in Madrid at the end of the week when he did signal that he would support a carve-out to the filibuster to protect abortion rights, to protect to codify Roe v. Wade, which was welcomed by Democrats. There's not much of a chance that will come to pass, but at least finally, some members of President Biden's party felt he understood and was trying to fight for them.

Matt: There is very little chance you said that that comes to pass. Why is that?

Jonathan: There are a number of Democrats who have shown a reluctance to blow up the filibuster for anything. Senator Manchin, Senator Sinema, among them, publicly have come out and said that they did not support doing so for voting rights. There is some reluctance that could happen now as well. Certainly, there's not going be 10 Republican senators who come on board here. A few of them have since, Senators Collins and Murkowski have said that they have signaled they might be willing to do so. They certainly expressed some outrage at some of the Supreme Court justices who in their confirmation hearings had indicated that they believe Roe v. Wade was set a law, only to take that back during this draft opinion.

Matt: I have a clip of President Biden during that press conference at the NATO Summit responding to a question about what he would do in response to the Dobbs decision.

President Biden: I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade into law and the way to do that is to make sure that Congress votes to do that. If the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this, except the required an exception of the filibuster for this action.

Matt: It strikes me, Jonathan, that the president said that in response to a question, but he hasn't come out strenuously to offer any specific way of countering this abortion decision other than going out and voting. Am I right about that?

Jonathan: You largely are. I think you've hit upon something that actually frustrates a lot of Democrats and Independents who supported the Democratic Party, namely Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Is that the Democrats control the White House, they control the Senate, and they control the House of Representatives. I think that among many voters, including a lot of Democrats, there's a frustration that more hasn't gotten done in the year and a half since they've had full control. To be clear, that they have achieved the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, they've achieved COVID relief funding and the vaccine distribution. The White House is happy to provide you with a list of accomplishments and we shouldn’t belittle those, but key parts of the president's agenda haven't gotten done.

I think in particular, what a lot of Democrats feel are the biggest crises right now that they and their nation faces, the now abortion rights, but also voting rights. There's been nothing the Democrats have been able to do. That's simply a matter of political calculation and political math. They don't have, though they have the majority in the House, it's only by a few seats, and the Senate is a 50/50 tie. They win it because the vice president can cast that tie-breaking vote, but there's not much margin for error there. They haven't been able to get some of the landmark protections done that so many in their party want. They can read the polls and see that right now anyway, the Democrats are really underwater.

Matt: Congress from Biden's left flank Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she tweeted that one thing the president could do, and I believe he could just do this himself, right, is open abortion clinics on federal lands. Is that something that's a possibility? Is that something within his power and purview?

Jonathan: It is and it's an option the White House is exploring but at the moment, they are leaning against. I was on the Air Force One flying from Munich to Madrid at the end of last week between the G7 and NATO Summits. We asked White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre this very question. Though she did not definitively rule it out, she said that they were leaning against it. They felt that they were not necessarily able to provide legal protections for people coming and going from those federal facilities.

They were worried that in states where abortion, of course, would be illegal, that perhaps there'd be measures to try to stop these individuals, the women, and their families from entering or leaving these facilities. That there were some safeguards that they would need to put in place that just weren’t sure would be possible. The short answer, that's a long way of saying it's not ruled out, but it does appear unlikely.

Matt: What about repealing the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal funds to cover almost all abortions? That was another suggestion from AOC. Then the third suggestion she had, and this is something that appears to be done in the water is expanding the Supreme Court.

Jonathan: Right. Well, we can certainly, address that last one first. The president has shown no interest in expanding the Supreme Court. He's been asked that repeatedly due to the number of issues including this one and he does not feel like it's necessary. That he feels as if he still-- Look, Joe Biden is an institutionalist. He still, much to the chagrin of members of his own party believes that the United States Senate works, and he believes the Supreme Court does as well. He does not feel like it would be in the best interest to do so.

I think that there is a sense that, of course, there's always a danger of precedent. That if he were to expand the court, well, what's to stop future Republican president from doing the same. The Hyde Amendment also, at least at the moment does not seem like it's something that's in the cards in terms of a repeal. Right now, the White House is focusing on trying to safeguard at the state level, trying to do the supportive of legal actions being taken in states to slow down the implementation- -of what the Supreme Court ruled. The Department of Justice is involved as well, but you hit it a minute ago. Their answer often is simply come out and vote, that the only way to change this is to put more Democrats in office.

Matt: Then what's the politics with that message? Do they think that the end of Roe v. Wade will motivate Democratic voters to come out in November and to preserve their majorities in Congress?

Jonathan: That's their hope, but I think it's a jump ball. Analysts that I speak to and both parties aren't quite sure how this is going to play. No doubt, there's real passion here amongst some Democrats. We've seen demonstrations, we've seen marches in the streets really upset about this Supreme Court decision. Whether that will translate to votes in the ballot boxes in November is unclear.

The White House hopes so, but I think there are other Democrats who fear that members of their own party are so beaten down right now because of things like the failure to preserve voting rights, because of this decision, because of other what they perceive as the White House and the Democratic majority is falling short, that they're not sure they will be motivated to vote again this November. Traditionally Republicans tend to do better in these off year elections to begin with.

I think there is a palpable sense of frustration, as well as at least for polling even more than the Supreme Court's decision, inflation remains the number one topic on the minds of voters and that that will be potentially the number one driving force at the ballot box this fall. At least for now, the party in power usually gets punished with inflation’s the issue and that would be Democrats.

Matt: If you're just joining us, I'm Matt Katz filling in for Brian Lehrer. We're speaking with Jonathan Lemire, host of Way Too Early on MSNBC and Politico's White House bureau chief. Listeners, do you have any questions for the White House bureau chief at Politico? We're talking about the end of Roe, Democrats’ response, just how Biden is doing. Give us a call 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692.

If you've got a question for a person who regularly travels with the president and interacts with his team, now's your chance to ask. Jonathan, I got to ask about guns. This just deadly shooting yesterday at the 4th of July parade in Highland Park, New York City saw a wave of gun violence this past weekend, in Highland Park, Illinois, six people were killed, 31 were injured.

In some ways, there's a similarity with respect to the issue of abortion in that many Democrats feel that the president needs to be stronger here and needs to do whatever he can do and circumvent Congress if he needs to in order to make some progress on the gun epidemic plaguing the country. In a statement, Biden touted that he assigned the, "First major bipartisan gun reform legislation in almost 30 years." Is it not enough? What's the status of that law? When does it go into effect? Will it keep us safer?

Jonathan: I don't think you'd find any Democrat who thinks that that's enough. He assigned it into law but it was, even by its strongest proponents, which includes Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut who was the driving Democratic force behind this, he himself put it as its incremental step. Now let's take a step back and say for those who believe in more gun safety legislation, this is important. It is the first one in decades. They hope it will break the logjam and it could lead to further reform down the road, but what this bill actually accomplished wasn't all that much.

I think what we saw from this weekend and from what happened yesterday across the country, but particularly in that suburb of Chicago is a uniquely and tragic American story, one frankly fitting that that shooting occurred on the nation's birthday because that has become such a part of our national character right now are these mass shootings.

To your question, the president at the White House yesterday during a 4th of July celebration, he held a moment of silence, he touted that legislation he signed. Contrast to that with some of the others in the party, including Governor Pritzker of Illinois, the shooting in his home state. He's rumored, by the way as a 2024 presidential candidate were Joe Biden not to run free election. He spoke with real anger and passionate and fire saying, "This is unacceptable and has to stop." I think there are a lot of Democrats who wish they were hearing the same things from White House.

Matt: Why don't we hear that from the White House? Is it not Joe Biden's style? Is he not as outraged as maybe some grassroots Democrats? Has he lost a little bit on his fastball and is maybe just doesn't have the same energy as he might have had 10 or 20 years ago? Where is that fire?

Jonathan: I think that certainly, the president is upset and we've heard him speak in heartbreaking terms about a number of these shootings, particularly the one and Uvalde, Texas. I was with him when he traveled to Buffalo, New York with that supermarket shooting, the suspect having authored a racist manifesto before opening fire there. I don't think it's a question of him not feeling it. First of all, in his public remarks, he is one who defers towards grief and sadness and mourning perhaps than anger, that's just a style thing.

More than that, I think again it reflects upon how he's lived his more than four decades in Washington, where he tries to reach across the aisle, he tries to find consensus, he tries to find bipartisanship. I think those are all noble things. That was part of his pitch when he ran for president in 2020. That though many Democrats feel and frankly so do senior members of his own staff is a little out of step with where we are right now.

I think a common refrain from Democrats is that they will forever be grateful to Joe Biden for beating Donald Trump. They're less sure he's the right man for the job to defeat Trumpism and the increasingly radicalization of the Republican Party when he still tries to reach across the aisle and very rarely finds anyone there. They want to see him take more steps unilaterally and show that fire, whether it is on guns, abortion rights or voting rights.

Matt: Craig in Westchester. Hey there Craig?

Craig: Hey, how are you? Thank you so much for taking my call.

Matt: Sure thing.

Craig: I think I have a solution to Roe v. Wade and I was wondering if I can get your opinion. Of course, it's a big problem, but it's also the symptom of a larger problem. The larger problem is the structure of the Supreme Court. Why are justices on the court? In the past 250 years, something extremely rare happened. The president of the United States was elected, but he lost the popular vote. That's an extremely rare occurrence in 250 years.

Surprisingly it happened twice. Consequently, five of the nine Supreme Court justices have been put on the court by presidents that actually lost the popular vote and they all voted against Roe v. Wade. That means the justices on the court do not reflect the majority of the population or the will of the people. They only represent a minority. The solution would be to recognize that this is a problem.

Dissolve the Supreme Court and in the meantime have other federal courts take over that position until we know what to do with the Supreme Court, which has led us to an apartheid like state where our laws are being determined by a court that only represents a minority of our population and not a majority. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on that.

Matt: Thank you Craig. Jonathan, any discussions about something as radical as dissolving the Supreme Court and what are even the constitutional limits when it comes to a solution like Craig is offering?

Jonathan: Flatly, though I appreciate the caller's enthusiasm, there's been no discussion of that. The Supreme Court has enshrined in the constitution. I do not see any scenario where that would ever happen. The debate as we were discussing in your last segment is could it perhaps be expanded? Would the Democrats try to push it forward? The president has not signaled that he would want to do that, so that seems a non-starter as well. I think frankly, the shift now needs to be this November's mid-term elections.

We know that this Senate right now is 50/50. If the Republicans were to gain control of the Senate, then that would put President Biden's ability to nominate any future justice in jeopardy. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has said that we're he to become majority leader again, he wouldn't guarantee a hearing for President Biden's nominee. We know what he did in 2016. He wouldn't give one to Merrick Garland for President Obama's nominee saying that it was too close to an election, even though it was eight, nine, ten months out. There's no suggestion, he wouldn't take that even further this time around.

That's part of the Democrat's message here is that they do feel like the House is likely to flip to the GOP. The Senate though, much more of a tossup. They say we need to be able to keep the Senate in order to be able to confirm presidential nominees, not just for cabinet positions but potentially for any sort of Supreme Court vacancy.

Matt: Let's go to Marie in Brooklyn. Hey Marie, thanks for calling in.

Marie: Hey, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to go back and comment about- -what the guest said about Pritzker I actually totally disagree. I feel like his speech was completely passionless. It was manufactured and of course, he's a potential nominee in 2024, and it felt like it because he is got to straddle both sides. I actually think there's been a complete absence of passion. There's passion in the streets, there's passion among regular people, but there's zero passion coming from politicians.

Everyone keeps saying we have to vote in the upcoming elections and that's logical and that makes sense, but without that passion, real passion, like I would say Steve Kerr, the coach of the Warriors, so far in all of this after the Uvalde shooting, he spoke with real passion, real anger. We see that there's such a dichotomy between that and what's coming from our politicians on every side, Democrat and Republican, and from what-- and especially among women. I'm not obviously representing all women, but I can tell you women are angry and telling us to vote is not going to do it.

Maybe if President Biden did something, even if it’s-- I feel like Democrats are so busy strategizing that they miss the bigger picture. Maybe doing something, at least will motivate people to say, “Okay they're trying.” It may be crazy, it may not be able to happen, but stop strategizing and do and that will motivate us to vote and not telling us to vote because so far look, where we're at, we voted and look where we're at.

Matt: Marie, would you consider not voting in November if you didn't see any real action and fire from Democrats in the months between now and then?

Marie: Me personally, no, I believe in our right to vote. We have to vote. It's an obligation as a citizen, but I don't think that's true for a lot of people and that's what worries me. That's my personal feeling. I don't know that everybody shares that and I don't feel it. I just don't feel it in the air that this is motivating to people. We're deflated. Women are completely deflated. I don't see how we're motivated, not speaking for myself and for young people.

In a previous show, there was a guest talking about how she sees passion and fire from young people. I don't see it at all. I see deflation. I see it in the streets marching, and on social media. I don't see it otherwise. I don't see people paying attention really to what's going on and that's what got us here in the first place.

Matt: Thank you, Marie. Thank you for calling in. Jonathan, I'm wondering if there's just any dramatic move that the president could make, even if it were to get rejected by the courts. You wouldn't see Stephen Miller in the Trump White House, for example not proposing a draconian immigration policy because he wasn't sure whether it would be able to be enacted. But he proposed those things and they tried to put things into effect in an effort to motivate their base and there were supporters. Democrats don't seem to do that.

Jonathan: The caller just outlined a great fear held by many in the White House and then Democratic leadership, that their voters are angry, but also deflated and may not be motivated to vote,. While the Republicans, at least some of them are sort of exalted right now, what they have seen from the Supreme Court. We're only 10 days or so out from the decision from the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. There hasn't been a ton of polling yet in terms of how it'll impact this November, but certainly, polling broadly speaks to most Americans want to protect abortion rights.

There is a possibility, and it’s what Democrats are banking on that those voters they'll be incensed by this decision. They'll want to turn out and vote this November, that the majority of Americans do believe and this was the wrong decision by the Supreme Court. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. There are just so many other factors at play right now on the political landscape, on the president's plate and Democrats. It remains to be seen whether that will be top of mind come November. I think for many voters, it absolutely is and even posing the question, how could it not be? Yet for many others, it would be inflation or something else.

Matt: Gas prices.

Jonathan: Exactly. It’s a to-be-continued question, but Democrats are very nervous about it.

Matt: Let's get into some of these summits that you've been joining the president on, you’ve been traveling the world, so we want to ask you about that. There was the G7 Summit. This is the meeting of the so-called advanced economies, which wrapped up in Germany about a week ago. You reported that the news from that was the announcement of a $600 billion global infrastructure initiative, which is intended to counter China's global reach through its Belt and Road Initiative. Can you explain what China's been doing there and how the other global powers are trying to counter it?

Jonathan: Sure. The summits were very different in some ways. We can get to NATO in a second. NATO, much more concrete, what came out of the G7, far more aspirational. It is the seven wealthiest democracies gathered in the Bavarian Alps, beautiful I might add. There were a few things they proposed. Certainly, they pledged support for Ukraine and the war effort but beyond that, they proposed a cap on Russian oil prices to try to bring down what Russia can charge, therefore limiting the impact on the rest of the world that depends on Russian energy, but also to try to deprive Vladimir Putin of a funding for his war machine. That's still being negotiated. There's some hope that they can get done but it may have limited impact if other huge consumers like China and India don't go along, and there's no sign that they will.

As far as the infrastructure program, the Belt and Road, which China has now been doing for about a decade is it funds infrastructure projects across the world, including in Asia and a lot in Africa and some even in Latin America to help modernize those countries, but also to therefore, strengthen ties between Beijing and these other lands. The West argues that that actually puts these countries far more in debt to China, running up massive deficits and they're proposing a plan, which is in its very early stages to try to offer a better alternative to not only provide necessary infrastructure. That could be bridges and highways, but also can be broadband and underwater cables to the developing world, but also to try to convince them that democracy rather than autocracy is the government of the future. That's really what this is about.

Matt: Then following that was-- or maybe it was before, I forget. G7 was first and then NATO, or did you go NATO?

Jonathan: Yes, we went to NATO and the summit there held in Madrid, far more concrete. That is that with some pressure from the United States, Turkey dropped its objections to adding two new members to NATO, Sweden, and Finland, two important members that dramatically increases the border that NATO countries now share with Russia. Let's recall that when Vladimir Putin went into Ukraine, one of his stated goals was to prevent Ukraine from ever joining NATO to try to send a warning message to other countries nearby that you shouldn't want to do the same.

Well, that backfired and the two countries that had decades of neutrality have instead decided to join NATO. It's a bit of a process. It'll be a few weeks before it comes to be, but both are on well on their way to do so. That just strengthens an alliance that President Biden has really done a terrific job, even Republicans agree, holding together here. They certainly see more United than ever before standing up to Russia and are pledging money and military equipment to Kyiv to help Ukrainians fend off the Russians.

Now that effort could get much more difficult if this war, as many believe, will extend for months and into perhaps next year. The longer this goes, fuel prices go up. Countries battling inflation at home might start wondering why are we sending all this money to Ukraine. The president and his aides acknowledge that just could be a challenge down the road, but at least for now, the west is very united behind Ukraine. The week was an undeniable success for President Biden, but as White House aides recognize, very little of it broke through. It was just simply overshadowed by all the news here at home, whether it's inflation Roe v. Wade, the January 6th hearings. As good of a job they believe that President Biden has done navigating this crisis overseas, it probably won't win him any votes this fall.

Matt: To that point, a listener tweets us, what's the outlook for Build Back Better for the rest of this year. What are the top priorities of the president's executive and legislative agenda for the rest of 2022? That's what a listener tweeted. What are their priorities beyond obviously dealing with Ukraine and NATO and all the world crises?

Jonathan: Right. Build Back Better, the name for his legislative agenda, that is come to [unintelligible 00:29:06] recalled that. It's certainly not the sweeping agenda that was first proposed. But there is still some hope the Democrats can get pieces of this done, some prescription drug reform, perhaps a cap on insulin prices. Their negotiations with Senator Manchin, who I know is not the most popular Democrat certainly in the New York City listening area because he's been such a thorn in the white house's side, but he has signaled that he's willing to negotiate and maybe there even be some climate change legislation that could be in there.

It will not be as sweeping as what was proposed last year when they fell just a couple of votes short but there is still some hope that pieces of the legislation could get done this summer. Democrats would be very grateful for that because it would give them something new on which to run upon when they've come up for reelection this fall, but it's far from a guarantee.

Matt: I'm wondering, we've been talking about the mid-terms in 2022. How much of the conversation that you're privy to in White House circles, how much of your chats with sources is about 2024, and whether the president who by the way turns 80 in a few months will run for reelection?

Jonathan: It is a significant topic of discussion within the beltway. The White House doesn't want to have this talk yet. In fact, they point to the president's public and private statements where he's saying, "Look, I intend to run again." They're taking steps along that path, but his future is up for much debate. You mentioned a big part of it, that’s his age, where he could be elected again, he would be taking the oath to office at 82, meaning he could be still president at 86. He's already the oldest president who ever to serve, and that it's also about his poll numbers that right now are not good.

Now, he's got plenty of time to turn that around. If he does indeed run for reelection, that's almost two and a half years from now. We've seen a lot of presidents including Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have shaky first two years, and then rally to win reelection. I think a lot in the White House still feel like that is possible, but other Democrats are anxious. Anxious about his popularity, anxious about his age, worry that though he was the right man for the job to win in 2020, that he may not be the right man for the job to carry the banner for the party forward.

I'll just say this, the other impact here, what does Donald Trump do? Because certainly White House aides that I've spoken to say that were Trump to announce his reelection, and that is growing more and more likely, his candidacy for reelection, that would probably propel Joe Biden to do everything he can to run as well

Matt: Because he believes he's the only person who can beat Trump in the Democratic Party and other Democrats think so too I guess.

Jonathan: He would point to his track record. He's the only one who has beaten him. That Donald Trump has only lost to Joe Biden and that Joe Biden feels like he is uniquely situated to do that again. I also think though there's a growing sense in political circles that though Donald Trump is still the most popular Republican in the party, we've seen his grip on the GOP slip a little bit. There's at least some Republicans who feel like he would be the wrong candidate in ‘24. The political environment, at least now, and again, we're two-plus years out, looks favorable to GOP. If they put up a more conventional candidate, they have a better chance of winning.

They think Trump has a lot of baggage and Trump would be more interested in re-litigating 2020 than looking forward to 2024. It would be a very complicated process on both sides with both Biden and Trump having fierce defenders, but also people within their own party, at least quietly, suggesting they shouldn't run again. We may end up in a bit of a staring contest to see who blinks first and announces that they're in.

Matt: Well, we shall see what happens. My guest has been Jonathan Lemire, host of Way Too Early on MSNBC and Politico White House bureau chief. He'll be back later this month to talk to Brian about his new book, The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020. Jonathan, thanks so much for your reporting and thanks so much for coming on today.

Jonathan: I really appreciate it. Thank you.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.