tv Republican Senators Hold News Conference on Filibuster CSPAN January 12, 2022 3:31am-4:32am EST
we've got a 16 or 17 members that are going to talk. as a leader is one of them. i say there are two things every member of congress thinks they are an expert on. so you're going to hear from a lot of experts particularly our friends on the other side talking about bills they've generally not looked at, haven't read and decided that somehow state legislatures are
universally committed to voter suppression. voter suppression i've never seen that as a very good political tactic and i would say looking at these bills carefully, what i think you will find, and i look forward to the exceptions you might come up with that i haven't come up with is that state after state leaned forward as you would hope they would in the pandemic and added to some additional voting things that they've never had before. and in virtually every case, and again i haven't found an exception, there may be one but it would be the exception that proves the rule in virtually every case when the election was over they looked at what they had done and decided how much of that should we keep and i think state after state they've changed in a way that would be easier to vote going forward
than it was to vote in 2018. my mother used to say no good deed goes unpunished, and what we don't want to do here but we've already done it is teach the lesson if you try to adjust to a momentary challenge when you try to dial that back, everybody will assume that you are trying to do bad things instead of trying to save the best of the things you try to do and whether that's voting by mail or drop boxes or days of early voting i think you're going to find the bills they are going to be talking about this week generally have more of all of those then states like new york and delaware and connecticut and we look forward to talking about that. also want to remember that the basic framework for the big
bills whether it's the john lewis act or whatever the name is of the other bill that's hundreds of pages the basis for that is hr one which in fact passed the year before the 2020 elections were over and suddenly as the 2020 elections why you have to change the election law for everything democrats have always wanted to do in ways they've believed get them advantages in the whole process and so we are going to be talking about that this week on the floor. there will be time for questions and others would refuse to stay when the members have had a chance to talk but we are going to start with mr. barrasso and there's a list right now that you all will follow. >> the democrats are focused on what they considered the number
one priority for them. that's why they labeled the bill hr one why is the number one priority as they are wanting to reap the rules of the senate to get it passed concerned about things like inflation and covid and crime in the cities and the crisis at the southern border, this is the democrats. they think the number one thing affecting the countries they want washington to google for -- to take over. so what is the most important, gallup had a recent poll. the number one question is the leadership at the federal level, immigration and at this issue of election reform that came in at number 23. it was only in the gallup poll as an issue of concern for the
american people when the american people know what is of concern to them. so, senator blunt mentioned local officials and working from the secretary of state and buchanan let me share a few things he says number one i'm writing to impose and express my opposition to the attempt to federalize our elections. he goes on to say senator schumer's statements are offensive on their states suggesting legislators pass the laws designed for the purpose of voter suppression that is slanderous and a political wide to the american people. interestingly and senator schumer's home state of new york there are moving forward in some jurisdictions with plans to allow noncitizens to vote. it is clear the democrats want to change the rules whenever they think they can gain an advantage at the polls.
he goes on this is right in line with of their wish to change the filibuster rules in the senate because the democratic agenda doesn't resonate with every day working americans they must resort to lessen the tactics and they do not seem to understand that it is their misguided policies giving costs that are the biggest impediments to the election and that want to protect the integrity. and to me that's what it's about is the integrity, valid accountability, security and that's what we are here fighting to defend. 589 times.
now less than one year into the biden presidency they suddenly declared that the filibuster is unfair and overused. so they plan to remake the senate in their own image. for the minority is no longer heard and no longer respected. that's the claim, stop allowing the voice to be heard. to be clear, the debate this week is not about voting rights. federal courts already have the full ability to state any law in any jurisdiction and any state in america that suppresses any voter or group of voters that's and federal law right now. at the whole conversation about the suppression is already protected by federal courts right now. the debate this week senator schumer is bringing is about silencing the voice of the minority in the senate and everyone that we represent. literally silencing half the country. this is not about protecting the
republic or the election but about taking over every election in every state, this is about to senator schumer's power. that's what this is about. he is willing to just relay more than two centuries of tradition in the senate to get his way. that's not my opinion. actually that's senator schumer's opinion. senator schumer just a few years ago said i hope the republican leader and i in the coming months can find a way to build a firewall around the filibuster which is the most important distinction between the senate and the house. senator schumer continued saying without the threshold for the legislation the senate becomes the majoritarian institution like the house, much more subject to the short-term electoral change. no senator would like to see that happen so let's find a way to protect the rule for the legislation. i agree with that and dick
durbin when in 2013 he was asked about the legislative filibuster and said i would tell you the end of the senate as it was originally created going back to the founding fathers. going back to the democratic senators that wrote a letter to mitch mcconnell and senator schumer in 2017 asking for there to be no changes in the legislative filibuster. in that letter they wrote we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of senators to engage in full, robust and extended debate as we consider legislation before this body and in the future. they asked me to join them and i agree. i will and that is completely my plan to be able to do that. we will not allow them to silence half the country.
>> chuck schumer and the democrats are desperate to break the senate rules and try to engage in a corrupt power grab and the act would undermine democracy across the country. it takes laws adopted by democratically elected legislatures and subjects them to the arbitrary veto of politically rally unelected bureaucrats at the department of justice. president biden has nominated hard left ideologues to the department including the leading advocates of abolishing the police in the country. and both chuck schumer and the democrats are proposing is getting those ideologues in charge across the country even
though 80% of americans support them and a large majority of african-american voters support the voter id laws, democrats have decided voter fraud benefits them politically and they are willing to go to any length to tear down the reasonable commonsense protections that protect the integrity of the elections. they are willing to go so far as breaking the rules of the senate to end of the filibuster. if you want to know the consequences of that, you may be skeptical. if you are not a republican you may be from a different political view, so i want to point you to someone that is not republican, assessing the consequences of what chuck schumer is proposing right now. that person is a person by the name of charles schumer who in 2005, march 16, 2005 said about nuking the senate rules and ending the filibuster, they want
because they can't get their way to change the rules, to wash away 200 years of history, they want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don't get your way you change the rules. it would be doomsday for democracy if we do. chuck schumer said ending the filibuster would be doomsday for democracy and turn america into a banana republic. he was telling the truth in 2005, and it's still true today. >> thank you all for being here today and i want to thank my colleagues who can see by the number of people participating in the press conference today how passionately we feel about this. anecdotally i would like to say on the voting reform bill in the state of west virginia and the
year 2020, we had more people voting in 2020 without this bill van we've had in the history of the state with the exception of one and that was the 1960 election that was pivotable and also the secretary of state has written as senator barrasso said along with 54, we have 55 counties, 54 of the clerks have written in opposition to the bill. i'm going to concentrate on three things here with the filibuster. i want to thank the president is specifically the "washington post" because i pulled up a montage this morning of the statements that attend a just referred to from senator schumer, senator durbin, senator kunz and others saying there's no way they would ever vote to break the filibuster and here we are today with them eating their
words, so that's hypocritical at the face of it. supposedly this will have more impact on bipartisanship. we are going to be bipartisan, i mean seriously we are going to be more bipartisan when you only need 50 or 51 votes with vice president bringing the tide to every piece of legislation. the body in the world if you were the ones with the vice president in your party would you ever engage with the other party if you didn't want to sew that to me is an argument and one that the president himself has put forth as a reason that we should change the filibuster. i know you know i'm from the state of west virginia and there's nobody that has served in this senate besides the institution and traditions into study did more than anybody in the history of the senate. he said, and i quote, he's written prolifically. i believe it would immediately
destroy the uniqueness of the institution. minority rights would cease to exist in the united states senate. rule changes must be bipartisan and we should guard against efforts to reinterpret the senate rules by the simple majority. so, i would say to you today the other charge against us. i was on that letter that james talked about some of the bipartisan letter that said i am not in favor of changing the filibuster rules. when i was in the majority with my president of the same party so i would say to you this is. this is about fundamentally changing the fabric the senate
provides by having the filibuster in place to make sure we don't have the dramatic swings from the administration to administration, republican to democrat and we keep the ship going in the right direction and working together at the same time. thank you. >> thank you for being here today. you've heard of some of my colleagues reference a letter senator collins santa senator and senator kunzled to several . when i was first in the senate i watched the majority and the executive filibuster on judicial nominations, and i remembered
what so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said during that debate, how we didn't need the filibuster. so i questioned their sincerity. i hate to say it, but i think my questions for them really prove to be true. they said we had the opportunity to end the filibuster when we had the white house and the senate, and we didn't do that. we kept our word on it. the people who signed the letter kept their word on it, the republicans, so we didn't see that from our colleagues.
because this is the senate and not the house and referencing not changing the filibuster. there need to be more checks and balances. things should take longer. there should be required consensus which is one of the reasons because of the 60 vote requirement that requires us to talk to each other, to be more attuned to other perspectives. i like that maisie hirono. i have some issues with maisie 2.0. let's go back to things that we said that we knew to be true. the minority has rights into the senate protects those rights. a filibuster requires us to
reach out across the aisle to get 60 votes to find the consensus. a filibuster protects the people of this country because we are not seeing swings from right to left. every time we have a president and a senate in the same party. there is certainty and stability for the people of this country, for families to make decisions when you have a tax policy that could be shifted, health policy, social policy. when that can all be shifted on a 50 vote threshold and by pushing things through our country would be less secure.
it would be less stable, less certain. and it would make our allies and partners question who we are as a country. what the democrats claimed as a voting rights of bill's partisan political power grab. it would circumvent the federal elections process stripping the constitutional authorities. the states are somehow trying to suppress voter access to the polls. idaho as an example is doing what senator blunt said, running
their elections well and making sure that there is increased voter access and strengthened security at the polls. they implemented efforts to the turnout including same-day voter registration with proof of residency and no excuse absentee and early voting. those are the kinds of things that are the truth that are happening around the country, not to the claims about the voter suppression. the democrats highly partisan power grab would force the taxpayers to pay for politicians political campaigns, expanded the practice of the ballot harvesting, keep those that have moved out of the area on the voter registration rules which would violate the u.s. constitution's clear directive that states should administer elections. estates are best equipped to implement and enforce the policies that protect the integrity and future of their
elections. efforts currently underway by the democrats to weaken the filibuster to achieve one-sided partisan policy and have trust in the system. it is dangerous and would be catastrophic for the country. if this is hardly a voting rights bill. eliminating the filibuster to advance the legislation would compound the distrust of the process. thank you, everyone for being here today and again if you can look across all of our colleagues here you can see that these are very important topics. one the federalization or the attempt to federalize the system by the democrats as well as using that as a tool to remove the senate filibuster. one, i am a former county
auditor in iowa that serves as the local commissioner of elections and i can tell you through the first years to update and modernize the laws created a greater voter participation with every election. it's not an attempt to suppress the vote and it goes against label it -- it goes against what they are saying. for years or decades our democratic colleagues have been strongly opposed to what we call blowing up the senate because ineffect what that would do chuk schumer has said if we get rid of that 60 vote requirement, it would be doomsday for democracy.
then senator joe biden said the nuclear option, quote, is a fundamental power grab for the majority party. what has changed. fast forward to now and singing a for different tune that is exactly what i call the filibuster flip-flop. did you see chuck schumer and joe biden around the senate floor for the white house. please tune in. many of us will be speaking about this on the senate floor. for all of us across the aisle
what's going on right now that it's no longer a doomsday for democracy. is it not a fundamental power grab any longer. i would love to see the headlines explaining. you and i both know that nothing has changed. the only thing that has changed is who is now in control. previous statements no longer apply. the filibuster flip-flopped and if they do get their way, we know that the senate and the country will never be the same.
thank you all for being here. i rise to explain my opposition to the plan to change to the the rules. to open the door for the filibuster to be eliminated for all legislation moving forward. the bottom line is very simple the audio logs in the senate want to turn what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into a rubberstamped of dictatorship. they want to wash away history and turn this into a banana republic where if you can't get your way, you change the rules. president trump called for the filibuster when he was in office. i found that letter at a time that it was hard, but i did it
because i cared about the institution of the senate and the thing that makes our body different from every other body in the world. thirty-two of our colleagues had the same letter and some are still here. i would ask if they agree with chuck schumer that it would turn us into a banana republic. we need to fight this and preserve the institution of the senate. it's more important including the president today and i would urge my colleagues to go back and read the letter to ask themselves what has changed and protect the senate. per joe biden chuck schumer and many that signed the letter. the democrats response as we
know is something along the argument of this. the little slate of filibuster must be nuked even though they made statements otherwise because american democracy must be saved before republican, state legislatures and republican members of congress and of the so-called jim crow 2.0. that's the heart of the argument. on the voting rights laws the states are doing good and republican states are doing bad. so is that true? this is an important question. i don't assume to know other states. most of my colleagues don't know other states in terms of their law but i do know mine, the great state of alaska and here
are the facts about my state, the republican state in three critical areas of voting rights. automatic voting registration. alaska voting laws are significantly more expensive than voting laws in new york. a democrat, connecticut, new hampshire, massachusetts just to name a few. those are the facts. are those states jim crow 2.0. here's an important issue.
why can't the states measure up to a republican state like alaska on key voting rights issues? good afternoon. the framers and founders of the nation through the constitution new voting rights were so important that constitutionally they gave the power to administer the laws to states across the country. for the united states senate the
filibuster which has a bad connotation, for a member of the united states senate to speak on behalf of his or her constituents. to advocate on their views even though they may be on the minority is what that 60 vote rule provides so it protects the minority not whether you are republican or democrat but whether you are rural or urban or have unusual ideas to pull people together before we decide to proceed on legislation it protects a member of the senate that represents a view or need of additional information before agreeing to proceed, but it does more than that. it forces us to work together.
i long for the days in which republicans and democrats, members of the senate regardless of the political party work with each other. the rule requiring us to pass legislation and proceed like 60 votes requires that. second, it makes the ups and downs evened out. we saw the passage of the bill in an attempt to pass the new tax bill in the new congress with the new administration. we are still figuring out what withthe old tax code says. it also is important the
filibuster remain in position because we need desperately 40 congress. article one of the constitution created a legislative branch, and because of the division that exists between parties within, we are unfulfilled. we are not fulfilling the responsibility for one of the greatest threats to the liberties and freedoms of the constitution guarantees. republicans and democrats, members of the senate regardless political party should be working together to make sure that the legislative branch is the legislative branch and we haven't conceded to the executive branch other mechanisms which god -- it operates. to any administration whether republican or democrat intruding
upon our authorities. so we can stand up for something the framers of the constitution understood that an executive branch, a president regardless what their intentions are and regardless the political persuasion continued to erode the powers of the people for the legislative branch. freedoms and liberties are protected by process, by the constitution and by the 60 vote rule in the senate in the absence of those in the circumstance of which those are eroded. personal freedoms of my constituency and all americans are disappearing. thank you. [applause] i've been up here three years and the first thing i've learned is that if you are on the senate floor you don't have to remember what you said before. i've been shocked when i presided over the senate when people get up there and say the
opposite and i knew they have said before. that is what is going on here this isn't about elections. while it is, it's only about the democrats winning, not about improving. i'm from a state we have early voting, absentee voting, you can vote on election day. we want to make sure people vote but you shouldn't be able to violate the right of voting. nobody's vote should be diluted by somebody that doesn't have the right to vote. we talk about a lot of things. people say this is joe biden when he was in the senate and the senate ought not act by changing to the majority acting in the heat of the moment. that is exactly what this is. chuck schumer is scared of the primary and doing everything he can to make sure that aoc doesn't run against him. he will go as far left as possible and mad that he can't get this done with 50 votes. we will do everything we can to make sure the filibuster lasts because it is good for the american public.
dissent within any legislative body is inconvenient and inefficient. those that express differing viewpoints or a nuisance and yet we've seen our own system of government has gone to great lengths to make sure know one person or group of people can accumulate too much power because we've seen the dangerous effects of that. it's understood that there are greater values than efficiency and lack of annoyance people experience when there is disagreement in dissent so that very reason the founding fathers set up a system of government along the two axes, vertical and horizontal. along the axis we have federalism that says most of the power is actually supposed to be left with the states and their political subdivisions. if you specific are given to federal government and then it
also separates power along the horizontal axis within the federal government we have a branch that makes laws and enforces them and a branch that interprets them but within the legislative branch, our branch, it's split up even further. the house and the senate and then the constitution goes on to say that each of the houses would have the ability to make their own rules. the senate rules echo what's found in the constitution. the echo making sure no one group of people or person can accumulate too much power even when they have a simple majority behind them. that's because so highly do we value dissent and the benefits that it brings to society that we want to protect. so the senate rules while not directed by the constitution themselves were promulgated pursuant to the authority and reflect the very same values. the democrats are trying to do
right now is undermine each of these things. they are undermining the principle of federalism as i described it a minute ago by taking powers that don't belong in a federal government, that do belong in the states and thereby depriving the people of each state the authority to make their own laws as they deem fit and also trying to suppress the senate rule because they are inconvenient, because dissent is difficult and disagreement can be a nuisance. this is exactly why we need to stop them from doing this. it's been noted a few times that most of us stood up aggressively and made calls within our own party a few years ago to say no to nuking the filibuster because it's not right. it's not something that's going to lead to a good outcome. something that's going to lead again and again to a whiplash of back and forth, further uncertainties in the status of
the law if we were to undo the filibuster and break the rules of the senate in order to change the rules of the senate simply because we couldn't get enough support to change them consistent with the senate rules we would be doing great danger not just as an institution but the interest of the american people. they know that. what is so strong is there push their desire to ram through a radical leftist agenda that they are willing to ignore the features of the constitution and the interests that have come to be embodied in the united states senate. look at what we are facing today. in the house of representatives, constituents can't even get into see their own elected representatives and now they want to silence our dissent within that body and break the rules of the senate in order to change it and show through the bills that would fundamentally change the balance of power within the republic established by the constitution.
we've heard other material quoted from senator schumer. i'm not going to rehash the same quotes but i'm going to give you another that i don't think has been mentioned today and as you've gotten a lot of air time something that is especially poignant for the discussion today, senator schumer said the filibuster was one of the, quote, checks and balances which have been at the corner of the republic, checks and balances that essay if you get 51% of the vote you don't get your way 100% of the time. that is especially telling here. he doesn't even have 51% of the votes in the senate. it's split 50-50. look, he foretold that these would be evaporated by the nuclear option. he was right then to say that
this is what we call an abuse of power. he should take his own advice and stop this now. >> the goal ought to be to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. he asked of the american people what they think about the voting laws particularly the november election this past. the pew organization nonpartisan polling organization pulled the american people he had said 94% of them said it was easy to vote. 94%. i daresay you can't find any other topic on which 94% of the american people agree that they agree 94% said it was easy to vote. so i ask senator schumer just now on the floor of the senate
what provision of the state law do you believe is discriminating against people's access to the ballot and he said we can't harvest ballots. ballot harvesting is a mechanism by which political activists say a campaign worker can go to a place like a nursing home and assist the residence in filling out the ballots and then collecting them and coming to provide them to the election clerk. as i described i think you can see the opportunities for fraud and mischief. many states, some states allowed ballot harvesting but many prohibited and the democrats want to mandate ballot harvesting in all 50 states. they also, by the way, want to eliminate the notoriety which is one of the most broad bipartisan
integrity measures that exists. people have to use your id for every other purpose you could imagine and most americans on a bipartisan basis believe you should be able to identify yourself with a photo id in order to cast your ballot. finally, i think senator moran made a really important point. we talked a lot about the filibuster. most americans probably haven't thought about the filibuster much until this discussion. maybe they still wondered exactly what it is and what purpose it serves, but the filibuster is designed for a very important purpose and that is to ensure that we do something that's not, that doesn't come naturally which is we actually work together. it forces us to work together and build bipartisan consensus for good public policy and also slows down the process and allows for wholesome debate so
that anybody and everybody whatever view they may have can contribute to the debate and we can make good decisions that will endure. what the democrats are arguing for blowing up the senate rules is a purely partisan process by which the walls are passed which others have pointed out with change let's say in two years when there's a new majority so there's a good public benefit to maintain the 60 vote bipartisan requirement when it comes to passing legislation and the democrats are threatening to blow that up strictly for partisan political gain and no other reason. >> time for a couple of questions.
[inaudible] i don't know that we have time for everybody to answer that. it was very clear in the immediate past where we were on this. i think senator tillis pointed out that when we controlled the white house into the senate and the house the republican president around three dozen occasions called on us to change this rule we didn't change it. we signed letters at the time and had opportunities to do this in the immediate past and i think frankly the opportunity to discuss the merits of having one of the two bodies of the congress have a slightly more difficult way forward will be helpful in sustaining that in the future [inaudible]
[inaudible] there is a lot that happens here in the senate that doesn't happen on the senate floor. we are constantly talking to one another, having meals with one another, talking to each other on the phone, sending text messages to each other so there's a lot of different ways to communicate these days with your colleagues and to try to identify with the problems are that they have concerns about you can hotline a bill. people can impose holds into gives an opportunity to identify who the senator is that has objections or changes that they want and to negotiate those but, yes, i think one of the most
important things about the 60 vote bipartisan requirement is that it forces us to do something that doesn't come natural for which i think the american people benefit from immensely by providing, by passing laws that will stand the test of time and enjoy broad support. >> senator, do you want to add anything? >> yes. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] the senators are the problem, not
the rules. two i also think if you are going to change the rules the change should be focused on the long-term functioning of the senate not temporary partisan advantage for instance in 2016 when i was the trigger of the rules committee, our whole conference had a discussion on the republican side about what we generally be supportive of a change to take effect in the new congress that would eliminate the 60 vote threshold on a bell and we decided we would. i went to senator schumer who was the ranking member of the committee and said here's a proposal we think would help if we got the bills but we understand you would be reluctant to do it now so we are prepared to change the rules now to begin again in the next congress. when democrats started making proposals like that, i think you have a reasonable reason to assume that they are interested in a long-term functioning of the senate rather than the
short-term advantage of the moment and i don't hear any of that discussion going on. >> [inaudible] he says you eventually will eat the whole turkey and i'm sorry i said exactly that way but when you make one exception, every other thing is suddenly not as important as that one exception. the federal government taking over state election laws not as important as the environment. federal government taking over state election laws not as important as how you deal with the pandemic. i just don't think it works.
i think it is pretty hard in a parliamentary question to change it with a one exception anyway and even if you could, i'm convinced that it wouldn't last and that is exactly what senator manchin said last week that he didn't think any exception would last and i don't believe it would either. this may be the last question. >> on which i've changed my mind over the ten years i've been here when i first arrived i was adamantly opposed to changing the filibuster. the last few years i was one of the people in the republic republican side that said i was open to changing it and what i said publicly is the reason i'm open to changing it as i think the democrats, when they get power they will do this, they will ram it through. i've seen the radicals into the
party and i think they are going to and if they do it i don't think it makes sense for only one sided to do it and not the other. i've had conversations over the last year with both joe manchin and kiersten cinema where i told them you are in the process may be of proving me wrong and i would be very happy to be proven wrong if you all don't go through with this i think the world is a much better place with the filibuster with protection of minority rights. i think turning the senate into a place where the majority can trample the rights of the minority is a terrible outcome yet the reason i've gone back and forth on this particular issue is i've seen the rise of the radicals in the democratic party and it speaks volumes. about 27 democrats said they wouldn't sign to change this filibuster. you want to be asking them today
are you a hypocrite? you signed it when the republicans were in power. do you only support minority rights when you are the minority? you want to ask everyone of those democrats do you agree that ending the filibuster is doomsday for democracy. and if manchin and cinema holds, and i hope and pray they do it would protect the constitution and if the democrats protect this institution i think the republicans should as well and to be clear, we did. the republicans had the white house, the senate, the house, we had every ability to do exactly what chuck schumer wants to do right now and the republican party didn't. this is a power grab but not just a power grab. it's to enable a power grab. what schumer wants to do it on is a takeover of elections and it's interesting the rhetoric to the democrats he was on this is jim crow. jim crow laws were written by elected democrats and they were
designed to prevent the voters from voting democrats out of office. that's what schumer is trying to do today. this is jim crow 2.0 of democrats once again trying to take away the ability of the voters to vote them out of office. it's wrong and it's an abuse of power. [inaudible] there has been wild hypocrisy from the biden administration when it comes to the policies whether mask mandates were joe biden rightly said we shouldn't have mandates whether vaccine mandates or where joe lied and said we shouldn't have vaccine mandates. as far as i know everyone here
has been vaccinated, double vaccinated and boosted, and at some point, look i do know doctor fauci has been all over the map. he said yes mask, no mask. i lied to the american people because they couldn't handle it. at some point to the american people ought to be able to exercise freedom and make their own decision if you want to wear a mask, god bless you you can wear one for the rest of your life that's your choice but other people ought to be able to have the right answer choice not to wear a mask and by the way, on the question of hypocrisy you just asked, you people at the podium are speaking without masks. just once i'd like to see a reporter say to joe biden when he stands at the podium in the white house without a mask mr. president, why aren't you wearing a mask. just once i'd like to see you say to the white house press secretary when she's at the podium with no mask, why don't you have a mask. the questions are only directed at one side and i've got to say the american people see this