♪ su: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we begin with the supreme gorsuch ise neil president trump's nominee. president trump made the announcement in the east room of the white house tuesday evening. >> millions of voters said this was the single most important when they voted for me for president. i am a man of my word. i will do as i say. something the american people have been asking for from washington for a very, very long

time. [applause] thank you. today, i am keeping another promise to the american people gorsuchating judge neil of the united states supreme court. speaking at the announcement ceremony, he paid a mosh to his predecessor. >> justice scalia was a lion of the law, agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the been shared his wisdom and his humor, and like him, i miss him. chuck schumer has promised the democrats will offer a tough confirmation fight. it remains to be seen whether

senate democrats will filibuster given the refusal to consider president obama's choice of judge merrick garland. joining me from washington, the news, formers, cbs solicitor general under george w. bush, and chairman of the law in new york. i'm pleased to have all of them on this program. let me begin with you come the legal qualifications of this nominee are rather high, are they not? >> he has a glittering resume, went to columbia, harvard, a doctorate in philosophy, worked in a prestigious washington law firm in the justice department on the in a judge for the 10th circuit. he has an opinion as a careful and serious judge and one he shares with justice scalia, a

lively and accessible writing style, so he is a solid package. >> what is to be concerned about here? >> if that package was enough to get you in the supreme court, there would not be a vacancy. >> it's always judge garland, isn't it? >> it is always politics. to democratstalk about this nomination without a reference to someone they thought was eminently qualified and did not get a chance to be confirmed. i think one of the principles select our we will nominees and justices. a the answer is only republican president can select somebody who will be confirmed, you will not have balance on the supreme court, so how is the senate and president going to work together? >> the president injects

politics into this election. where do you think this nomination stands? >> i think this nomination is before the senate, and as adam's adjusted, they are confronting an eminently qualified individual. ofhink there will be a lot discussion about politics and payback and a lot of discussion on judge garland, who was also a terrific jurist, but what we will not hear a lot about is a lot of criticism, because he is just a top caliber individual proven ase who has adam suggested to be somebody who is admired across partisan lines. you must hear something from senate democrats. it feels like they have decided to fight him and they are looking for how to do it. there will be a close scrutiny of his record.

they will go through his opinions for any clues where he might be anti-women, anti-worker. we have not seen any >> again, it is important to keep in mind when we look at this fight, this did not start with mitch mcconnell and republican. these judicial confirmation these democrats and republicans are like in the hatfield and mccoy's, you have to go back to 1987 to understand why these fights are so bitter and then go to the early 2000's when democrats filibustered president george w. bush's appeals court nominees. i remember when they blocked those of nominees and mitch mcconnell said that memories are long in the u.s. senate and what

goes around comes around. this is not a fight that mitch mcconnell started last year. economicsmething, float the parties in the playbook. believe that democrats would have done exactly the same thing if the parties had been reversed and president bush were getting an election year nominee and then that,r joe biden warned in 1992 when senate democrats had control, he warned that when george h.w. bush got another nomination, they would not confirm it. this is not as black and white as you think. >> how do we get out of this? who can take us away from this? >> i think that president obama's nomination, if it had succeeded, had been a step in

that direction. somebody who was more moderate than many nominees and more moderate than the current nominee. there was a lot of criticism of obama for that nominee because he was not liberal enough. , it never would have happened, but a great step towards bringing the country back together again would have mp to nominate garland and put him on the bench. >> he could not do that. >> he couldn't do it with his base, but a guy can dream. it would have been a great step. he could have picked somebody and nobody doubts that the current nominee is a brilliant legal mind, disciplined thinker, great writer, i had appeared in

front of him, he is well-prepared and awful. because't trouble you of past things that have nothing to do with him that you are opposing him? >> it is not about whether or not he has something to do with it. his views are very conservative these. >> the man he is replacing was very conservative. >> scalia was confirmed unanimously. i don't think there was a single vote against scalia. times have changed since khalil was put on the court. it is a more political process, but if it is going to be political, it has to be political both ways. it is not a question of payback, it is a question of balance. if you don't have the same kind of scrutiny on both sides, you have an imbalance supreme court.

>> with you have had problems with judge garland? no, i signed a letter that he was a very well-qualified nominee. i was careful to leave the politics the politicians and not comment on how the senate should proceed and i should say the same about judge course which -- judge gorsche. we need to try to get back to a world when we say a judicial nominee is well-qualified, and has sterling academic credentials, then they are going to be confirmed. we may not get back to a world where people are confirmed only , -- justice kagan was confirmed.

i hope we can get back to a time when, once we recognize that someone is very well-qualified and write successfully, then they will get confirmed. ishink the judge gorsuch exactly the kind of judge that you would expect a republican to point to the supreme court. correspondent: -- >> what about the problems that the presidential contest was about appointing judges that you liked. you get to his -- you win, you appoint. >> certainly mitch mcconnell said he wanted the next president to get to choose and that is what happened here. you could say more americans voted for the other candidate. it is a complicated ring. it is true on both garland and corsets that the -- garland and

gorsuch, the fight is not about their qualifications. flipsidearing the where there is not going to be enormous opposition aced on the particulars of the judge gorsuch 's credentials and jurisprudence, but more, if we -- if the one-sided, the other side will do it too. that is not good for the supreme court. legitimacy court's and pressed each comes with its impartiality. both is not merely that sides have to play by the same rules, it is also that part of the advise and can function of the senate is to look at the judicial philosophy of a nominee and i think, although i have great admiration for the

intelligence and integrity, he is somebody with judicial views that are way to one side of the spectrum. i think that is something that, independent of any history, that it is wise for the senate to take into account when they are going to confirm some body that is going to be on the bench for 30-40 years. to david's point, when he says way to the side of one spectrum, that is because different in the spectrum david is arguing from. garland, who people described as a moderate, there is no question that he would have been anything other than a knowledge, liberal vote. when you are talking about what is things green, these are labels that mean generally things that you might tend to agree with. gorsuch, there is no evidence he

is an extremist. does he have a solid, conservative judicial philosophy? likeutely, but he talks someone straight out of the conservative judicial philosophy handbook. if that cannot be confirmed, anyone with a conservative lots of the will not be confirmed to the supreme court. >> do you want to respond to that? >> i don't agree with that. put to thisdo you idea that they wanted to choose someone that would make it easy for justice kennedy to retire so they could then appoint someone even more conservative and not a swing judge to replace? >> i don't know if it is effective. i don't know if the justice kennedy can be manipulated in this way. ,ut if you put on gorsuch

someone justice kennedy thinks highly of, it may be that if he isennedy, thinking of retiring, he would say, my legacy is here. i can live with such people and i am hopeful the person who replaces me would be in this mold. that may or may not be a winning play, but i can see the logic of it. >> what is the logic they will see a nuclear option? if some of then thoughts of david is advancing ultimately prevail. what we are coming down to is a question of, right now, the two political parties have a different view of the judging. when theion is, president appoints somebody, if you are from the other already, are you going to vote against that person just because they don't have the same political or judicial philosophy as you do?

i think for a long time in this country, we had a consensus that if the person was qualified, the fact that they shared the appointing president philosophy, judicial philosophy was to be expected and not a reason to vote against them. >> if we are passed to that and people are going to vote on party lines, then the $64,000 questions comes with whether there is a real effort to filibuster the nomination. it will be bad enough if we have got to the point where every judicial appointment is a partyline vote. if we on top of that insist on filibustering supreme court nominees, then i fear that will get the same way as it did with the court of appeals nominees during the last administration. >> someone will always argue that politics has always been there. >> that is true. process,is part of the

that i think if you take the longer historical view, the dominant view has been, as with cabinet officers and the like, the president is expected to appoint judges and the judge will have the judicial philosophy of the president that appointed him. there was a this is time when the more restrained to judicial philosophy was more associated with the democratic party them with the republican party. if you take a long view, these things work out in strange ways. on, the going to add likelihood of the nuclear option, at this point my sense is, charlie, that is pretty slim for this nomination. it is because the democrats will see it is not in their interests to filibuster right now.

the president is replacing a conservative icon, an intellectual giant. this nomination will not change the balance of the court. that is a powerful argument for republicans. sources, they are prepared to trigger that nuclear option for this nomination, which would mean the filibuster was out of the way for the next week fight ever justice kennedy's seat. tot would be a big help republicans in some ways and it would certainly enable them to appoint a more conservative nominee to replace justice kennedy. that is why think, at the end of the day, democrats will put up a big fight for judge gorsuch but ultimately not filibuster and prompt the republicans to change the rules and do away with the filibuster as the democrats did for the filibuster of lower court nominees. charlie: will this be a long battle? >> it probably takes the usual

amount of time, which is 45 days for the confirmation hearing, 95 days to a confirmation vote. the trick would be, the court would like to see a nice justice lasth justice on for the arguments of the term which take place in late april. be that democrats, even if they don't ultimately succeed in blocking the nomination, may well try to slow it down. waslie: when judge gorsuch up for confirmation as a court of appeals judge, he got 99 votes are some huge amount and they included senators obama, biden and schumer. for a appeals court nomination, those judges are interpreting and applying the law as it has been written or as the supreme court has interpreted it.

it is hard to say just because he is unanimous there, a .ifferent role he would play charlie: what are the big issues coming up before the supreme court this year? >> there are a lot of issues the supreme court. from a practitioner standpoint, it would be nice to have a night for justice by the time the april sitting rolls around. the supreme court has done something almost unprecedented, which it has had three cases which he granted over a year ago which it has carried over and not scheduled for argument. even though in the normal course of those would have been scheduled in the october sitting. it seems the court is holding this case is for april in the hope there will be a 9th justice.

those cases involve property rights, religious liberty, and class action. three areas where the court is divided 5-4. those cases show you there are a lot of issues waiting for the nominee once they are confirmed. aside, from the process of the court, as bad as withs in two perceived eight justices, they have to go through this whole term with eight injustices and not have justices, will take a told the court. charlie: does anyone here think justice gorsuch will not be confirmed? >> i think he will be confirmed, but it is an open session. charlie: assuming nothing is dramatic in terms of the investigation? was anyone on that list of 20 that the president had that was more, for the lack of a better word, moderate?

even though no one is arguing that judge gorsuch is a moderate. >> political scientists have tried to map this out. there are people they would say were a little more moderate. it is hard to get a complete fix on everybody. accomplished, able judges, almost all of them. and there was no question but that they were all conservative. i think most lawyers would say, that of that was of 21, which did have some legal superstores -- legal superstars like paul , which-- paul clement should from the perspective of republicans. charlie: good place to end. thank you. we will be right back.

chairmanon she is the and former ceo of xerox. -- she wasnt her raised by her single mother in a housing project to lower east side of manhattan. to earn a masters degree in mechanical engineering at columbia university. 2009, she became the first

african-american woman to lead a fortune 500 company. unbelievably honored to be here. is it hard to no longer be the ceo? you have love this company, said it on its present course. >> not at all. i think there is time for everything. this was her fixed timing for me. 37 years in the company, i know it inside and out. i know the plumbing, the tooling, the people, i know a large number of the customers. you -- i believe that, once you go through it to her three times, it is probably

a good idea to get someone who has never been through it before. i still love the place. but i think it was perfect timing. he was president of the national league even though he loved the american league because of the red sox. >> and don't go there. charlie: growing up in the lower east side of manhattan, you didn't become a red sox fan? he said, after eight or 10 years, and that is -- you are sort of beginning to repeat yourself. it and seely believe it not only in my career but see it in boards that i serve on. it is not that you can't keep going and go well.

the question becomes at that point, can you differentially improve the organization? it isere is a point where hard to change. point, itet to that is a really good idea, particularly if you have good candidates inside, they say, here it is. success is they most important things you can do? there are three things you have to do when you become a ceo for many years. you have to have a great board and you have to have a strategy with the whole process of taking about change, value creation, constituents. and third is who is going to run the place. the words run the place are in

some ways offensive because you are not really running the latest. there is a guy doing something you have no clue about. but run the place is 10, tenor, risk, i call it the soul of the company. and after a wild, it is a good idea that sold changes. charlie: even if you are a founder, do you think it is necessary to give it up? >> i think especially if you are a founder. the man.t the myth of companies could generally have a longer run, particularly for longevity and assurance of the , forty to morph and change founders it is important to the even if you step out and become

a chair or something -- you have to see this great institution run underave created many different circumstances, not by only your eye. charlie: is it wise for the ceo to be chairman of the board? ursala: it is preferred from my perspective. -- doesn't mean that you don't have a lead independent director. on all the boards i serve on, it is structured that way. individual andd then a lead independent director. the pace of discussion requires a day-to-day interaction that chairs can't do. it is a duality that is a little confusing.

lead independent directors are as powerful or as important but narrow to their space of governance and governing, not operations. and that is an important thing. charlie: you want a vigorous board and you want a board that is independent, too. i do not think you want a board -- i am basing this on what people tell me -- you do not want a board that will depend on the income from being a board. ursala: i do not know of any of these types of people. most of the board members that i know -- by the way, we had, just went through a separation into two companies. xerox and acs -- and fortune 500 sized, great leaders. we had to find a brand-new board for the second company, and the board of xerox, the combined, if you did the hourly rate, they made below minimum wage for the amount of work they had to do and what they're paid. charlie: what happens in a great

corporation is that through, with your colleagues, who are part of the operational side of things, you get a sense of what you are doing that works and does not work, you get a sense of where you are missing opportunities. you then set strategy and the people who help you hammer it out and figure it who bring a multiplicity of experiences is the board. ursala: and your management team. the board does not necessarily always bring it. they assure it is bought. if they do not have it, if they are smart enough to know this question should probably be asked, and that inappropriate set of options and answers should be presented. they do not have to be knowledgeable about doing business in india. they have to know that india is an important market. either we tell them or they know from personal experience. then assure that there is a set of structures and questions and resources brought to bear on that strategic question.

they do not have to walk in with the knowledge of their back pockets. boards are difficult because they have to know their job. . i have a board member who told me i will not say the name but he said it to me and i loved it he said, "please remember to forget 90% of what the board says." charlie: remember to forget. ursala: remember to forget 90%. think about this. the problem is what 90% do you forget? which 10% do you keep? obviously he does not mean ignore the guy. board come six or seven times a year, and they come for 8, 10, maybe if you're lucky 12 hours. they come, if they're good board members, they have a life, meaning they work and some kind of industry or some kind of not for profit. they work somewhere else. i spend all day in my management team all day and just about all night on these topics.

people that come in and say, "by the way, the water should be two degrees hotter." you should probably say, got it, thank you very much but we are not going to heed your temperature suggestions. if they say watch, the venezuelan market -- i have some experience where i have been dealing with our reading about the venezuelan market. watch. make sure you can talk to me about how you will safeguard your assets. that is way say, got it. -- this is when you say, got. what happens in the board means lots of things get discussed, everything from the temperature of the water to whether or not we should go in a new market or invest a whole lot of capital in a certain way. you have to be able to sort through all of this. and you do that times 8 or 9 people. charlie: why not just walk away? here you are, the former ceo hanging around. ursala: not for long, though. charlie: you will be gone? ursala: annual meeting of 2017, already declared.

i'm out of there. i am the chairman of the board. by the way, i had an unbelievable set of examples before me on how to do this. and i am not, i am a go forward person, necessarily the best -- not necessarily the best planner in the world, but ago forward person and i do not like to hang on. a good example is when i was made ceo -- she stayed on as chairman and told me i would stay on as chairman. she said so, you will see me for , a while, for the first couple weeks and months. then he will see me a little less and then i am out of here. her point was, and she told me once as well, she said "ursala, you have to make sure it you're an ursala, because they do not need anne now." the company does not need an ursula. they need a just now. it is all about giving jeff jacobson, the new ceo of xerox andthe new ceo their boards

their management teams many of , whom i selected or grew up with, the chance to take the company to the next level. the companies to the next level. that is what it is about. i don't have, i have never been one that solely identified with my work. it does consume the vast majority of my time. and therefore, you worry about when it is not going to consume the vast majority of your time, but my interests have never been narrowed to how do i make xerox the greatest company in the world? that was one of the most important things that i did, but i have a family i'm interested in, social causes. i have a country i'm interested in. i have other interests. i read. there are whole bunch of -- the country has had my attention even before. charlie: i mean, do you have more time now? ursala: i have more time, yes. i do not think the intensity for me will change very much. charlie: you were a good citizen before.

ursala: i was very actively engaged. did not matter what administration, i happened to be ceo during a democratic administration but i was running a manufacturing plant during a republican administration and we helped the international association of manufacturers. it does not matter who is running. but there are certain things i do know about what enables business to be better and what enables business across the board to be better. how government can help and how it can hinder. we have a set of circumstances in this country that actually, the government engages business. they do not always listen. but we can have an audience. when somebody says, you can have an audience, i say, if you want to hear, i am willing to talk. so, let's talk about what, what your proclamations or potential proclamations can do and will do to business. and that is what part of the responsibility of business leaders. ♪ [ alarm clock beeping ]

weather. ♪ [ laughter ] cartoons. wait for it. [ cat screech ] [ laughter ] ♪ [ screaming ] [ laughter ] make everyday awesome with the power of xfinity x1... hi grandma! and the fastest internet. [ girl screaming ] [ laughter ]

company the biggest decision you made? ursala: two big decisions i made. one was combining it and the second was splitting it. the in and out were both big. i think both were appropriate. charlie: were they market-driven? ursala: for sure. and the end was a great brand with all of the software of the brand.

i don't mean technical software, i mean all of the emotional software. unbelievably well foundationed in all the right soil. great innovation, great customer simplicity, an amazing employee base who believed there were problems that could be solved. complexity was something they could deal with very well. and just a history that was amazing around innovation. that brand company business was one that had run to the end of its natural ability, as far as it could run without doing a big morph. because technology has changed. everything was changing so quickly that you, one of the choices we had was do you, just let it go along a bit and let some of this atrophy while you're trying to find your way in the dark? or do you take some big bets and try to extend yourself into a new set of markets with the same foundational elements? charlie: and you chose? ursala: we chose to literally

opt to go forward, to lean forward and take a chance. the great thing about that was that at the end of the day, the journey was hard, charlie. at the end of the day, and i think it is going to show up -- it is showing up in the short term in the market and it will show up longer-term as well. we ingested a company called acs and made it part of xerox. we re-jiggered acs. there are some things that are no longer there because we sold them off and put other parts in. we foundationed with a level of technology that are better business processes. we are at a point now where that company is strong enough and needs and has a different rhythm, different enough rhythm, that keeping it with the old company with, with xerox, was distracting to both. so part of the choice we had to make as a board and me as the ceo and the management team was do you take apart what you have just put together?

do you take it apart? and the answer was really simple. and a lot of questions were the following. the answer was simple because it was the right market to do. and the board did every step of diligence you can imagine. external, internal people looking at it, bankers, lawyers, everybody you could imagine. and for the market, for our customers, for our shareholders, it is definitely the best. particularly if we can do it well. so, a year ago, about this time, end of january, we announced we're going to separate and we were told, i do not think you can get it done in a year. there is no way in the world you can get this thing done in a year. and there is so much breakage when you separate. i call it like a friendly divorce. i do not have a lot of experience but even in the friendliest divorces it is kind of messy.

but we went through a really friendly divorce. a lot of acrimony inside but every decision made was the right foundation and that is will it be good for the shareholders? when you are pulling it apart. charlie: and when you bring it back together? ursala: when you bring it back together -- we are now in the pull apart phase, we will never bring up back together. i think we have done it well. i am going to eliminate the word think. we have done it well. inrlie: you can turn out surprising ways. i'm thinking about viacom. no one predicted it would end up the way it did. ursala: i think we are going to find that there will be all kinds of, my goodness, we didn't know or some small thing here or there, but you will find that from this point forward, you're going to see two companies that could not operate as well as they are operating in their modes if they were together.

charlie: do you think people know what xerox is? ursala: um -- absolutely. i don't believe people know what it could be. i think now -- charlie: what do you think they think it is? ursala: i think they think it is a copying and printing machine. nobody makes copiers anymore. but generally what xerox or simply what it is, is it takes many different forms of communications. the way we still handle it, you handle this way, i do, is on paper but that is not the predominant way anymore but it is the way that is still the most easy to describe and to understand and manage. xerox's job is to take all these different swarms of communications that come into a customer and to organize that and help them manage that in a secure and safe way.

it doesn't create the bits and the bytes. it does not even really do a lot of manipulation and management of them in the eyes of the customer but it takes a lot of pain that you have in all these different medias and makes it significantly less painful and helps you management your document management infrastructure. it also, when it was together, managed something like easy pass. a document management solution. all easy pass is when you drive, , you do not want to have to stop, get your document, give your dollar to the guy. he gives you another set of documents. is there a way to do this in an automated way, to manage this business process across everything from order -- i want to go through -- to collection, i have to pay. can you do that seamlessly without you thinking about it. without the government infrastructure taking about it. and that is what we do for both sides.

the conduit company does that and xerox does the document bpo piece. charlie: you are confident you left this company and handed it over in great shape in a good place, and you did what you came to do? ursala: i am. i am very confident. charlie: here is somebody who comes in as an intern it ends up -- and is up as ceo and chairman of the board. ursala: i did not think i was going to be there. charlie: why did you think you would not? ursala: i did not know what a ceo was. in 1980.the company when i joined the company i had just entered my final year of undergraduate school. and just wanted a job to be an engineer. my thing was, and largely still is, my team will tell you that this is my management style -- there are, i'm a technical person. you give me a problem, i'm going to try to wrap some mathematical solution around it and develop a process.

that is what i do. that is what it was then and interestingly enough, when things get really tough, that is the core skills, that is what to go back to. that is what i go back to at least. when i joined the company and for the first 8-10 years, we did not have google. if you wanted to get the annual reports, you had to go to the library and to get it. who that heck knew who was running the place? my daughter, my son, we're arguing about something, it takes a nanosecond to find out who the head of the company is, who the management team is, what they net, everything. that is not how i grew up. i entered xerox and my goal was to be a great engineer, thinking i would leave within four or five years, because it was in upstate new york and i'm a new yorker. i did not know how far rochester was. i was good at engineering and not good at geography. i got there, and i was lucky.

luck is an amazing blessing. i was lucky. i picked this great company, one that allowed me to, even in upstate new york, feel like a new yorker, feel like i could be how i look, how i wanted. the things i thought that were key of me being ursula burns, they did not flush it out of you. "you need to look like this and speak like this." it was perfect for me. and they gave me lots and lots of chances to do all kinds of things. just insane. you go we're doing a product in , japan. here i am from the lower east side of manhattan. the farthest i had been was to florida. the farthest i've been on a plane was to washington, d.c. literally. and they said, by the way, we have this big product development in japan. you have to go there and spend a couple of weeks. i said, japan, you mean that other place over there in asia? charlie: beyond hawaii.

ursala: i just ended up in a great place as they they curated, a word i hate to use, but they did curate experiences for me that were always a tippy toe experience. a little beyond my reach, but if i jumped really high, i could grab it. and i was able to just to continue to grow in this environment which was just perfect. charlie: was race an issue? ursala: for sure, race and gender were issues. gender and age were a bigger issue than race. because i was dulled to the race issue. meaning, i have dealt with it so many times before that it was, you know, you kind of know how to maneuver. i was actually surprised with the age thing. too young to be able to do this. really? you are going to running xyz? what experience do you have? i cannot fix the age thing.

the only way to fix that is to keep living, right? gender was a big deal as well because i was in an engineering environment. and i went to manufacturing really early. and that is, that back then was totally and completely male. that was it. and so to go there and, i looked, i now look old, i looked young, i was young and i was black, which i think they were kind of probably like, my god, another one of those guys. then it was a woman as well. they were like, really, really? the good news was that we have a philosophy at xerox that, check it at the door. everything that doesn't allow you to bring value into the company, leave it at the door. i can't make you a person who understands or wants to have diversity in your life or inclusion. i cannot do that. we will try like heck, but i will not be the one -- your parents do that. but i want you, when you walk in the door we have a set of rules

that you play by. those rules are that we are inclusive. we try to look for the value that individuals bring. we do believe that different is hard, the better. deal with it. we do not like incompetence. so, go away with that. you basically prove your mettle on the playing field. not by dressing up to be ready to play. charlie: does it make a difference that a young black female engineer who arrives in rochester today can say to herself, i can be ceo of this company? ursala: massive. charlie, i tell you what. i became ceo, and i was stunned by the fact, people say, how can you be stunned? that this was the story that it was. i was like, really? i work in this company, i have worked in this company from forever. so inside i was just a person who came to work every day.

it was not like -- so inside -- in my family, i was just ursula burns, the xerox employee. and it was really interesting and even to this day, where i walk into places and it took me a while to mature to this. where i walk into places and they want to talk to me. or they want me to talk to them. they are women. african-americans, minorities, whatever. even white men. i would say, really, really? and now, this started earlier than just now. i understand a little bit more what is happening here. i am just them and their potential. and they are trying to talk to me as if they are talking to themselves. and their potential. i was in the subway the other day and a woman came up to me. i do take the subway often. and a woman came up to me and said to me "i know who you are."

my response was, " i know who i am as well but i do not know who you are." so, we start a conversation for she said, "i'm going back to school. you are such an icon. you are such a motivator." i was with my daughter. and my daughter complimented me on being so nice because i am generally, sometimes i get frustrated. and i said to her, "i needed that, and she needed that." she was not talking to ursula burns. but she was was talking to herself and trying to say to herself that it's possible. maybe not being this ceo of xerox but being farther than you thought you could be is absolutely possible. with effort, i get up and i tell them all the time, i am in the subway. so, this is all good stuff. so, i think, i have become more comfortable and accepting and honored and responsible.

charlie: finally. do you have a plan for the rest of your life? in other words, your country needs you are you have all this experience. as a manager, as a motivating, as a planner, as an engineer, as figure of respect, as a leader. ursala: thank you for all of it. charlie: it's true. how do you use that? ursala: the one thing i can assure you of is i will not not use it. i will use it. it will be used. exactly what is where, something i know already i am on the board , of exxon mobil. love it. really important company on the board of american express. love it. really important company. energy and commerce. i will announce to the board that we will figure out this

triangle. another set of things we absolutely need -- food and water. i am on the board of the ford foundation. the ford foundation is the place i go and you deal with really no way to solve these problems problems. there is no way to solve this problem. there is no way, but you literally sit in the ford foundation, we talk about the ways to solve the problem of inequality. good things. that will take up about 30% of my time. this is the problem, because when you run a company, you run on cycles. that are just insane. that's 30%. and i will fill the other 2/3 easily, for sure. the things i know it will not be, this running after money. i like money. i'm pretty good, i have enough. charlie: you have done enough. ursala: i have done well. i am not going to run after money. and i am almost sure in the next 10 years it will not be

politics. i do not want to go actively -- i do not want to run for anything. i was the head of the president's export council which was really, really cool and interesting. and it was a bipartisan, public-private kinda involvement. if i can do that kind of thing, i would be interested. but we are looking now, and believe it or not, the offers are many. i have to not choose poorly. charlie: you can take up painting. ursala: no, but i am learning spanish. charlie: thank you for coming. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

it is noon here in hong kong with an update of the top stories. earlier in the day, the president's office said he will not let them into the compound. prosecutors want to search of the blue house about more information about events that impeachment iner december. the pboc rated the reverse reposed by 10 basis points