♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." anthony: i'm anthony mason. filling in for charlie rose. we begin with politics. on monday, the trump administration and house republicans unveiled their plan to update obamacare. obamacare. to upend the bill has a new system of tax credits.

the legislation faces stout resistance across the political spectrum including from within the republican party. joining me from washington is jake sherman, a senior writer for politico and co-author of "playbook." with, the american health care act is different fundamentally how from obamacare? jake: in many, many ways. eliminates the mandate to buy health insurance. it eliminates a whole host of provisions that democrats worked hard to pass. republicans would argue this is a free market solution but this is kind of where the divide is. republicans on capitol hill are wishing this as the largest entitlement program in perhaps american history, which is one of the big stumbling blocks that donald trump and paul ryan need to overcome. perspective, it

does keep the main structure, the main framework of the obamacare or the aca as it's officially called. thewall street editorial -- wall street journal editorial page actually conceded this, a forum that frequently supports what republicans do. they said they are not looking to tear up the health care system, which is something that conservatives have seized on in their opposition. anthony: some republicans are calling it obamacare-light. is mostly coming from the house freedom caucus, a group of 25 or so conservative lawmakers, many of them the same people who forced john boehner to resign just a few years ago. a lot of these people come from districts who are extremely supportive of donald trump. the real question here from a political point of view is, what

does donald trump do to break the fever? republicans don't have a huge margin for error in passing the bill in the house or the senate. will donald trump hits the campaign trail aggressively to these lawmakers, constituents in favor of the health care law? on saturday, he's traveling to louisville, kentucky. most notably, senator rand paul is against this legislation. we'll see how donald trump positions himself in terms of the legislation in front of rand paul's constituents. anthony: president trump says he has the votes to pass this in the house. is he right? jake: i don't think he knows even at this point. it's very early. one thing that has become a continuing narrative of donald trump's administration, he is basically saying that he wants to repeal and replace the health

care law, obamacare, the affordable care act, and rewrite the entire tax code by the end of july. i've been covering washington, covering congress for a decade. this is something even the biggest optimists would say is a very rosy view of how washington works. 60-something legislative days. in the 1980's, it took a little more than a year to rewrite the tax code and that was without twitter and the cable news that we know today. i think that this situation that -- but i is describing don't think his leadership knows right now that they have the votes to pass. anthony: did the trump administration anticipate the backlash or at least the level of the backlash from within the party? jake: it's difficult to know because many of the people donald trump surrounds himself with have no experience in

government. stephen bannon was a media executive, gary: was from wasman sachs -- gary cohen from goldman sachs. are the people who are very .easoned in passing legislation it is difficult to know if they expected it. on capitol hill, the people i talked to last night, this morning said that they are not surprised by the opposition from some of these outside conservative groups. the thorn in the side of publicans in washington, some of these groups that kind of exist to try to purify order and hear the party to a strict ideological purity. i think they are not surprised the level of outside complaints. i think some people were caught off guard because we thought we were still in the honeymoon period with donald trump on capitol hill and clearly that is over. anthony: they will eat some of

these votes. what do they need to do to get them? what compromises do they have to make and how do they proceed here? jake: capitol hill republicans say what you see is what you get. we have put a lot of work into this bill and we will not reopen this legislation to negotiation. once you do that, it unravels. it's like a ball of yarn. signaled --use has they are sending missed messages -- sending mixed messages. they are saying this is an opening draft, they are happy to horse trade. that needs to end according to capitol hill republicans. conservatives are being brought to the white house. the house freedom caucus is going bowling at the white house. we will see if they can do some bowling diplomacy. senator ted cruz of texas is dining with the president. he is trying to use the levers of power in a way that barack

obama was not successful at. whether he can make the case that the republican party has been promising this for years, this is what we can produce or this is what we need to pass, this is what he really needs to say to congressional republicans. the democrats aren't really even in the conversation here. but this is ultimately their legacy that is being attacked. nancy pelosi's legacy in particular, isn't it? jake: it is. they really don't have power to do anything, especially in the house of representatives where democrats have been in the minority basically since they passed this law. most political prognosticators look at this law and say this is what cost them a majority in 2010, and republicans have had it for seven years since. they are slowing down the hearings. they are trying to throw up

procedural hurdles in the house. none of them are going to stick. in the senate, democrats have a bit more power. they are still not going to vote for this legislation and don't have a big formal role when it comes to this legislation's future. one thing we can say for future -- say for certain, in one way, shape, or form, the american health care system will be different than it has been in recent years. anthony: one of the biggest changes is the elimination of the mandate and replace it with a penalty if you don't maintain continuous coverage. the implications of that are not at all clear because some people believe that actually that will discourage people who have lost coverage to stay out of the system, drive down the numbers which of course drives costs higher. is the leadership able to sell that to their own party? jake: no, and they are not trying to talk too much about

the specifics. once you get into the specifics on this legislation, we don't republicans have not said how many fewer people have will be in short. insured.e they are not even saying they want to ensure the same amount of people, they are just saying universal access. we don't know the cost of this bill. we don't know much about this bill and they expect it to be on the floor in the house and the senate for easter, the next couple of weeks. we don't know much about it. we understand the broad contours. the american people can look at the text, i can look at the text , but we don't know the implications and i'm not sure republicans to either, frankly. anthony: jake sherman from "politico," thanks for being

with us.

♪ ending: "the sense of an " is a new film from julian barnes's novel of the same name. of thes back at some most crucial relationships of his youth. variety writes it offers a poignant commentary of trying to

find meaning in our lives. >> good morning. >> all right. >> have a nice day. it anhaps you'll find interesting if painful memento of long ago. >> a diary. >> hello, anthony. i were together. in my school days, i met my best friend. veronica formed a relationship with him. both a veryhem nasty letter.

>> what do you think you'll find in the diary? >> horrible. >> my best friend mysteriously died. >> something is certainly going on. >> what is it? >> to end up remembering isn't and always actually what you rehearsed. >> what were you doing there? >> are we going to address the fact that almost everything you told me last few days is for the first time. >> what really strikes me is your total inability to see what's right under your nose. your daughter. often do we tell our own life story? make adjust, embellish, slight cuts, make a new reality?

everything was coming off the rails. how were we to know that our lives weren't intertwined forever? ♪ are two joining me now of the film's stars, jim broadbent and michelle dockery. jim, let me start with you. this is a well-known novel and a highly respected one. not, i would think, and easy novel to turn into a movie. it features in the starring role a character who is own daughter gives the nickname of "mudge" to, short for curmudgeon. it's one of the things that drew me to it. he's a difficult man, a

self-centered man. he claims he's happily divorced which doesn't really ring true. he thinks he is. he's living a rather selfish life in his own retirement, he has a hobby running his own camera shop. from the mother of his lost love, his first girlfriend, which throws his life into turmoil. he actually finds out through that, or we find out, that he's not as happy and discontent as he claims to be -- happy and as content as he seems to be. anthony: the narrator says that we in our lives and that writing oral stories, and sometimes not very accurately. jim: the story we tell ourselves are the stories we told ourselves first. they get more and more remote from what really happened.

he convinced himself that he's all right. when you dig a bit deeper, more is revealed. anthony: it's interesting because he had this little camera shop, like a hole in the wall. i love that little space. it's almost like a metaphor for his life. there's one customer that comes in and he kind of scurries and out. apart from his ex-wife who sort -- him, his only relationship is really with his daughter. and we don't know much about you in the film. michelle: it's a bit of a mystery, who's the father of this child she's about to have. i love that about the film that there are certain things within it that are unanswered. it leaves the audience -- it leads to the audience to decide. y are both at a point in

their lives, i think, where things are about to change quite drastically. certainly for susie but also for tony. he's about to become the grandfather. and margaret. whether it is sort of , with they in their neck pain, the producers actually kind of put it in their that she was expecting the child. it's very different from the book because of course she's married with two children. it kind of built to that point causes thisnd and discovery, this journey he goes on to unravel the past. it feels this moment which then connects them as a family in a very different way than before. was a moment almost

went tony becomes like a different person. it all of a sudden opens up for him. it's beautifully constructed in julian barnes's novel and in the film. the balance of the school age, being a schoolboy, and the adult, tony. the school age, the history lessons particularly. i identified with the school. exactly the same age, exactly the same cultural background. al boys school, sixth form, of about fourque or five of us who thought we were smarter than anyone else. fairly unpleasant schoolboy behavior. he hasn't changed much. he's got older but he has a

grown-up, hasn't really matured. is still the slightly lost child still thefind -- he's slightly lost child trying to find love and being unpleasant and rude. we don't actually know everything and we're still struggling with life. anthony: one thing i was struck by in watching this film and i'm often struck by in watching british films and tv series is unafraid to go more slowly through a story and to let you feel it more. i don't know if you noticed that as actors in making films? michelle: i certainly do. anthony: he's a very patient man there's a patience with making the film. anthony: does that change the acting experience? michelle: i certainly felt very

relaxed onset. from the get-go, felt like a justcalled -- a very calm, being allowed to read, really. the first time i watched the film, i thought it was so wonderful to watch the film where there are moments where you can kind of take a breath. anthony: but something is happening in that nothingness. michelle: exactly. it also allows the audience to form their own opinions. anthony: we are so worried we will lose people's attention that we're afraid to stop and -- michelle: i think that's a very good point. i was completely in it when i watched it. on the page, of course you were jumping from the past to the present. there were moments when i thought, how are they going to do this?

even in the theatrical trailer how they sort of split the screens. the editing is amazing. go, wait ance second, where are we, which world are we in the echo -- are we in? it is clear. anthony: i'm struck by having the two of you here that you've become known in such a different fashion through your careers. you are known because of one which everybody knows u.s.. as.-- everybody knows you and jim, you've never really had one role that defines you. i don't know which is a better course. michelle's- jim: work better for her. have onehe did

extraordinary year in 2001 when wonwhen caskey -- when you the oscar, the bathtub, and you bafta. -- the oscar, the jim: the beginning of that turvy."was "topsy i played gilbert. that was the first time i got an award. after that, you are sort of awardable. anthony: is that true? [laughter] jim: that was wonderful. york" wasn'tf new far after that. i think probably if there is one job that really changed how i was perceived, it might have been getting a part in woody

allen's film. for a british actor to be in a woody allen film, it was very unusual. that was a door opening job, i think. anthony: the success of "downton abbey," did it take you by surprise? michelle: nothing can prepare you for that. we all thought we were on something exciting and it was a of mine hadfriends heard about and were reading for. of course it was julian, she had already been cast. it was exciting from the very start but you can never predict how an audience will take it. anthony: it just kept building. michelle: of course, when it hit america, everything changed. anthony: what changed?

for me, it was being suddenly recognized. that was a huge change for me. anthony: what is that feeling like? amazing and's terrifying at the same time. -- to me, itends depends where i am. inan go completely unnoticed some parts of the world, some other country. it all depends on when the show was airing. it's not something i would never complain about because it has brought so much to my life and my career going forward it has opened so many doors. they don't come along very often. anthony: i think some people don't realize at the time that you think you will have another one and you don't always.

you spent six years. a long time. michelle: it is. we became like family. life, you're your living with the character and your life is going alongside it. anthony: do you have time to prepare for the ending of something like that? michelle: i did a film right after "downton." it was a month later after we that weon "downton" started on this. it felt like the right time. anthony: i get the sense that both of you always wanted to the actors. really.id it took a while to own up to it.

i went to oxford for a year but i realized that wasn't what i wanted to do. if i was honest with myself, i really wanted to act. michelle: i knew really young. anthony: you went to drama school, didn't you? michelle: i did. i went to a local state school from the age of five. schoola -- a local stage from the age of five. it was a hobby my parents found for us. i was dancing and singing, sort te i musical theater rou could have gone down. when i was 16, i had an encouraging drama teacher. she really encouraged me. she wrote all my applications to drama schools. that was it, i went to drama school and i knew i was hooked.

jim: when you get into drama school you think, i'm home. anthony: everybody loves what you love. michelle: that was it. i knew that i was home. anthony: would you ever do broadway? michelle: i would. i'm actually dying to get back on stage. anthony: you played eliza doolittle but not in "my fair chameleon -- in "pygmalion." they are doing a new "my fair lady." you've done theater too, jim. i did. i got used to cameras. they have the lands. -- they have the lens.

i thought i had to do enough and that led into more and more films. the christmas" before last. you have to keep it going. you get a bit rusty. michelle: i felt like i did theater for a long time before a fewon" and had done small tv roles but i found it very intimidating at first. cameras and the crew. i spent so long doing theater. i feel like i'm at that point now where i'm used to it. anthony: when did you figure out how to carve out a role into very small, little parts that you did over the course of three months of shooting as opposed to one night of the performance? that's something i marvel at, how you come in and out of character so quickly. michelle: it took getting used

to for me. of course, for three hours, you're playing the character constantly. between,ose hours in .'ve gotten used to it now kind of having less control. on stage, you have the control. but anything can happen on a set. jim: when filming, the easiest bit is when the cameras going and all you have to do is make it sound as real as possible, get in character and make it sound natural and real. boredom can really do your head in. you can go in for a whole day and not be used because things have gone wrong technically. that's a challenge, keeping that

patients. anthony: thanks for being here. the film is "the sense of an ending." it opens in theaters march 10. ♪ live-stream your favorite sport

at the airport. binge dvr'd shows while painting your toes. on demand laughs during long bubble baths. tv everywhere is awesome. the all-new xfinity stream app. xfinity. the future of awesome. ♪ dan: good evening. this week, the senate foreign relations committee is expected to vote on president trump's nominee for ambassador to israel.

questions about about the future of u.s. policy in the middle east, the peace process, and changes in the region. by two guests at each recently made a new contribution to the timeless discussion about the history of israel. the first guest, who teaches at -- is an award-winning israeli screenwriter and producer. settlers" film, "the is in theaters now. our other guest is the author of "israel: a nation reborn." thank you both for being at this table. settlements. the a propensity -- a perplexing problem, the settlements, that has been around for a while. why did you choose to do this now?

daniel: especially now because shis constantly at the -- mon: especially now because it is in discussion and that confirmation is -- that conversation is missing. i wanted to present the history of the settlements, the ideological and religious at all -- religious elements that drove it. dan: daniel gordis, your book, "a precise history of israel." what was missing from the discussion? there are not as many as one would think but there are a number of others. everyone is talking about the settlements which is a critical and complicated problems. settlements are not the

whole conversation. the conversation about israel has become very conflict-centric. everyone has to know -- everyone wants to know, will trump the good or bad for israel, was obama good or bad for israel? they are thinking about the conflict. imagine someone came to us and said, i don't really understand what america is about. i know there are proud that -- another a profound ideas at the core. i would say to that person, there was a war in 1776, a civil war in 1660. a second world war. there are others. but i haven't told them anything about what makes this country great. i haven't told them anything about thomas jefferson and his dream of a new government and democracy. hiff ofven't got a wf

what's in the settlement -- what's in the federalist papers. they haven't read about the worries on the rule of the mob or martin luther king's letters from the birmingham jail. israel is definitely mired in a conflict and the settlements are a part of that conflict. it has been an extraordinary human accomplishment. i thought it was time that someone tried to tell the story with the settlements and conflict but not make the whole story about that. dan: i want to show one clip of your film, shimon. ais is the cofounder of jewish settlement talking about the treatment of the early settlers.

dan: shimon, the think that is representative of the settler movement at large, that they almost proudly regard themselves as obstacles to any kind of accommodation with the palestinians? she definitely represents the early settlers.

at the time she was talking about, it was really a handful of settlers and they force their will on the israeli government. isever, the reality today much more complex, and a completely different population. of the 400,000 settlers are so into west bank today, about 20% or so are ideologically thereforeand -- are ideological or religious reasons and the vast majority are there for economic reasons. 2005 -- was it 2005 when israel did the disengagement from gaza? shimon: yes. dan: the idea to go into gaza and forcibly remove thousands of settlers, what do you think that tells us about the israeli people and their representative government's attitude toward the settlers? possibility, one

would argue, to achieve some kind of peace, that they would challenge those settlers. shimon: to my knowledge, there was no point in time when the israeli government did an analysis and a strategic evaluation of the settlements as a strategic enterprise for israel. quite the contrary. -- whatlt was that happened in gaza, it was in good part because it had become too costly to maintain the settlements over there so they decided they had to take them out. i would say this is proved to the fact that it's possible -- i wouldn't say this is proof to the fact that it's possible to remove the settlements but the israeli government, if it has the will, they can do it. the settlements in the west bank, it is an act of the israeli government.

the government has to be willing b stockone -- leave this bone stuck in his throat. dan: but the israeli government took a risk. toel sharon had the will pull them out of gaza. many people think that what israel. following that experiment was not peaceful coexistence but a hamas takeover of gaza and thousands of rockets being rained on southern israel. did not create an environment that would allow the occupation of -- that would allow the population of gaza to engage in any progress these of these israel -- progress vis-a-

vis israel. you cannot expect anything different. i'm not in any way defending hamas or the gaza government. power to change the set of preconditions that would allow progress on the political horizon. dan: daniel, could israel have done more? daniel: israel did strengthen the blockade but that did not allow gaza to elect tom moss. hamas -- elect hamas. question forsing peace is the west bank. the question is really, is there a possibility of creating what most people i think still want, which is a two state solution. talks about the israeli government not being willing to take a stand, i think it is really the people not

willing to take a stand. israelis are worried. they saw the experiment in 2005. i was in favor of the disengagement. i thought it was a good idea. then i thought it was a failed idea but it's good that we tried. we learned something from it. israel's international popularity plummeted following the disengagement. it didn't go up as many thought it would. it is a strange thing i don't understand to this day. there's a very interesting comment in the clip of the movie we just saw. the gentleman speaking before the interviews that the 5000 settlers turned into a monster that is standing in the way of peace. whatnk it is interesting is really standing in the way of peace, 5000 settlers, which you both acknowledged israel could remove if they wanted to, or is what is standing in the way of

peace the fact that the palestinians on the west bank are not really willing to negotiate? john kerry himself has said that in private conversations happening between him and abbas.hu and that he wasn'td going to get everything that he wanted, he just basically pulled the plug on the negotiations. the israelis made some accommodations in these negotiations and the palestinians didn't budge. tragically, that has been the bottom line story. the palestinians have done an exceedingly good job of weaving a different narrative. i actually would like the palestinians to have a state, a democratic state, a thriving economic state. i would like their kids not to have to patrol the border because of my kids and my kids

not to have to patrol the border because of their kids. to do that, both sides will have to make accommodations. shimon: i will say that i disagree with you in principle. yes, we agree on the end results. we both want the end results. we appreciate that two states is the only solution. but to put the blame on the palestinians, on one side, is ignoring the fact on the ground. in theis the authority region, the strongest power. israel does not face any military threat whatsoever in the region. because of that, its responsibility to extend a hand, take initiative. the west bank, the reality is 2.7, 2.8 palestinians. in the midst of them, more than 400,000 israelis. this reality is terrible from the standpoint of israel, not only from the palestinians. to ignore that and to wait for the palestinians to somehow a

appease theehow demands, israel must recognize hand,upon her to extend a to come up with a proposition out of a position of power. it will never change. starts to feel quite long. eternity has always felt quite long. you're right in the sense that i think this has a much longer process. ehud barak would tell you that he did extend a hand but it was rebuffed. bill clinton would tell you that that was exactly right. you have sort of a third-party who acknowledge that's the case. i don't buy the idea that israel has never reached out.

i think israel has reached out. israel has no military threat in the region, that's not entirely the case depending on what fills the vacuum in the west bank. that's why israel is insisting on a military presence along the jordan river. israel is insisting on that because it is hard to know what comes across the syrian border. you and i want the same thing let's talk for a minute while we don't have the world that you and i want. israelis, we both care very deeply about the future of the country. really, why has this not happened? here is part of the reason i wrote the book. the book tries to explain that this conflict has a very long history. we're coming on almost a century of conflict beginning in 1929 when, over the course of one weekend, arab rioters destroyed a neighborhood that had been in place percent juries. commissione peel

came from britain. in 1936, the jews in the arabs are not going to be able to live together, we had a radical idea, let's divide the land. the jews thought they were getting all of that land plus something on the other side of the jordan river. zionists back then were very unhappy and they said yes. the arabs were very unhappy and launched the riots of 1936-1937. in 1947 when the u.n. partition commission discussed whether or how to divide it up. the jews who saw this as they -- saw this as their national liberation movement, this was not just about a state, this was about stopping the tenuous state of life for jewish

people around the globe. we don't want to live in spain in the highest echelons of culture, philosophy, art, and then they decide in 1492 that they can either burned at the stake, leave, or convert. we all want to be in germany and find ourselves eradicated. i think what the jews are saying is that this was about transforming that essential condition of the jew. that is why, when the jews were debating whether or not to take this much smaller map, he said, if it's the size of a tablecloth , you take the deal. we need just someplace to call our own. i think if somebody on the palestinian side would have said , if it is the size of a ,ablecloth, take the deal because we want to establish our own national sovereign roots. my read of the history is that at the end of the day, whether it was the five standing armies

that attacked israel in 1947, 1948, whether it was the jordanians and syrians in 1973, they have not been able to say once and for all that the jewish state has a right to exist. this land is our native land but also the jewish people's native land and we ought to split it. dan: do you think it is reasonable for israeli settlers to accept a resolution of the settlement policy, the territories in dispute, that the palestinian leadership in the arab world recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state, formally declare an end to the conflict, and understand that israel may need to keep some security presence on the border between the west bank and jordan? are those reasonable expectations? they seem to transcend party lines in israel. shimon: i would say yes but they

are not the precondition. i would say there is one thing that is a precondition that will resolve this thing. whether recognizing israel as a jewish state or not, it is an israeli matter. it is not a palestinian matter. i want for a moment to go back to what dan mentioned. you are very eloquent and i appreciate your comments on the virtues of remember that forgetting. -- remembrance and forgetting. i generally do not believe that israel is facing a military memoriesnd we bring up of victimhood and make it an article in the political maneuver. -- a wonderful idea to create a national state for the jewish people for only one

provide safe haven for persecuted jews. at no point in time did zionism aspire to fulfill prophecies or hasten the return of the messiah. in the west bank, with the settlements, is those two forces. any retreat from the west bank or allowing the palestinians to have their own state in the west bank is the fulfillment of zionism, not the negation of zionism. i would suggest that the settlements in the west bank are the negation of zionism. dan: the region seems to be changing in a way that is much different from the status quo that seems to be in place for my entire result life. you seem to have a 100 year order in the region collapsing before our eyes. failed states left and right, borders being erased, massive refugee flows we haven't seen at

any time since the fall of the ottoman empire. in any given day, you don't know what government will be in power in these arab countries, even jordan. how does that reality drive the exact debate you two are having right now? daniel: i don't think that it drives in all that much. i think it drives israel's concern about iran, about watching its northern border very carefully with russian planes, syrian planes, turkish planes. but i don't think that's what's actually motivating us. i think it would be motivating israel wanting a military presence along the river. of course, it's a concern. that israeli understands we're not going to move anywhere in less we're willing to take some risks. syria melting down is a huge problem because you have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of refugees potentially making their way into jordan

which is desperate for israel's help to stay stable. king abdullah is a closet zionist in a way, he won't say that but he knows he's in power because of that. there is actually a changing map emerging in the middle east. in the war of 2014, if anyone would have told you when israel and egypt were at war in 1973 that in 2014, egypt would be israel's biggest ally. but egypt was very helpful in the 2014 war. of course, all those things are happening. but i don't think that is specifically an issue of the settlements. yes, israel needs a buffer and the protection of the wider space. fundamentally, i was going back to the history not because of the history of victimhood but because it suggests what is the extent of nature of the people

with whom we have to -- the instinctive nature of the people with whom we have to make the deal. israel as in favor of a kind of haven for jews who needed haven but he is not the last word on zionism. other prime ministers had a much more robust view on what scientists would be, bringing the language back to life, a national culture. this is not just a bunch of people who moved from europe or north africa, came to palestine and got into a war. this is a group of people who in many ways came to a new place, rebuilt an entire people, one of the grandest human stories of all time, just needs the other side to recognize we're also here to stay and put this behind us. 1967 -- in the war of

1948, the war of independence, he said, we can take the west bank, we can do that. no military problem there. he rejected it. dosaid, what am i going to with 700,000 palestinians? now we have 2.7 million palestinians, the west bank, and the question is the same question. the answer is a two state solution. daniel: there we agree. say it is a reflection of the health of the israeli public debate that you can have two such talented and spirited individuals who don't exactly see eye to eye trying to hash this out. it kind of tells you about the soul of israel. thank you both for being here. bye settlers" is the film shimon dotan. -- daniely daniel gordis. ♪

♪ >> its judgment day in seoul. president park geun-hye waits to hear if she can keep her job and immunity from prosecution. >> investors looking at friday's critical payroll numbers, which may realize a pay hike -- a rate hike next week. that it may warning take 15 years to clinch a trade deal with europe. for ak is now looking seventh ceo in just 12 years.