>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose ." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. president trump deals with speculations that he will fire jeff sessions. he said he was a disappointed in sessions. news, thepolitical senate voted this afternoon to move forward and begin debate on the gop health care bill after by's president pence -- vice

president pence broke the tie. deliberations today, not just our debates, but the exercise of our responsibilities authorizing government policies, a probe brady -- appropriating the policies to implement them, are often lively and interesting . they can be sincere in principle, but are more partisan, more tribal, more of i canme than it any time remember. our deliberations can still be important and useful, but i think they would all agree that they haven't been over burned it -- overburdened a greatness lately. right now, they are not producing much for the american people. both sides have let this happen. find that wey will all conspired in our decline either by deliberate action or neglect. we have all played some role,

certainly i have. sometimes i have let my passion roll my reason here it is sometimes i have found it harder to find common ground because of something harsh i said to a colleague. sometimes i wanted to win more for the sake of winning, than achieve a contested policy. implement a progress, side -- but-- each also accept. just keeping our enemies from doing their worst isn't zed.ori it is usually the most we can expect from our government, operating a government as quarrelsome as our. are andrewth us slavitt and keener byard --

peter leinart. before we get to mueller with a jeff sessions, what is the latest on that? in such a dysfunctional situation. i'm getting calls from the justice department asking if jeff sessions is going to get fired and when it i don't know. i refer to donald trump's tweets. no one in the white house is quite sure what he is going to do. what we do know is if he does ,ry to do a recess appointment there has been some speculation he could try to replace sessions in the august recess -- chuck schumer did a speech this floorg on the senate and he said we're not going to let you do that. they're not going to allow the recess to happen. donald trump is left without good options here. charlie: you asked, peter, why

is trump doing this other than he hates the russian probe, i guess the other answer is he is donald trump. he is a bully and a cruel man. jeff sessions has been deeply loyal to donald trump. he stuck his neck out in the beginning. charlie: and the first -- things forisked donald trump. this is the way donald trump treats people who have been deeply loyal to him. sessions is a true believer in the trump agenda. it is self-defeating, but also -- act withomeone honor. charlie: you wonder why the president -- if in fact he was so angry about it, simply wouldn't go to jeff sessions and say, i have to make a change.

>> if you go back to the 1990's-19 80's when donald trump's love life was playing in donaldloids, sometimes trump was having a liaison or elements of his affair were playing out through the tabloids, so it is certainly not out of character for donald trump to broadcast decisions about people who are even more intimate than a loyal cabinet secretary through the media. charlie: is it possible -- there is a story that sessions tried to resign? >> that is accurate. he did. wasn't quite as dramatic as being reported, sessions said to him, if it you feel it is the right thing to do, i'm happy to

resign. it was very much out of a sense of honor. i have talked to people close to sessions that say since his resignation that he is enjoying the job and doesn't want to leave. but they wonder how long he can withstand the public humiliation of the president of united states publicly tweeting about him. it does seem unsustainable. charlie: do you think the president will try to fire robert mueller? bet on had to it, yes, i do. atis obsessed with the probe the moment and particularly now the probe seems to be veering .nto business dealings i suspect, based on conversations i have had with people around him, that that is a third rail. if it does head in that direction, i don't rule out the idea that he could try to fire mueller. charlie: do you believe that,

too? >> i do. remember that donald trump did not want to releases tax returns, even though it hurt him to a degree. i think he figures dollar is trying to get me, maybe he figures that mueller will find things. it is better for him to try to have this happen now before mueller discloses all of that, when mueller does. the right toas fire him, or does the deputy attorney general have to fire him? it is legally murky here. aecial counsel is not law, it is simply regulation. some think he could get rid of the regulation altogether. it is also possible he may have to keep firing people until he found someone -- nixon?: -- >> it will probably end up in

the courts, but it is certainly murky enough that if it is fought out in the court, that republicans will ultimately -- enough of them, stand by him. trump has a good record of creating facts on the ground. republicans said they think he -- paul ryan basically called it racist when he went after the judge. i think the question would be beyond saying we disagree with this, what are they willing to do in conjunction with democrats? charlie: what can they do? pass athey could maybe law to appoint mueller again, for instance. charlie: it would be a congressional act rather than a presidential act. -- we don't know --

trump's rating among republicans remains over 80% here it he is still very popular among republicans. republicans are going to think twice before going to devcon one against trump. charlie: that is like when barry goldwater went to the president and said, you have to go. peter: right. people stuck with nixon for a long time. torlie: i want to come back mueller, because that seems so crucial. there is also talk that the secretary of state thinks -- or at least there are sources saying he is not happy and he is considering whether he is in the right place? andrew: i cannot speak to his headspace, but i can speak to -- between racks tillerson and there have been huge classes over staff.

we saw a blowout into the press, there was a meeting where rex tillerson exploded at the head of personnel. there have been huge clashes over staff. what i am also hearing is that rex tillerson's voice on foreign policy to the point that it encroaches on national security is not a powerful voice. donald trump listens to james mattis more than anyone else, perhaps more than anyone else in the cabinet. group ofomes to that people try to influence the president on foreign policy, rex tillerson has waning influence. charlie: who is on those side about firing sessions, maybe leading to the firing of mueller? know if anyone who is advocating for firing jeff sessions.

there have been a number of meetings where i am told everyone in the room has been kind of trying in their various tactical ways to get him to call m down and offer a vote of confidence. charlie: what you think? peter: it is different then the comey situation. there are reports that jared kushner pushed for comey's firing. it will be interesting to see what happens in the family. you can imagine a situation in the mueller investigation has a potential not just to hurt donald trump, but also the people in his number ciampa, jr., jared kushner, ivanka trump. you can imagine a situation where the family members would have an incentive to stop the investigation before it uncovers things that cause tremendous problems. charlie: the shifting factions in the white house, it is really

hard, because they are not united on issues that are consistent. for example, bannon was said to be opposed to the hiring of the new communication chief. you would think would not have an opinion, were in favor. that's true. one of the key dynamics at the moment is that steve bannon and reince priebus have become allies of convenience in a feud against jared kushner and ivanka trump. that is probably in terms of the hottest complex in the white house -- that is probably right at the top. distrust reince priebus and they want him out of the job. to the extent which steve bannon them as ideological enemies, he wants to protect reince priebus.

which is ironic, because a few months ago they were not best buddies. charlie: it is, indeed. think very much for being on the program. -- thank you very much for being on the program. ♪

charlie: we turn from politics to legislation as the senate moves to debate the repeal of the portable care act, health care remains a divisive issue.

the central questions, how do we increasingile quality. and what role should government play in the lives of americans. last night i appeared on a panel with a gentleman on these issues. slavitt, mike leavitt, secretary of medical services .nder george bush here is the conversation about health care. what happened to us, why has health care become something for obama tomount pass and paramount for president trump to repeal? referring tou are me as a politician, that connotes negativity.

charlie: i don't mean it that way. >> i know you don't mean it that way, but it is perceived -- when that happens, we preferred to be referred to as elected officials. [applause] but, the nobility of politics and being involved in public debate on policy issues is a novel thing. it ought to be. back to a great deal of changes, go back to tip o'neill and say the worst thing to happen was the jet airplane. we were on the 2:00 shuttle, there was the congress going back to new york, and everyone is flying out. factor, i think -- in the modern world of being back home to the constituency all the time, the post in gingrich yearsost-

to bring your family there to -- other thingsggest that have radically change the way washington works, and i would argue, for the better. the removal of politics for many -- like citizens united. for instance, lobbyists can no longer take members of congress to dinner, and that is a good thing. what is lost and that is the linkage between democrats and republicans. april would take anyone out, so we have lost in the social connectivity and that won't come back. it is ground upon to take trips. if you are a marginal member worried about reelection, you are not going to the trip. be to afghanistan, probably the only place you could get away from it.

but everything is fair game. charlie: mike? mike: three or four things, the first is the country is fundamentally divided in what role we want government to play in our lives. it is hard to devote much energy to just that question unless you have something like health care that is personal where you can use that as a means of doing it. i think there is a basic division in our philosophy. the second thing i would point to is the combination of technology in politics. our ability to use precision in literallynment, to carve districts that are win-able on both sides has eroded the middle to virtually nonexistent. that may be 20 districts may be swinging districts. everyone else is safe.

i think that has created an enormous difficulty. the third is, i think the math has changed. a used to be when you ran for office, your goal was to get 50% -- to hold your base and erode enough of the base that you could get 50% plus one. now there is enough apathy in the middle that you can get enough votes on either side to win an election. therefore, people have begun to just focus on their base. so, they talk to themselves. i think the media has discovered that, that is true and they now speak to their own cohorts. fox, "thec versus wall street journal" versus "the new york times." lastly, there has been a dramatic realization of personal

issues that were -- dramatic federalization of personal issues that were meant to be argued on the state level. it is difficult to resolve matters where there are differences in opinion and differences in values make difficult decisions. you have to have it the same everywhere, you can't get to a conclusion. many issues like education, health care, and others, that would typically been dealt with at the local level have become federal issues. charlie: andy? andy: i don't think it is a democrat or's's republican world, i think it is a washington world versus the real world. i think the republicans are largely still living in 2016. in 20 16, talking about obamacare was gold.

it won elections, it was easy to criticize. i think for the policy gains, it wasn't a political success --president obama said that. they find themselves in 2017, not necessarily fully prepared to govern. and i think, those that have been brave enough to face their districts, and not many have, have learned in 2017 it is not about obamacare repeal and replace, it is actually what do i have today, versus what are you trying to do. that is a fundamentally different equation. some are waking up to it, many art. when you go out to the real world in town halls across the country, the things i find -- striking, it doesn't matter if you are a trump supporter, obama supporter, voted for hillary,

you have an interest in your health care and you shouldn't have to declare. all the sudden, how we feel about our health care has gotten tied into how we have to describe our politics. and i think ironically -- i think there is some hope -- i believe that health care is one issue that can unite us. it is something that can transcend politics if we get past issues from washington. i think there is great hope and the rest of the world and country that people will put the politics aside on this issue more than anything. i think to the extent they don't they will find themselves out of step with what people are looking for right now. charlie: has the failure of politics and collapse of the senate, and collapse of repeal, and collapse of everything else they have thought about trying -- led to an awareness that we have to find a different way? is there mindset moving in that direction?

my sense is among the members, among the leadership, not so much. and i think the white house clearly isn't going to give this up. i think if we are in round d, we are going to see e, f, and g. i think we are at a point where the embers of congress are of this, are going to bring it to the white house. they may say let's try a bipartisan approach, that dynamic doesn't exist in the majority party yet. with all due respect. charlie: it is hard to do that with the campaign all the evils of obamacare. >> also on the democrat side of the aisle, there is a -- of --dership and membership is

meeting and some unnumbered room somewhere in the capital, and that resonates back. people are like, we are not quite ready to do that yet. tohink -- we are not ready negotiate with republicans on the future of health care until they stop the effort to repeal. year movementplus to repeal. i think we can go back. think we can work to bolster what we have accomplished so far. charlie: do you think that is a possibility, mike? will there be an assessment at some time? everything we want, so we have to figure out how to get something? mike: the difficulty with great slogans is people remember them. repeal and replace is memorable. reminds me of "read my lips, no

more taxes." and i continue to believe we're going to see a piece of legislation. the imperative is simply too strong for the republicans, for them not to come up with something. if their aspiration was this, it will likely be this. but one thing we know is it will -- repeal and replace obamacare. beyond that, we don't know what repeal means, we don't know what replace means. but can i say, i am actually a bit optimistic, not about the politics of the day, but i think we have to step back a ways and say, this is not -- we are arguing about the here and now. the reality is we are moving toward what i think may become a uniquely american health care system that will not be proposed

by either party, but will essentially be the sum total that the two extremes battling will lead us to. i think we are 25 years into a 40 year transportation that isn't being driven by allah ticks, but really being guided by economics. -- by politics, but really being guided by economics. debategoing through a now on what is 20% of the entire economy, and there is virtually no decision about the impact this is having on economicstability -- sustainability. charlie: when you look at the future, beyond what you are saying at some point it will work its way through and people will wake up and say, we've got

to do something different -- was it a mistake not to start with infrastructure and get some kind of coalition, some kind of working together among the democrats and republicans on something at the beginning of this congress? >> my feeling is the executive orders that have come from the white house over the last six months, primarily in the early stages, were very debilitating toward creating a positive relationship with the democratic caucus in the house or senate. for me, as was mentioned before, my district is right across the east river in queens. heights,nt jackson woodside, astoria, sunnyside, have some of the most diverse to places -- the most diverse place in the entire world here at the change in ice procedures, the daca

withdrawal, the -- my constituency feels under duress every day when there are ice agents standing outside the courthouse because of the human trafficking case, that sends shockwaves through my constituency. and makes it very hard to work with this president. --doesn't mean i can't bipartisan in congress, but it makes it hard to work with the president on anything, quite frankly. i didn't agree with george bush on just about anything -- i didn't agree with many things, but i worked closely with him. for example, the indian-civilian transfer deal. i was behind the president when he signed that bill, because i -- they sent me to

india to convince him it was a bipartisan bill. i don't see the ability to work like that with this president, because there has not been any form of an olive branch. it was incumbent upon him, because the party controlled everything that if we are going to work with them, their needs to be an olive branch. blameats are not to because we can get the health care bill passed, we are trying to defend it, don't get it wrong , but -- partisan,t here as a but could i just say, this is how it always is. look back when the affordable care act was passed, there was drama like this every week for a long time.

60th vote,get the how would things turn out in massachusetts. it was a cliffhanger. adon't care if they had taken water bill, and for such or bill, tax cut, the same thing would have happened. the freedom caucus had to demonstrate that nothing could happen in caucus unless they were there and they would of walked away no matter what the bill was yard donald trump and paul ryan had to show they could walk away, too. lo and behold, two or three weeks later there was an announcement we are now going to vote. the same thing is happening now. two senators announce they are out, they write the obituary, this is over. whoh mcconnell is the guy throws it, looks like we are stuck with a obamacare. not for a minute. he is back there working to put

this together. this is just the way a messy political democracy works. this is a negotiation and people are looking for leverage. anything, i pass think they well, but it won't happen neatly. charlie: will it happen before the 2018 election? isi think personally if it going to happen, the best -- we were talking about this -- they've got this reconciliation isicle and if in fact that truly going to expire, i think the pressure is on to get it done between now and september 30. what did the aca get right, in your opinion, and what did he get wrong, both in terms of concept and execution? >> i think the things i got right, everybody in this room

knows and we don't need to belabor. he could talk about all the people that got coverage, but i will tell you what is more important about the people who got coverage is what it means to their daily lives here it i had the privilege of getting letters and a males from people getting coverage for the first time, and when i recall is a woman who described how she came home from work one day and her middle school daughter was there. she said to her daughter, you can join the gymnastics team. her daughter left into her arms and started to cry and said, but mom, you been telling me for three years i could enjoy net. and she says yes, mommy has insurance now. what is important about the story is it is so ordinary, but it represents the link that health care plays with our connection to the middle class. hard, wemething very

changed -- to say it doesn't matter what your income level is or -- you're entitled to health care. and we get a perfectly right, no. charlie: tell me what you got wrong. >> you've got a whole bunch of people that get help from the government now. you have low incomes through medicaid or through the exchange. make ita tax subsidy to happen, but if you are in the middle class and buy insurance on your own, you don't get a subsidy. a political scientist will say it wasn't the smartest political move. the affordability burden, people are more class protected from unless they are in the middle class. i think that definitely needs to be fixed. charlie: do you think it made a

difference in the 2016 election? >> definitely. i would say there are probably three or four that made a difference and anyone might have changed the outcome, might not have. but certainly this was something that -- obamacare became something that was -- and i think this is another thing that wasn't executed well -- that the republicans defined better than the democrats defined. they do find it as everything you don't like about the health care system, call it obamacare. moves, that was probably a obamacare. if summary cuts your hours, that was probably obamacare. it until something other than obamacare that that reality got -- i don't blame anybody but ourselves for not making sure that the pieces that people actually very much value, the patient protection pieces, were

not appropriately associated with the aca. the republicans and democrats have to look at themselves. if they look over the last seven years over the supreme court cases denying medicaid expansion which drove up rates for --rybody else, the funding the rate stabilization fund, everybody has a little bit of a blood on their hands here it the bottom line is, one side cannot blame the other anymore. >> i would agree with this in terms of lessons learned. one thing that is certain in politics is whenever a party who has been out of power regains it, they always overreach. barack obama was elected president, they had been out of power for a time. they reached to a point that they excluded republicans and we ended up with a bill with no

republican votes at all. we now see donald trump and the republicans take power and make the exact same mistake. they overreach. the solutions are not that complicated and we are arguing actually about words a lot. is is going to be repeal and replace or repair. there is a reality that a lot of areas is common ground. charlie: nobody is using the word repair. >> to be fair, there is a lot more than words going on. the american people figured out it is a debate about defunding medicaid. >> and a tax break to the wealthy. >> if they had gone to repeal and replace like they said, deductibles,cing reducing premiums, hsa, i think we would be in a different spot. >> you're making my argument and

that is if you can get republicans -- if they didn't overreach, if we could have a serious conversation about solving the problem, you could get there. but again, back to your first question, it took me a while and washington to figure this out, but washington -- congressman, tell me if i am wrong. a lot of it is preparing for the next election and controlling the news cycle today to prepare for the next election. because that other team on not do anything right, they will always be wrong, but we will do it right. so, let's not do anything until we have power and we just go back-and-forth. again, i go back to the argument that a lot of this we are discussing about issues at a federal level and everything being one way as opposed to allowing a little more flexibility and space. >> i think there is truth to

that in terms that the president -- during the obama demonstration that didn't exist during the bush administration. in fact, the response to 9/11, a lot of that was done in a bipartisan way, but clearly, this notion of sit back and do nothing and let them flail happened during the obama administration. they said, were not going to let this man get reelected like the comments of mitch mcconnell. now the shoe is on the other foot. i think the tone is set on the top about the body politic of our country and how we will move forward. what has been set by this

resident, i believe, is unprecedented. it is making it very difficult for people who want to work in a bipartisan way to do that. ♪

charlie: silicon valley uses the a lot.isruption" do we need new ideas and how care that will disrupt the system we have? >> i would argue we have an

idea, and it is a change in a meant structure, away from fee-for-service to value and -- my colleagues can comment on it, but it is a big idea. it is the biggest change that has happened in 50 years and health care, but it is very hard. and it isn't something you can just embrace as an idea and then execute, it will take a long time to do it. i think that change is supported, by the way, by both parties. there is agreement, but the issue is, how do you execute on it. this goes back to what i was our hope is for economics to disrupt this, not for politics to disrupt it. charlie: what do you mean by economics in this case? if we can begin to

focus on the fact that we have an economic imperative that we share to solve this problem, because you look at other countries, whether in europe or even in south america, you see economies that were disrupted problem we're working toward. if you look at what is driving the problem, it is health care. we have a shared problem, at some point it will become acute enough that the economics will override all it takes. -- override politics. charlie: we have deadlock and read lock on issues. >> look at tarp. congress came together in a matter of weeks. >> it was ugly. happened.ugly, but it

the unfortunate fact is in the democracy we live in today, it takes crisis to get politics to move. i think at some point in time we are just waiting for a -- heart attack to get us to change our appetite. charlie: if we are not at that point, when will we be there? >> it could happen quickly. >> what is the economic imperative to provide health care? didaffordable care act recognize that imperative for those who could not afford insurance. >> which is exactly the dilemma we are dealing with. we have a dilemma of a sense of compassion and a new sense of global economic dispassion saying that if people give money for bonds, they want it back at some point in time.

that is ultimately what will drive, i think, this new system. reason i think there is reason to be optimistic. >> let me focus on the disruption i think we need. we do not have a problem in this country with the 67-year-old white jogger. that is not going to interrupt our system. that person gets good care. the problem we have is the woman who lives two bus stops away from the nearest worth restore or dr. she goes to kidney failure, spends time in the hospital, these chronic conditions and mental,havioral, nutritional, other issues, drives the cost in our system. theave seen charts

comparison to other countries saying we spend a lot more and get a lot less. you don't always show the reverse chart that other countries have figured out if you invest in primary care, mental health, you focus on the people difficult to take care of, people with chronic conditions, until we make that investment and really fundamentally understand that investment, you're going to go down the same track absent politics. that is where compassion and dispassion meat. >> i think andy is right. the ever evolving nature of delivery goes beyond the physical itself. does the person have the ability to get to that office. what are the living conditions? towards --are moving in terms of how people afford their rent or housing as a means of fitness or wellness. , but i thinkstions

in essence, coming back to the politics, how i perceive it now is that my republican colleagues were dammed if they didn't, but more dammed if they do. part of the is difficulty they are in right now, because of their political base and expectation they would have done that. i think you are right, governor, in some respects, the overwhelming pressure to get to that political goal is very powerful. charlie: the political goal of -- >> that's what i said. into 2017, we will look at this differently. charlie: or 2018. >> i'm not talking about the political cycle, but the reality on the ground that every poll is saying what republicans don't think they are saying that they can cash out on obamacare.

charlie: was there a developing of change with a new appreciation for medicare that took place in this debate. did republicans, for example, understand this political axiom that if you give benefits to people, it is very hard to take them back? >> i think there is a widely held aspiration in this country that spans republican and democrat for people to have access to affordable insurance. that is not a dispute, the issue is, what role will government play. that is what happens in medicaid. in medicaid it becomes a question of, is medicaid a way we can help those in economic need, or a program to expand the number of people who are injured. there are differences in opinion about that in congress. once they figured out that medicaid was clearly designed for one, but has been expanded to another. it is not about we want people

to have insurance, but are we going to use it as a means to pay for people -- >> it scored better. charlie: apart from politics -- and it is hard to be a part from politics, what do most smart people, whether it is doctors, hospitals, i could a man -- pharmaceutical companies, what do they think? >> i think it is a white held aspiration for people to have insurance. charlie: for everybody to have insurance? >> i think you can get democrats and republicans to agree that the fee-for-service is the heart of the problem, that coordinated care is going to be better than e, and theted car third thing is whatever we do it has to be score-able.

if you can build on those three items, you could come along way to finding a solution. i would make the point that both we have ae -- problem that each party gets power and it overreaches. i think there is a moment in time that somebody is going to craft something that is bipartisan and whoever is in power when that happens will govern for an extended period of time. charlie: you really believe that? >> you spoke about the magic moment. you look back when we had an economic crisis, you look at 9/11, there will be a moment when there is a catalyst for that kind of activity. when it happens, i think it will be cathartic to the american people and they will reward

politically whoever did it. >> i think generally speaking, if you talk to democratic policy people, the first thing out of their mouths will be how to we cover more people. charlie: right. republicanalk to policy people, they will want to talk about the sustainability of the system. the cost -- to make sure we're not paying too much. i think democrats could do better if they talk about cost. charlie: and republicans to talk about access? >> i think some of the cost rhetoric -- there are people that are serious about it and people that use it to say we are actually just going to curtail the federal budget, do this to do tax breaks, or whatever it is. both parties, i think -- and between that, i think you

probably have some portion of the republican caucus that agrees about coverage, but i try to remind people back in the real world -- and you can tell expect inwrong -- we believe that each of our congressmen and women, and senators, are policy experts of every topic. and people asked me, why don't thz.recognize x, y, and it could be that in 2009 a were selling automobiles. they see the talking points when they go home to their districts and they may have some policy stuff, they may not have access to policy staff. leadership in congress is more and more important. under the current leadership in

the senate on the majority side right now, you know, it is harder to see our way there. >> again, i think one of the things that people are yearning for -- and i understand the debate, there are some people that don't believe a conversation that we can allow states to have individually, because they might come up with different solutions. but in my mind, long-term, a lot of this will have to be solved in the laboratories of democracy and states instead of trying to 35 people figure of the solution for everybody. going back to talking about access to health care or the mandate that everyone will be covered -- we will try to cover everyone some way or another. and primarily it is about access on the other side -- we have come across the mandate that they must be a part of it.

that comes to whether we can actually come to agreement on that. the other side of it is applying every area of the country to another. i have been -- i was part of negotiations in many respects to the affordable care act. and a lot of my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle, this is how it should work. well, it should work that way of everyone has access. most people had access to some form of insurance, they had limited access to medicaid. as opposed to new york where a lot of people are exposed to undocumented have employees who have no access to insurance. i think most importantly, it comes back to whether you provide access to insurance, or whether it is about the mandate. wethat is a good way to say

have different philosophies in our country about what the role of government should be. charlie: you have come back to the role of government a number of times, because you believe it is the question that separates opinions on how care. >> i do. charlie: can you imagine that america will ever want a single-payer system? >> i don't think we will go there. i would say to the congressman that there are a lot of states in the country that would initiate, past, and execute an individual mandate. charlie: thank you very much. think the panel. [applause] [indiscernible] ♪

♪ >> no change in policy, but unwinding should start relatively soon. it will be announced in september. yvonne: treasuries rose, the dollar fell. oil surged through an eight week high. >> foxconn confirms a $10 billion investment in wisconsin. they say it is a win-win situation. yvonne: facebook is jumping, lifted by strong mobile ads driving revenue faster paced