tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 2, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the supreme court. judge neil gorsuch is president filled.nominee to be the president made the announcement on tuesday evening. millions of voters said this was the single most important why they voted for me for president. i am a man of my word. i will do as i say. something that the american people have been asking for from
washington for a very, very long time. today, i am keeping another promise to the american people by nominating judge neil gorsuch of the united states supreme court. caroline: the judge is a 49-year-old conservative jurist serving for the 10th circuit in denver. speaking at the ceremony, he paid all much to his predecessor. scalia was a lion of the law. agree or disagree, all of his colleagues on the bench shared his wisdom and his humor, and like them, i miss him. charlie: senate minority leader chuck schumer has promised of the democrats will offer a half confirmation fight.
it remains to be seen if democrats will filibuster the .omination joining me from washington, and liptak of "the new york times." jan crawford of cbs news . here in new york, david boyd. i am pleased to have all of them on this program. adam, let me begin with you. the legal qualifications of this nominee are rather high, are they not? has a glittering resume. he went to clump it, harvard, has a doctorate and legal philosophy from oxford. in the justice department and has been a judge for 11 years where he has earned the admiration of people on both sides of the ideological spectrum for being a careful, serious judge and one who shares with justice scalia, who he hates to replace, a lively and
accessible writing style. he is a pretty solid package. charlie: david, what is to be concerned about? david: if that package was a enough to get you in the supreme court, there wouldn't be a vacancy, because judge garland had it. charlie: it's always judge garland. david: it's always politics. charlie: you can't talk to democrats about this nomination. who a reference to someone they thought was eminently qualified and didn't get a chance. david: i think that is exactly right. one of the principles here is, how are we going to select our supreme court nominees? a the answer is only republican president can select somebody to be confirmed, you aren't going to have balance on the supreme court. how is the senate and president going to work together? the president nominates pew the senate advises and consents. the more the president injects
politics into this election, the more the senate is going to have to take politics into account in advising and consenting. charlie: where do you think this nomination stands? nomination is before the senate, and as adam suggested, they are confronting an eminently qualified individual in judge gore such. i'm sure there's going to be a lot of discussion about politics and payback and a lot of discussion of judge garland, who is also a terrific jurist, but what i don't think we are going to hear is a lot of criticism of because he really is a top caliber individual and judge who has proven, as adam suggested, to be somebody who is admired across partisan lines. charlie: you must hear from senate democrats, criticism of judge gorsuch. jan: they've decided they have to fight him, and they are looking on how to do it. that is why you are seeing there
will be a combing through his opinions to see any clues where he might be anti-woman, anti-worker. we haven't seen any specifics on what they would use in that script. it's almost like they are just now trying to find it, which means this is raising the political battle. i think it's important to keep in mind when we look at this fight that this didn't start last year with mitch mcconnell and republicans. these judicial confirmation battles, the democrats in the senate and republicans, they are like the hatfields and mccoy's. you have to go back to 1987 to understand why these fights are so bitter with robert bork, and then go to the early 2000's when democrats for the first time in history filibustered president george w. bush's appeals court nominees. i remember when they blocked several of those nominees. talking to mitch mcconnell, he said, memories are long in the u.s. senate, and what goes
around.omes this is not a fight that mitch mcconnell started last year. this is something that you could almost flip the parties and the playbook. republicans 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-senator joe biden said that in 1992 when senate democrats had control. he warned that if president bush got another nomination, h w bush, that they would not confirm it. white. not so black and this goes back much longer than last year. charlie: how do we get out of this? who can take us away from this? if not this process, another confirmation battle. david: i think that president obama's nomination of garland, if it succeeded, would have been
a step in that direction. garland was clearly somebody who than manyoderate other nominees and more moderate than the current nominee. charlie: and more moderate than moderate democrats would've -- more moderate than democrats would've wanted. david: there was criticism of obama because he was not liberal enough. i think it never would have stepned, but a great towards bringing the country back together again and ending some of the politicization of the court, if trump nominated garland and put him on the bench. he's going to have another chance. he could do that. a guy can dream. step,ld've been a great and he could have picked doubts thatnobody the current nominee is a brilliant legal mind, disciplined thinker, great
writer. i have appeared in front of him. he's well-prepared, thoughtful. charlie: doesn't it trouble you to be opposing him? david: it's not just past things. charlie: that he had nothing to do with. david: it's not whether he had something to do with it. with it.mething to do his views are very conservative views. charlie: the man he was replacing was also very conservative. charlie: and scalia was confirmed unanimously. i don't think there was a single vote against scalia. times havetimes have changed sia was put on the court. it is a political process, but if it is going to political, it's got to be political both ways. it's not a question of payback. it's a question of balance. if you don't have the same kind of scrutiny on both sides, you get an unbalanced supreme court.
that's not good for anybody. charlie: would you have had problems with a judge garland? paul: no. in fact, i signed a letter saying he was a well-qualified nominee. i was careful to leave the politics to the politicians and not comment on how the senate should proceed, and i would say the same about judge gorsuch. iat we need to try to do, and don't have a silver bullet and it's not going to be easy, but we need to try to get back to a world where when we say a judicial nominee is well-qualified, great writer, and has sterling academic credentials that the person gets confirmed. maybe we aren't going to get back to a world where people get confirmed unanimously, but justice kagan, for example, was confirmed with most of the republicans voting no, but there was an talk of filibusters and the like, and she was confirmed.
i do hope that we can get back to a time when, once we recognize somebody is a terrific jurist, really well-qualified, writes exceptionally well, that they will get confirmed, and i think judge gorsuch, not just because he was on the list of 21 judges, but is exactly the kind of judge you would expect a republican president to appoint to the supreme court. charlie: what about this argument, that the presidential contest was in part about electing your candidate so he could appoint judges that you like, and this is one of the things that goes with winning the presidency? you get to appoint supreme court justices. adam: it's true that mitch mcconnell said he wanted the next president to choose, and you could say that is what happened here.you could also say that more americans voted for the other candidate. it is a complicated thing. it's probably true on both garland and gorsuch that the fight is not over their
qualifications. in fact about garland, the republicans didn't go after him personally. they said, we aren't going to let anyone come through, and what we are hearing is the flip side of that. there is not going to be a position based on his jurisprudence but more of what we were hearing from david. if the other side has done this, we have to do it too. if it is going to turn into the political fight, both sides play politics. that is not good for the supreme court. the supreme court's authority and prestige is based on the fact that it is a political. these long fights over who gets on on political grounds is bad for the supreme court. david: it's not merely that both sides have to play by the same rules. it's also that part of the advise and consent function of the senate is to look at the judicial philosophy of a nominee.
although i have great admiration for a nominee's intelligence, and integrity, he is somebody with judicial views that are way to one side of the spectrum, and i think that is something that, independent of any history, it is wise for the senate to take into account when they are going to confirm somebody who is going to be on the bench for 30, 40 years. jan: to david's point, way too far to the one side of one spectrum, it is different from the spectrum david is arguing from. some people would say merrick a solidwould have been liberal vote, and presidents are entitled to nominate justices with philosophies they agree with. when you are talking about, what is mainstream, these are labels that mean things you might tend to agree with. gorsuch, there no evidence he's
an extremist. i think people are trying to find that. does he have a conservative judicial philosophy? absolutely, but he talks like somebody straight out ofi thinko find the conservative judicial philosophy. confirmed, then anyone with a conservative philosophy would not be confirmed to the supreme court. david: i don't agree that, but i will let adam go. do you put touch this idea that they wanted to someone that would make it easy for justice kennedy to so they could then appoint somebody even more conservative and not a swing judge to replace him? adam: i think there is something to that. i don't know it is effective. i don't know if justice kennedy can be manipulated in this way.
if you put on judge gorsuch and somebody justice kennedy thinks highly of and put such a person on the court, itif you put on jt justice kennedy would say, listen, my legacy is secure. i can live with such people, and i'm hopeful that the person who replaces me would be in this mold. that may or may not be a winning play, but i see the logic. charlie: what is the likelihood we will see some new nuclear option? paul: i don't know. it depends on whether some of the thoughts david is advancing prevail.y what we are coming down to is a question where right now the two political parties, i think, do have a different view of judging, and the question is going to become, first of all, when the president appoints somebody, if you are from the other party, are you going to vote against that person just because they don't have the same political or judicial philosophy as you do, and they share the
judicial philosophy of the opposing president? time, we had a consensus that if a person was qualified, then the fact that they shared the appointing president's judicial philosophy was to be expected and not a reason to vote against them. if we are past that and people are voting on party lines, the $64,000 question becomes whether or not there is a real effort to filibuster this nomination, and i certainly hope it doesn't come that. it will be bad enough if we've gone to a point where every judicial appointment is a partyline vote, but if on top of that we insist on filibustering supreme court nominees, then i fear that will go the same way as it did with the court of appeals nominees. charlie: some will argue that politics has always been there, back to roosevelt packing the court, a switch in time saved nine. adam: that's true.
politics was always part of the process, but if you take a longer historical view, the dominant view has been, as with cabinet officers, the president gets to appoint judges, and we should expect judges to have a judicial philosophy that reflects the president who appointed them. the irony of some of this is there was a time, including in the court packing days, when the more re-strained judicial philosophy was associated with the democratic party. if you take a really long view, these things work out in strange ways. charlie: go ahead. jan: i was going to add, on the likelihood of the nuclear option, at this point my sense is that is pretty slim for this nomination, and i think it's because democrats will see it's not in their option to .ilibuster right now
the president is replacing a conservative icon, intellectual giant. this nomination will not change the balance of the court. that is a powerful argument for republicans, and i think, from my sources, they are prepared to trigger that nuclear option for this nomination, which would mean a filibuster would be out of the way for the next big fight over justice kennedy's seat, which is expected this summer or next summer. that would be a big help to republicans in some ways, and it would enable them to appoint a more conservative nominee to replace justice kennedy. at the end of the day, democrats will put up a big fight for judge gorsuch but ultimately not filibuster and prompt republicans to change the rules and do away with the filibuster as democrats did for the filibuster of lower court nominees. charlie: will this be a long battle? adam: it probably takes the
usual amount of time, which is about 45 days for the confirmation hearings, about 90 days until a confirmation vote. the trick would be, the court would like to see a knife justice on in time for the last arguments of the term, which late april.n we will see if that gets 10. it may be that late april. democrats who may not succeed in blocking the nomination may try to slow it down. charlie: judge gorsuch was up , got 99 votes.n it included senators obama, biden, clinton, and schumer. jan: for an appeals court nomination, those justices are interpreting and applying the law as written or as the supreme court has interpreted it.
it's hard to say just because he was unanimous there, it's a different role. charlie: you are saying senators don't take court of appeals justices seriously? jan: it's a different role. [laughter] david: they are interpreting the law, not making the law. charlie: what are the big issues coming before the supreme court this eerie echo paul: there are a lot of big issues. from a practitioner's a standpoint, it sure would be nice to have a ninth justice by the time april rolls around. it's interesting. the supreme court has done something almost unprecedented. it's had three cases on which it granted cert over a year ago that it has carried over and not scheduled for argument, even though those cases would have been scheduled normally in the october sitting. it seems the court is holding those cases for april in the hope there might be a ninth justice. those cases involve property rights. liberty,lve religious
and they involve class actions, three areas where the court is divided five to four. those cases show you that there are a lot of issues waiting for the nominee once they are confirmed, and putting politics aside, from the process of the court, as bad as it's been to proceed with eight justices, confirmed,they have to go throus term with eight justices and not have that option to argue a couple of cases with nine justices in april and will take a toll on the court. charlie: does anybody think that judge gorsuch will not be confirmed? david: i think he probably will be confirmed, but i think it is an open question. we are assuming nothing dramatic is discovered. david: i don't think there is going to be anything dramatic discovered. charlie: was there anybody on that list of 20 that the president had that was more, weg dramatic is discovered. moderate
come even though no one is arguing that judge gorsuch is a moderate? for lack of a better word,adam: pole tried to map this outcome and there are people they would say are more moderate. judges.re district there were state supreme court judges. it's hard to get a complete fix on everybody, but they were all accomplished, able judges, almost all of them, and there is question they were all conservative. allo question they were conservative. lawyers would say, out of that , it was a good list from the perspective of republicans. charlie: on a note of praising you, we will conclude this. [laughter] paul: it's a good place to end. thank you. charlie: we will be right back. stay with us. ♪
charlie: ursula burns is here. she is here. she's the chairman and former ceo of xerox. she spent her entire career at xerox, starting as an intern in 1980. that was 37 years ago. personal sick by mother on the lower east side of manhattan. she later went on to earn a bachelor's degree and mechanical engineering at columbia university. she became the first african-american woman to lead a fortune 500 company and 2009. i'm pleased to have her at this
table. unbelievable. 2 i am unbelievably honored. -- ursala: i am unbelievably honored. charlie: it is my honor, i promise you. is it hard to no longer be a ceo? ursala: not at all. charlie: you have lead this company. you have set it on its present course. ursala: not at all. time forhere is everything. there is a time for everything. this was perfect timing for me. .7 years in the company i know it inside and out. i know the plumbing. i know the tooling. i know the people. while, you kind of run things through your mind or in actuality, and i believe when you go somewhere to or three
times, it's probably a good idea to get somebody who hasn't been there before. i still love the place. i'm still involved with the place, but i think it was perfect timing. charlie: bart g noddy, president of yale, i think he was president of the national league comic even though he loved the american league because of the red sox. ursala: don't go there. [laughter] charlie: growing up on the lower east side of manhattan, you didn't become a red sox fan? ursala: no. damn yankees. [laughter] charlie: there is this. years, youter 8-10 are sort of beginning to repeat yourself. ursala: i actually believe it and see it not only in my career but see it on boards. it's not that you can't keep going and do well. there not going to drive
bus off the road or into a ditch. the question becomes at that point, can you differentially improve the organization? can you differentially do it? there is a point where it's hard to change, so i think when you get to that point, it's a really good idea, particularly if you have good candidates. here it is. it's really difficult. it is the most important, one of the most important things. i think there are three constituents you have to do when you become a ceo. the second is, you have a strategy, and a whole process for thinking about change, value creation. that whole piece. the third is, who is going to run to -- run the place? is idea "run the place"
offensive. you aren't really running the place. there's a guy doing something you have no clue about. he's keeping the power going. tenor, place, its tone, pace, risk, personality. i call it the soul of the company. after a while, it's probably a good idea that changes. charlie: do you think it's necessary come even if you are a founder, to give it up? ursala: especially if you are the founder. i call it the myth of the man, generally man. by the way, founders generally have a longer run and probably could have a longer run, but particularly for longevity and ability tof the morph and change, for founders, it's important to him even if
you step out and become the chair or something, you've got to see this great institution manyyou created run under different circumstances, not by only your eye. for founders, it's a really important thing. charlie: is it wise for the ceo to be chairman of the board? ursala: i think it is more than wise. it is preferred from my perspective. that doesn't mean you don't have a lead independent director. have itompany, we structure that way. on all the boards i sit on, it is structured that way, thenman, ceo, individual, independent director. the specificity of what needs to be discussed is thought the pace of discussion requires a day-to-day interaction tha t chair's can't do.
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. a vigorousu wan t board and you want a board that is independent, too. i do not think you want to board -- i am basing this on what people tell me -- you do not one of 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 i know -- just went, we had, through a separation into two companies. xerox a--- and fortune 500 size, great leaders. we had to find a brand-new board for the second company, and the combined, ifx, the 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: you manage the team gone by the way. the board is 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 are they know from personal experience. then as sure that there is a set
of structures and questions and resources of what -- brought to bear on that strategic question. they do not have to walk in with the knowledge of their back pockets. boards have to know their jobs, a. boardhey, i have 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% you forget? which 10% do you keep? he does not mean it nor the guys. timescome six or seven a year, and they come for 8, 10, maybe if you're lucky 12 hours. goodcome, if they're board members, they have a life, meaning they work and some kind of industry or some kind of not for profit. 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 or higher been reading about the market, watch. make sure you can talk to me about how you will safeguard your assets. that is way say, got it. 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. go forwardt, i am a person, 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 she stayed on as chairman and told me i would stay on as chairman. so, you will see me for a while, for the first couple weeks and months. then he will see me a little less than that 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'r e an ursala, because they do not need anne now." the company does not need an ursula.
rt is giving jess and thei boards and 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. i don't have, i have never been one that solely identified with my work. it does consume the vast majority of my time. abouterefore, you worry 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 happen 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 hep and how it can hinder. -- and how it can help. 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 potentialamations or proclamations can do and will do to business.
with all of the software of the brand. i don't mean technical software, i mean all of the emotional software. unbelievably well foundation can 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 justes we had was do you, into the long a bit and let some of this atrophy while you're trying to find your way in the dark? ando you take some big bets
try to extend yourself into a new set of markets with the same foundational elements? charlie: and you chose? ursala: we chose to literally opted 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. 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's 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 ans the ceo and the management team
whato you take apart 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 double 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 -- the best outcome. so, a year ago, about this time, and of january, we announced we're going to separate and we were told, i do not think you can get it done any year. there is no way in a world you can get this thing done any year. and there was so much breakage when you separate. i call it like a frilly divorce. -- 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 righ t 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 illuminate the word think. -- eliminate the word think. charlie: it can turn on and 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. or general hly what xerox 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 weight anymore but it is the way that is still the most -- the predominant way anymore but it is the easiest way to describe and manage. take all theseto different forms 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 you have in all these different medias and makes it significantly less painful and helps you management your document management infrastructure. together,hen it was managed something like easy pass. a document management solution. all easy passes, 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 would seamlessly with out government infrastructure thinking about that. 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 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 do not know what the hell the ceo was. sorry. i joined the company in 1980. when i joined the company i had just entered my final year of undergraduate school. and just wanted a job to be an engineer. largely stilland 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 somey to warrap
mathematical solution around it and develop a process. 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. when i joined the company and 8-10 years, weeight did not have google. if you wanted to get the end reports you had to go to the large gray. who that heck knew who was running the place -- you had to go to the library. it just became nowadays, my daughter, my son. we're are great about something. it takes a nanosecond to find out who the head of the company is, who the management team is, what they met, everything. that is not how i grew up. i enter xerox and my goal was to an engineer, thinking i would leave within four or five years, because it was in upstate new york and i'm in new york. i did not know how far watch us are was. i was good engineering and not good at you archery -- i did not
know how far rochester was. i got there, and i was lucky. luck is an amazing blessing. i was lucky. this great company, one that allowed me to, even in upstate new york, field like a howeel like a new yorker, it looks, how i wanted. the things i thought that work 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. we're doing a product in japan. here i am from the lower east side of manhattan. the far decided then 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, and a curated -- they curated, a word i hate to use but they did curated experiences for me that were always a tv toe experience. 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 issued a gender and age were a bigger issue than race. eecause i was dulled to the rac 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. bgender 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 i looked now look old, 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. a person whoyou 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 1 -- your parents to that. but i want you, when you walk in
the door we have a set of rules that you play by. we are inclusive. we try to look for the value that individuals bring. we do believe that difference -- but better. deal with it. we do not like incompetents. so go away with that. you basically prove your metal on the playing field. not by dressing up to be ready to play. charlie: does it make a blackence that a young 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 coeeo, and i was people say,he fact, how can you be stunt? 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. theirust them and potential. and they are trying to talk to me as fif 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." w who ionse was, " i kno 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 p richard was talking to yourself and trying to say to herself that it's possible -- she was talking to herself. 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? country words,your needs you are you have all this experience. as a manager, as a motivating, as a planner, as an engineer, as aum, figure of respect, as leader. ursala: thank you for all of it. charlie: it's true. how do you use that? ursala: the one thing i can issue -- 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. 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 tribal, 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 in 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. oft will take up about 30% 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 feel th -- 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. run afteroing to
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 pain ting. ursala: no, but i am learning spanish. charlie: thank you for coming. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
>> the secret is out. filing for a $3 billion ipo, snapchat, giving investors a new look at its numbers. >> amazon's unwanted delivery. shares are slipping on weak holiday sales and first quarter revenue warnings. >> it's trump vs. australia. the white house tries to soothe relations with the long-time ally in a dispute over settling refugees. and firing up for the year of the rooster. china's markets, yes, are set to reopen with now u.s. protectionism looming larger