tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 26, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
♪ inouncer: from our studios new york city, this is "charlie rose." evening. charlie is away. ofthursday after a month closed-door negotiations, the senate leadership release their version of repeal and replace. mitch mcconnell is pushing for a vote next week. the bill is running into trouble. four republican senators announced their application -- opposition to the bill. joining me from washington is
healthy -- kelsey snow, she covers congress for the washington post. also the editor in chief of fox. the bill has had more than one day to soak in on the hill, how is it going? can mitch question is mcconnell get the 50 votes? they need a majority of 51 votes to pass this. they can call-in vice president mike pence for backup. they have 52 republicans in the senate and they can only lose two. right now we are looking at for conservatives who have said that they do not support the bill and its current form. they left open a lot of room to get themselves a few yeses. the real question is what will happen with moderate. there are a lot of questions at
this point. they don't have 58, but there is a lot of confidence that they will be able to get there. kospi,s also mark collins, mitch mcconnell has to do this dance with everyone. what areion is people's policy bottom lines. we have to look at the republican divide on health care. you have the moderates who have been saying they need to do more to protect medicaid. this has deeper medicaid cuts in the house bill. is on inflation. inflation grows more slowly than medical costs. it is a much deeper cuts to medicaid but the cuts don't begin for longer. your cutting political liability.
why you would want to cut medicaid, i don't exactly know. you'll have to see how that comes up. the conservatives one of the market regulations of the affordable care act gone. the entitlement, the guarantees, the way it interacts with the medical system. is the billresting bill retains most of the architecture of the affordable care act. a place where liberals do not like it because it does not get with the affordable care act gets done done. and conservatives are not there because the tilting of the affordable care act platform, democrats can come back and refill it with money. in. , there is still a lot of policy disagreement here. if republicans want to pass something, this is something. jeff: can we talk about some of the specifics of the expansion. medical be pegged to cost device increases -- medical
cost increases? ezra: this is quite bad. getting in 2021, they begin phasing out obama's medicare expansion. that is phased out by 2024. in 2025, they put the rest of the medicaid program onto a slower rate of growth. go up fastbreak couple of reasons. one of the big ones is that they keep introducing new technologies. health care keeps getting more expensive because we keep getting better at it, we get new drugs, we get new medical devices. in order to keep pace with what people spend on health care come you have to keep pace with the people spend on health care. republicans are putting medicare on a growth rate that lags behind increases in health care costs. because it is general cost of living, you could have the price fall and that means you get a cut.
it is a huge long-term cuts to the program that will hurt the most horrible people in america disproportionally. kelsey, let's talk about what you expect heading into monday and when the cbo score comes out. we know there are heavy discussions going on. the lobbying has begun. lee, and rand paul need to get on board. a separate lobbying effort that is being done for the moderates. they do have very different needs here. their needs are sometimes at cross purposes. changes that the conservatives want to see -- they want to see that they have had more chances to opt out, giving people guaranteed benefits and insurance plans. they want to make it so it is a lot easier to say here is a plan,ones chop down
doesn't protect for pre-existing conditions, does not cover thereity at all, they say are young and healthy people who went cheap plans. they want to make those available. makes other people really worried because the more cheap plans that are out there, the more likely it is that the entire insurance market will have less protected plans. there are changes that could be made over the weekend. they are changes that could be made that sweet. there is a balancing act that has to be done to make sure they don't go too far to the right or too far to the left. the other thing to watch is what happens behind the scenes on planned parenthood. we are waiting to see if the senate parliamentarians who have the final say on what happened was that it is ok for the republicans to defund planned parenthood for one year and have
restrictions on abortion coverage. as of right now, the tax credits are restricted so people cannot receive tax credits to buy lands that cover abortion care. it is not clear that is how the bill will end up by the time it gets to the floor next week. jeff: i want to talk about reconciliation. that is another tricky part of this have to navigate. his plan to me -- explain to me where they are at? ara: they're going through budget reconciliation process. what that does is for certain pieces of legislation that , youtly affect the budget can get a fast track onto the floor and you only need 51 votes to pass it. the real key is certain bills that directly affect the budget. if the senate that -- senate parliamentarian gets a challenge saying this provision of the
bill is not about the budget, there are all kinds of things that they can do through reconciliation. they're all kinds of things in this proposal that we are not sure if they will pass with the senate parliamentarian because they are not directly about the pitch it. -- the budget. senate overrule a parliamentarian and get rid of the filibuster tomorrow if you want your 51 votes this is a question of how much you will follow senate norms. by doing reconciliation, they are already breaking a big norm. obamacare was finished in reconciliation, but it was not started in reconciliation. they have restrained the kinds of policies they could include in the bill and open themselves up to a lot of danger. jeff: which senators are going to give mitch mcconnell the biggest problems next week? kelsey: i think it is pretty clear that rand paul will not be
voting for this bill. i am certain there will be another one, we are just not clear who it is. there is a lot of speculation that susan collins will not be willing to bend on this. there are a lot of problems she has with this bill, the medicaid portion, the funding planned parenthood, she is generally uncomfortable about the weight leaders went about this. i understand from talking to many people on the hill that it ares like the people working to change the minds of the people, ted cruz, ron .ohnson, and lisa murkowski we will see what happens with the others. you, he will, to need ted cruz and lisa murkowski? we will see how the numbers work out. i want to back out on this a little bit.
listen to what mitch mcconnell is asking his members to support. we know what this bill will do. it is pretty clear. you will see large coverage losses, 10-20,000,000. getwill see people will much higher deductible care. that's what people don't like about obamacare already. higher premiums because they are getting lower subsidies. so for any of them, it is very unclear if you have been listening to republican rhetoric what problems they are solving here. , you go to the think tanks and you talk to people you get a different story. but this bill, if it was actually incremented. you would see insurance markets collapse. they have no way to manage the risk pulls. you will see a lot of people
leaving. a lot of people not affording what they had. they take the plan you get when you get subsidies which covers 70% and bring it down to 58%. they have more than a $7,000 to dockable. implementation of an unpopular plan. conventionalbeen a -- congressional budget office or. nobody sought before yesterday. at some point they will have to look at this thing and think, do i have to be defending this in a few years. they will probably say yes, but i don't think that is for sure. jeff: premiums are collapsing already. ezra: no they are not. there are some counties and some states, like alaska, are having serious problems. that is not the median situation. republicans were putting the cost sharing structures at risk
it would be fixed. there would be very easy ways of fixing this in keeping people covered. cap-10not need to get million people without -- 10-20,000,000 people without coverage. this is not fixing obamacare with obamacare's goals in mind. this is something else where you want your people covered with higher deductible. you are creating more problems than if you just left it alone. jeff: if we shouldn't be thinking of this as a repeal, the re-think of it as a retooling? ezra: this is interesting. the bill does not repeal the structure of obamacare. it does make it impossible for it to achieve its goals. the bill goes beyond obamacare and the guns to cut deep into -- begins to cut into the medicare program.
fight amongst conservatives about whether this is truly repeal and replace. some think it is a way of fixing obamacare, which is a crazy way to look at this legislation area i consider this a repeal of obamacare. obamacare is meant to achieve goals, cover people with a certain level of health insurance quality. this bill takes away the ability to cover people with insurance anywhere near that quality. it would become a new program that has the dynamics and has a new mission behind it. the bulk of these coverage gains have been under medicaid. those would be completely wiped out. i don't mean to give mitch mcconnell to much backing here, but under any reasonable definition this is a distraction of the affordable care act and the construction of something new. but they are constructing is bounded by the reconciliation rules in their working under the confines of having to give some people health insurance. it is not just a small clique. jeff: which is why president
obama said this is not a health care bill. ezra: this bill is fundamentally a tax bill. tax are giving a very large cut, repealing the capital gain increases in obamacare, the in the street -- the industry taxes in the bill. the top 400 holes we get a bash homes we get a tax cut that is massive. 400 families get a tax cut. taking a bunch of people out of nevada, virginia, and several thousand people. some have to paid on this huge tax cut, then you have to take health care away from people. that is the only thing you can do. they do not achieve clear health insurance goals in this bill. have said this bill
does not fit their goals. it does fit the goal of cutting taxes. that goal is fully achieved. do congressional republicans say when they say this is not a health care bill? kelsey: this is something you heard more in the houston the senate. they often say conservative principles are not ensuring that health care is a right, they view it as a responsibility. they say that their main goal is to make sure that the federal government has less of a role in health care and it is delegated more to the states and individual responsibility. this is achieving those goals. obamacare -- goals of obamacare cannot sit within the realm of what republicans want to do with health care. jeff: think both of you for your time. ezra: thank you. kelsey: thank you. ♪
♪ jeff: we continue with the big news out of silicon valley this week. the resignation of the uber ceo. investors in the ridesharing company forced his ouster during a meeting in a chicago hotel on tuesday. ostranderarging created a toxic culture in the company and his own personal conduct. he will remain on the board and
retain voting rights. over $70 billion valuation makes it the biggest privately held startup in the world. three guests join us today. max, let's start with you. this might have been the biggest week of all. stunning in the sense that travis had full control in every way. he had to be the one to decide to step away. it was something that was .nthinkable jeff: he had board control and then he did not. he stacked the board seats
in his favor. there were billions of dollars riding on the company and they found out that it had the 11th someone other than travis. jeff: so it will he led by somebody other than travis kalanick. but travis kalanick was uber. derek: he was responsible for the revenue and the culture. the revenue came out of the culture. the relentless focus on improving the product and making sure it was as good as possible and growing, growing, growing. him to get away with some behavior which was pretty heinous. uber is an astonishing a competent. the largest private company in the world. $68 billion in value. it may $20 billion in revenue last year. -- enormousorma's
global colossus in how people get around all over the world. in order to get there, there was this culture growing that was toxic. it will be interesting to see what is uber like without travis? jeff: big revenue, but the company is still losing money. max: still losing money, and that is what we should be paying attention to. everybody sees uber -- uber is big and impressive. it is not as firm as people think it is. lyft is coming on fast. they had big battles in many other cities. uber has been pouring money into the cities for years subsidizing every ride that we take while pushing riders -- drivers to accept less money. the fact that they are still not making money is troubling. i think they recognize the
tenuous position they are in. emailsnt out a lot of two people offering big discounts on rides. i know at least here in new york city this week, they have already sent an email out about the tipping policy which is changing. they're trying to turn the tide, right? betty: -- there are a few different mike: there are a few different narratives here. the business is good and the business is growing, even if we aren't profitable. business is toof talk about what they had to start in new cities by burning venture-capital dollars and subsidizing rides to get demand up. the question is, is that demand going to continue went riders are paying the real cost of the ride after these few dollars or backing that.
in the meantime, uber has something like $10 billion still in the bank. they keep saying, look our business is though growing. we still have enough money to be growing. we are not darth vader, you should still use our service. jeff: not just hang in there, but remove the toxicity. the question is, how long it takes for that to go away? mike: you watch the uber versus lyft brandon moore is playing out. people have ach sense of lay-ins guilt about using uber. they're not sure why, they just heard the ceo was a bad guy. or they hear they have a really gross culture. when the the big things now is to try to stem that time a bad
aroundound her band -- their brand. uber is now pending in the tip option, which many people will feel compelled to distribute. that increases the price as well. that is like a 20% price increase, give or take. i think that was smart. one of the things that uber has struggled with is that lyft was a more responsible company because drivers who drive for them appreciate the taping. tipping was a source of huge resentment over over drivers. this was a small thing there were able to do quickly that may be's is to rebuild trust with the driver community. the thing about the drivers is, they can move around. for can start driving more either company.
the flipside to not having employees is that at any point the drivers can abandon and try more hours for lyft then they are driving for uber. you also had operated encounters -- the whole tipping thing has been a huge point of discussion. mike: the tipping thing is really funny. wasyears travis kalanick weirdader -- was the stopping point on tipping. they built the mechanism already, but for some philosophical region -- reason travis thought it added more friction into it. it was indicative of how uber treated their drivers for years. dispensable, as a disposable labor force that they can churn through quickly and always find more supply of new people by spending more marketing dollars to get more drivers.
at this point they realize there is a finite number of people who .re willing to work and so we need to treat our drivers better and maybe will have better retention in the long run. they are starting to figure that out now. i imagine it will take a while for them to actually believe some of that. lyft a littleut bit if you could. mike: a your burger geoeye with a said you they would have run out of money -- a year or two ago i would have said they would have ran out of money. but they have been gaining over some of uber's stumbles. private equity firms have missed a certain opportunity to invest money into uber, so they started yft as a viable option. maybe a possible acquisition
target for an automaker like gm. or maybe google decides to buy them if they feel like their network of riders is valuable enough. uberpeople started seeing stumble, there was an lyft to move in and sees on that vulnerability. taking market share from uber in the united states. i don't know about how bullish i ft as a ridesharing, direct competitor for uber. but they do have much more ability now than it did a year ago. talk about the complete reimagining of the corporate culture of a company, that is what this is. we alluded to this earlier. one of the things that made travis kalanick+++
he was very involved in very far reaches of the company. these people were being hired in his image. this is not a company where you can cut the head off the top and that it will be a new thing. we saw just yesterday with this letter that was circulated. 1400 uber employees signed a petition saying that they want travis back. jeff: steve jobs was forced out at apple and then triumphantly return. travis kalanick has a lot to deal with, but it is not like you are ripping all of his roots out of uber right away. derek: travis dealt with a lot of issues. was the death of his mother that might have contributed to the initial decision. of course he could come back.
he is still a part of the company. he could come back's ceo, that is definitely possible. there is a philosophical issue that is raised here, what is the amount of oversight we want to have in america's largest companies. for a long time there was a common critique that said the problem with enormous public companies in the u.s. is that they were so focused on the short term. meet the quarterly earnings reports. it was sapping long-term innovation out of the economy. but here's the flipside. you have an entire company made in one man's image. he was instrumental in rolling out this revolution in getting around. int viable private company the world. at the same time, because the company has been made in his dark sideallowed his to be represented in sides of the company that were hard to take out. that was part of the calculus
here. extract that from the workplace, you have to cut that out. said, i ams kalanick uber, or uber is me. jeff: it seems hard to believe this is the last three have heard from him. guy has never sold a single share of stocks since he cofounded the company. he is buying up more stock from employees who want to sell it. he is trying to work on the board allegiances. he has investor friends still calling for him to return in an operational law. it is not out of the realm of possibility for a triumphant semi-return. mike: he just has to step away.
he is too tied up with uber's negative image. that was the point of what investors were trying to do, and it pushed him out. i read about this last week or this week or whatever i did. essentially, he said he was taking a leave a week ago. still interviewing executive candidates, texting, calling his top lieutenants in the company. it has been hard for him to actually step away. we will see if he continues making these power plays now. for the meantime, he will stay a little bit quieter. in the meantime, there are the folks running the company who have to get up to speed. no pun intended. like a dozenare vacancies for the management team has turned over over the past six months or so. derek: obviously, most importantly, finding a ceo willing to step in service argue -- step into this arguably toxic
environment with this very aggressive strong-minded former chief executive and cofounder kind of hovering over them. it is hard to imagine who is going to be willing to take on that challenge. i'm sure they will find somebody, but it will not be as easy as people imagine. >> how dark and wide is this shadow right now? youesigned, but how much -- have to imagine there is a lot of thinking about him. it's complicated. you're talking about a company that has 12,000 employees not counting the contractors. 12,000 people can have a lot of different opinions among them. you can have a thousand people signing a -- petition. you can have thousands of people who think the exact opposite that even though travis might ofe been necessary in terms
getting uber into these markets, bypassing all this regulatory red tape, making them the global company they are, he might have been the right guy for the growth, but the worst for managing the growth because he does not have the soft touch you need. read, from what i have seen, i feel like the company is torn. you see that there is attrition. people feel like this is not the place to be. are we going to leave? some people believe very strongly in the cause, believes that they are changing the world. they want to stick around to see how the story ends. >> internally, what is the divide between pro-and anti-ctravis kalanick forces? mike: i would say there is a few different camps. people who have been there since the beginning or four or five which in valley terms is a millennia basically.
there is as, look, cult of the founder. kind ofo worshiping thing. only the founder can continue leading the troops into battle or however you want to put it, or in this case, the company offering.lic then you have folks who are a little bit newer within the last year or so. i thought they were signing on to another machine oriented thing. then, did not know what they were getting into and realized the culture is a little bit different than their old job at facebook. of folks saying we had an agco who was probably good. edgy ceo who was probably
he has tried to engage princeton more deeply and closely with navycan society, welcoming rotc back to campus and increasing economic diversity. welcome to charlie's table. i want to read something you said at the princeton graduation couple of weeks ago. "we live in a time when confidence in our shared in tuitions is ebbing. not only government, but business and nonprofit organization. it is too tempting to complain about our institutions failures. they enable us to pursue larger purpose is together." is confidence in these institutions ebbing? chris: the best i can do is to speculate about why that is no. it is a worldwide trend. if i look specifically at the united states, i think about leads us to, which
disagree systemically with one another and at times, as an article last week showed, even to dislike one another, that pushes the question back to level. why are we seeing this trust in one another? inequality has something to do with that. perceptions of procedural unfairness have something to do with that. you reach your the people who are not only fabulously wealthy but do not seem to deserve that or if you see a lot of evidence of corruption in the public sphere, that makes you distrust these inequalities. it seems like the game produces unfair outcomes and that the more -- be there is a may be rigged. there is a more positive side to it. our institutions are becoming more diverse in terms of the people represented, and that
means some of the old fallbacks that some of us have in terms of whom we trust do not have to be reimagined or reinvented. inhave to learn how to work a society that is more diverse. david: what do think about what higher education needs to do, both to ensure face in american society at large, but also for its sake? i think there are a number of answers to that. it is an important and tough challenge. one of the things we have to do is know what our values are, stand by this rally is, explain the rallies, so we can build trust and what we are doing and help people to understand institutions that sometimes may look very different from what they are familiar with. we have to work critically at ourselves. you mentioned my bringing the rotc back to princeton. one of the kinds of diversity that has been missing from
some of our ivy league institutions is the diversity of rcc program spring to our universities. the unfortunate at princeton that we have the army rotc with us through a period. we have tried to grow the number of students. looking at political diversity more generally is going to be important, it if we are perceived rightly or wrongly as where arguments don't get vigorously engaged. that is a problem in building trust in what we do. like important in places princeton that we increase the socioeconomic diversity of our student body, which is something i worked very hard on as president. onid: let us spend amendment free speech. there have been al qaeda of incidents recently in which it seems like free speech is under attack, right? the one at middle barry --
middlebury, berkeley, and elsewhere. how much is this something that is really a concern? how much is the campus free speech issue a creation of the fox news' of the world. are issues i think all of us on university campuses take seriously, and we have to take seriously. incidents like the one at middle or when heather mcdonald was prevented from speaking at the claremont colleges, is appalling. protest was not physically violent in the way one at middlebury -- the middlebury was. we need to stand for this as institutions. on the other hand, i think it is the case that anytime you have
an incident like that, it is reported. came torles murray speak at princeton, he was able to give the speech. that.is no reporting on when our students had a debate with rick santorum, he complimented the students on their respectful behavior. there was very little reporting on that kind of debate. exaggerationere is around the set of incidents taking place on college campuses. i find that our students and faculty as well as university leadership are strongly dedicated to the importance of free speech on campus, but these are fundamental values and we have to be attentive to making sure that people from all viewpoints are able to speak on our campus. david: that is obviously a nuanced message. you are saying that you are a freeg believer in speech and you're bothered by these attacks on free speech which come from the political left, but at the same time, you
think it is not the existential problem that the political right has made the issue out to be. is that fair? chris: on the vast majority of campuses, free speech is in good state. we ought to have robust arguments, and there are times when people will point to a protest or two people speaking rudely to one another and say that is a sign of the free speech problem on college campuses. that is a lot of free speech taking place. it protects the right of processors to stand up as long as they are not keeping someone else from speaking. david: do you have any concerns that basic values, speech, democracy, the rule of law, are under more question today, including from younger citizens than they were in the past? optimistic about our students and young people in general, so i find them inspiring. i find they have an extraordinary commitment to
service and a strong set of democratic values. i think they are at a time when they are asking the question, what does it mean to act on those democratic values? and how do we express them through the electoral system right now? they are growing up at a time when many of them believe, as do i, that climate change is an extraordinarily serious problem of great urgency for our planet, but they are looking at legislature's and finding them unable to react in a way that seems to address that problem. they are seeing deadlock in washington where we have regular arguments about whether or not should authorize our own government to pay iits debts. they are seeing polarization. the reason i spoke at the commencement address was to try ofurge his generation engaged and interested and
cynically minded students to have respect for those institutions at a time when the institutions are under tremendous stress. i do have confidence that our students understand that free speech is important to what it is that a democracy does. i think they are struggling with the question of how it is that you operationalize that setitment in a very diverse of surroundings, where on the one hand, they want students to feel included and respected. they were invited a year ago. they had her come through jody them,her remarks to
she said "look, i am standing have been through some uncomfortable discussions on this campus." she added, "whoever said discussion had to be comfortable?" the students who invited her applauded that statement. there may be some who feel they want to be protected from uncomfortable argument. i think most of them do not. david: what was the occupation of your office about? chris: the way princeton treated woodrow wilson and the memory of woodrow wilson, who was a second founder to our university. not only a princeton alumnus, but the president of the university and transformed it into a great research university . we honor him by putting his name on a couple of buildings. we talk a lot about him. they ask that we take the name of woodrow wilson off the school and a residential college. we convened a trustee committee that considered that issue. we had what was not only a
discussion, but communitywide discussion that involved a lot of alumni input. we are going to keep that name on both the college and the school of public international affairs, but we are going to change the way we talk about woodrow wilson in particular and our history more generally to recognize both his serious flaws , and moreue of race generally, aspects of our history we need to own up to but have not talked enough about. david: is it fair to say that woodrow wilson was a racist? chris: i would say that about him, david. one of the things that i learned in the course of those discussions was that woodrow resegregated federal several service. -- civil service. certainly, he was a man operating in different times then we live in today and some
historians, we asked a number to write letters. he pointed out that he was a moderate in their view on the heue of race at the time went, but there are acts like the one i described that i do not think can be characterized away. excellentwas - an segue. he is one of your previous answers. an tried to make princeton elite university. he was not in favor of diversity in terms of race or sex. he pushed to make it feel less like a country club, right? and he failed, but it helped launch his political career. chris: you put the university on a trajectory that changed it, including our first catholic and jewish faculty. david: and making it a rigorous institution. economicd about
diversity's central to your presidency. it is an interesting diversity because it is not often talked about. more recently, we have had conservatives talk about political diversity, which is vital, but this is different. many ofsaying that on our campuses, while we have achieved some kind of person, the student body has remained remarkably affluent, hasn't it? chris: we look at our numbers, and we have in place of financial aid program that we think of as best in class that makes the university extraordinarily affordable for students who are admitted to the university. we have a great undergraduate education. we had thought we put those two in place, and we would get socioeconomic diversity in the undergraduate student body. about a dozen years ago, we looked at how we were doing, and found we had 7% of students who
were eligible for federal pell grants that go to the least well-off families. it is not just the very poor. pell grant's go to the bottom 50% of the entire income? chris: that is correct. you are looking at an underrepresentation at a factor of six to seven. from our standpoint, that was something we needed to change for a number of reasons. we needed to change it because we wanted to be extraordinary at what we're doing. ifneed to change it because we are going to bridge the divide that exists in society that we were told about earlier, we need to bring people together from different grounds and we because thege it effect of a college education at a place like prince and for a student coming out of a disadvantaged background, can be utterly transformative in the student life. all the data suggest that if they have got the ability to do
the work, this will be transformative to their prospects for the future. also seenhave stories. in the past, there may not have been many low income students, but one was michelle robinson, who is now michelle obama. they are great examples of this because they talk about what a struggle it was to come from their backgrounds to place like princeton, and enter this environment that particularly in the 1970's and early 1980's, was a very foreign environment for them. they also talk about the extraordinary impact that had on their lives, and the way it's set them up for the leadership careers they have pursued. schools like prince and are known for having very engaged alumni. heard fromt you have some alumni who have said "wait a second. what is wrong with the kids we already have? are you lowering your standards to admit more low income kids?" chris: i have heard it
occasionally. we have alumni that are very engaged, who love the institution, and understand that in order to be faithful to its ideals, it also has to change. when i talk about what we have done, to finish the story i told earlier, we have tripled the .umber of eligible students when i talk about that to our alumni, i get some of the biggest applause lines i get as president of the university. they understand that if we are going to be a country -- and i think this is an ideal that appeals to all of us -- if we are going to be a country that if you are talented and hard-working you can succeed regardless of who your parents were, then places like princeton have to be taking more students from disadvantaged background. i will sometimes get the question you mentioned. i am happy to tell folks we are not lowering our standards one thesen able to take talented students.
they are making a huge difference on our campus, and beyond our campus, after they graduate. i told them that i love all the different kinds of students we bring to our campus, and one of the things i'm happy about is our trustees have authorized me to fund raise to expand the undergraduate didn't body because i do not think we want to focus just on one thing. you're able to give more opportunities to all kind of hits. it is not just a percentage game? chris: people talk about in terms of percentages, and i get that color but the real question is about how many kids we can educate well in a way that allows them to flourish. david: less than one moment on her personal history. you grapple with issues of adversity and identity. you grew up thinking you were another protestant american and then you discovered that the story was different. chris: i was raised by my parents -- they sent me to catechism classes.
catholic father. my mother told me she had been born into a german protestant family and only after she died as i was working on a family history project with my son that i discovered, by looking at online records, but she was jewish. i now identify as jewish. it was something that once i started putting the pieces i wondered how it was possible that was never occurred to me to explain some questions that the family history were bit mysterious or cloudy, but once i discovered it, it felt like a missing puzzle piece coming into place. david: how have you explored it since discovering it? chris: a lot of it has been by reconnecting to a set of cousins i never knew i had. my mother had cut us off from contact any relatives who might tell the story of the background , so i grew up thinking i actually had relatively few cousins in this country and
found out i am surrounded by them. i have another set of cousins who am close to now in israel whom i never knew about. for of what this has done me, in addition to connecting me to an extraordinary group of people, is to give me another to draw upon as i try to understand my own .deals and values as it happens, what i wrote about in constitutional law, more than anything else, was religious freedom. the question of religion and religious identity was always an important one for me despite the effort to raise me as catholic. i grew up thinking of myself as christianian in a country. and all of a sudden, identifying as jewish, i had a body of cultural materials through so which to draw upon. chris, thank you for joining us. chris: it has been a pleasure. ♪
anchor: asia-pacific markets look set for a quiet day after the tech selloff resumed in new york. concerned about the pace of u.s. growth. says inpresident trump your must do more to open a way for u.s. exports. anchor: the supreme court saying travelers must provide bona fide ties to the united states. anchor: takata's big customer --