January 30, 2019

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

Venezuelan’s stage more protests and now Maduro says he’s ready to talk. With temperatures rising on the street, President Trump voices support for

the opposition leader. We get the lowdown.

Plus, temperatures plummeting across the Midwest. More on the record- breaking polar vortex behind it all.

And back to the future with Cold War. Oscar nominated director, Pawel Pawlikowski, drops in to discuss his latest film and its family connection.

Also, starving to study, why more than a third of U.S. college students worry about having enough to eat.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

President Donald Trump up the ante with Venezuela today, personally calling Interim President Juan Guaido to offer support. Venezuelans are taking to

the streets again following a call from Guaido for people to put more pressure on what the U.S. now calls Former President Nicolas Maduro.

Guiado is also urging the all-powerful Venezuelan military to get on the side of the people.

While Maduro is ratcheting up pressure on him, freezing all Guaido’s assets and barring him from leaving the country. But he’s also leaving his door

open for talks, telling Russian media that he would negotiate with the opposition for “the good of Venezuela, for the world and its future,” but

just not about their demands for new elections.

Carlos Vecchio is the opposition’s new envoy to the United States and he met President — Vice President Mike Pence at the White House yesterday.

He’s joining us now from Washington.

Mr. Vecchio, welcome to the program.

CARLOS VECCHIO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION – APPOINTED CHARGE OF D’AFFAIRES TO THE U.S.: Thank you very much for having me, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So, this is a really important moment. The president of the United States voiced support early on for Mr. Guaido. And now, he’s

actually picked up the phone or they’ve talked on the phone anyway and he’s got support, Guaido, from President Trump. Can you tell me exactly what

kind of support the president offered?

VECCHIO: I think the most important thing is to support our agenda, and that’s why we have been talking with the United States and also with Latin

American countries and the European Union.

And our agenda is so clear, Christiane. First of all, we want to end the usurpation of power of Maduro, then we want to move to a democratic system,

establishing a transitional government. And after that, we want to call for a free and transparent election as soon as possible. This is our

agenda. This is where we want to move forward. And that’s why we are requesting the support of the international community.

And it is important to mention, I mean, did this is not only about the United States. Again, this is a fight between, you know, the free world

against the dictatorship.

AMANPOUR: I get it. I know you saying this is a fight between dictatorship and democracy. Just explain for people who are watching and

they think — well, hang on a second. President Maduro claims that he won the elections and Juan Guaido has not been elected president. Describe how

you’re going to square that circle and how you’re going to resolve what many might have is a question mark?

VECCHIO: Well, we have to keep in mind that Maduro conducted a fake election last year in order to keep six more years in power. So, that was

declared by the OAS in the Inter-American System as an illegal, as an illegitimate election, and that’s why he’s no longer the president. He

doesn’t have authority to conduct the presidency of Venezuela.

And given that, we don’t have a president in the constitutional order. And on following our constitution under Article 233, when you don’t have a

constitutional president, the president of the National Assembly has to assume the competences of the president. So, that’s why we are claiming

the legitimacy of Juan Guaido as an intending president of Venezuela.

AMANPOUR: And I understand that you won’t even be in a position to be able to organize new elections for quite a while. So, given that and given that

Maduro says he’s willing to negotiate with the opposition, only not over your demands for free elections, he says he’s going to stay until 2025

when, theoretically, the current term he’s embarking on expires. What is your plan B? What do you do if this continues and persists and Maduro

holds on to power?

VECCHIO: So, as I said, Christiane, we want to continue with our agenda. If we don’t stop the usurpation of power of Maduro, I mean, the crisis will

be even worse. So, we need to stop that. And if — we are willing to negotiate our agenda, and they know that.

So, we need to put more pressure on the streets with our people. We have the momentum, we have the leadership of Juan Guaido, we have the

institution of the National Assembly in Venezuela and we have the support of the international community. So, I hope we can conduct a smooth

transition in order to establish a democratic government and stop the suffering of Venezuelans.

AMANPOUR: So, obviously, we’re seeing pictures and we know that people have come out, they’ve responded to Juan Guaido’s call, they are peaceful

demonstrations so far. But everybody is looking at the Venezuelan military. Everybody says it is up to the guys with the guns, and they are

mostly guys, to determine the course of this path that you’ve now embarked on.

What more do you have from them? Have they given you any assurances? They seem to be sort of standing firm for Maduro at the moment.

VECCHIO: Well, we have said to them that we have a new commander in chief, they have to follow the order of the President Interim Guaido, they have to

follow the constitution. We need them to restore democracy and we need them in order to conduct this smooth transition.

So, in my view, the majority of the military force are with us, they are just stopped by a small elite on the top of the military institution. But

at the end of the day, they are Venezuelans, they have family, they are suffering the same thing that we are suffering as ordinary people. So, at

the end of the day, in my view, with this pressure that we are putting on the streets from our institution of the National Assembly and from the

international community, I hope they can just be in the right side and supporting what our constitution says.

AMANPOUR: I know you hope that. And so far, we haven’t seen any violent crackdown. But what more do you think you have to offer the Venezuelan

military? Because as you rightly point out, there is a layer of elite military at the top, the most senior, who have a lot of vested interest in

being on Maduro’s side. They are engaged in massive sectors of the economy, they have all sorts of powers that they might not have in a normal

democratic system.

Is your side, is Juan Guaido prepared to offer more than just a general amnesty? Is there — I mean, do they have to be promised certain positions

in parliament or you know the way it’s gone in Latin America as you’ve had transitional democracies?

VECCHIO: No. We understand that. I mean, that the military forces is a key actor in this transition especially to conduct a smooth translation we

want and we are open to discuss with them, you know, what they have in mind. But at this moment in time, we have offer, as you said, an amnesty

law, we are not including here a crime against humanity and we are just giving this amnesty to those who help us restore democracy.

And I think we can build that confidence among us in order to achieve what we want and to impose our agenda in a certain way.

AMANPOUR: I brought up the U.S. record in Latin America, you know it much better than I do, it’s had a very checkered history for more than 100 years

in your continent, of interventions and coups and counter coups and the rest. And, of course, President Maduro is playing that up and he has said

the following, he’s issued his own sort of fiery sort of backlash to President Trump. Here’s what he said just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLAS MADURO, VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We won’t allow a Vietnam in Latin American. If the U.S. intends to intervene against us,

they will get a Vietnam worse than they could have imagined.

Our country has the largest oil reserves in the entire world, and those who lead in the United States want to get their hands on our oil, just like

they did in Iraq and in Libya. No, our oil belongs to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: You know, Mr. VECCHIO, it is very interesting. He points up Iraq, he points up Libya. I mean, two really highly controversial

interventions by the United States.

I mean, do you think he’ll rally support by, again, blaming the U.S. and sort of doing that — the kind of thing that he’s been doing for a while

now?

VECCHIO: You know, in my view, he’s trying to sell that to the rest of the world, saying that this is a fight between, you know, the Maduro regime and

they the United States. And it’s not that way.

As I’ve said before, this is a fight between the democratic world against the dictatorship. We have the most important Latin American countries with

us, we have the United States and we have also the European Union.

So, again, this is a fight, as I’ve said, between democracy and dictatorship. And the agenda that we have is so clear and we will continue

to do that. What we have to keep in mind is that what we need to do is just not to invade Venezuela, it’s to liberate Venezuela, which is

controlled not only by the dictatorship but also control from Cuba, and that is something that we need to keep in mind.

AMANPOUR: So, that’s interesting you raise Cuba. Obviously, I’m — I assume, the Vice President Mike Pence talked to about what they call bad

actors in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, the rest, and I wonder whether you discussed U.S. troops to Venezuela. What is your position on that?

VECCHIO: No, we didn’t discuss that point with the vice president. But I will tell you, I mean, I hope we can all get to the point. What we want is

a smooth transition in Venezuela. We need to stop the suffering of the Venezuelans and we will keep our agenda.

And I think if we keep our people on the streets and putting the pressure from the National Assembly and getting the right support from the

international community, we can achieve it. So, that’s what we are promoting internationally.

AMANPOUR: And I guess finally, I mentioned as I was introducing you that the Maduro government has frozen Juan Guaido’s assets, has prevented him

from leaving the country. How significant is that? I mean, what kind of assets does he have to start with and how significant is it for him to be

prevented from leaving the country?

VECCHIO: No. I mean, this is crazy measure that he — that they have taken against Juan Guaido. I mean, Guaido — President Guaido will remain

in Venezuela, he will continue leading this process with our people. So, that doesn’t change anything about our fight.

So, what is important to mention is that the Maduro regime is killing our people are right now. Since January 22nd, they have killed between 40 and

70 people right now. They are putting on arrest more than 100 people. And they — the only tool that they have, in this moment, is just repression

and we need to highlight that point at this moment.

AMANPOUR: And just for the for the benefit of our viewers, you know, we’ve seen so many pictures of desperate Venezuelans over the last several years

as the economy has collapsed since 2013, 3 million of them have left, you know, the hospitals are disintegrating and people are lining up for food

and medicine that they can’t even get. I mean, it’s really a drama.

Just how difficult is it going to be and how do you plan while you are going through this to provide people, desperate people, with the food,

medicine and, you know, things that they need to survive?

VECCHI: Yes. I mean, that’s one of the most important point for us. We are being requested recently for our humanitarian aid to be sent to

Venezuela and we will announce that in the days to come and when that humanitarian aid will get to the border with Colombia. And so, that’s what

we are doing. This is an international effort and we are fully aware that the people of Venezuela are suffering because of lack of food and medicine.

And Maduro hasn’t allowed to get this food, get — medicine get in.

So, this will be a campaign that will start soon and I hope we can get this humanitarian aid soon. And we have been asking for the military force to

allow that food and medicine to get in our country.

AMANPOUR: Well, we hope they will and perhaps that’s an early signal of how they intend to behave.

But let me just ask you this, you know, we didn’t know who Juan Guaido was until about a week ago. He seems to have sort of stepped onto the global

stage from sort of nowhere. Just describe a little bit who this man is, his journey, you know, who is this guy that the whole world seems to be

recognizing or much of the world right now?

VECCHIO: Well, he’s a congressman. He was one of the co-founders of my political party, “Voluntad Popular,” we did it together. He’s a young

person, he has courage, he has principles, he has values. he defends the democratic principles. And, you know, the story, you know, put him in this

position. And now, he’s getting the support not only from the National Assembly but from the people of Venezuela. He’s leading this process. He

gets, you know, all the support of the international community. And we have done, you know, something that we never thought that we could do.

So, in my view, that reflects the spirit of change. I think Venezuela is ready for a change and Juan Guaido is just getting that a spirit from the

people. And that’s why he’s, you know, conducting this movement right now call.

AMANPOUR: Carols Vecchio, thank you so much for joining us from Washington. Venezuela’s new charge of d’affaires in the United States.

VECCHIO: Thank you for your time.

AMANPOUR: Thank you.

So, as things heat up in Venezuela’s power struggle, in the United States, temperatures are literally plummeting to lows usually reserved for Eastern

Siberia. A polar vortex forcing the Midwest into intense cold, as low minus 60 degrees and that feels even colder with the wind chill. And over

the next few days, more than 200 million Americans will continue to see temperatures at or below zero. That’s around 70 percent of people on the

Continental United States.

There are warnings about almost instant frostbite, if not properly protected while outdoors. At least three people have already died and

there are fears for the homeless. West sleeping rough will be a death sentence.

Let’s go straight to our reporter, Ryan Young, in Chicago.

Ryan. welcome to the program.

I kind of see you almost trying to dance and stamp your feet. How cold is it there now?

RYAN YOUNG, U.S. CORRESPONDENT: Well, one of the reasons why we’ve stood out on this bridge is to give you an idea of just how windy it is right

now. When you talk about the wind chill, it’s really bone chilling cold, and when you add the wind it feels like needles against your face. You

talk about the idea of frostbite, you’re saying if you’re outside for more than 10 minutes at a time you could be in danger of facing that.

When you talk about the homeless, they have 24 warming centers throughout this city trying to make sure that people — especially those who had

trouble getting warm have a place to go inside. And on a day like this, this is important.

Look, this is a magnificent mile. This is beautiful Chicago. We have the iconic river just over here to my side here as well. Look, it looks like a

sheet of ice at this point. Normally, this would be a bustling area, even Christmas it is packed. But right now, this is almost down to a standstill

because of these temperatures.

Schools are closed, there’s no mail delivery. And I can honestly tell you, they’re even telling people to not breathe in too heavily because your

lungs can freeze. And it is a torturous process to be out here consistently. As, you know, we work with a great crew. So, my

photographer has his hand around the camera and sometimes it freezes almost in the shape of his lens. So, you could understand what —

AMANPOUR: I can.

YOUNG: — we’re dealing with in terms of the temperatures here at this point.

AMANPOUR: I can. And I really thank you for braving these temperatures. I can see there’s almost nobody on the street and very little traffic. We

also have seen pictures of some people around the railways, you know, the operators, burning and trying to set fire in order to keep the trains able

to run around the railways.

But tell me about, you know, again, these —

YOUNG: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: Yes. The homeless and the other. You said they have some warning centers. But there is about — there’s more than 5,000 in the

Chicago area who need to be off the street. Do we think we’re going to see deaths in the overnight?

YOUNG: That is a great question and it’s a scary thing when you think about it. Look, on a day to day basis and you know just in the city you

live in, you sort of know the pockets of certain homeless people live in, and we know a few as we’re driving to work of every few days that live just

along this riverside. And, in fact, we went down around there this morning to see if some of the gentlemen that we know were down there. They weren’t

there this morning but they are so wanting to keep their stuff and their spot that sometimes they don’t want to leave the bottoms of these buildings

because some of the piping creates warmth down there.

But you understand on a night like this, you don’t want to be outside. We haven’t had any deaths in the street so far. So, it seems like there’s

been success. But this is the first day of that two to three-day colds that would be record-breaking temperatures.

We do know people have been trying to do small fires and use their stove to stay warm, but what you’re hoping is, you don’t have those tragic stories

with a large homeless population and people living in tents, that hasn’t happened yet. But, of course, like I said, it’s the first day of the three

days that could be record-breaking for the city.

AMANPOUR: Well, you’re going to be reporting that a lot. So, I hope you’re going to get in, get a little warm before you come out and start all

over again. Ryan Young, and your crew, thank you very much indeed.

YOUNG: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: So, now, let’s get to the science behind this freak weather. Richard Alley is an award-winning climate scientist at Pennsylvania State

University where he is joining us from right now.

Richard Alley, welcome back to our program.

You know, you’ve seen a lot, you’ve studied a lot. Tell us the science behind what’s happening. Is this just another typical Chicago cold but

just a little colder?

RICHARD ALLEY, CLIMATE SCIENTIST, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Essentially, this is weather. And weather happens and weather is always

happen and weather always will happen. This is actually just a little warmer than it would be if we humans hadn’t been changing things.

AMANPOUR: So, tell me that what do you mean? Because, you know, everybody is saying — and let me just play — I have to now, read you President

Trump’s tweet just a couple of days ago, on Monday, “In the beautiful Midwest, wind chill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest

ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for a minute. What the hell is going on with global

warming? Please come back fast. We need you.”

Is he right? Is — what is going on?

ALLEY: Right. So, if you look at the big picture today, the Antarctic is warmer than natural, the Southern Hemisphere is warmer, the tropics are

warmer, the Northern Hemisphere is warmer, the Arctic is warmer and we’re freezing our buttons off,

So, there is weather and the weather has been moved up to a higher temperature and it’s been moved up to a higher temperature because we burn

fossil fuels and release CO2.

AMANPOUR: Right.

ALLEY: The fascinating question is whether we made it more likely that this air that should be up in the Arctic is now sitting over Chicago.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, that’s what I was going to ask you about, because we have heard some meteorologists saying precisely that. That the vortex,

this polar vortex, which maybe you can explain for us, has been exacerbated by rising temperatures. And apparently, the only other comparably cold

place right now is the other part of the polar vortex in Eastern Siberia.

ALLEY: Yes. So, normally, the winds go screaming around the pole and the cold stays locked up inside and then, we’re a little bit warmer down here.

And sometimes that weakens, it breaks up, it comes wandering down. There have always been cold snaps, there will be cold snaps.

But when you raise the temperature of the Earth, it doesn’t just warm everything equally. It also changes other things, it changes where is the

sea ice, it changes where the snow is and where the snow isn’t. And the storms and the jet stream listen to those as well.

And so, when you start caning things in addition to that temperature, you can change how much of the time the coldest locked up in the north and how

much of the time it comes out. And there is a fair amount of evidence that as we warm the world this will change the frequency and the nature of the

outbreaks.

So, there may be a little bit of a human thumbprint on this coming down. That is still in discussion, that we have warmed the world, that we’re

warming the world, that this affects us, that’s not in discussion anymore, but how that affects, where the storms go and how strong the wind is in

Chicago today is an area of great and fascinating research.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And I guess an area of no discussion anymore is also the wild extremes. We’re watching wild extremes now, right? We’ve got this

massive cold deeper than it has been in some places ever, in recent memory, and on the other side of the world, we’ve got massive heat. I mean,

Australia is literally so bad the tarmac is melting. I mean, fruit bats are dropping dead out of the sky, wild horses are dying on the ground.

ALLEY: Yes. So, we have made heat waves much more likely. When conditions are right to rain or to snow, warmer has more water, so it can

make more floods. Every — if you have a hair dryer, it has a heating element in it to dry your hair faster. I don’t have enough left to worry

about but people do this, warmer air can dry faster and so you end up with more drought as well as more flood.

So, some of these extremes really do have a human fingerprint on it. So, it’s not just raising the temperature, it’s also bringing other things.

What we do know is that there are places that are so cold that when you make them a little bit warmer, there are changes, it changes up the

traditional way of life, you can’t do what you used to do. But you might in a warmer world have a have a bigger economy.

For most of the world, for almost all the world’s people, heat is more of a problem than cold. And as you warm the temperature it tends to give you a

smaller economy.

AMANPOUR: It’s so fascinating. And we saw these horrible pictures of dead horses in Australia. But I want to play something that’s gone viral today.

It is a father and son, I believe, in Wisconsin. They threw boiling water into the air and watched it freeze almost instantly. We’re just going to

play that. I don’t know if you’ve seen this but it’s been going around.

Give us a sense of where the debate is as we watch this. Let’s just have a quick look. Here we go. Throw the water into the air and look at that. I

mean, it pretty much demonstrates. What more do you think people need to see and hear and know in order to get serious about, you know, trying to

take real steps, concrete steps, which only governments can take effectively, to equalize, to combat this climate change and these extremes?

ALLEY: Right. I suspect that they need to see the opportunities and the options in dealing with it. The Nobel Prize in Economics this year, a

corecipient, was given to William Nordhaus of Yale for developing tools that allow you to choose where to put your investment and your consumption

to make more people better off. And those tools show that wise response to climate change, wise response on energy gives you a bigger economy as well

as a cleaner environment.

And the idea that we get more money, we get more jobs, we get greater national security when we deal with the environmental issues has not

diffused widely. But the Nobel Prize in Economics says that we can use our knowledge to make people better off. And I think at the point where people

see that dealing with this can help them, and it can help them a lot as well as helping future generations and other creatures on the earth, I

suspect that the conversation will really change.

AMANPOUR: Well, let’s hope so. And thank you for helping us understand. Richard Alley from the Pennsylvania State University.

Now, from icy wind chill, we turn to “Cold War,” the new film by Oscar winning Polish director, Pawel Pawlikowski. A tumultuous love story set in

star black and white. It’s protagonist, Wiktor and Zula, musicians, trying to make a life in post-World War II communist Poland. Their fiery

relationship sees them split apart and reunite over the course of the Cold War. And Pawel calls it a story of both history and humanity of that era.

The film has broken records for Polish cinema by being nominated for three Academy Awards, including Best Foreign Film and Best Director, and that is

a rare honor for a director of a foreign language film at the Oscars. Pawel Pawlikowski spoke to me from Los Angeles about it.

Pawel Pawlikowski, welcome to our program.

PAWEL PAWLIKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, “COLD WAR”: Thanks for having me.

AMANPOUR: So, here we go again, Pawel, you’ve got yet another Oscar nominated film, obviously, already won one for “Ida” a few years ago. This

one takes on a much more personal tone, doesn’t it? Your tragic romantic heroes sort of — I think, you used your own parents as the example.

PAWLIKOWSKI: Yes. They were the starting point. Their relationship became the inspiration for the relationship on screen and their story with

love at first sight, the betrayals, divorces, marriages, marriages to other people, remarriage and exile and life in exile, that became the material

with which I worked but it’s not literally their story. Their story was it was much too chaotic and messy to make a film that would make any sense.

So, I have to actually invent — reinvent them.

AMANPOUR: So, what is the —

PAWLIKOWSKI: I didn’t do it because of them. I mean, it’s — you know, the — it’s also a way of showing Europe, history at a very particular,

very interesting time, which has some residences with today’s world.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, let’s talk about that. Tell me what you were trying to capture.

PAWLIKOWSKI: I was trying to bring history to life by showing two very lively characters, two complicated paradox of characters who are kind of

nasty but wonderful, who ones — one is up, the other one, who — like protagonists of the story and antagonists to each other. And because they

traverse Europe from Polish — Poland (INAUDIBLE) 50s to Paris in the mid- 50s, the jazz world, the jazz period and then back to Poland in the 60s in the kind of more shabby version of socialism.

History always impacts on their relationship. History as — in the shape of, you know, authoritarian starting it’s regime but also history in the

shape of separation, you know, they crossed into the West separately and they miss each other, they kind of build each other’s image up in each

other’s absence and then they end up together in exile. And suddenly, in exile, they look very different sort of people to each other.

AMANPOUR: And it’s complicated as they say. It’s —

PAWLIKOWSKI: It’s very complicated.

AMANPOUR: It is very complicated. But one of the things that, I guess, the “Cold War” — one of the emblematic issues about the “Cold War” was the

way the authoritarian dictatorial governments manage to get people even in relationships and within families to rat on each other, to spy on each

other.

PAWLIKOWSKI: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And I think that is one of the motifs that you’re trying to highlight. I’m going to play this clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZUZANNA ZULA LICHON: I’ll be with you until the end of the world. But I have to tell you something, I am ratting on you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Well, that finally woke him up. That is just a terrible thing that people had to live with during that time. What do you remember about

that? I know you left early but what do you remember about that? What were you saying with that clip, with that scene?

PAWLIKOWSKI: Well, that life is complicated. I mean, in the end, the viewer doesn’t blame her for doing it. Of course, Victor love her, doesn’t

blame her because — well, he’s shocked to discover but if you know where she comes from, what choices she had, she comes from the wrong side of the

tracks and that was her only chance.

I mean you sort of forgive her. Plus, she specifies later on in the scene, she didn’t actually do anything that would harm him. It’s just the very

fact of doing it is shocking.

What I remember, I just remember living this kind of double life, you know, having to say one thing at school and then being able to talk truthfully at

home. I remember people did inform on you we had a lady who came to cook for me when I was a kid who it turns out was informing on us to the state

security. And my mother had to go to the state security headquarters one day and almost fainted when she got the summons.

So there was always the shadow of the threats and you couldn’t trust everybody fully. Thank God it didn’t happen within my family. So that

would have destroyed everything but everything I think have a double floor. It didn’t stop people from falling in love and being wonderful people too.

AMANPOUR: Yes, that is right. You know you talk about this double floor or something that you grew up with that maybe stayed with you forever. I

don’t know whether it’s affected your issues of trust, whether or what.

PAWLIKOWSKI: I was traumatized by the exile, that’s true when I left at 14. But yes –but my parents, clearly, I could — I sense the tension all

the time. And most grown-ups, you know, have to deal with this.

AMANPOUR: So I want to talk about the trauma of the exile then. Because the other clip we have is about exile. It’s — you know, it takes place in

Paris and Gundam is talking to your heroine and the heroine ends up kind of being slightly defiant. Just let’s watch and talk about the trauma of

exile.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIETTE: Do you like it here?

LICHON: Paris? It’s fine.

JULIETTE: It must have been a shock.

LICHON: A shock? Why?

JULIETTE: Cinemas, cafes, restaurants, shops. As far as I know —

LICHON: Between you and me, my life was better in Poland.

JULIETTE: So why did you run away?

LICHON: I didn’t run away. I married an Italian and left legally. Ever been to Palermo?

JULIETTE: No.

LICHON: That’s a shame.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I found that really interesting to watch. And then when you say the trauma of exile, it’s summed up there, right. They don’t want to admit

that, you know, they had to flee you or that they were in any way second class citizens or emotionally damaged.

PAWLIKOWSKI: Yes. I mean it depends who you are. But Zula, the character you just showed, she’s a defiant one. I mean she doesn’t want to be

patronized, especially by this pretentious intellectual who also happens to be the former lover of her great love. So she’s defiant, yes.

And I remember when I first came to U.S., people were trying to explain to me how a telephone works, you know as if I never had used a telephone in

Poland. So there were these sort of moments you think, oh, come on, you know, you’re not so fantastic. And well, it depends, of course, what your

character is.

Zula who you saw in that scene, she actually didn’t really want to leave Poland. She doesn’t have a good reason to leave. She left literally for

love.

Victor, the male lead character, he really was suffocating in Poland. He had no future there. He had no future. He had nothing to do. He was

oppressed — he felt oppressed by people spying around him, by not being able to do the kind of music he wanted to do. Whereas Zula was

actually OK in Poland, you know.

AMANPOUR: I still want to go back to today a little bit because, you know, you’re Polish, obviously. And things are not great in your country right

now. At least, the government is cracking down on all sorts of the sort of liberal world order that Poles have got used to after the end of the Cold

War.

You said something about the government. Of course, we know that hate speech is on the rise and then, you know, the Liberal Mayor of Gdansk was

stabbed to death not so long ago. You quoted the awful thing is that Poland is a lively democratic very society. And these people who were

voted in by a mere 6.5 million out of a nation of 40 million are ruining the image of our country for all of us and for a long time.

You’ve been accused by this government of being anti-Polish with your previous film. Describe your role, what you’re saying and you as a Pole

today.

PAWLIKOWSKI: Well, they tried to basically do my own thing to make films which are not simplistic, which don’t reduce history to a simple

ideological narrative, would show how complicated life is, especially in historic conditions, how difficult the choices that people make. So that

goes against the grain of the kind of simplistic narrative of the nationalists, of extreme nationalists who are now very vocal and in power.

Secondly, I think Poland, as I said there in that quote, is a very lively country. I don’t think — you know, it’s not all lost. It’s still a

democratic society.

People still go out into the streets to protest. The laws that are really wrongheaded withdrawn. There is still free press. State television has

been taken over by the governing party and it’s become a tube for propaganda. But there’s other channels that haven’t been closed down and

hopefully won’t be.

So it’s actually a very lively, healthy situation now. It’s not all lost and the elections are coming in a year. The municipal or regional

elections were — happened recently and they didn’t go so badly for the Democratic side. So let’s not exaggerate. Let’s not give up hope, you

know. I think it’s — there’s all to play for.

AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean you’re right, let’s not exaggerate. But I wonder whether you can comment on something that was quite shocking. Your own

grandmother was killed in Auschwitz. And this weekend on Holocaust Memorial Day, we saw ultra-nationalists walk through and parade through

Auschwitz.

I mean it was a sight I can’t even imagine that they were allowed to do that but they were. I wonder what your reflections are on that.

PAWLIKOWSKI: No, that was horrible and embarrassing. It wasn’t a big group but the fact that they actually got there is outrageous. And I think

the — a lot of Poles is upset and there’s a public debate about it.

So listen, I mean I don’t want to say it’s — you know, we’re in a good place but it’s really is not — it’s not Hungary, it’s not Russia yet. You

know, there’s life. There’s political life. There’s very strong political figures and cultural figures who are speaking out against these people

going into the streets.

It’s still a pluralist society. So — and we should bring that up, encourage that, rather than demonize the whole country in a general way.

AMANPOUR: Indeed. And they should be proud that your film has three Oscar nominations which is a record in this instance. And, Pawel Pawlikowski,

thank you so much for joining us, director of Cold War.

PAWLIKOWSKI: Thank you very much for having me. Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: And now for our final report tonight, we explore the price tag of a college education in the United States, rising debts, low wages, and

increasing living expenses are forcing students to sacrifice the most basic necessity which is food. And it is an incredible situation. According to

a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, it says a third of students don’t have enough to eat.

Sara Goldrick-Rab sees this in her classroom every day. She’s author of “Paying The Price” and she’s Professor of Higher Education Policy at Temple

University in Philadelphia. She tells our Hari strain of Boston that it’s become an economic emergency as far too many ends up with plenty of debt

but no degree.

HARI SREENIVASAN, CONTRIBUTOR: Are people having to make the choice between eating and continuous school?

SARA GOLDRICK-RAB, PROFESSOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: They absolutely are. There’s really no question. We’ve done so many

interviews with some of my colleagues over the many years now and we’ve seen students make those choices all the time.

I will see students who will say, “You know, I’m so short on money, that in order to buy my books this semester, it means I’m going to miss rent

payments.” I mean we estimate that almost 1 in 10 of American college students has been homeless in the last year.

This is very serious and very common. It can mean that a student, for example, has a medical need and, therefore, does not have groceries for the

month. There are so many competing pressures facing these students every day, some of which, you know, ordinary Americans are also very acquainted

with. But it means that they’re going to have to give up on their education and leaving it partly unfinished where they leave in debt with no

degree. It’s really consequential.

SREENIVASAN: And this gets almost personal for you. I remember you telling someone about one of your own students reaching out to you and

telling you what she considered a secret.

GOLDRICK-RAB: Yes. I mean I have had students for a long time who have had these challenges. But I was especially taken when I first arrived at

Temple University and an undergraduate came walking into my office. I thought she was there to ask for an internship.

I mean she looked like, you know, very sort of put together, very bright, a science major. And she said to me, “I really need to tell you something.”

And I said, what do you need to tell me? It’s the first time that we’ve met.

And she said, “I hear that you know, that you understand that there are things going on that we don’t talk about.” And I said, what do you need to

tell me? And she said, “I don’t have enough money for food.”

And she said, “And I’m so embarrassed to say this but I’ve actually started shoplifting at the local grocery store so that I can get enough to eat.”

And she said, “And I was recently caught and that means that I can’t do it anymore.” And she said, “So I don’t know where to get food.”

And to be really frank with you, the woman sitting across from me was a white woman who looked very middle-class and, in fact, is middle-class.

She is the child of people who value education, who have worked very hard to pay for college but who have struggled economically with a lot of ups

and downs.

And as they helped her go through college, they started to run out of money. She’s too rich to get financial aid and too poor to be able to

actually afford college. And so she really found herself without enough to eat and very few options.

SREENIVASAN: That points to a whole group of people that seems to be missing from what little data that we do have, right. There’s a gap in our

perceptions of who might be impacted by this and who actually is impacted.

GOLDRICK-RAB: That’s right. I mean we do tend to think about low-income college students when we think about this issue and when we think about

financial aid generally. And that is important. I mean today’s Pell Grant recipients are absolutely being left short in ways that are unconscionable

but there is a missing middle too.

And it’s this middle-class that almost 50 percent of Americans believe they’re part of. But the middle class is not doing well. They’re

strapped. They’re facing a lot of economic volatility. Work is not paying the way that they would like it to and college prices are often beyond

reach.

And so they might think they have it together and they get to college. And then again, they run short and they are mystified and frankly, a bit

stigmatized, you know, when it comes to axing — asking for accessing this help.

SREENIVASAN: Give me a scale of the problem. How significant is food security for college students across the country?

GOLDRICK-RAB: Well, the first thing, and the GAO does emphasize this, is that we don’t actually really know at a national level because the federal

government has never collected data on this in any systematic way. In fact, colleges and universities are also not required to collect data on

this.

So what we really know comes from surveys that we’ve done, one college at a time across the country. And myself and my team, as well as other

researchers, around the country have amassed a large number of colleges over time in most states where we have done these surveys. And the results

seem to suggest that around 40 to maybe even 50 percent of the nation’s college students are enduring food insecurity while they’re in school.

SREENIVASAN: Our general definition of who is a college student in America seems to be completely different, at least our perception of it, versus

what the reality is.

GOLDRICK-RAB: There is a big disjuncture. We continue to think of college students as young people from reasonably wealthy families who value

education and have sent their children off to college with savings in the bank, send them to live in residence halls and to focus on their schooling,

pursue one or two majors, attend lectures and extracurricular events, and have a basically good time.

Only 13 percent of American undergraduates these days live on a college campus. One in four has a child. Almost more than a third actually are

over the age of 24. They don’t look the way we think they look and they don’t get the support that we popularly believe they get.

SREENIVASAN: If a third of students are going hungry, how is it possible that the price of tuition keeps going up?

GOLDRICK-RAB: These things are not entirely connected. The price of tuition rising is being driven primarily because states have

changed what they’re paying for higher ed. So in the past, if — let’s say college was — cost a dollar. A state might say to a student, “We’ll put

in $0.75, you’ll pay $0.25.” And over time, the state has begun to say, “We’ll pay $0.50, you pay $50.00” or even, “We’ll pay a quarter, you pay

$75.00.”

But the food issue is really, in many ways, also being driven by the increase of living costs in this country. So the fact is that you know, as

housing has gotten more expensive that it’s created other pressures on food.

SREENIVASAN: So how schools deal with this idea of kids who are in their classrooms, or not even kids, adults in their classrooms, there I am

falling back into the trap, who can’t figure out where their next meal is coming from?

GOLDRICK-RAB: What has changed over time is that we’ve drawn more attention to the structural factors that are creating this problem. At

such a large number of colleges that no one college could be doing something wrong that would be causing this themselves.

And as that’s happened, it’s enabled some colleges to be able to take more steps. So we see a growing number of campus food pantries. That’s at

least a charitable impulse that’s being realized.

We’re seeing a growing number, especially at community colleges, that are starting to help students access the SNAP program which is food stamps.

We’re seeing some that are trying out programs like food scholarships. We’re also seeing some that are subsidizing some of those bigger expenses

like housing.

You know one of the reasons people don’t have money for food is that they can’t pay their rent. And so, for example, my team’s been working with a

couple of housing authorities in this country that are working to offer more support to the people who live in public housing while they’re in

college, so that they can actually really live and eat and go to college and then, frankly, get out of public housing, become economically self-

sufficient.

SREENIVASAN: Because they’re not eating, they’re not studying well, they’re not performing well, they’re not likely to graduate.

GOLDRICK-RAB: They’re not. And, you know, this is such common sense. I mean there isn’t a teacher in this country who’s teaching an 8 or 9-year-

old who thinks that if that child hasn’t eaten, they’re going to be active and engaged in the classroom. And we have no reason to believe that a 25-

year-old or an 18-year-old would be any different.

SREENIVASAN: So you and your team have been looking at this for years now. You had a book out a few years ago. You were following 3,000 different

students. I want to look at the longer arc here. Are things getting better or worse?

GOLDRICK-RAB: Part of the reason that it’s really hard for me to say is that we really were not tracking these issues in this way for any long

period of time. I followed a cohort, you know, of these 3,000 students over time.

And what I can tell you is that what it looks like for a student in their first semester of college can be very different than what it looks like for

the 3rd or 4th or 5th semesters. There’s a lot of volatility and fluctuation.

But are we worse off in 2019 than we were, say in 2017 or in 2012 or in 1982? We don’t know because these issues were not being examined. Because

we’re looking now, I think over time we’re going to be able to say hopefully whether things are getting better or worse.

But what I can tell you is that it is clear that higher education is getting in the public sector less resources per student than it ever has.

We have more students from families with significant economic needs. And we have students who are having a harder time getting work that pays during

college and enough access to financial aid to make up for those financial needs. So the crisis really, frankly, should still be here.

SREENIVASAN: If it’s under-resourced like this, is that driving part of what the student loan debt size has ballooned to? Give us some perspective

of how big that is now.

GOLDRICK-RAB: You know the student loan debt overall size to me matters a little bit less frankly than the number of borrowers who are unable to

repay their loans. And those people, really interestingly, are not the ones who have the big debt. Not what we would call big.

They have like $5000 of debt. The problem is they only got like a year of college education. So these are high school graduates walking around with

the feeling of having dropped out of college and now owing loans. They have no economic ability to repay.

Many of them are taking loans they should never have had to take. They were Pell Grant recipients in college which when that program began meant

that nobody should take a loan.

We never intended for people who were low income when they come to college to have to take debt. They were supposed to get a grant. The Pell program

now covers barely a third of public colleges and universities total costs.

SREENIVASAN: And that’s different than when it that started out.

GOLDRICK-RAB: Exactly. It’s a major decline. It was supposed to cover a hundred percent. We’re down to a third. It’s — I mean if they’re going

to be in college, they’ve got to take on the debt but their chances of finishing are not that high. So they come out with debt and no degree.

And now they’re in potentially even a worse situation than they were in the first place before they went to college.

SREENIVASAN: Also, I was going to say look, what about Work- Study? I had to have a job and go to school or we can have people work 15, 20 hours to qualify for benefits.

GOLDRICK-RAB: Yes. It’s a great idea. So the problem is that Work-Study in this country is so incredibly underfunded. That as more people have

needed it over time, we have not increased the support for it. As a result, only about 1 in 10 Pell Grant recipients, these low-income students

in public colleges or universities, are getting supported by the Work-Study Program.

And, unfortunately, when we’ve pointed that out and noted that Work-Study is immensely popular, it aligns with what people think should happen. You

should work in college and work on campus. Instead of that, this administration has actually tried to get rid of the Work-Study Program

rather than to grow it to meet the need.

SREENIVASAN: Are we approaching it slightly in a different way? Are we overvaluing college? Meaning is college right for everyone?

GOLDRICK-RAB: Look, I don’t think to say that college should be affordable and accessible for everyone is to say everyone has to go to college. Those

are two really different things.

But I think that one of the problems we have, college has become the place America loves to hate. Partly because America thinks that what everybody

is doing in college is pursuing a degree of some sort they don’t find valuable.

What they don’t seem to realize is that a lot of the services that they now seek are performed by people who do have to get some sort of occasional or

technical training and that training is offered in college. Community colleges and universities around the country are the places that people who

do all sorts of things, everything from cosmetology to truck driver training, they do these things in college.

Now, colleges are the places they go to get them. So to say that college is unaffordable is not just to say, well, you can’t get that philosophy

degree. It’s also to say you can’t get the credential you need to be an automotive technician. What kind of situation are we going to be in when

we say, no, let’s cut people off from those occupations?

SREENIVASAN: When you look at this from the 30,000-foot view, I mean higher education was supposed to be this opportunity to move social

mobility, move class, right. So it was — community college infrastructure was supposed to be that alternate path. What’s happened to our idea of

what college is capable of doing especially at a time where it seems that we’re all socially asking for that credential?

GOLDRICK-RAB: Yes. So I think that the fact is that the idea, the theory is right, education can do all the things you just described and it did do

it in the 20th century. Many of the things we all enjoy today, whether it’s our iPhones or the innovations that we have on the Internet, were

created by the expansion of education. Education propels innovation.

But the problem is that we never really actually all agreed to this at the policy level. And so while we, some of us, set out to make policies to

expand educational opportunity and higher education, the fact is that states really never did join in a full way the federal government in making

college truly affordable.

And over time, depending on the administration in charge in Washington, they have undermined the financing behind the idea. So the idea has stood.

The idea has been widely heard by the public which has said, yes, we want college. But we did not build and sustain a financing system to actually

back up that idea.

And I think that’s the task of the 21st Century. It’s time to figure out how to live up to the promise, how to get together and understand that this

is not a mushy social justice issue. This is an economic issue. We’re either going to have to rebuild a lot of social programs to support people

who can’t get a job, are living in poverty, are going to have high medical expenses, are going to be “on the dole.”

Or we can give them a viable path to economic self-sufficiency, which we know runs through education. Seems like the latter is probably the more

cost-effective thing to do and it’s what each individual person is choosing for their children. The question right now is what they’re going to choose

for other people’s children.

SREENIVASAN: Thanks for joining us.

GOLDRICK-RAB: Thanks for having me.

AMANPOUR: What an important conversation, what revelations, and it is going to come as a major surprise to people around the world who believe,

of course, that so much in America is simply roads that are paved with gold and success. But to hear that report, that shocking look there at the

price of education in America, what it’s costing students who can’t afford food.

That’s it for our program tonight.

Thanks for watching Amanpour and Company on PBS and join us again tomorrow.

END