>> coming up president obama speaks about the murder of journalist james foley by member of the terrorist group isis. and later a discussion on the effect of russia's intervention in ukraine on the global community. on the next "washington journal" elizabeth nebong of the brookings institution discusses the new report on poverty and how it relates to current events. later, we continue our look at president johnson's vision for a great society with a discussion on the air quality act of 1967. our guests are jeff homestead, a former e.p.a. assistant administrator for air. and robin juni an environmental law professor at george washington university. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. texas governor rick perry is in washington, d.c., thursday, for a discussion on the new politics of immigration. we'll be live at this event. hosted by the heritage foundation and the national journal. starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> i'm greta brawner and this week on the washington journal we'll be focused on president lyndon johnson's vision for a great society. and its impact today. tune in at 7:00 a.m. eastern team and also join the conversation by calling us or sending us an email, and you can also send us a tweet and join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span. >> tomorrow night on c-span, we examine opposing views on the issue of climate change. we'll hear from greenpeace co-founder patrick moore who challenges the idea that humans are the cause of global warming. ere's a preview. >> even the ipcc does not subscribe to the belief that extreme weather events are tied to global warming, whether it's human caused or not. they say there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events related to the warming that has occurred. and yet, bill mcgibbon and al gore and the whole bunch of them perpetuate the idea in a every extreme weather event is because of us. this is why we will never be able to predict the future of the climate other than about three days out as john coleman who's coming up soon will probably tell you he knows. it's because of clouds. water, most important greenhouse gas, is the only one that occurs in both liquid and gaseous phases in the atmosphere. and the liquid phase of water and the gaseous phase of water which we call water vapor behaves in completely different way with regard to solar energy. clouds can reflect the sun back. they can hold the heat in. depending on where they are and how thick they are and what computer model can predict the pattern of clouds? in the world? it's impossible. that is why we will never be able to predict the future of climate and clouds are the wild card and many people believe that as the earth warms, and more water evaporates off the sea, it will be cloudier and wetter and that will reflect more sunlight back and in other words there will be a negative feedback against the effect of co-2 and that is just as plausible a hypothesis as the fry in hell hypothesis that we keep getting from the alarmists. >> from heartland institute, a look at both sides of the climate change debate. followed by the testimony of former e.p.a. administrators before a senate environment subcommittee. that's thursday night at 8:00 astern here on c-span. president obama spoke thursday about the beheading of journalist james foley. by members of the terrorist group isis. mr. foley was taken hostage two years ago while covering the civil war in syria. here's a look. >> good afternoon, everybody. today the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of jim foley by the terrorist group isil. jim was a journalist. a son, a brother, and a friend. he reported from difficult and dangerous places. bearing witness to the lives of people a world away. he was taken hostage nearly two years ago in syria, and he was courageously reporting at the time on the conflict there. jim was taken from us in an act of violence that shocked the conscience of the entire world. he was 40 years old. one of five siblings. the son of a mom and dad who worked tirelessly for his release. earlier today, i spoke to the foleys and told them that we are all heartbroken at their loss. and join them in honoring jim and all that he did. jim foley's life stands in stark contrast to his killers. let's be clear about isil. they have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. they abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. they murdered muslims. both sunni and shia. by the thousands. they target christians and religious minorities. driving them from their homes. murdering them when they can. for no other reason than they practice a different religion. they declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. so isil speaks for no religion. their victims are overwhelmingly muslim. and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. no just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. isil has no ideology of any value to human beings. ideology is bankrupt. they may claim out of expedia yency that they are at war with the united states or the west, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision. and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior. and people like this ultimately fail. they fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy, and the world is shaped by people like jim foley and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed them. the united states of america will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. we will be vigilant and we will be relentless. when people harm americans anywhere, we do what's necessary to see that justice is done. and we act against isil, standing alongside others. the people of iraq who with our support are taking the fight to isil must continue coming together to expel these terrorists from their communities. the people of syria, whose story jim foley told. do not deserve to live under the shadow of a tyrant or terrorists. they have our support and their pursuit of the future rooted in dignity. from governments and peoples across the middle east, there has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so that it does not spread. it has to be a clear rejection of these kind of nihilistic ideologies. one thing we can all agree on is that a group like isil has o place in the 21st century. friends and allies around the world we share a common security and a common set of values that are rooted in the opposite of what we saw yesterday. and we will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and civility. that's what jim foley stood for. a man who lived his work works courageously told the stories of his fellow human beings, and was liked and loved by friends and family. today, the american people will all say a prayer for those who loved jim. all of us feel the ache of his absence. all of us mourn his loss. we keep in prayers those other americans who are separated from their families. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. may god bless and keep jim's memory and may god bless the united states of america. >> attorney general eric holder traveled to ferguson, missouri, wednesday, at the request of the president. he's expected to oversee the federal investigation into the shooting of unarmed teenager miguel brown by a local police officer. -- michael brown by a local police officer. he was greeted by diners and met with missouri highway police captain ron johnson. mr. holder was also expected to meet with the family of michael rown later in the day. >> thanks for having us. we appreciate it. you're the money lady? [laughter] >> i got to -- >> is there a discount there for me? >> absolutely. indistinct conversation] >> all right. how are you doing, sir? >> excellent. >> i love that. >> all right. >> mayor. >> how are you? >> good. >> nice to see you. >> we appreciate it. how are you doing? >> pretty good. > we're doing pretty good. and a lot of municipalities around, a lot of economic development. that's going on. with t of -- we met mayor knowles yesterday. would be 17 mayors -- ousing and in support of >> i think we're going to have to come together and a lot of communities, and -- >> this is a regional. >> we don't want the world to know for what's going on here. we want to rectify and have justice for everyone involved in this. but this area is a good area. we got a lot of development going and scripps is bringing their headquarters here and a lot of good things that are going on in this community. so we need to stick together. >> and come out better and stronger. we can do that. >> now some chicken wings. >> all right. meatloaf is good, too. >> >> everybody set? a couple of words about the federal investigation that we have under way. we have brought to this area very experienced prosecutors. we have very experienced agents who are handling this matter. and doing so i think in a fine way. i'm going to get briefed on more of the details about the investigation. i've been kept up to date. but there's nothing that can replace actually coming to the office that's handling the matter. and being able to look in the face of the people who are i think at this point very ably handling this investigation. now, our investigation is different from that which the state is doing. we're looking for violations of federal criminal civil rights statutes which is different from what the local investigation is. but we have brought a substantial number of people here, a up in of agents here who have done a great job in the canvassing that they did over the past weekend. they continue to follow leads so that we can do a thorough and a fair job of making a determination about what happened on august 9. and i'm confident that through the ability of these people, we will make -- be able to make a determination about whether or not any federal statutes have in fact been violated. the hope also is that through the trip that i'm making out here today and by stressing the importance of and the way in which in investigation is going, that that hopefully will have a calming influence on the area. and people know that a federal, thorough investigation is being done. being manned by these very capable people. my hope is that that will have -- give people a degree of confidence that the appropriate things are being done by their federal government. again, we are doing something different. and that which the state is doing. state and county prosecutors are doing. but nevertheless, i think that what we're doing hopefully will have a positive impact. >> thank you. >> on the next "washington the l" elizabeth knee of brookings institution talks about the new report on poverty and how it relates to current events and we continue our look at president johnson's vision for a great society with a discussion on the air quality act of 1967. our guests are jeff homestead, a former e.p.a. assistant administrator for air and robin juni, an environmental law professor at george washington university. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. on c-span. the american bar association held its annual homeland security law institute thursday in washington, d.c. you can see the discussion on cyber security challenges live starting at 2:55 p.m. eastern ere on c-span. >> i'm sara. >> and i'm shelly. we're on the c-span bus. the c-span bus is a multimedia education center. and along with your television provider, we bring c-span's public' fairs coverage to you and your community. >> we also visit schools and book festivals, political and historical events throughout the country. >> to learn more about the bus, and see our tour schedule go to c-span.org/aboutcommunity. >> for questions and comments @c-span.org.cate >> we want to see you in your community. >> a panel looks at how russia's intervention in ukraine has affected u.s. foreign policy and the global community. this discussion was hosted by the brookings institution. it's 90 minutes. >> i'm a fellow at the brookings institution and i would like to welcome you all here today. for an event on russia and the future of the international order put on by the brookings foreign policy program. thank you for joining us here at carnegie as our auditorium at brookings is being renovated over the course of the summer. we're being gathered here at a very important point not just in u.s.-russia relations but also in russia's relations with the international order. the idea of a partnership and cooperation with russia which really happened as defining future of western policy toward russia in the 1990's and in the 2000's has been replaced with talk of isolation of sanctions and of confrontation. that occurred at a time when it's not just bilateral relationship. the entire world is interconnected. in an international order through the global economy, through transnational problems and common interests like tackling climate change and counterterrorism and so what we really want to do today is to try to look at the larger picture to see what russia's place will be toward the international order and what the order and the western response will be toward russia over the next knife to 10 years. looking to other parts ofe world as well, we want to ask, what is the role of the we want to ask what the role of the brics in this new era. we saw where putin was imbrased by the leaders of the other brics. is there something of a divide opening up in the international community? we're joined by a terrific fal here today to discuss this. strobe talbot needs no introduction to anyone here. he's the president of the brookings institution, the author of several books on russia and the author of an article today on putin in a political magazine which i recommend to everyone. which was edited by one of our other panelists, susan glasser, who's editor of a political magazine and also the author of kremlin rising and co-author with peter baker of kremlin rising and a former "washington post" bureau chief in moscow. and clifford gaddy, a colleague of mine at brookings, a senior fellow at the center for u.s. -- europe, and author, most co-author of mr. putin, operative in the kremlin. and i believe that that is coming out early next year in a new edition with new added chapters so it's reason for you all to go to amazon a second time. there's i believe quite a lot of new material added. over the last few months for a second edition which will be available soon. so we're going to open up with a conversation with the panel and after an hour questions from the audience. we do have a hashtag on twitter if you want to use your phones to tweet about the event and the hashtag is #russiaukraine. so please tweet away. ukraine. , with russiayou breaking bad over the last few months, what does that mean for the international order and international cooperation? busince there are three a -- three of us, let me reiterate my appreciation for my counterpart and the terrific work that brookings has done over the years. it has a particular contribution to make as a result of the carnegie moscow center. a lot of us rely on what comes out of that building in this building. i will make a couple of points at the beginning with what i suspect will play into the conversation. i would say that the single most important and obvious issue here with regard to what the effect and be on globalization whetherovernance is boudin prevails are not -- boudin prevails are not. it should be the goal of the united states government and other like-minded governance -- governments around the world that victory for vladimir putin in ukraine's is just not an option. we can talk about that in terms of what's happening today and what will be happening this weekend. one reason i stressed that is, i would hope something that could be a matter of consensus among with if he does get away violating what has been an ironclad principle of international law for quite some , a very important guiding principle of the post-soviet russian government when it was under borussia to and -- under -- if he werein to get away with that, it would establish a precedent that could wreak havoc in many parts of the world. putin, since boudin et away he did give scott free, that might have given other leaders elsewhere in the world the notion that they could be more aggressive in pressing unilaterally and with force, territorial and maritime claims against other countries. the people's republic of china. it was a significant that, last 2013, the chinese government was thinking about putting this movable oil rig in waters claimed by vietnam, but decided not to. they did move into vietnamese waters. calls russia's breaking bad could be contagious if it is not punished -- i'm using that contained and -- deterred. another point goes to what russia can do if and when it starts breaking good again. we the international community really need russia as the world's largest territorial state. a country that is made up of an extraordinarily talented and productive population. a country that has been on its way to being part of the solution to the world's problems . to once again be part of the solution and not be a problem itself. it is not just a way of slapping putin around to shut down the g-8. we needed the g-8 and the g 20. it is in the g 20. thatve russia in a mood almost looks for chances to compete and be the antipode to sets itself up to be an abbot surrey too much of the world, that is not good for anybody, including the russian people ash and adversary -- an adversary too much of the much of the world. guest: what does putin think of the international order? think of it very much in institutional terms and reaching out and transnational challenges and incorporating new powers. you must have a very different view. -- he must have a very different view. >> thank all of you for coming. he does. it appears putin is trying to overthrow the current world order. in fact, i don't think that is his goal. it assumes something about food tin that we have never seen. we have been studying him intensively for many years. i have written this book and we are now revising that an expanding it to include the whole idea of how putin looks at the world. where those views come from and what he knows about the world. what does he want. he does not want and has never shown an inclination to have his leadership in global affairs for himself or russia. that seems contradictory to what conventional wisdom is. putin is about russia first. it is all about russia. everything else is tactics. that is the ultimate goal. book, fiona and i have a simplified framework, a version in'she evolution of put views about the west and the united states, bringing us to where we are now. it is divided into three phases. number one, leave us alone. he showed no evidence of being anti-american at all. there is plenty of anti-american sentiment, conspiracy theories that the u.s. was trying to bring down russia. putin did not seem to subscribe to that at all. you guys tried to help us and it did not work. you don't understand russia. you may have been trying to do something good for us. frankly, these are our problems. we caused these problems. we will solve them ourselves. leave us alone and let us try to do it. happen.n't make,forts he tried to which where programs in the beginning of the government of , was notwas a part recognized as positive outside, but criticized heavily on human rights issues. rethinkingto cause a of attitudes toward the west. changing wastarted what after -- what happened after 9/11. there was a sense on putin's part that it's not enough for you to leave us alone, you're also doing things out there in the rest of the world that affect us and you're not thinking about us. you are trying to solve your problems at our expense. will you please rethink that. that was the second phase. stop causing this collateral damage to russia with your behavior globally. , stop thishase was direct assault on russia. when that attitude really crystallized is not entirely clear. of decembere events 2011 after his announcement of coming back as president with protests, this was the last straw. there were preliminaries to that. 2008.orgia war in in 2012, andhat the election is held and he is back in office by the middle of 2012. devoted toto have quite preparations for what transpired in crimea in 2014. this gives us insights into what he really wants. with the post-cold war order. it it is to reverse these three phases. the most urgent thing is stop this encroachment. stop the nato enlargement. stop the missile the ploy meant on our borders. -- deployment on our borders. stay out of russia and sees this war on russia. this war on russia. you have to realize it is not what you think you are doing and what you say you are doing and what your intentions are that the fine for us our security interests. only we can define them. you say nato enlargement is not a threat. you say deployment of anti-middle school -- antimissile systems on our is not a problem for us. thirdly, the international order. was perfectlyin happy that the united states would be the leader of the international order. let them make the rules. you can definitely enforce the rules. you are welcome to be the policeman. there are only two criteria or two qualifications to that. we have no problem as long as there is no blowback to russia. we will have the right to veto actions that would be regarded as threatening to us. order.rs a rules-based everybody should go away the rules -- obey the rules except when he decides it's in his interest to not obey the rules heard he says, that is what the u.s. does. that is making it very simple and making it very crude. diplomats would never portray it in those terms. course, aon, of serious question is whether there is any diplomatic form of that that could be acceptable to the west. actions that boudin chose -- that putin chose to send this message have undermined completely any attempt for russia to determine international order in which russia would be respected as having not an equal voice with voice alongs, but a the lines of the un security council. there are certain areas where we have to be -- this would be .ossible in a good russia world in which russia was trusted and behaved as correspondingly. these actions in russia by putin may well have completely ruled this out. >> thank you. president obama spoke a couple of weeks ago on the sanctions and said the sanctions are working because they are having an impact, but they were not changing putin's behavior. we seemed to be in a pattern where the united states and europe is responding to the matter and russia is doubling down on its own aggression. where is this headed? are we headed into a new cold war? chance of a renormalization in which russia will be part of -- is the rightat starting point because it tells us something about russia's political system right now. what we make of russia's political system where putin has been and where he is headed. unfortunately, it is a system that is very much dependent on one person. that, itays, watching .s worthwhile for us to go back suggests thatutin we are headed not for a russia scenario of breaking good, but that we might not be in the worst case scenario. even the past is unpredictable in russia. we have to go back and rework our narrative. the basic question of, did putin start out as fundamentally anti-western or has he gotten there? did he have a goal of restoring the soviet union were has his -- or has his appetite grown since a decade ago? to me, that has been one of the interesting things of watching this drama from the beginning. i read a terrific piece this morning. , hehe immediate aftermath putinism was. a national project he has been engaged in to restore a state that he found to be under attack -- it does matter what is happening inside russia. the question of russian democracy or lack thereof and what putin's ultimate goal is. anher than restoring ideological competition with wants to focuse on the question of russia what's going on inside russia. restoring what he saw as -- that is what his advisors told us to him to work on. it has been much more about what is happening inside russia. we tend to see things in our own terms. to me, that is a lot of the reason why you have this long, interesting parallel history of misreading. where there were some russian people from the beginning who had known about boudin and said he is a kgb guy through and through, there were many alternate points of view. when i arrived in moscow to begin covering putin's first term in office, the narrative here in washington was not that this is a bad guy from the kgb. we can do business with them. he has western reformers and his cabinet and is an economic project. we want stability in russia. that was the dominant narrative. theeally was not until arrest of russia's richest man that that narrative began to change. what i would say is that the danger is -- there were always people who understood that democracy was part of project putin. there were people who understood that he was going to ride a wave of nationalism. i would argue that if you had just paid close attention to putin's words at this time, it was hard to think -- to mistake the meaning. withery first time he met american reporters, 1.5 years after his tenure at the kremlin, right after his famous meeting with george w. bush. i was there. it was quite a performance. it went on for hours. almost until the middle of the night. what was striking was that, even then, beyond this, it was a combative person who felt misunderstood already by the west. i had the great honor of asking him that question about chechnya. it was like a totally different person speaking. about power inside russia. keeping hold of russian fundamentals. the other thing he specifically -- he could stick to the talking points. it was a smooth, polished performance. when you start to get down to the basics of something that actually matters to whether he kept power or not, there was an absolute change. that was there from the beginning. not only was he being outrageously lied to in the middle of this conversation, but it was on that trip that you had a high level informant tell you, "forget what he says to you. drinking with was old communists and was toasting ." stalin that is the only thing you need to know about the leader. that does not mean that the picture was always clear cut from the beginning. it is important to recognize we can create narratives for ourselves that don't match up with real priorities are. when it comes to ukraine, vladimir putin does not see that in the context of foreign policy. he sees that about maintaining itselfp inside russia and the context of internal policies. he is not equally foreign-policy president in american terms. that is where we can sometimes be accused of focusing too much on the elimination of democratic institutions inside of russia. that is why it really matters. i am eager to get on with the conversation. i was thinking about carnegie today. at 10th anniversary of the carnegie moscow center. eraof the early yeltsin democrats successfully marginalized by putin in his first term. it was pretty clear what direction russia was going. somebody asked him what the 10th anniversary meant, what the prospects are for russian democracy and he said, well, let me put it this way, there is an old soviet anecdote about an ambulance driver who picks up a patient. back ands lying in the he sees that the ambulance driver has driven past the hospital. he sits up and says, where are you taking me? the guy says, well, we are going to the morgue. what do you mean? i am not dead. the ambulance driver says, we are not there yet. that was his response to the question of whether russian democracy -- -- many terrific things jew susan just said. the relationship between putin and the truth. complexioned -- she has a professional enthusiasm for turning truth on its head. to a fault, a master of lying. he is beingnk dissed jen u.s. -- disingenuous --n he perpetrates perpetuates conspiracy theories. if you were to put him on a couch and inject truth serum into him and asked him, do you thely believe that demonstrations were part of a washington orn berlin or london to bring about a coup d'état against the on echo regime? he would say yes. the lighted hector would show him to be telling the truth. -- lie detector. he believes in untruths. since we are reminiscing about his biography -- you might have a nuance or two that i would miss in this. in which case, you will add them. this is in no way disrespectful -- heutenant colonels rose to and stopped at the level of lieutenant colonel in the kgb. he was in the second chief directorate of the kgb. catching the enemy spies among your own. which is essentially institutionalized paranoia. the reason he did not get higher than the level, according to him, is that he had a psychological fitness exam every to have ae was found lowered sense of danger. the opposite of risk-averse, which is to say reckless. you put that together with his lies and weto use have a problem. is a strikes me that this rare occurrence. isthe diagnosis of putin correct and the problem is , this is autinism novel development in the world. prior to 1989, there are lots of examples, but very few examples sense. what does it mean to have somebody with that psychology and that capability and that results -- result in today's resolve in today's world? what happens if we are stuck with that? what if we are to have 19th-century actors in a 21st century environment? -- i dointeresting think obama uses that phrase to himself them -- putin and his foreign explicitly modeled themselves on their own -- who they saw as responsible for putting russia back on the road to great power after the indignities of the crimean war. russia came back and how did they do it? not by being necessarily breaking good, but by assertively insisting upon a right to great power status. boudin is often telling the is oftenin -- putin telling the truth. he has been fairly transparent around what their goals are. their goals for restoring a strong state. he has never hidden his disdain for democracy. early on in his presidency, he another western report about democracy and he said, if by democracy mean dissolution of the state, we don't want any of that. he has find things on his own terms. and been quite transparent about the goals. it was 1.5 years ago when i lavrov.wed sergey i he was very explicit in saying, in the last 15 years, we have project able to russia's power internationally in the way we would like to. what you are going to see in the coming years is a russia that no longer is content to hunker down at home. you will see a showing up in latin america and africa and asia. , that looks like a very interesting and very coherent laying out of where they hope to go with a much more assertive policy that they felt had earned them the space to do it. 19th-century as planned to their advantage, they are not interested in becoming facebook politicians. they would be happy to stay with great power politicians. >> there is a huge difference between the type of power projection of the post-soviet russia that you are describing accurately and what was happening during the soviet union. this is why we are not in the cold war. as a citizen of the united states, it doesn't bother me if russians start showing up in latin america and southeast asia and so forth. good luck to them . they are not going to be competing much with the chinese. they don't have an ideological vision of the kind that the when they were coaching castro on how to, nice cuba. to communize what ever they had to sell, which is mostly resources. is inthey are showing up danetsk and crimea. along their periphery where they have putin doctrine saying that russia has the right to use military force outside of its itsborders to protect fellow ethnic russians. is entirely doing counterproductive. that is a word we use in washington to mean stupid. russia's neighbors are increasingly going to be afraid and look for help from others. you know the old line about paranoid enemies. russia is a paranoid state right now. they are making its own enemies on its own periphery. >> i totally agree with that. is aquestion of ideology really important one. it's not a cold war in the sense they are protecting this is a global company mission between the united states and russia going forth. the reason they have a different putin doctrine for the places on the periphery is because they have not really excepted that it's not a part of russia. that's where this notion of we are still fighting comes into play. they have a different policy for ukraine and the changing of borders and things like that then they have for -- >> i don't want to be breaking bad myself. one thing there. conveyingn official of this view has at least the implication and sometimes more than the implication that we come at the outside world, particularly the other superpower, came in and broke up the soviet union. we did not do that. stated that. .- they did that the people of the soviet union did that because of the internal rot of that system. came apart. in -- boris yeltsin. bush,esident, george h.w. flew to kiev in july of 1991 to try to persuade ukrainian people to settle down and give this reformer in moscow, gorbachev, a chance. he's trying to make the soviet union a modern, normal, civilized state. they said, thanks, president bush. we are out of here. that is what happened. this was a self-inflicted dismemberment of the soviet state. ism goes away, it will and in the dismemberment of the russian state. there were a lot people who were citizens of the russian federation who were not russians and technically. -- who were not russians, ethnically. they will not associate themselves with the chest beating. > at that point, i go to cliff. 'sama has said that putin strategy is counterproductive. he's running rush into a ditch tot he won't be able to get strategic goals. they will continue with that behavior -- what is his reaction to that likely to be? what is his long-term game plan or narrative of success? how does this end up working for russia? i think we have to think through the way he looks at the world. after the global financial crisis in 2008, the oil price rose from under $10 to a barrel to the famous $147 a barrel in one day. an enormous windfall came into russia. russian growth rates were the highest in the world. igher then china in those years. he got carried away with this notion that this is the russia that he is ruling. the system is going to take advantage of that and russia is going to be this high growth economy. that will make russia. the definition of a competitive russia in a global economy and the global economy where it's at. it was a huge shock to russia. the rebounded quite well. up.ebounded back what became very serious was the eurozone crisis and the threat of a renewed recession. think at that point, putin started to rethink things and pull back. the winners are not going to be the ones that get these super high growth rates when everyone is growing, it's going to be the ones that best resist and survive in adverse shocks to the global economy. this is well before sanctions or .ven hints of sanctions he began policies that were designed to make the russian economy more robust. when putin looks at -- he has a project with a capital p. or mission with a capital m. mentioned his determination in chechnya from the very beginning. he even writes in this 2000 -- from 2000, the single best source of how he thinks and where he comes from, he said, "dealing with the chechnya problem, preventing the collapse of russia, that is my mission." you may think that sounds pretentious. i really believe it. missionit's a historic and he will sacrifice his career. that is interesting. the whole thing for him is a big project. it is strategic and long-term. i'm not saying whether he is right or wrong. people say he's leading russia y wrong,ompletel dead-end path that is weakening russia. we won't be around to make the judgment. on the shorter-term, contrary to what you might think, he has been quite successful and he continues to amaze me. he surprised me with these sanctions against food imports from the united states and the eu. as -- portrayed as calculated. --s was an x one opportunity excellent opportunity to introduce protective measures for the russian food industry which has been devastated imports. food imports into russia had risen by eight times since 2000. meanwhile, its own domestic production had barely increased at all. the whole russian food industry was being wiped out by imports. russia is a member of the wpa. now he has a great handle on it and this is what he is doing now . people are talking about how russians are going to suffer as consumers because they will have to find russian substitutes. they love that stuff. all russians can now show their sacrifice by eating buckwheat. i think that putin is often more resilient than we give him credit for. it seems like he is blundering from one to the next. he is a strategic thinker. with anntage he has economy that is 1/10 the size of the adversaries he has lined up against him, he is able to take advantage of the fact that he is an autocrat. he doesn't have to answer to a party or a parliament or his people. power struggle. the ability to make decisions with his huge popularity ratings right now -- they will never last. they never do. but, they aren't there right now. -- they are there right now. i'm not saying he is going to continue. it is better to think about giving him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is himg than to underestimate and think the country is fragile and is falling apart. we can make a but of wrong decisions. our confrontation with putin through sanctions are already very dangerous. if we continue, there will be further ones. not just ultimately down the line for the unity of the western alliance. wait until it really starts to bite and various countries realize how little the u.s. has at stake economically with this whole thing and how much trade withn europe russia. by someone from a european country that pointed overlook, when this is all , we are still neighbors with russia. we have to think about what happens then. these factors enter. what happens to russia domestically. do we have any sort of game plan? what are we doing to the liberal opposition in russia with our sanctions? what are we doing to the new sector of the russian economy? they are only hitting the new, progressive, modern sector. the old soviet legacy section of the economy is virtually untouched. ,here are a number of questions not just about global affairs, of about future evolution russia. a plan abouthave futureppens if russia's -- we can all think that somehow the russians will rise up and be angry at putin and not at the west. that is not realistic. they are very angry at the west and americans. these are the things we will be living with after this conflict is resolved. war thatonflict is a russia has waged against a neighbor. europe sure what part of the person you talked to was from. if he is in the north, that is a ways from the south. thinking, stop including intermedia -- including in our media and our government statements, we have thinking about what we're going to do if russia has invaded ukraine. russia has invaded ukraine. through it piecemeal little green men. it could be described as a covert invasion. it is not covert any longer and putin is losing. the russians are losing. , is he going issue to accept defeat or declare victory and go home? there are face-saving ways of ending this conflict. in ways that will preserve the territorial integrity and sovereignty of ukraine and allow putin to say he got something out of it. or he can double down. my guess is, he is at a crunch point. in the next week, the guns are already firing -- it could go one of two ways. either an all-out, really serious war in ukraine which could be devastating to ukraine and russia, or he can back down. tohave not wasted our time talk about his biography and his political personality. he does not strike me as somebody who backs down. >> i don't think he's going to invade ukraine. >> he identified with a cornered rat. he said he understood how it felt to be a cornered rat. >> i think his point is really important. to say that what is happening in convenient been fiction in washington. to pretend that it hasn't really been an invasion. that has bought space and time does not look like super successful diplomatic efforts. there is always more wishful inking than reality. he is not one to say, thank you, barack obama. calling it an invasion and not treating it in a way tomorrowou woke up morning to a gigantic headline in the new york times saying " youia invades ukraine would have a different response than what has happened here with this monthlong escalation. i agree with the analysis there. question is around the sanctions. doinguck me that we are this as something one can do as opposed to even having a particular sense that this is going to produce or have a reasonable chance of producing different outcomes. looking at our analysis of putin's personality, it is hard to say -- it strikes me that most of the people who study putin, looking at sanctions will tell you that he is not a man that if you slap on the wrist he .oes not care that much i may be missing something. sanctions are a double-edged sword. there is not much enthusiasm for american -- the american private sector. i would like to think there is offramp -- that the you said he is the most powerful leader since stalin. all of the leaders up until power leader a they had to report to. he does depend on an elite around him. that lead is quite globalized. they have swiss bank accounts to newir kids are going england prep schools. i do think they represent some bolder ability -- bolder ability lity.lnerabi they see a downside of the full out war. one thing we have not talked about, what's going on in ukraine. one thing that will be going on in ukraine, if russia moves in with regular troops and takes ,ack over those three cities then russia is going to be finding itself fighting in urban insurgency. -- an urban insurgency. >> somebody was talking today ,bout come at once the ukraine they might be running into some trouble. they are facing this decision really turn do we what was a lie or falsehood that this was a grassroots uprising of ukrainians against their government -- the evidence is that was not the case. do they turn it into a ukrainian insurgency in order to wash their hands of it? or are they going to be stuck doubling down in order to not suffer an embarrassing the feet? -- defeat? >> if i could ask one more question. workinganctions are not in the sense that they are changing putin's behavior, what are the alternatives? people proposed two different alternatives. one is to go back to deterrence and try to deter putin from a formal invasion. not necessarily through committing troops on the ground or anything like that, but by promises of military aid or intelligence assistance. that is one category that the president really has taken off the table to this point. the second category is to try a grand bargain with russia. oftry to figure out a way reassuring putin. options?f those viable or options that have appeal in european capitals? >> i want to hear what everyone else has to say. on the latter, i would say there is zero chance. barack obama has made it very clear to his advisors and others .hat he is done with putin there won't be anymore resets. he will not be searching for a grand bargain. to not be a putin reliable partner. >> one of the other options you that would befied --come in moscow should be for the united states or for ukraine or anye other country from being a member of nato sunday. orre are some extremely highly revered figures in this who have floated this idea. -- a member of nato just as we could have people on this panel who would disagree. i think it would be devastating to do that. remember how hard the russians tried to prevent the baltic states from coming into nato. and so did a whole lot of people in this country. there were times i felt like i was the only member of the country -- council on foreign relations that wasn't in favor of nato if latvia and estonia were not in nato today, i bet you anything there would be russian troops stomping around in their size 14 boots, at least in estonia, where there is a heavy russian population. we have already as a result of putting an expanded nato in place, to some degree contained the phenomenon we are talking about. >> thank you. >> i completely agree with you, susan, a grand bargain is out of the question completely. i also think a full-fledged russian invasion with official russian troops into eastern minimal likelihood. why? because i think pouty continue is -- putinthat thinks that is our trap. that is what he thinks we want force him to do. he is very sensitive to that. therefore, the options for the feature lie in between those which is murky muddling through. cares aboutk putin reputation report fact he might be seen to be backing town. project is much bigger than ukraine. very little to do with ukraine per se. is for the future of russia. and his repeated statements that historically russia today would a great nation as pop louse and powerful as the united honorers agor a russia had not continually been andrun into wars revolutions i find it difficult to believe that a guy can say he said ity times as -sighted as tot d.n.a. sequence not to think that the whole game is to lure him into a military invasion of eastern ukraine. nationalism andth nick russian stuff and orthodox that putin heng espouses ising i tactics. i think all he does is believe in russia and if you leave russia alone and don't undercut russia, russia will be great. it is a great civilization. we are a great people and we values and we have the spirituality. it is very mystical in that all about russia. and, yeah, i'm maybe i'm completely wrong. maybe -- you are not. >> i think that is the last thing he would do. >> from your lips to god's ears right and iou are really hope you are, then it is the off ramp. that could be handled thatmatically in a way would not embarrass him in the way that he deserves. that is the geithner doctrine. that is what we wrote this paper about. >> it doesn't seem fair that some people who did all of that in the financial crisis should not be punished, but if that is your concern, you will never solve the problem. if our only concern is to punish putin -- >> i'm saying. agreeing with you but that is the exact royalty approach. we have -- right approach. presume.o >> pour tim geithner. he just got compared to vladimir putin. [laughter] >> vladimir putin should be compared to bernie madoff or somebody like that. who do you punish? clicks ok, i think we will go to the audience. the audience will bring us back. >> wait for a microphone because this is being broadcast. please identify yourself. we will take three at a time. let's start at the front and work back. and maybe here and then yes. >> thank you. from jp morgan chase. we have several meetings coming up before the baltic summit and the nato summit. all of those could have good conversations on russia. what do you expect out of those meetings? >> thank you. here in the second row. >> for the panelists, my had aon is when he would war people usually don't believe action.n government here in the united states or over here other countries. you can elaborate on how people feel their own values, their moral values or the way they are against other countries whether they invasion own claim for free democracy or whether it is good, in can you a really statement from leaders putin or other russian leaders now or in history? and then what do you to say policy is usually obligatory. >> thank you. rob?hen yes, >> thanks very much. >> i'm derek mitchell and i write the mitchell report. i want to push a little bit on something dr. gaddy said at the outset. essentially, that putin has no interest in being a world leader or global leader, that he period.sia firster, is, given the fair amount that we've heard in the last year or so about putin's thatest in a eurasia union would be beyond russia and would stand as something of a counterpoint to the american , how do we bring those two seemingly opposing thoughts together? that suggest that putin 's ambitions may be larger than at this point we are giving him credit for? >> thank you. we will take those three and then go back in a moment. would anyone like to start? .n the nato meetings access to take this last question quickly -- >> just to take the class question quickly, whether putin is focused first eurasian, and then the union as more of an expansion project. in my own view, there is no contradiction there because he still sees eurasia as russia. and in fact, as part of that project, really, good and has meant to say, that does not mean thell wholesale reconquer soviet union, but he sees this in a category that is separate from the category of foreign policy. i think he has pretty consistently spoken in terms of the country abroad. also, i think he sees his --ntry at the counter -- as he views his country in terms of expanding common is a around the globe. but he does see "russia first" includes a policy of restoring russia's status as a great power in order to have an equal seat at the table with the united states again to the best of its ability. to me, that is how you square that circle. >> and not just restoring its status, but also recovering territory occupied by, or populated by, russians. "russia firster" depends on what you mean by russia. if it includes odessa and places like that, then you are back into the reason we are having this panel today. this goes back to the 19th century and i think president obama is right to say that putin is thinking in 19th-century terms. there was this concept in the 19th century, particularly in europe, particularly in italy, which was the use of force to expand territory on ethnic lines. that is the big problem. otherk thought on the rubble of questions. -- the other couple of questions. in terms of the beating that is coming up, it is important that they do no harm. which is to say, that they do not expose fissures by either transatlantic or between the private sector and the public as much as possible. and as to your question about statements from leaders, i will say something that is in a backhanded way a compliment to of putin from the title cliff and fiona's book. he tells you exactly what he's thinking. he tells you exactly what is going to do. and then he does it. and now we have a problem. on the eurasian union, i think that whole thing has been wildly exaggerated. anybody who would think that this eurasian union of russia, and the goal was ukraine and hkstan stan -- kaza essentially. everyone else is secondary. any thought that this could be a counter form, you would be an idiot. wooten is not an idiot. -- putin is not an idiot. what russia needs most of all to be robust is markets for these dinosaur enterprises, these companies, these massive, huge dinosaurs that were inherited ofm the soviet union, most which were defense enterprises. and they cannot sell anything to anybody, essentially, outside their own market. they are trying to sell it to the other former soviet countries. they are highly integrated in the defense industry. basically, it was a defensive move, not even undertaken with a great deal of enthusiasm by putin. but treated as a defensive move, which i think he thought the european union posing the black-and-white alternative, it -- ukraine, either you are now associated with the european union, or you are completely with the eurasian union and there can be no bridge between the two, was regarded by food and -- by putin as an aggressive measure. i'm channeling him. i'm not saying i agree with it. here i am just trying to protect my economy, and you guys are undercutting me. i think it fed into his paranoia about tensions with the west, specifically about the european union, which he increasingly began to regard as the political .rm of nato somewhat different than the u.s., but it plays into that form. the reestablishment of the european union -- of the eurasian union, i think that is all exaggerated. >> an additional meeting to keep an eye on is the g 20 meeting in brisbane, where the prime minister of australia, tony abbott, suggested after the downing of malaysian air lines 17 that putin may not even need to go to australia for it if he did not respond in adequate fashion. but if he does go, he will be environment in australia where 39 people were killed. and if he doesn't know, will china and india and others not go as well? , will chinasn't go and india and others not go as well? to the middle there, and then the gentleman in the blue shirt as well. >> thank you. i am a reporter for the russian newspaper. you made quite a systematic analysis of what putin's priorities are and what the messages are that he wants to send to the world. and you mention that what was done in ukraine, the way his message was sent, was too much. is, what do you think are the options for putin to send this message? he expressed his concerns, for , verbally many times. and some commentators have said that the conflict in georgia in 2008 was a sort of wake-up call, and also a strong message about russian concerns for nato enlargement. and these concerns do not seem to be heard. what are the other options for him? and do you think the west shares at least partly responsibility for this because his messages were not heard? >> thank you. the german right in front of you. -- the gentleman right in front of you. but thank you very much. economist.red i understand that the focus has been on global among local, and economic issues. but one thing i have not heard anything about his demographics in russia. others have written about this quite a bit. in ramp and change tuberculosis, the rampant use of alcohol and tobacco, and the low demographic growth of the russian federation and some of the other republics. if anyone would like to address that, i would appreciate it. >> thank you. we can take one more question. yes, this gentleman here. >> i wanted to pose a quick question. >> would you identify yourself? >> john woodward, i'm sorry. into theukraine back picture itself. it tends to get lost in the shuffle sometimes. -- i will promise the question with the thought that i think some of the political divisions in ukraine are, some of them are serious. in the twenty-year year history since independence, they have struggled to reconcile their own internal differences and problems. i suppose you could say that one offramp for putin would be to back away from an insurgency in eastern ukraine and resort to political interference and try to gain as much a possible -- as much as possible, particularly in southern ukraine, using clinical interference and other forms -- political interference and other forms to gain what it might want. on the new leadership possibilities in ukraine for reconciling the differences that have existed in ukraine, and i think they are real, and what that portends for russia and for putin and what might be a strategic it alternative. that last one first. it is important to bring ukraine into it. often, i do find our conversation here in washington is very reflection is. there is washington. there is moscow. there are european titles. endo, by the way, -- and, o, by the way, there is ukraine, the territory on which this is playing out. i think what you have described is the strategy that russia has orangepecially since the revolution in 2000 in ukraine of destabilization . the entire revolution was a response to the failed attempt by russia to buy the previous government of ukraine's acquiescence. it was essentially a billion-dollar bribe from the point of view of moscow. any felt they had invested anonymous amount of money and manipulate in a political process in ukraine to suit their and command that this -- to suit their needs and this are presented the failure of that effort. it is pretty clear they are pursuing a strategy of both political, military, and economic destabilization throughout ukraine. they are already trying to do that. they have not written to be super successful in that effort so far, but i don't see it as , one, in lieu of the other. it is part of the playbook. and the question about nato enlargement and whether this was a rational response on the part of moscow and what else could he have done, that is such a distorted view of history and it's hard to know what he could've done there. ukraine is not joining nato, and that was never a subject of this. secondly, nato enlargement last occurred practically a decade ago. this is not a proximate cause for the de facto russian military invasion of ukraine, and to suggest there is some direct causal linkage is almost absurd as an actual factual matter. ina broader kind of, was this part of the grievance and thateir tip of russia putin is taking into it, i suppose we could have a conversation around that. but it is very hard in a factual sense to look at this in any way as a direct response to anything having to do with nato. footnotegh, and ironic to what susan has just said, and i grew with every syllable of what she just said, is that depending on how this current crisis plays out, it's very will havehat putin changed the attitude of many ukrainians and the ukrainian government and they will be begging to go into nato. once again, it's creating your own enemies. one thing to keep in mind about ukraine is that ukraine has had 20 years of one lousy government after another. they never went through the genuine, albeit in some ways very flawed, reform timeframe that russia did. and they are paying the price for this. if ukraine can survive this crisis with its territory and sovereignty intact, it could take a deep rest of relief and realized it has -- a deep breath of relief and realized it has one more chance. nameorwitz, if i got your right, it's a very important point that you raise. if vladimir putin were a real strategist, he will be worried -- would be worried about three things in reverse order. china in the long run. the rise of political islam in the south, number two. and most of all, what i call the pogo factor. we have met the enemy, and it is us. the most dramatic and vivid manifestation of that is the , which you time bomb have very correctly characterized. russians, slavic citizens of the russian federation, are in deep negative growth rate. for russians,y slobs, particularly males, -- if i, particularly males, were a russian i would be dead 10 years ago. and a number of my russian [indiscernible] of longevity. it is what rush is not doing, in part, and that is that it -- it is part of what russia is not doing, and that is not becoming a state. there is some part of russia that is not being heard because among other things, russia no longer has a free and open media. think the first question was directed to you. >> i can answer. the second question, that is the topic of eternal focus, the demographic crisis in russia. i read -- i wrote another book with another co-op or last year traps", called, "bear and it's about russia as well. it speaks about the demographics and verse rate and so forth. it kind of debunks some of that, so it would be of interest to read about the alleged crisis. on this question directed specifically to me by the gentleman from the russian newspaper, i'm kind of in the same boat as susan. putin has a distorted view of the world. he has a distorted view of the united states and its tensions -- its intentions. we do suffer from this thought that everyone should automatically assume everything good about us. you cannot do that. you cannot be the critical. we have a lot of problems in that regard. but what fiona hill and i do in the new edition of the book we are doing, is try to really delve into that, what prudence view -- putin's view of america is, where it comes from. we find it is very distorted. we tried to be as objective as possible in that regard. and therefore, to try to give an answer of, what would an in person-- what would a with an incredibly distorted view of circumstances do in contrast to what he actually did? me, this is so much high political and counterfactual, that it doesn't make sense. -- hypothetical and counterfactual, that it doesn't make sense. and the questions of guilt, i hate those questions. i hear those from the russian side and from the american side, of who is to blame for all of this. it is fruitless. it is especially for listing going forward if we really are trying to solve this problem. -- it is especially fruitless going forward if we really are trying to solve this problem. it will get a lot worse in the future if we do not solve it. so let's just solve the problem. historians can worry about who is to go to the -- who is guilty and who deserves to be punished. the real problem is, what will we do if the population in ukraine continues? putin has not been successful in undermining ukraine other than by means of military. what they could really do to ukraine economically, not just politically, if they chose to do it, rather than middle -- military force, that is another reason why i tend to think a full-scale military invasion of ukraine would not make any sense. there are many other ways, unfortunately, that russia could destroy ukraine. and there's no way we could protect ukraine. if russia were to just walk away from ukraine, don't do anything, pretend it never existed, we could in the west never support ukraine. it is so dependent on russia. russia subsidizes that economy to the tune of $5 billion to maybe $10 billion per year. ukraine's future depends on russia. it's just a simple fact. ukraine will never be a free, democratic, and flourishing country until wash a is at least moving in that direction. that is just the fact. and to think that we can somehow develop and protect and make a wonderful society and country movingukraine without russia in the right direction, i think that is utopian. on assistance to ukraine and whether or not -- i mean, that is often held up as -- there was an article about a week ago where the author said the challenge is to support ukraine. but if what you said is right, then that actually should not be the strategic objective, because it is destined to fail. >> i think cliff is making some really important points with this, and to be clear, my point was that russia had tried not the negative versions, although they had done the negative versions before, but that they felt they had purchased the ukraine government before and had already invested significantly in destroying the ukrainian political system. it did not work to their full satisfaction. so now you're right, it's a very grim scenario. talking about ukrainian dependence on russian energy supplies, ukrainian food, the economic issues, i think it is right to say that anything the united states or even western europe were to offer, ukraine say that theyy are considering the possibility of anything that could come close. >> i know we're coming to the end. one thing that is in the same spirit of what will cliff and susan had said. i don't think there's a danger that russia is going to completely blockade or walk away from ukraine. and it kind of the flip version, or the other side of one reason , that is,y russians citizens and leaders of the russian federation want to be in ukraine. the bonds between these two countries are beyond those of near neighbors. ukraine is the cradle of russian civilization, as we all know. ukrainians have relatives in russia. so many russians have relatives in ukraine. we just have to hope that somehow this very dangerous situation plays out in a way so that russia and ukraine regard each other as well it is rather than russia insisting upon treating ukraine as an amputated limb where russia can still feel , and i'm losing my metaphor here, so it back on. it back on. if they can be not just neighbors, but relatives, that would be the kind of political and philosophical space in which they could get vast -- passed what is going on between them right now. let's just hope they survive the next week. >> thank you. to carnegie for hosting us today. and to all of you for coming. and with that, we are adjourned. [applause] [captions copyrigh [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] coming up on c-span, a decision on education policy and the new common core education standards, followed by conversations on the idea festival. we will hear from cancer biologists andrew hessel and hbo rick perry is inc washington thursday for discussion on the new politics witheo.immigration . we will be live at this event hosted by the heritage foundation and the national journal. starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. the american bar association nual homeland security law institute thursday in washington. you can see the discussion on cyber security challenges live starting at 2:55 p.m. eastern on c-span. are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday in primetime, we will visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at 8:00, highlights from this years new york ideas for him including cancer biologist andrew hassell. on sunday, q&a with charlie rangel. friday night, in-depth. saturday on afterwards at 10:00, retired neurosurgeon and columnist ben carson. night, lawrence goldstone on the competition between the wright brothers and glenn curtiss. american history tv on c-span 3 on friday at 8:00 eastern, a look at hollywood for trail of slavery. saturday night at 8:00, the 200th anniversary of the battle of bladensburg. sunday night at 8:00 p.m., former white house chiefs of staff discussed how presidents make decisions. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs. call us at -- or e-mail us. join the conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. tomorrow night on c-span, we examine opposing views on climate change. we will hear from the greenpeace cofounder who challenges the idea that humans were the cause of global warming. here is a preview. >> around the world, science is focused on this great catastrophe unfolding because of mans' use of fossil fuels. their meetings --was that all scientists? no. was bureaucrats and environmentalists. it was a consortium of people with agendas, of one world government led by taxation on the nations that burn fossil fuels. and this was i t. this was it. were invitedtists to international conferences at glamorous places around the world. they compiled these great reports and issued them and publish them. and the entire focus was do ctored by the press around the world, and it became of great concern. meanwhile, al gore is writing his second book. "the inconvenient truth." you know what happens from that. that sci-fi movie. and there's al gore with his academy award. truth,"onvenient best documentary 2007. unipcl gore and the received the nobel prize. end of global warming scare has peeaked. a look at both sides of the climate change debate followed by the testimony of the former before aistrators senate environment subcommittee thursday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. look at a poll examining attitudes towards public schools and how americans feel about the new common core state standards. gallupta kappa and hosted this event. >> good morning, everyone. how's it going? all right. ok, start. first of all, on behalf of gallup welcome to our beautiful great hall. my name is brandon. i am the executive director of education. theghted here to kick off results from the 46th annual poll.p op it started in 1969 which was many years before i was born. appreciation for how many years we have been looking at public perception of schools. a special opportunity every year to share that with you. it's interesting, gallup in addition to the special half century of research we have done in theaboration with pdk last year has conducted more education than any organization we can think of. if i were to summarize some of the most important things we have learned in the last year, which i am going to do in a few short minutes, it's safe to say seeing iswe are that something is very wrong. but we have to be careful about what we mean when we say something is very wrong. because there is a lot of stuff that is still going pretty darn well. and i wonder if we haven't as a started to become incredibly negative about schools and education. this is not just an american phenomenon. the whole world is worried about what is happening with education systems from kindergarten through career. is what's interesting one of the things we have always learned from this poll is that even though americans, when you ask him about public schools nationally are pretty negative about that. when you ask parents who had kids in school about how they think their kids' school is doing, they are glowing ratings. if you say, how do you think we are doing nationally? not so good. what about your kids school? prettyns are feeling darn good about that. it is similar to what we know about congress. if we ask americans about congress, ratings are as low as they have ever been in the history of asking that i should. we have no confidence in congress. but if you asked them about their congressman or woman, they love them. bizarre thing. any of us who live in washington, you feel this every day. gore are great americans who to work in washington for a federal government every morning. but somehow we're in the middle of gridlock. literally and figuratively if you commute in from vienna like i do. i was just in san bernardino last week. it is the second poorest city in america. i was there with the superintendent of of schools. he gave an address in front of 8000 employees. if anybody was, would be low on hope it would be this place. it is just the opposite. i have never seen more hopeful people in any school district i have been in. he had an interesting thing he said to all of his staff. pointd, and this is my about being careful about what we think is going wrong. he said, it is not the people that are the problem. it's the system they wake up to every morning. so let me tell you what we have learned in the last year from which surveyedl 650,000 students. we learned that for every year they stay in school, they are less engaged in school. in elementary school, engagement is aat 75%. and 44% in high school. the longer they are in school, the yet engaged -- the less engaged they become. if a student believes that their school is engaged, and if they have one teacher who makes them excited about the future, they are 30 times as likely to be engaged in school. is just unbelievable. think about how powerful that energy from a single teacher in terms of its impact on the student can have. what we have learned about the teaching profession is pretty interesting. this is data from larger studies we have done on well-being. here is the fascinating thing about teachers. at the second-highest well-being of any profession in the united states. second only to physicians. that's amazing. if we are thinking about the secret to a good life, teaching may be one of the best professions you can go into. but here is where they get that marks. they are not doing so well on their work environment. and specifically their own workplace engagement. teachers, despite having the second highest well-being, are dead last on two things about their workplace. sayinge dead lastt in they feel their opinions that were count. on feeling her supervisors create an open and trusting environment. what have we done that teachers are dead last on that measure? a broken linkis between our education system and the economy. this was from three separate studies we did. we asked the same question. ands provost at college universities whether they think they are doing a good job of training students for success in the work lights. guess what percent are confident they are doing a good job? 96%. americans, general population, do you think college graduates are well prepared for success in the workplace? little different. 14% strongly agreed. vel executives of employers and only 11% strongly agree that college graduates have the skills necessary to do the jobs they are looking to fill. we know there's a ton of entrepreneurial energy and our schools. 42% of fifth through 12th graders plan to start their own business someday. 5% are interning in a work environment right now. how do we give them opportunities to let that appetite and desire come to version? you might have missed this story about google this year. they came out and said, we have looked at all of our hiring data and we found no correlation whatsoever with the test scores of candidates and their success of the job at google. how many of you missed that story? one of the most important educational stories of the year and most of us in education just glossed over it. google is one of the world's most admired employers. restes google, so goes the of the world. only five percent of superintendents strongly agree that grades and test scores are a great predictor of success in college. it seems that superintendents have believed what google just learned for a little bit -- for a while, because we surveyed them this year. we'll see some data from the how americans feel about testing. let me leave you with this. we're just on the largest study of college graduates. 30,000 college graduates in the u.s. three special elements about their college theirence that -- was in long-term its success in work. and they were these three simple things. that if you strongly agreed you had at least one professor who made you excited about learning, , you strongly agreed that the professors cared about you as a person, and here was the most important of the three -- who had a mentor encouraged your goals and dreams if you say strongly agreed to those three questions, it doubles your odds of being engaged in work and thriving in your overall well-being. think about how profound that impact is. ofsaw no difference by type institution, whether you graduated from a public, private, selective institution, top ranked. no difference by type of institution. but if you had that experience, how you did college was just astronomically different in terms of your trajectory of success in life. here is the killer. only 14% of college graduates in the u.s. hit that mark. are you kidding me? this is not dropouts. these are not high school graduates. this is college graduates. and on that one simple measure of having felt they had a m entor, only 22% hit that item. so let me say to you another way -- eight out of 10 college graduates don't feel they had a mentor and relationship in college. we've got to be doing better. it's not the people that are what is wrong right now. it may be the systems we have created around them. i think we could agree we have done a marvelous job creating improved accountability systems around schools in the last 20 years. i worry we have failed miserably creating engagement systems within them. with that, i would like to invite our great colleague to present results from the 46th annual pdk-gallup poll. thank you for being here. >> i want to extend greetings from our board of directors. education group that includes teachers in higher education faculty. we are committed to helping to grow and connect leaders in education. i want to bring greetings from our pdk board of governors. it is the foundation that funds the pdk-gallup poll every year. so as brandon mentioned, for 46 consecutive years pdk has enjoyed our partnership with gallup. george gallup senior started the poll in 1969. i wish i could say what brandon said. i was alive at that time. dr. gallup led the poll for 15 years working in close association with pdk. then he turned it over to his son alec. alec directed the poll for 25 years. itst the poll into recognition we see today. these are two great icons in polling. and it's created a great opportunity to investigate and understand what americans believe about the public schools. conductede poll is annually for 46 years, and there are very few polls that can say that, we can revisit many of the questions year after year and that allows us to be in a unique position to provide trend data, looking to see how americans' opinions change over time. the other thing i want to mention is we are dedicated to transparency. we list every question we ask verbatim in the poll. to take ate readers look of the questions. we make interpretations but we invite others to make interpretations based upon the way the question was asked. theere guided in development of the questions this year by a 15 member advisory council that met in february. these are education leaders representing a broad spectrum, teachers, superintendents, prince polls, policymakers, college faculty. the listing of the advisory council is included in the report you have. allow me to take a few minutes to share some high-level findings from this year's results. going to show you, by the way, are at our website. the website is pdkpoll.org. to the website, the interesting thing we try to do this year was we actually break o ut the responses you can see for the questions we have listed there. nationalnses for totals. and then responses by political affiliation, republican, democrats and independent. and finally the responses for public school parents. let's begin. with our common core standards. last year only 38% of americans had ever heard of the four words common core state standards. major change this year. over 80% indicate they have heard of the standards. described thatf- they know a great deal or a fair amount. then asked those americans, only those americans who said they had heard of the standards -- this is the 80% who said they the heard of some degree of standards. we asked them a straightforward question -- do you favor or oppose having teachers in your community use the common core state standards to guide what they teach 33% favored the standards while 60% were opposed. that is in the light blue bar that you see. however, we see that there are significant differences for republican and democratic responses. in democratic response seen yellow, and the republican's response anin orange. we then asked those who favored the standards why. number ones the reason is that they thought it would help students learn more of what they needed to know regardless of where they attended school. those who we asked oppose the standards, why they oppose them. the number one response they told us is that they were worried it would limit the flexibility of teachers to have to teach what they would think is best. to testing.n we know from last year that only 22% of americans believe that the increase in student testing performance of the schools in their community. while the other three quarters have said it hurt or made no difference. alldo americans lump standardized test together? what about other assessments like college entrance exams and advanced placement tests? see relatively strong support for these kinds of standardized tests. and that is what you see in the dark o rarange and the light orange. act,e for sat at the top, promoted from one grade to the next. the second set of bars. awarding high school credit, advanced placement exam for the third set. and then finally test to determine whether students can be awarded a high school diploma. but then we asked, and let me read the question to you -- some teachers believe student standardized tests help them know more about their students academic achievement. other teachers believe that tests dostandardized not help them. what do you think? that is a new question. it was clearly a very different response. americans have a divided opinion. 45% believe it helps teachers. 54% believing it does not. however, notice in the orange bars, those of the responses of public school parents. that is a very different response they gave us. much more negative view of standardized testing and how it helps teachers know more about their students. this actually opens the door for us to take a look at further research for next year's follow-up question to find out why did parents have a different opinion about this. years, the very first question on the poll is what do the biggest problem the public schools in your community must deal with? it is the first question on the poll. it is open-ended. we do not provide any prompts. we ask it intentionally first because we do not want any of the other questions to impact the responses. e, student tim discipline -- gangs, fighting, drugs -- that was the number one concern that americans had. but approximately 2000 -- in 2004 that began to change. now we see fully that 1/3 of americans indicate that lack of financial support is the number one problem facing the schools their community. student discipline still registers, but that has been added this year. these are new. concerns about standards with all of the information about the common core. and difficulty getting and keeping good teachers. brandon mentioned these questions. and i will share this year's results. again, early on, dr. gallup included these questions. we asked americans to grade the school. it's actually a three-part question we ask. the first question is to grade the schools in your local community. as you can see, approximately 50% gave the schools in their community an "a" or a "b." this is a consistent finding we have seen for several years. this has not gone up or down very much. it state about the same. -- stayed about the same. now, this is the second part of the question. we asked americans to grade the nation's schools. brandon talked a little bit about this. you can see the responses are very different. i will suggest to you that in are no nation's schools. in residingare communities. this is literally the depiction of the school in the media. what's interesting here is that the results again have stayed fairly consistent for for several years -- for. and brandon mentioned this also, this is the third part of the question. we asked americans -- we asked parents to grade the school that their oldest child attends. you can see, of the three comedies of the highest grade. they hover around 70%. they have gone as high as 77%, " a's" and "b's." this score tends to go up and down a little bit more than the other two scores. local control of education in the u.s. remains an emotional issue. we have questions in our archive that address it. this year we reuse a question. question.eused a opinion who should have the greatest influence -- the federal government, state government, or the local school board we asked the question in 2003. it was the local school board that should decide what was taught locally. we brought the question back in 2007. we saw a very different response. from 61%. it went down to 49% of americans who thought the local school board. and proportionally both federal and state governments had higher scores in 2007. so we wanted to bring the question back now seven years later in 2014 if that trend -- to see if that trend had changed. it has. now it is moving in the other direction where americans are looking, they believe that local school boards should have more say in what's being taught locally. so, this completes the high le vel findings we have. what i'd like to do now is to bring our four panelists forward and join us up front. let me introduce them as they come pu. up. katie is president of the education trust. tom is executive director of the national school boards association. dallas -- i forgot to tell you, there are no assigned seats. dallas is superintendent of the baltimore county school district. and nate ward is the senior program officer at the bill and melinda gates foundation. we have more extensive biographies included in your materials if you want to know more about our four. so, we're going to open it up to questions in just a minute, but . have a question here all,y question to any and given what we have learned in the poll and from other information you have, how do you see the invitation of the common core state standards for seating? -- proceeding? in.t>> i'll jump i like to thank gallup for conducting this poll. it is helpful for us. i think of this question the issue of standards gets right to the heart of it. my sense from reading the poll a growinghere is public concern about the standards because there is a perception that they are driven by the federal government. we saw much evidence, i think, of a lack of confidence in the federal role of education. we will talk about that, i'm sure. what's interesting is when i think when you talk to parents and community folks, business leaders, they would generally support what the common core and academic standards are trying to achieve. so i think the reality of standards has been overtaken by the perception of standards. we also know that a lot of the information is coming from sources other than public schools. so, part of it is that we have a job to do to explain what the standards are and what we are all trying to do in terms of improving education in this country. >> your question was a little bit about implementation. let me take that. my experience certainly, and i spent a fair amount of time with teachers in that general feel really good about the quality of the common core standards. i think most polls suggest that -- that's loud. that that suggest continues to be the case. i think all of us certainly knew that continued support from teachers would be a function of two things. much support they got in implementing the very different teaching strategies that are necessary for the standards. and second, how fair the timeline surrounding imitation is. we have gotten into many parts of the country both of those things wrong. not enough support and timelines that feel unfair. both of those things need real attention if the implantation effort is to get support it needs from teachers. very quickly i will jump in -- can you hear me? >> i get all the volume and you get none. >> i'm a principal. katie hit the sun ahead. as a superintendent, one of the things we have all realize about implementation is the issue we are having in classrooms and why teachers do not feel they are as prepared to teach at a higher level but the instructional shifts that are required to teach to these standards. one of the things we have to remind folks is anytime we have a country throw a name to anything, people throw darts. your summary states looking to repeal common core state standards. in maryland, we call it the maryland college and career standards. it is all the same. we have had standards for years. we have earned what standards are doing is just setting the bar for what we want students to know and be able to do. the question around the flexibility in terms of how you teach those, that is where leadership has to come in

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Latvia , Vietnam , Republic Of , Moscow , Moskva , Russia , Malaysia , Australia , Germany , Texas , Baltimore County , Maryland , Kiev , Ukraine General , Ukraine , China , Georgia , Brisbane , Queensland , Syria , Kremlin , Washington , District Of Columbia , Iraq , Estonia , India , Odessa , Odes Ka Oblast , Vienna , Wien , Austria , Cuba , Dallas , Switzerland , Italy , Americans , America , Ukrainians , Chinese , Soviets , Russian , Vietnamese , Ukrainian , Soviet , German , Russian Federation , Swiss , Malaysian , Russians , American , Jim Foley , Boris Yeltsin , Ben Carson , Michael Brown , Susan Glasser , Miguel Brown , Charlie Rangel , Vladimir Putin , George Gallup , Rick Perry , Greta Brawner , Ron Johnson , Baltic States , Lawrence Goldstone , Clifford Gaddy , Patrick Moore , Andrew Hassell , Al Gore , James Foley , Lyndon Johnson , Glenn Curtiss , Phi Delta Kappa , John Coleman , Derek Mitchell , Tim Geithner , Jews Susan , Peter Baker , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Tony Abbott , Putin , John Woodward ,