>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: yesterday at this table, we had a 68 minute conversation with iran's foreign minister, javad zarif. tonight part two. a conversation about the nuclear deal, the relationship between iran and the u.s., and the possibilities of future engagement. here is that conversation. if there was a nuclear agreement, is it likely to lead to more cooperation in terms of u.s.-iranian relations,

u.s.-iranian cooperation u.s.-iranian joint efforts, if it finds itself on the same side? do you somehow make the argument that if we can get past this nuclear agreement, we can work together to defeat our common enemy, in this case, isil which is also the common enemy of your competitors in the region, the saudi's? min. javad zarif: i see a possibility for regional cooperation, which exists even now on dealing with all these issues. i believe the united states needs to make a very serious assessment of how policies that were based on a paradigm that from our perspective is outdated does not work for this time in

world history. this is a bit maybe philosophical. but you've got to look at it this way. in a globalized world, zero-sum games that is trying to impose a cost on somebody you don't consider to be friendly, does not work. we have common enemies. we have common challenges. we need to work for this so-called win-win situation, where everybody makes again. you cannot gain security at the expense of insecurity. this must become clear. i believe the united states is moving in that direction. if you look at the nuclear issue, the united states some in the united states including those you mentioned, they consider their gain to be our

loss, and our loss -- and our gain to be their loss. i think this is fundamentally flawed. charlie: do you view an american loss as a win for iran? min. javad zarif: not necessarily. i do not. i do not believe that in a globalized world anybody with any rationality can look at the international situation as a zero-sum game. unfortunately, many people do. charlie: does your government see the united states as the great state? min. javad zarif: our people the government in iran follows the people. it is not the other way around. if you look at the polls, the polls that are even conducted by american polling establishments including pew, a lot of polls

indicate that the iranian people are skeptical of u.s. intentions. even when it comes to nuclear negotiations. i believe the united states needs to convince the iranians that it does not harbor ill intentions against the iranian people. charlie: and the iranian government needs to convince the american people that it does not want nuclear weapons which would lead to a proliferation of weapons in the middle east, in your region. you need to convince the american people of that, because that is what they fear. they fear that if iran -- it is not that they are going to attack somebody, it is just that everybody is going to have nuclear weapons. everybody else will want nuclear weapons. is that a real possibility? min. javad zarif: as several

secretaries of state wrote in "the wall street journal," it is time for everybody to think of a world without nuclear weapons. that is the ultimate answer. you've got to make yourself accountable to the same criteria that you want the rest of the world to be accountable to. the united states which has used nuclear weapons in hiroshima and nagasaki, it does not have the authority to advise others on what to do and what not to do. we have made our own decision. we believe that nuclear weapons do not provide security for anybody. we have made a very solid determination that nuclear weapons run counter to our -- charlie: i understand. rouhani said that to me. we don't want nuclear weapons. why d you think the world doesn't trust you? min. javad zarif: because lies have been spread by the israelis

, who are the only ones in our region who possess nuclear weapons, the only ones who are not a member of the mpt in our region. yesterday, i was talking to the egyptian foreign minister. we want to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the middle east. why don't you push israel to accept this? tomorrow, if you have everybody in the middle east accepting, and everybody is there, ready to accept no nuclear weapons in the middle east so it is not -- netanyahu does not have any authority to become the nonproliferation guru of the world. this guy sits on 200 nuclear warheads, which are illegal have been developed in contravention of every international norm and treaty on nonproliferation. you want to be serious?

charlie: granted the point you are making about nuclear weapons , they did not sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and everybody is aware of that fact. min. javad zarif: so why don't you deal with that fact? this is the fact on the ground. iran did not invade any of its neighbors. israel every two years invades gaza. charlie: i don't want to go into that. it is not because of the reason you think. you are getting to the question of who provoked who. it looks to me like your friends -- hamas has survived this, and they will argue that they came out stronger in some cases. charlie: usually people -- let me ask you a basic question. one, why don't you want to provide the history that john

kerry and others have asked you to provide so that they will have a basis to look at? they would know more about what you had done and have a basis to make an evaluation about the future. you refused. min. javad zarif: we didn't. hold on. let's take one step at a time. somebody makes an allegation against you, it is up to them to prove it, not for you to disprove it. allegations have been made against iran one after the other. iran has been inspected in the last 10 years more than any other country in the world save japan. the only country that has been inspected more than iran -- i'm referring not to the polls recently, based on the 2013 points. iaea spend more money on iran

than any other country other than japan. charlie: do you recognize that the iaea says there are unanswered questions? they have 10. min. javad zarif: these are the questions. charlie: unanswered questions. if you want to prove your point, answer their questions. min. javad zarif: they got the questions based on allegations that israel provided to them. if people who are violating the npt continue to accuse others who have a track record of complying with their obligations under the npt with allegations what we can do is develop a framework for us to answer those questions, but it has to be clear that proving the negativity -- any lawyer will tell you that it is impossible to prove a negative.

somebody who makes an allegation , who presents an allegation must provide the evidence for that. the problem is the iara has been -- iaea has been searching iran for the last 10 years. charlie: let them come in. whatever they want. you say, we have nothing to hide. yes, we have centrifuges. we want to use them for peaceful purposes. i say to you, inspection is a big deal for trust and verification. whatever you want to do fine it as, it is a big deal. for the americans and for the iaea. min. javad zarif: iran will accept the highest international level of inspection. that is the additional protocol. go anywhere anytime? there are international

standards. go anywhere anytime where? which country is prepared to give you go anywhere anytime? all countries have industrial secrets and military secrets. if there are bases, and there is international criteria -- people come up with these historical arguments. we have an international set of measures. they are implemented in a lot of countries. iran has said that if there is an agreement, if we choose the path of cooperation instead of the path of confrontation because you cannot choose the path of confrontation and expect the side to cooperate -- it is either or. we are trying to go in the direction of -- ok, fine verification. that requires you to accept certain norms, certain international practices that

are now agreed upon and available to all countries. iran is prepared to accept the highest level of international -- charlie: just to show you that in the interest of what little i do know about the deal and what i've understood from different people, secretary kerry has said in conversations when the question was raised with him like i'm raising the questions with you, by the state department correspondent at cbs asking him about inspections and why should we believe inspections this time when there were thwarted in the past, john kerry said, these are the most insensitive -- expensive inspections we have ever seen. is that true or not? was the secretary speaking the truth? min. javad zarif: the secretary certainly speaks the truth to the american people. he can say and present the

inspections that are going to take place under what is known internationally. charlie: do you believe these are the most extensive, intrusive inspections you have ever been subjected to? min. javad zarif: iran is accepting the international protocol. the additional protocol is the highest standard of inspections available in the world. he is not lying. if iran implements the additional protocol, iran would be implementing the highest standards of inspection. but that is not exclusive to iran. that is the standard that some other countries are implementing. but let me tell you something. iran was prepared to implement that in 2003. charlie: why did everything fail in 2003? min. javad zarif: we implemented the additional protocol from

2003-2005. the united states government, at that time, chose the path of confrontation and torpedoed the possibilities for cooperation. the same people who killed the opportunity for cooperation then are advising now to kill this opportunity. i believe it would be prudent for the united states to look back at history and see how much it gained from choosing the path of confrontation with iran. charlie: if in fact, for some reason iran does not allow the inspections that are prescribed that is a violation of the agreement. and the united states would want to reimpose, add to the sanctions. min. javad zarif: we have a mechanism in place, that if iran does not comply with its part of the deal, or if the united

states and other p5 plus one countries do not comply with their part of the deal, then the other side, after going through a procedure, will be free to go back. this is obvious. it is a balanced approach. it is a reciprocal approach. we call it reciprocal. it has to be reciprocal. an agreement based on two sovereign countries dealing with each other must be based on mutual respect. we are not going to start this. secretary kerry and i did not waste all this time, 18 months nine hours in one sitting, from 9:00 in the evening until the following morning, simply to prepare a piece of paper that both of us are going to go home and start shredding. charlie: you both did come home and suggest different --

min. javad zarif: this was an unfortunate situation pushed by domestic politics. charlie: here and there. min. javad zarif: i didn't produced a fact sheet. what i would rely upon, and i think it is best to rely upon is the agreement. i think people here and people in iran should wait a couple months. we will come up with an agreement. the terms of that agreement will be public. nothing will be secret. in this day and age, you cannot keep a secret in this world. you know that. whatever we agree will be out in the open in a couple of days time or a couple of hours time. let us wait another couple of months. we will come up with an agreement, with clearly laid out terms, by june 30 i hope, and implement it.

we did not waste all this time, 18 months of negotiations, to prepare an agreement that either side wants to flout. charlie: what is the odds of that happening? min. javad zarif: reaching an agreement? if there is the mutual political will to abandon the path of confrontation and go for cooperation -- charlie: abandon the path of secrecy, and covert miss. -- covertness. let me make this point. they worry, they really worry most about not how many centrifuges you have. what they worry about is that you can secretly have a facility, like you did last time, and were forced to disclose. that's what they worry about.

they worry about a covert facility that they can't know about and don't have access to. min. javad zarif: charlie, let's look at the reality. what happened to iran was a pattern of denial. iran owns a part of a french consortium producing enriched uranium. we haven't been able to get a gram of uranium from it. you know that the united states in the 1950's and 1960's, in the absence of these built a nuclear reactor. then, after the revolution, we started to need fuel for that. the united states refused to give us feel for the reactor that it had built. it is a peaceful reactor. it cannot produce weapons. but the united states refused to

give us feel. we bought it in 1990 from argentina. in early 2000, we needed more fuel. that ran out. we asked for fuel from the iaea. they said, we won't give it to you. we said, we will build it ourselves. they started to panic. the iranian people, we have the scientific capability. we have the technological capability. people cannot wish that technological capability away. it is on the ground. what we are prepared to do is ensure that that scientific capability is used exclusively for peaceful purposes. that's what we are interested in. you cannot start history at the point you want it to start. you have to start history when the united states government went across the world, trying to deny iran of the fuel to run our reactor. ♪

charlie: you've been listening to the secretary of state and americans -- and they've been listening to you, and that is good. have you changed your mind about the united states? you have been sitting there. you both want this to work for individual reasons for reasons

reflecting of your countries' wishes. min. javad zarif: we both want this because we know that the other approach is counterproductive. the other approach does not produce results. confrontation harms us. it harms u.s. interest. it doesn't advance any objective. that is a realization that has been key to everybody trying to resolve this. so we have tested something that was not conducive to an outcome that either side believed to be in its interest. we are testing another option. an option that we always preferred. we preferred that option in early 2000's, when we made suggestions. i want you to understand that it is not the sanctions.

we were always at the negotiating table. we were always prepared to reach a negotiated solution. it was unfortunately segments of the united states administration who believed, and unfortunately continued to believe, that they can impose their views on the rest of the world. they can't. the sooner they realize that, the better we all will be. charlie: the president of the united states believes that sanctions brought you to the table, but he's prepared because he believes it is important for iran not to have nuclear weapons, notwithstanding what you've said, but that me -- min. javad zarif: we have made the decision. we made the decision not to have nuclear weapons. charlie: others have said that to me. let me talk about the breakout for a second. what is the breakout period? let me walk through it.

most people think the breakout period is the time you did everything you needed to do. if you broke off inspections that is how long it would take to get to nuclear. the conventional wisdom is to-three months. the americans have expressed some preference that it be a year, and that that extension last for 10 years. what is wrong with that? min. javad zarif: well, let me -- if i may, i'm not an expert, but i know the jargon. breakout meant, in the normal jargon that goes back to cold war and various discussions that took place during that time -- this is so-called disarmament 101 -- breakout is the time that

is required for a country to build and test a bomb. to build a nuclear weapon. now, the calculation for that is something that requires first to have the material, and to convert that material into an explosive device, and to build the bomb, and to build the warhead, and all of that. now, what you are talking about when it comes to iran, you are talking about the time that is required for iran to build material for one bomb. this is not to build a bomb. this is where the height comes in. for the past eight years iran has suffered all these sanctions, and we had enough material to build eight bombs. charlie: eight bombs? min. javad zarif: eight bombs. and we never did.

8000 kilograms of enriched uranium. during president ahmadinejad's time, when the united states and the rest of the world put all the pressure on him, demonized him, tried to create a security threat out of a country that never posed a threat against anybody, eight years 8000 kilograms, not a single bomb. nobody contests this argument. so, breakout is a hysteria. but iran doesn't want to build nuclear weapons. we are prepared to create the atmosphere of confidence. that will be done through certain measures. it doesn't mean that i accept

breakout, because i believe breakout is a hype and i believe nobody should accept breakout. people should listen to reality. people should listen to science. charlie: may i make one point? min. javad zarif: please. charlie: if it is that simple, why not just ship that enriched uranium out of the country? ship it to russia for example. min. javad zarif: that is a part of the deal. charlie: i thought it had been pulled back. min. javad zarif: it hasn't been pulled back. it is part of the deal. what we do with that is something we have already agreed upon. you will see, when the agreement comes out, what we will do with this. but we will address that issue. that i can tell you right now. when the deal is out, if there is a deal, when the deal is out

you will see what we do with that. you have to take that into consideration. when we had confrontation, we were sitting on what they consider eight bombs, and we never did build the bombs. because we believe bombs do not create security for anybody. charlie: is that the only reason? min. javad zarif: that is the only reason. if iran had the intention of building a bomb, nobody could have prevented us from doing that, but we didn't. we haven't gone in that direction, because unlike people who use nuclear bombs, and i'm sorry to use this, against innocent people in hiroshima and nagasaki, we do not believe that any moral argument can justify the use of nuclear weapons. none whatsoever. i went before the national court of justice and spoke for 90 minutes arguing that under no

circumstances is it legal to use a nuclear weapon. under all circumstances, using nuclear weapons is illegal immoral unjustified, and most important of all, will not provide any security for anybody. this is our conviction. that is why we didn't build the bomb. that is why we won't build a bomb. this, you can take to the bank. charlie: then why don't you do everything humanly possible to convince the world, and specifically the p5 plus one countries, to say to them we so passionately believe that nuclear weapons are awful, and we don't want them, and we will do everything that you need and more to convince you of that

rather than arguing over every little point, rather than refusing to answer some questions, rather than doing all that? min. javad zarif: we are not in a court. nobody has been given the role of a prosecutor. charlie: and you understand i'm not trying to prosecute here. min. javad zarif: i'm talking about the negotiations with p5 plus one. you and i can talk freely. what is the point here is that this is a negotiation between sovereign states. this is not one side demanding something from the other. we have a compounded mutual mistrust between these two, particularly iran and the united states. the rest some of them with concerns similar to ours. some are concerned about

sanctions. most people believe that the united states sanctions are illegal. so what we are doing is, we are negotiating the terms of an agreement, not an instrument of surrender. we don't want the united states -- the united states cannot expect iran to capitulate. i'm happy to hear both president obama and secretary kerry, understanding this, that capitulation is an illusion. you will never make it. this is important. some people believe that through pressure, you can bring people to capitulate. that won't happen in iran. i believe some people in the united states need to change that mentality. otherwise, we will be stuck with the same problems. charlie: do you believe that includes the president? min. javad zarif: i hope not. charlie: he has spoken to how

much he respects the iranian people. min. javad zarif: we need to prove that. each side needs to prove -- each side, sure. it has been compounded. mutual mistrust. we believe the mistrust of iran is not just -- we have reason to mistrust the united states because of our history. what we need to do instead of going back and rehashing old history is to have a serious agreement in place, and implement it. we have shown, in the past 18 months, and everybody has testified to that, that we implement what we agree. some people are worried that iran will implement what it agrees to. i saw an op-ed in one of your papers saying, the biggest worry is for iran to implement its part of the bargain. is peace an existential threat

to some people? is less tension and conflict an existential threat to some people? are people ready to change that perspective, to change that paradigm? that is an opportunity here. iran is an important country in the region. iran is an important country. charlie: no one will deny that. min. javad zarif: so is this important, to deal with that country with people who will not capitulate, but who are there to engage? iranian people have chosen the path of engagement. it is now high time, i believe for the united states to choose the same path. i believe we have seen some signs. we need to see that come to fruition through an agreement that is respectful of iran's rights and dignity. if you have that agreement, iran

will implement that agreement, because we believe that agreement is in the interest of everybody. charlie: thank you for coming. our foreign minister of iran. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: megan smith is here.

she is the chief technology officer of the united states. she has been called tech's chief evangelist in government. she left her executive role at google to bring her expertise at the white house. she has the task to unleash the power of technology on behalf of the nation. i'm pleased to welcome her to this table. megan: thank you, charlie. charlie: tell me more. what is the mandate of the chief technology officer? megan: it is a new job that president obama started as he began his presidency. it is embedded in the office of science, technology, and policy with the science advisor. he is awesome. he has such depth and creativity. our colleagues are watching for your science policy like ebola, or education, there are people

working on national security environmental, other things. dr. holder and i both report to the president. the key is, how do we both weigh in on policy, and make sure the techies are there when we are making decisions, and also, how do we instigate and help our government be much better at all of these things we need to be using? for example, if you look at healthcare.gov, here was this incredible policy that the president had created with a great business model, great partnership strategy economics, and the website was going to tank it? that is terrible. luckily, my colleagues fixed the website. and now, in the second round, 15 million americans have health care. nine out of 10 americans have health care. charlie: the point is? megan: you want the top tech

people in government. charlie: and to be in on liftoff? megan: to be part of it. in our government, we have extraordinary economist legislators, writers, the whole group. we have had experienced technical people working for everybody down below. they are not at the architecture table. technology is really part of strategy. not just implementation. you want the technical people with you. you've got a country that makes amazon, google, facebook, and twitter. shouldn't we have that talent there? charlie: clearly they should. and they should come, not necessarily just in terms of prices. they should be there in terms of building the future. megan: and crisis, when we are at war, we do the most extraordinary job of bringing all hands on deck. we invented computers together with the british.

the imitation game, that was the u.k. story, but we have our story. we want that at peacetime too. without that, we sometimes aren't making the best decisions , or architecture decisions. it would be so much cheaper if we used more open source. charlie: have we, in this country lost some of our potential because we have not allowed full employment of women in technology? megan: no question that that's true. you brought up turing. the nobel prize for computer science is named for alan turing . joan clark was there, elite mathematician. in our own invention of

computers a friend of mine was at harvard as a computer science student. she saw the photographs of our eniac and she saw these women in the photos. she said, who are these people? some people said, they are the refrigerator ladies. they don't look like they are modeling. she pursued the story. turns out, they were the first digital programmers in america six women. charlie: why were they not instantly known as part of the history? megan: it is incredibly interesting. i think part of it is discrimination. before the computers were invented, many women had that job. they were computing trajectories and equations for the war effort. that is why they said, figure out how to make this thing work. they did the ballistic trajectory. charlie: what happens if you do

not know the level and the extent of women being attracted to the field? we don't know about their achievements. we don't know what an exciting and satisfying life it could be. megan: exactly. even up to the 1980's, computer science was 30% to 40% women. we talked about steve jobs. there's this incredible photo from the launch of the macintosh. there is the "rolling stone" pictures that were published. they show this group of 10 people in a pyramid, actually 11. seven men and four women. every photo you see with the mac team, joanna hoffman she's credited with all the graphics and the user interface, none of them made it into the "jobs" movie. every man in the photograph is in the movie.

it is debilitating to our young women to have their history almost erased. charlie: how does that happen? what is the interest of somebody not recognizing the contribution of women? how do they benefit from that? megan: i don't see any real benefit of it. it is something we need to get over. african-american women calculated trajectories for alan shepard. john glenn wouldn't fly without katherine checking the map. the apollo mission, there's no african-american women in the movies that i ever saw. we've got to get these in there. if you know your past, your future is different. charlie: silicon valley. there are not nearly as many women as there should be out there, doing that work. why is it? megan: it comes from many things.

i think one of the fundamental ones was, it comes as the personal computer came. we bought them for our boys. i have a friend who had to get a key to her brother's room to do coding. our boys and husbands, they all had these computers and the women weren't in on it. if you are coding practice makes permanent. the more you play with it, the more you come to understand it. the men were doing that, growing up and making companies. there's a lot of unconscious bias across so much of what happens. for example, if there's a job women will apply if they have seven and men will apply if they have three. it doesn't mean anyone is wrong. we are humans, that is how we are. if you are managing people you notice that there is a bunch of

people with their hands up among that group, choose the best person for the job. charlie: it is not necessarily who has their hands up. megan: also, venture capital. 3% of venture money is coming to women. also, people of color are underrepresented. we got to get them in. the president has done nature of the job with outreach. what we are doing is, every time we are working, we launch a thing called tech higher. it is a very specific idea. using these coding practices that you train in, helping the employees -- we have 5 million jobs open in the u.s., half of them in tech, and they are not the ones that need a graduate degree. how do we help the employers take people with different qualifications, veterans and other people, and get them into tech?

charlie: is this the mandate of the chief technology officer? megan: not only from an economic perspective, making sure our companies have the people they need as soon as possible but the more diverse the team, the better the product. also, the jobs are all over the country. i was in st. louis. the incubator and boot camp folks there were opening a share space for youths to come in and join in. the jobs pay 50% more than the average salary. we want everybody in. they have these fun collaborative careers. charlie: do you worry about the future of artificial intelligence and robotics because one takes jobs, and the other can produce things that we

may not like the consequences? megan: i think it is incredibly important to be mindful around these areas. the best results happen when you have lots of people working together. one of the things i love, whether it is ai or ciber getting closer to the best technologies. secretary of defense carter was just out in silicon valley opening a new center. charlie: a new center for? megan: sort of a reserves center, innovation center, so the teams are right there with each other. charlie: so this is a center for the department of defense? megan: not so much defense only. they've opened up at u.n. plaza in san francisco. you are searching -- starting to see many others here in new

york. charlie: we talk a lot about the so-called smart watch. it can do all kinds of things. in terms of acting as a medical sensor, what is the future of that? megan: the quantified stuff. the president launched a precision medicine initiative to help us get better at health data, making sure we are looking at privacy and security. there's such an opportunity to do personalized or precision medicine for individuals and help with wellness as well as cures. wellness being a future monitor. you might catch disease, but you also might monitor and help yourself. charlie: what excites you most?

is it the extension of all the things we know or is it some unknown thing that most excites you, that you think might be around the corner, but you are not sure when and how? megan: my favorite thing is when i think about unlocking human talent and creativity. i just met someone who is using factories to help make things more efficient and effective. or whether it is somebody doing some measurement of themselves for their health, or whether it is just a brilliant storyteller somebody who's got a story to tell, and being able to use youtube or facebook, just this opportunity to help get more talent in. you talk about robotics. can we get robotics to do some of the dirtier jobs and get humans out of that? that is a pretty exciting thing. charlie: we are coming up on a presidential campaign the primary season, and then the general election in 2016.

what should be the debate about science? megan: it is interesting. president obama has done an extra ordinary job. it is so fun to come into this team. people think government is bureaucratic. i find it incredibly entrepreneurial. we have been missing what i call t.q., like i.q. i think we have a science forward leader, and i think whoever is coming will be science-forward. when we do this together, we get amazing results. the more we can have everybody be more technical -- just to show you something. this is the board for your cell phone. i was up at montclair, south

berkeley high school sitting with these great freshman young women, looking at this and talking about steve jobs. steve wozniak made the homebrew the first apple, basically. now we have these. how do we help our young people be technically literate as well as reading and writing? charlie: how do we add it to the core curriculum? megan: yes, have it there. these kids knew what all of this was because they have their phone. we were talking to them. we had some other kids joining in to higher-level robotics. why don't all of our children have a technical literacy? we have this weird idea that you would never have someone say, yeah reading wasn't really my thing at school. but they do say, math wasn't my thing. we have to change our

expectations for everyone. we have to change how we teach. charlie: so it is more than putting science and technology and the digital revolution at the front rank? megan: equal. not as an implementation thing but as something we do together. i think also -- charlie: it should be on the front line with reading, writing, and arithmetic. megan: the universe doesn't separate biology and other classes. you need to know all this stuff. this is the same thing, just a simple board with a chip in it. for young people, the u.k. is now teaching from second grade, they have these boards and they are teaching coding. charlie: are they ahead of us in terms of application of the digital revolution in governance? megan: we are really close with them. they formed something called the

d-5, the digital five countries. charlie: the five biggest countries in terms of? megan: being online. sony, for example. all the parents, children, and teachers, are all online. they are south korea, new zealand -- charlie: south korea is number one? megan: they are all different positions. south korea, new zealand israel. charlie: why new zealand? i don't know, somebody probably has their act together. the u.k. had a crisis that caused them to wake up, like our president. charlie: so, south korea, israel. megan: britain, new zealand and estonia. estonia, they are using this great backend. we are working to join. what it means to join the d-5 is

having open-source government. also, all those countries are working to teach code to all children in the country, just like you teach reading, so the children have a fluency with this. charlie: is all that the united states had led in, in terms of science and technology, and other areas, is it at risk because we have not taken what we have learned and been able to apply it, because we are not doing the level of research that we have been or is that simply a moot argument because so much is going on now in the private sector? megan: i think the federal government continues to fund research, and the private sector does incredible work. it gets affected.

we have to keep pushing and reminding ourselves how much has come from that basic research the companies get better at that , scaling from lab to market as we say. we are doing a good job. i want to get more americans in on the game. charlie: did you seek out this job? megan: i was in africa, working with talented folks there, and i got an e-mail, asking me to talk to someone. so i called. it is such an honor to be doing this. it is so important for our country that us techies show up that we come and so i'm happy i got that e-mail. charlie: glad to have you here. megan smith, chief technology advisor to the president of the united states. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

al: i'm al hunt. mark: with all due respect to bernie sanders, if you do not have a campaign theme song, may we suggest "the monster mash"? ♪ >> he did the mash he did the monster mash wa-oo ♪ ♪ mark: on the show, hillary clinton and john cleese. first, bernie sanders. it might be our favorite way to tell the world you are running for president. walk outside your office, say you only have a few minutes and sp