>> this week, on the road to the white house, possible republican presidential candidate donald trump in boca raton, florida. that is at 9:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. now available -- c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. new and returning members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and congress. >> this week, our guest is the

chief technology officer of united states. if you would start by telling us who you are? >> i report directly to the president and in my capacity as chief technology officer. i am a senate-confirmed position. i work with the president's science adviser. the job was created by our president because he felt that too often our policy discussions failed to capture the full potential of technology, data, and innovation, and so he challenged me to complement the traditional capabilities, but

think about how they could leverage other priorities with particular emphasis on the skillet and entrepreneurship and innovation. that is in the bulk of it. it has been to ensure that any piece of paper that comes before the president is properly vented to see whether or not we can engage interagency collaboration. >> let's start with one big technology and the front burner. at&t buying t-mobile. >> it is difficult to comment on a specific merger. the problem is from a decision making standpoint, this is up to the fcc. and not able to comment specifically, but i can talk

about the possibilities for technology innovation in wireless at large, and i would be delighted to enlarge on that. this was part of the initiative we rolled out in february. >> we're joined by our guest from the washington post as well. >> hello. thank you for joining us. you did have an event this week, today. >> yes, we did. >> and this was related to the innovation you talk about any merger, as peter brought up. in that, one of the promises at&t put forward was bringing wireless connections to 95% of the country. this is the goal the white house has set out. >> the difference between 95%

and 98% is significant, but your point is well taken. the fcc's national broadband plan has said that the coverage is in pieces and parts covering 95% of the population. we would like to see this upgraded to $g, which all -- to 4g, which all the carriers have committed to doing. it is also about the u.s. economy, that we have the right innovation investments in place. >> one thing that the ceo of at&t said in an article is that

he does see duplicative jobs with the merger. that is pretty straightforward, but there were be overlapping jobs in that could lead to layoffs. is that a concern. -- is that concern? it is hard to talk about that. >> let me take a little bit of a step back. someone from at&t actually commented publicly about provisions for the administration, encouraging people to followed the investment. in fact, firms like at&t said they were taking advantage of these provisions. but they from on the capital, that means more jobs in the shorter term. it is a good day on the ground in our private sector. they are already taking

advantage of policy to encourage more jobs now. but the wireless story is really beyond just the specifics of the jobs of carriers. it would be a mistake to presume that the jobs in broadband are only those of building up networks. again, the economy this morning could not put quite an up or down number. there was $100 billion of economic value if we pursue the president's initiative, respectfully. there are companies taking advantage of that. they're the wrong products and services. the job story on wireless is frankly thinking about the impact on the economy at large. >> given that you talked about

how the carriers of the corporations are working already, what is the purpose of having a public governmental role in this broadband? >> we need to step back and outline the president's strategy for innovation. the strategy can bill for the first time in september 2009, to articulate the role for the system. the president basically believes that the foundational principles of our strategy is to invest in the building blocks of innovation. need to make infrastructure investments that we have seen, but the president has inc. are digital infrastructure as part of that definition. there are individuals to pursue

degrees in science and mathematics. that which our federal labs and agencies have been doing at a tremendous clip. they are encouraged by the tax credit. this is an area of innovation that is very much aligned with the role of government. the key question is how. one of the key principles of the wireless initiative is how wireless is built entirely on the wireless sector. the whole initiative has been on incentives and policy levers to allow the private sector to extend the capabilities, and to ensure we are prepared to be the world and wireless innovation in the years to come. in addition to our investment category, he does believe we should create the right market

conditions to support the private sector. for that, we have proposed a number of initiatives to encourage more of entrepreneurs in this country. there are a few issues in our economy that would depend on that approach. and he has outlined a number of those, including unleashing a clean energy economy a system that improves quality and lower cost, ensuring we have an educational system that has the breakthroughs to close the achievement gap. so, and i am going to happily walk you thru line by line -- the basic premise is private investment, public policy action that will spur more of

it. >> so, before the private sector gets their hands on this, there's a lot of work that needs to be done for this plan to work. what is the timeline for the sector to get into the hands of the private sector. what you do to make sure you get the legislation need in congress. you see a lot of cards in this process. >> but they are not sequential. >> if in u.s. cellular, sprint, a 1g carrier, when do i get my money lined up to bid? >> >> the president has a

legislative requirements. it is a policy tool that is in the spirit of current policy. 100 economists said that this was mission critical. the president will sign it this year. there are also, we believe, political investments to be made in combination with authority. >> there's also a way to build

out of public safety broadband network. we're not up to speed in terms of our first responders. i was in a cop car in new york city. it had no digital communications. to think that our first responders do not have access to that. just to the same tools we have in our personal lives. we need to make sure that our families are safe and secure.

this allocate billions of dollars to build that safety broadband policy. we also believe is critical that we see this goal. the presidency the third wave of economic growth on the internet. there's this equity question. 90% should get access to the us. and there -- what gives us the most excitement in my role, we've allocated $3 billion to the wireless proceeds. this is for the innovation fund.

specifically so we can ensure our nation's economy, our best and brightest, our federal laboratories, the scientists who been repeatedly telling us they are increasingly shifting dollars away from the base economy. we're moving into these high margin services. this is an important part of our story. it is the american economy. we will create that next wave of growth. >> our guest this week is the u.s. chief technology officer.

also joining us, cecilia kang from the washington post. use the technology correspondent for the newspaper. >> earlier today, those who served in the bush administration, in all walks of life, we came together and wrote a shared letter, calling for congress to ensure that policy lever is in place. because fundamentally, we're in a market-based economy.

it is a mechanism that would allow whether or not the owners that utilize the spectrum today would see value in contributing the spectrum for hire, better economic purpose. >> t-mobile may be swallowed up into the at&t universe. analysts, industry experts say he may not make that 278 -- $27.8 billion that you want. the public safety, all that stuff. so, how does consolidation of this industry affect the success of your strategy?

>> your respective of the market landscape, the authority to conduct incentive options is effective from the policy standpoint. there would be a direction along the way, some of which increase value, and some of which may decrease the value spectrum. the value of having the option of authority is that nothing defines success like a mechanism whereby an owner expects a price, and a buyer offers an asset value. the gains of trade -- is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not there is value in the market. if it does not meet the needs of the owners of the spectrum today, then the auction will not move forward.

i happen to have high confidence that economic principles will hold and the absolute reality of these scarce resources where we come to understand the sheer magnitude of the youth, these are logistic that have been coming out. we have 25 times as much data as a regular voice cell phone, and tablets, always buying these record clips -- 100 times the usage. so, we do not know what the ultimate demand will be projecting over 10 years. >> do you think there's enough competition in the wireless

issue -- wireless industry? >> thankfully, i do not have to render that judgment. >> as the chief technology officer of the country? >> i have a responsibility to render such judgments in a report -- >> what about in the context of this merger? >> this is not under the review of the white house. these are actions that are effective independent, and they should be -- affected and independent, and they should be. this is just the nature of the circumstances. the bigger question is whether or not there are emerging technologies that are changing mechanism by which one sees the value of wireless technologies. we have these terms in this conversation, sharing the power of dynamic spectrum, and the market makers that would allow

rights owners of the spectrum to all-out secondary users in that market, and there is an economic transaction to be had. my job is to say, are we properly reporting these investments, ensuring we have the entrepreneurial engine focused on this so we can ensure leadership on this issue? i have a lot to say on that policy? -- i love to say that policy. >> what would you say to this idea. there are some that would say t- mobile wanted to more quickly deploy 4g. before i get to that, do you

think t-mobile was affected by that? they wanted that d-spectrum, that will be allocated to public safety? that would affectively forced the company to decide it did not have any options except with at&t. >> i am not the to strategy officer for t-mobile. it is hard for me to decide what the calculus was behind their decision. that policy today ensures that our responders had the access to the same information that we had, so they can perform their mission to the best extent possible. our first responders, we have public forums, round tables.

i was especially engaged on this issue because the vice president and his very strong team has been a leader on these issues for years. they are understanding what are the needs of our public safety community. and that led us to make the decision to put this spectrum in the hands of the first responders. it was important to establish the network. >> when are the broadcasters having a spectrum meeting at the white house? >> let me be careful. economists who spoke -- we were not given any broadcasters. in spoken to a number of them. there are thoughtful conversations to be had. and there are questions about --

what does voluntary mean? will i have the ability till still bring back my channel, to for dissipate in this option, will there be opportunities to ensure that if in fact i do not want to participate in this, i am not going to be adjusted to frequencies that would be less than ideal? thoughtful conversations. they will absolutely take place. another key thing is understanding the economic about a year. there is no reason why a broadcaster should see the mobile broadcasting delivers value in excess of what i could have offered. that is the possibility -- that is the power of voluntary incentive options. certainly there are a lot of technical questions. my focus is to understand how

this one engage on dynamic spectrum sharing? if you look at the white spaces debate, there are methods you can use when you're going into unlicensed spaces. those are technical points as part of a larger innovation agenda takes advantage -- the national academy had a wonderful line. they said design your spectrum policy based on lightness, not darkness. today's policy is based on darkness. in the future, the argument was -- look. there is a lot of noise. in a sense, that is the question. >> been notion now is, is there

an inventory? >> i am much more emphasizing the verb in any particular notion of a noun. >> the white house for the first time endorsed the idea of a first-time law for privacy-owned internet. do you support the recommendation by the federal trade commission to create a mandate for a two not track for the technology based on some sort of browser technology? >> we have not taken a formal position at this time. the president calls for -- we have had an interagency review with a particular emphasis on the congress department and a develop -- and developed a green paper three or four months back.

we expressed our commitment to basic privacy protections, and we thought the fair information practice standards should also be acknowledged, and the fcc should have enforcement authority on the space, and that there should be enforceable codes of conduct, emphasizing voluntary cooperation. it is conceivable that the browsers, the internet economy, a key stakeholders on the rhone in a voluntary fashion come together and put together their own "do not track" approval, and that would be an industry-led program that could be endorsed by the fcc. the reason i see a slight distinction here is we stopped short of any particular mandates

akin to "do not track," and it is more of a framework for how pulp -- privacy policies should be moving forward. >> what about the industry model. do you want more self regulatory -- this is quite different. >> i do not know if it is consistently different are not. again, separate been down from the verb. -- separate the noun from the verb. i think we were clear of our intentions. we have no final judgment about what the ultimate legislation should be. protection,privacy insurance, enforcement authority, to have the fcc look

into this. it is about voluntary conduct as a mechanism. we have this theory, this notion of consensus standards. i think very positively on health care i.t. i am someone year, we've seen the private sector step up. do you know that you today cannots have a medical record emailed to yourself? hippa -- hipaa. the industry stepped up and agreed to and amendments,

basically requesting information in between and ensuring it was transmitted using high principles of security. that happened because the private sector did it. there was no framework yet. 90% of the health care sector had already accepted the direct specifications for safe, secure e-mail. if you focus on verbs, then you engage in what has been the greatness of the american economy. but when you channel that energy, great things will happen. and i think it applies. >> unfortunately, we've only scratched the surface on these issues. you will have to come back soon. >> aw. >> cecilia kang, thank you. >>