>> rose: we begin this evening with part two of my conversation with the iranian with mohamad jarad zarif. >> it was unfortunately segments of the united states administration to be continue to believe that they can be pose their views on the rest. and the sooner they realize that the better off they better be all. >> rose: we conclude this

evening with megan smith technology officer at the whitehouse in charge of technology strategic. >> it's extraordinary legends for the whole group and we have had it pretty technical for everybody and the architecture and technology is really part of the strategies. they wanted the technical people with you. you got the country and google and facebook and twitter should as part of their rotation. >> rose: javad zarif and megan smith.

>> rose: yesterday at this table, we had a 68 minute conversation with iranian's foreign minute far javad zarif. tonight, part two a conversation about the nuclear deal, about 69 relationship between iran and the united states and about the possibilities of future engagement. here is that conversation. if in factor there was a nuclear agreement, is it likely to lead to 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. and 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 al common enemy of conspirators in the region. the saudis for example. well, i see a possibility for regional cooperation, which exists even now. i'm dealing with all these issues. i believe the united states needs to make a very series assessment of how policies that were based on from our perspective is outdated does not work for this time in world history. this is a bit maybe philosophical and i've had six years of being philosophical when i was out of government. but you got to look at it this way.

that in a globalized world there are some games that you're 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 they had to work for this so-called win/win situation where everybody makes a game you cannot gain security at the expense of insecurity or whatever it is. this must have become clear. i believe the united states is moving in that direction, i hope, hasn't made that decision. it's still, i mean if you look at the nuclear issue the united states some at least in the united states including those you mentioned and the op eds they have written, they consider their gain to be our loss and our gain to be their loss. i think this is fundamentally flawed. >> rose: but do you view an american loss as a win for iran. >> not necessarily. >> rose: so you're saying --

>> not necessarily. not necessarily. i do not believe that in a globalized world anybody with any rationality can look at the situation as a zero sum game. it is not zero sum. unfortunately many people do. >> rose: does your government see the united states as the great faith that's been used by the ayatollahs. >> well our people no, no our people, the government in iran follows the people. it's not the other way around. our people, if you look at the polls, if you look at the polls the polls are conducted by american polling companies, establishments. a lot of polls indicate that the iranian people are skeptical of u.s. intentions even when it comes to nuclear negotiations. i believe, i believe the united

states needs to convince the iranians that it does not harbor ill intentions against the iranian people. it's the people. >> rose: and the iranian 2k3wu679 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 of the gulf. you need to convince the american people of that because that's what they fear. they fear that if iran gets, it's not that they're going to attack some body, it's just that somebody all of a sudden have nuclear weapons. they will reach out to the pakistanis and everybody else will want nuclear weapons. >> i think -- >> rose: is that a real possibility. >> i think several secretaries of state wrote in the "wall street journal" i believe some time ago, it is time for everybody to think of a world without nuclear weapons because that's the ultimate answer. >> rose: so why not. >> no, no, hold on. because you're going to make yourself accountable to the same

criteria that you want the rest of the world to be accountable which has used nuclear weapons in hiroshima and nagasaki. it does not have the authority to advise others what to do and whatnot to do. we made made our own decision. we believe that nuclear weapons did not provide security for anybody. they will not provide security for anybody. we have made a very slid, slid determination that nuclear weapons run -- solid weapons you are run -- >> rose: they said that to me. why do you think the world doesn't trust you. >> well because lies have been spread of all people 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 npt in our region. we want, actually yesterday i was talking to the egyptian foreign minister.

we all want to establish a nuclear weapon's free zone. why don't you push to accept this because tomorrow, tomorrow if you have everybody in the middle east accepting and everybody is there ready to accepts no nuclear weapons. with all the inspections you wanted in the world that we will not have nuclear weapons. so it's not, i mean netanyahu does not have any authority to become support of non-proliferation voodoo of the world. this guy sits on 200 nuclear warheads which are illegal have been developed in con tra vention of every international treaty on non-proliferation. let's be series. you you want to be serious -- >> rose: they do have nuclear weapons, they did not find the non-proliferation treaty and

everybody is aware of that fact. >> so why don't you deal with that fact. that's the fact. i mean -- >> rose: listen, okay. >> this is the fact on the ground and i don't see anybody iran did not invade any of its neighbors, israel every two years invades gaza, every other year -- >> rose: i don't want to go off into that. >> i know you don't. >> rose: it's not because the reason you think it's because you get into the question who provokes who and all of that as you know. it looks to me your friends hamas -- hamas survived this. >> usually people with aggression -- >> rose: let me ask questions people want to know. why don't you provide this is a simple thing to do, the history that john kerry and others have asked you to provide owe that they would have a basis to look at. they know more about what you had done and have a basis to

make an evaluation about the future. you refused to do that. >> no, we didn't. >> rose: you did not allow a history of your -- >> no, no. come on, hold o let's take one step at a time. somebody makes an allegation against you. it's up to them to prove it, not for you to disprove it. allegations have been made against iran one after the other. iran, hold on. iran has been inspected in the last ten years more than any other country in the world say for japan. the only country that has been inspected more than iran based on -- i'm referring not to the report recently based on the 2013iaaea. ieae spent more money on iran than any other country in japan. >> rose: do you recognize iaea says there's uninnocenced questions at least 10 basic unanswered questions. >> 12. >> rose: 12, okay.

>> these are the questions. >> rose: unanswered questions. >> yes, my friend. >> rose: if you want to prove your point did you answer that question. >> did you ask the iaea got the questions. they got the questions based on the allegations that israel provided to them. now, if people who are themselves continue to accuse others who have a track record of complying with their obligations under the npt with allegations. now what we can do and we have been trying with the iaea is to develop a twraim work for us to answer those questions. but it has to be clear that you that proving the negative is impossible. that. any lawyer will tell you that it is impossible to prove a negative. somebody who makes an allocation, who presents an allegation must provide the evidence for that. the problem is, the problem is the iaea has been searching iran

for the last ten years has spent more time in iran -- >> rose: nothing to hide, let them come in. whatever they want to because you got -- you say we have nothing to hide. yes we want to use the peaceful purposes, we have nothing to hide. so i say to you inspection is a big deal for trust and verification. whatever you want to define it as it's a big deal for the americans. >> it's a deal. >> rose: and for the iaea. >> sure. it's a deal. iran will accept the highest international level of inspections. that is the ambition of protocol. >> rose: go anywhere, any time. >> come on go anywhere, any time you're talking about countries. there are international standards. go anywhere any time where? which country is prepared to give you go anywhere any time. all countries have industrial secrets, have 34eu8 tree

secrets. but if there are basis and there is an international criteria. people come up with these hysteric are arguments. we have international set of measures. interly, they incremented in a lot of countries and iran has said that if there is an agreement, that if you choose the path of cooperation instead of the path of confrontation because you cannot choose the path of confrontation and expect all sides to cooperate. i mean it's either or. you are trying to go in the direction of -- >> rose: and verification. >> okay fine. verification and trust. that requires you to accept certain norms. certain international practices that are now agreed upon and available to all countries. iran is presented to accept the highest level of international inspection that is available. >> rose: just to show you

that in the interest of what 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 of him like i'm raising the questions of you by margaret brennan the state department correspondent at cbs asked him about inspections and why should we believe inspections this time when they were thwarted in the past. john kerry said as i heard it. these are the most extensive inspections we've ever seen. those that are proposed as part of this agreemen. is that true or not. was the secretary speaking the truth then? >> well, the secretary certainly speaks his truth to the american people. and he can he can say and present the inspections that are taking, going to take place under what is known internationally as the additional protocol. >> rose: do you believe these are the most extensive intrusive

inspections that you've ever been subjected to. those that are in this agreement. >> iran is accepting to implement the additional protocol. and the additional protocol is the highest standard inspection that is available in the world. so he's not lying. if iran implements the additional protocol iran will be implementing the highest standard of inspection. but that is not exclusive to iran. that is the standards of inspection that some other countries, not all other countries are implementing. but let me tell you something. iran was prepared to implement that in 2003. actually -- >> rose: why didn't everything -- >> actually they implemented the additional protocol from to 03 to 2005. the united states government at that time unfortunately chose the path of confrontation and torpedoed the possibilities for cooperation. and the same people, the same

people who killed the opportunity for cooperation then are advising now to kill this opportunity. now i believe it will be prudent for the united states to look back at the history and see how much it gained from confront from choosing the path of confrontation with rack for the past eight, nine years. >> rose: if in fact for some reason iran does not allow the inspections prescribed that's a violation of the agreement. and 69 united -- the united states would like to add to and impose the sanctions. >> 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 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's a balanced approach. it's a reciprocal approach. we call it actually reciprocal in the agreement. because it has to be reciprocal. an agreement that is based on sovereign country dealing with each other must be reciprocal must be based on mutual respect. we're not going to start this. we haven't. i mean secretary kerry and i we've not waste all this time. >> rose: 18 months. >> 18 months nine hours in one sitting over from 9:00 in the evening until the next morning the following morning simply to prepare a piece of paper that both of us are going to go home and shred. >> rose: you both did come home and suggest different. >> well, this was this was an unfortunate situation pushed by domestic politics here. >> rose: and there. >> i doubt it because i didn't

introduce fact. i didn't produce it last time or this time. what i will rely monday and is best to rely upon is the agreement. i think people here and people in iran should wait a couple months, we'll come up with an agreement, that agreement thereby public. nothing will be secret. in this day and able, you cannot be secret in this world. you know that. whatever we agree will be out in the hope in a couple of days time. or a couple hours time if you are more accurate. so let us wait another couple months, we will come up with an agreement with clearly laid out terms. >> rose: by june 30th. >> by june 30th at home. and with internet and we did not waste all this time, 18 months of negotiations to prepare an agreement that either side wants to, immediately upon reaching that. >> rose: what's the odds of that happening.

>> reaching an agreement? >> rose: yes. >> if there is the mutual political will to abandon the path of confrontation and go for willful cooperation -- >> rose: abandon confrontation and the path of secrecy, abandon the matt pat of secrecy and covert -- path of secrecy and covertness. they worry most of all not only centrifuges you have what they really worry about is that you can secretly like you did last time and were forced to disclose. >> no. >> rose: that's what they're worried about. they're worried about a covert facility they can't know about and don't have access to. >> charlie, let's look at the realities on the ground. what happened to iran?

was a pattern of denial. iran owns, owns a part of a french consortium producing, 10%. we haven't been able to get a gram of uranium from them. you know that the united states in the 1950's and 60's in the atoms for peace project, built a nuclear. then after the revolution we started to need fuel for that reactor. the united states refused to give us fuel for the reactor that it had built. it's a peaceful reactor. it cannot produce weapons but the united states refused to give us fuel. we went and bought it in 1990 from argentina. then in early 2000, we needed more fuel. that fuel ran out. we asked for fuel from the iaea, they said we don't give it to you. we said we will build it

ourselves. and then they started to panic. why is it our building is on fuel. why? because you didn't give it to us. you see iranian people, we have the scientific base. we have the scientific capability. we have the technological capability. people cannot wish that technology capability away. it's underground. what we are prepared to do is to ensure that that scientific and technological capability is used exclusively for peaceful purposes. that's what they're interested in. with you you cannot again start history at the point that you wanted to start. you got to start history when the united states government went across the world trying to deny iran of the fume to our reactor. >> rose: you've been listening to the secretary of state and you've been he's been listening to you. that's a really good thing you've been talking. have you changed your mind about the states? you guys have been sitting there. you both want this to work for

individual reasons. i mean for reasons reflecting of your country's wishes. >> we both want this because we know that the other approach is koirntd productive. that the other approach does not produce results. i mean confrontation harms us, it harms u.s. interest. and it doesn't advance any objective. that is a realization that has been key to everybody sitting and trying to resolve this. so we have tested something that was not conducive to an out come that either side believed to be in its interest. now we're testing another option. an option that we always prefer. we prefer that option in early 2000. >> rose: you mentioned that. >> when we made suggestions. i want you to understand and i want the american public to

understand that it's not the sanctions that has brought iranian here. 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 continue to believe that they can impose their views on the rest of the world. they can't. and the soorch they realize that -- the sooner they realize that the better off we'll be. >> rose: the sanctions brought you to the table but he prepared because he believes it's important for iran to be and not to have nuclear weapons notwithstanding what you've said and so many people have said we have not made a decision. >> i never said we have not made a decision. we have made a decision. we made a decision not to have that. >> rose: i recited that earlier. let's me talk about the breakout

period for a second. what is the breakout. >> breakout is a hype. >> rose: let me walk through it. most people think everything you do you needed to do. if you broke off inspections is how long it would take you to get to one nuclear weapon. let me finish. >> please do. >> rose: the conventional wisdom is two to three months. the americans have expressed some references in that it be a year and that that extension from two to three months to a year lasts for 10 years. what's wrong with that? >> well, this is -- >> rose: help me understand. >> and if i may. i'll try. i'm not an expert but at least i know the jargon. breakout meant in the normal jargon that goes back to cold war and to various discussions that took place during that time

and anybody this is so-called disarmament 101. breakout is a time that is required for a country to build and test a bomb. to build a nuclear weapon, a single nuclear weapon. now the clusion for that is something that requires first the mearl, then convert that material into an exclusive device for a bomb and to build a bomb and to build a warhead and all of that to be able to exploit the bomb. now, what they're talking about when it comes to iran, they're talking about the time that is required for iran to build necessary material for one bomb. that is not to build a bomb. so this is where the hype comes in. this is where the hype comes in. for the past eight years iran has suffered all these sanctions and we had enough material to

build eight bombs. >> rose: eight bombs. >> eight bombs. and we never did. >> rose: what kind of material is that. >> 8,000 kilograms. >> rose: 8 thousand kilograms of -- >>,000 -- 8,000 kilograms of enriched uranium. the rest of the world put all the pressure on him tried to create a security threat out of a country that never posed against anybody eight years 8,000 kilograms, eight bombs. not a single bomb. nobody even contests this argument. so, breakout is a hysteria, is a hype. but, iran doesn't want to build nuclear weapons. we are prepared to create with the atmosphere of confidence. that will be done through

certain measures that we have accepted. it doesn't mean that i accept breakout because i believe breakout is a hype. >> rose: okay. >> and i believe nobody should accept breakout. people should listen to reality. people should listen to science not to hype. >> rose: may i make one point. >> please do. >> rose: if it's that simple why don't you ship that enriched you're rain annual that you can make a bomb out of a country. ship it to russia. >> i'm not negotiating with you but that's part of the deal. >> rose: i thought it had been pulled back. >> no, it hasn't been pulled back. it's part of the deal. what we do with that is something we have already agreed upon. >> rose: so you'll ship all that. >> what we do with that. i mean, you will see when the agreement comes out, what we will do with that. 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. but we are prepared. first of all you have to take that into consideration. that's for eight years during the time when we had confrontation. we were sitting on what this hype considers eight bombs and we never did build a bomb because we believe bombs do not create security for anybody. >> rose: is that the only reason. >> that's the only reason. >> rose: that's the if iran had only reason. >> that's the only reason. if somebody pre vented us, but we didn't we haven't gone in that direction because unlike people who grew 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 in 1996 and spoke for 90 minutes arguing that no, 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. and that is why we didn't build the bomb. and that is why we won't build a bomb in the future. this you can take to the bank. >> rose: then why don't you do everything that is humanly possible to convince the world and specifically the countries to say to them we so passionately believe that

nuclear weapons are awful and we don't want them and we'll 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 stuff. >> we're not in a court. nobody has been given the roll of a prosecutor. >> rose: no. i'm not trying to prosecute here. >> no, no. i'm talking about the negotiation. you and i are old friends we can talk freely. but 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. i mean particularly iran and the united states. and the rest are just there.

some of them with consent, some of them consent similar to ours. some are concerned about sanctions. some believe that most people believe that the united states sanctions are illegal. illegal. so what we are doing is that we are negotiating the terms of an agreement. not an instrument of surrender by anybody. we don't want the united states to surrender. the united states cannot expect iran to capitulate. and i'm happy to hear both president obama and secretary kerry understanding this that capitulation is a dream. is an illusion. you will never get. but you will get, i mean this is important because some people believe that through pressure you can bring people to capitulate. that won't happen. not in iran or no where else in the world. i believe some people in the united states need to change that mentality, otherwise we will be stuck with the same problems. >> rose: you believe that includes the president or not? >> i hope not. >> rose: because he's spoken

to how much he respects. >> i hope not. >> rose: how much he respects -- >> now, we need to prove that. we need to prove that. each side needs to -- >> rose: each side? >> sure. it's been, as i said it's been compounded, mutual mistrust. we believe that the mistrust of iran is not justified. we have reason to mistrust the united states, to have less confidence that is necessary in the united states because of our history. now, what we need to do instead of going back and rehashing old history is to have a serious agreement in place. we have shown in the most 18 months and everybody has testified to that, that we implement what we agree. some people are worried that iran will implement again what it agrees to. i saw an op ed in one of your papers saying that the biggest worry is for iran to implement

its part of the bargain. so what are people afraid? are people, is peace a 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's an opportunity here. iran is an important country in the region. iran is an important country -- >> rose: no one i know denies that. >> it is important to deal with that country with that people who will not capitulate but who are there to engage. iranian people have chosen the tact of engagement. it's now high time i believe for the unted 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 dig tease. i can assure you if you have that agreement iran will implement that agreement because we believe that agreement is in the interest of everybody. >> rose: i'm concerned as you may know and expect with some journalists in jail in your country i hope the human rights questions can be discussed as well. >> there is, we do not jail people for their opinions. the government has a plan to improve, enhance human rights in the country. as every government should. and i believe we have an obligation as a government to our own people to do that. but people who commit crimes who violate the laws of the country cannot hide behind being a journalist or being a political activist.

people have to observe the law. i have to observe the law when i'm asked to go to the parliament. i may not like it but i have to go to the parliament and respond to their questions. i believe it is important for everybody to respect the rule of law. and to allow the political process, the judicial process in iran to run its course. and i believe at the end of the day everybody will be best served. >> rose: i hope so. >> rose: it was reported in "the washington post" we're going through that judicial process as we speak. thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: conversation with the prime minister of iran. back in a moment. stay with us. megan smith is here, she's the chief technology offer of the united states. she has been called tech chief evangelist in government. she left an executive roll in google to bring her expertise to the whitehouse in september 2014. she says her new task is unleash

the power of technology data innovation on behalf of the nation 678 i'm pleased to welcome her to this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: great to have you here. tell me more, what's the mandate of the chief technology officer. >> right. it's a new job that president obama started. he's so much of a third person in it. it's imbedded in the office of technology with the science advisor dr. holdren. he's awesome. yes, creativity. so our colleagues really are watching out for pure science policy like equal law or whether it's stem education, people working on the national security tech, environmental, brain initiative and other things. so the ct office sits inside that group. dr. holder and i both report to the president. the idea is how do we both weigh in on tech policy a lot aztec cull people as we're at the policy table make sure the techies are there when we're

making decisions that way. also how do we instigate and help our government be much better in all these things we need to be using. so for example you know, if you look at the healthcare.gov. we have 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's terrible. so luckily a bunch of my colleagues showed up and scrubled in and fixed the website. now in the second round 15 million americans have healthcare like nine out of ten americans have healthcare i you want the tech people to be in government, the tough tech people to come in the same way that -- >> rose: and to be on lift off as you say. >> yes, to be part of it. so in the government we have extraordinary economists legislatures, writers and a whole group. we had technical people who are working for everybody down below

and they're not at the architecture table really as technology is really part of strategy that we do. not just implementation. so you want the technical people with you. you got a country that makes amazon and google and facebook and twitter should know americans come to government for a part of their rotation. >> rose: clearly they shouldn't. and they should come not necessarily just in terms of crises. >> exactly, yes. >> rose: they should be there in terms of building the future. >> right. and actually you see crises. when we are at war we do the most extraordinary job with everybody all hands on deck and you know with many computers together with the british. if yousome of saw imitation game that was the uk story but we have our sorry. so we want that at peace time too, we want the technical people. without that we aren't making the best purchasing decisions or architecture decisions. we could do stuff, it would be so much cheaper if we use more

open source and some of the best practice you would find in the regular tech world. >> rose: have we in this country, my question lost some of our potential because we have not allowed a full employment of women in technology. >> there's no question that that's true. interestingly you brought up the nobel prize in computer science named for alan. if you saw the movie imitation game joan clark the real person was right there a late mathematician. in fact two thirds of them were women. actually in our own invention of computers the project, a friend of mine was at harvard as a computer science student and history student and she awe photographs of ours which did the hardware. she saw these women and said who

are these people. people said the refrigerator ladies meaning they were model,. she says they don't look like they're modeling. they have the first programmers in america, first women. first coding first sort routine and all of those things. >> rose: why weren't they not instantly known as part of the history. >> it's incredibly interesting. i think part of it is discrimination at the time. before a computer was actualably a lob -- actually a job like a lawyer and differential equations. someone said here's some wiring figure out how to make this thing work. they did with ballistic projectory . >> rose: what happens if you do not know in the level and the extent of women being attracted to the field is not known. >> yes, it's gone. >> rose: you don't know about their achievements, you don't know what an exciting and satisfying life it could be. >> exactly. and it's even up until the 80's

science with sort of 30-40% will and we just tanks. using incredible photographs with the launch of the mcintosh in the 80's. there's the rolling stones pictures that were published. the historic record shows this group actually of 10 people in a pyramid, actually 11, seven men and four women. and every photograph you see with a mac team, joanna hoffman a great job susan did all the graphics and user face artist side. none of them made it into the jobs movie. they're not even cast. every man in the photograph is in the movie with a speaking roll. it's debilitating to our young women to have their history almost erased or uncalled. >> rose: other than the blanket discrimination, how does that happen? what's the interest of somebody not recognizing the contribution of women. how do they benefit from that? >> i don't know.

i don't see any real benefit. >> rose: why do they do it? >> i don't know. but it's something you need to get over. kathryn johnson african american woman who calculated the trajectories for alan shepherd and john glenn who wouldn't flight in the apollo mission, there's no african american woman technical american in the apollo movies i ever saw as a kid. we've got to get these in there because if you know your path as we're discussing, your future is different. >> rose: silicon valley you know well. it is said that they're not nearly as many women as should be out there doing that word. why is it? >> i think it comes from many things but i think one of the fundamental ones was that when we got, sort of it comes as the personal computer came, we kind of bought them for our boys. i have a friend who had to get a key when she was going up to her brother's room to go in and do coding. our boys and our husbands they all have these computers so the women weren't in on it.

so if you were coding again practice makes permanent in tech. the more you play with it, less testing more choice. the more you play with it, the more you come to understand it. so the young men were doing that and growing up and making companies and i think we got on a trajectory. there's a lot of unconscious buys across so much of what happened. you know, if there's for example if there's a job with ten chicks women will apply if they seven and men will apply if they have three on average. that doesn't mean it's wrong that's how we are. if you manage people you notice a bunch of people with their hands up or not up and amongst that group chose the best person for the job, be more conscious. >> rose: not necessarily who hands their hands up. >> right. venture cant, 3% of venture money is coming to women. also just people of color. people are under represented. we've got to get them in.

the president's son did a great job tribal outrage. my brother's keeper. what we're doing is tech folk coming in we're working on something called tech higher. on tech higher it's a very specific idea which is using these coding boot camps, these three new kind of training practices that you can take so you can train in months not years and then helping the employees who are sovereigning for people, we have five million jobs open in the united states and half a million are tech and they're not the ones where you need a degree. they are on entry level. how do we take different qualifications coming out of a short course where they weren't pointed and get them into tech. >> rose: you can see this is a mandate for you as chief technology officer. >> not only for competitiveness in making sure our companies have the people they need as soon as possible but also from the more diverse the team the better the products so we know that, it's proven. so pulling people into that.

also the jobs are all over the country. i was just in st. louis and the launch code team which is the incubator and boot camp folks there was opening a share space for youths, 16 16-21-24 to the north side of st. louis into tech. jobs may more than average salary so we want these guys everybody in and really to have these fun collaborative careers and not feel like it's so far away. how are you going to train for that. >> rose: do you worry about the future of artificial intelligence and robotics because one takes jobs, the other can with increasing technology and software reaching new levels and produce things that if not somehow regulate it we may not like the consequences. >> yes. i think it's very important for the incredibly mindful around all of these areas and participating. the best results happen when you team up and lots of different kinds of people working together. one of the things they love

surround ai or cyber getting closer to the best tech nullists in the america. ash carter secretary of defense was out a couple days ago opening a new center at the field. >> rose: a new center for? >> an innovation snore so the doj teams are right there with each other. >> rose: this is for dod research and development center for the department of defense. >> the united states civil service is more about the website and digital government the back end of stuff. they've opened up at um plaza in san francisco. you're starting to see they are in many other cities they're here in new york called the 18th team. >> rose: talk about it. this is calling up a launch as you know. it can do all kinds of things. this is just one. in terms of acting as a medicine sensor. >> yes, amazing. >> rose: what's the future of

that. >> the quantified self. the president launched the yes the president in -- the president launched precision medicine initiative to really help us get better at the interoperation of health data, make sure we're looking at both economically and also privacy and security around this stuff. there's such an opportunity to really do personalized or precision medicine for individuals and really help with wellness as well as cures. wellness being if you can monitor a little bit more about yourself you might catch disease but you may be able to monitor and help yourself become more healthy. especially with our youths. >> rose: what excites you most. is 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're not quite sure when and how. >> my favorite thing is what i sort of think about what this is all about is unlocking human talents and creativity.

i just met someone at manufacturing, just to help make things more efficient copy fective. or you know whether it's somebody doing some kind of measurement of themself for their health or actually cure for cancer or whether it's just a brilliant storyteller. somebody whose got a story to tell being on youtube or facebook technology or twitter. just an opportunity to help scrub and then you talked about robotics. can we get the robots to do some of the dirtier tougher jobs get the humans out of that. that's a pretty exciting thing. >> rose: what should be, we're coming often on a presidential campaign with the primary season and then the general election the last part of 2016. which would be the debate about science? >> it's an interesting thing. i think president obama has done, we have an incredible it's so fun. some people think government is

bureaucrat. i find it entrepreneurial. i find talent everywhere. we've been missing what i call tq. i need technical stuff that the president's bringing us. but i think we have a science form leader and i hope the next leader whoever is coming will be signed forward. science and technology in the 21st century together with humanities when we do this together we get amazing results. so the more we can have congressional officials everybody be more technical. just to say something -- >> rose: tell me, you brought me something. >> this is some simple boards. this is raps be made in the uk. do we know. this is really the board for your cell phone. mont claire, berkley high school which is one of the ferguson schools, the great freshmen women, young women looking at this and talking about steve jobs. and how steve jobs made the home brew, you know. his board, their board, the first apple basically with baker

and his thing. now we have these. how do we help our young people be technically literate as well as you know sort of reading and writing all those pieces. you know. >> rose: we have a little core curriculum. >> yes, have it there. so with the kids from ferguson they knew in fact what this io was because they had their known and could see it. we had other kids about joining in the higher level varsity robotics side. why don't all our children have a technical literacy. we have this weird idea that you know you would never have someone say yeah reading it wasn't really my thing at school. nobody ever says but they do say math wasn't my thing. so we have to change our expectations for everyone. and also change how we teach. it's more fun. >> rose: is this simply more than putting science and technology and the digital revolution at the front rank. >> equal. >> rose: equal. >> yes, equal. not as an implementation thing

but as something we do together, equal. and i think that's -- >> rose: should be on the frontline with reading writing and arithmetic. >> the universe doesn't separate biology class, the universes all merge so you need to know all this stuff. >> rose: what is this. >> this is a very similar kind of motherboard. they make them in the u.s. this is the same thing just a simple board with a chip and its ion. for young people the uk is now teaching from second grade. they have these boards and they're teaching coding but they're teaching it with the hardware. >> rose: are they ahead of us in terms on of application of the digital revolution in governments. >> we really closely with emthis. they formed something called the d5 which is like the g8. the d5 are uk, south he korea. >> rose: digital five. the five biggest countries in terms of -- >> being on-line. >> rose: penetration. >> all of the parents and children and teachers are all on-line. >> rose: who are they.

>> south korea, new zealand. >> rose: south korea is number one. >> i think they are in different positions. we've working the joint. osteoyeah, new zealand, israel. >> rose: why new zealand. >> i don't know why. somebody there has their act together. uk had a healthcare crises like us that caused them to wake up to digital. like us. >> rose: you have south korea, israel, britain new zealand. >> yes. and alstonia. >> rose: that's amazing. >> alstonia has written this great one and finland are using it, palestine and others are using it. what it means to join the d5 is really having open source government. so you go to analytics usa.golf you're seeing the analytics they're doing that and all of these countries are teaching goad to all children in the country just like you teach reading so that the children have a fluency with this 21st century stuff. >> rose: is all that the

united states has led in, in terms over science and technology and other allied areas. is it at risk because we have not taken, we have learned and been able to apply it because we're not doing sort of the level of research that we have been? or is that simply a moot argument because so much of it's going on now in the private sector. >> i think the central government continues to fund amazing research and all of that kind of grant work and private sector does incredible work. >> rose: is the world affected. >> it gets affected. that's one of the entries you have to keep pushing and reminding ourselves how much has always come from that basic research that are companies, product size get better at that flow and scaling from lab to market as we say. we're doing a good job. i want to make sure we get more of the americans in on the game. that's an important thing.

>> rose: did you seek out this job or did this job seek you out. >> i was in africa actually working with extraordinarily talented folks up there which happened all over the world and i got an e-mail asking me to process someone and so i called and it was amazing. i had no plan to come and do this but it's such an honor to be doing this. it's so important for our country that us techies show up whether we're going to come for lots of cyber but we come and i'm happy that i got that e-mail. >> rose: great to have you here. >> thank you. >> rose: megan smith chief of technology advisor to the president of the united states. thank you for joining us. see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business " with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> slowing to a crawl. economic growth stalled at the start of the year as businesses slashed investment and exports tumbled. insights from a former fed governor about wha. not yet. the federal reserve does not move on rates and left few clues about what might lie ahead. and your money. what should you do with your stocks and bonds now that the ? all that and more tonight on "nightly business " for good evening, everyone and welcome. anemic. that describes first quarter growth. and while many expected the economy to be weak they didn't expecte this weak. gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and