[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
KIDS ONLINE DURING COVID: CHILD SAFETY
IN AN INCREASINGLY DIGITAL AGE
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-11
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-074 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Chair
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida Ranking Member
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts FRED UPTON, Michigan
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
Chair NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan GREG PENCE, Indiana
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
DARREN SOTO, Florida KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Gus Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Nusheen Ameenuddin, M.D., Chair, Council on Communications and
Media, American Academy of Pediatrics.......................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Answers to submitted questions............................... 164
Corey A. DeAngelis, Ph.D., Director of School Choice, Reason
Foundation..................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Ariel Fox Johnson, Senior Counsel, Global Policy, Common Sense
Media.......................................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Answers to submitted questions............................... 166
Submitted Material
Statement of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.......................... 106
Letter of March 10, 2021, from Jeff Todd, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Prevent Blindness, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr.
Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky......................... 110
Article of February 15, 2021, ``I'm an epidemiologist and a
father. Here's why I'm losing patience with our teachers'
unions.,'' by Benjamin P. Linas, Vox, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers 113
Article of December 29, 2020, ``As medical doctors, we believe
reopening Chicago's schools is essential and safe,'' by Michael
Angarone, et al., Chicago Sun-Times, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers. 123
Article of February 3, 2021, ``Canadian doctors call for schools
to return to in-classroom learning,'' by Caroline Alphonso, the
Globe and Mail, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers...................... 128
Article of June 29, 2020, ``U.S. Pediatricians Call For In-Person
School This Fall,'' by Anya Kamenetz, NPR, submitted by Mrs.
Rodgers........................................................ 130
Article of February 9, 2021, ``Hundreds of physicians,
psychologists call for Ann Arbor Public Schools to reopen,'' by
Meredith Bruckner, All About Ann Arbor, submitted by Mrs.
Rodgers........................................................ 134
News release of December 11, 2020, ``New checklist supports
schools to reopen and prepare for COVID-19 resurgences,'' World
Health Organization, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers................. 138
Article of March 2, 2021, ``In Their Own Words: Why Health
Experts Say Elementary Schools Should Open,'' by Margot Sanger-
Katz and Claire Cain Miller, New York Times, submitted by Mrs.
Rodgers........................................................ 141
Article of January 26, 2021, ``As parents and doctors, we call on
CPS to open schools with safety measures,'' by Anna Volerman
Beaser, et al., Chicago Tribune, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers..... 148
Article of February 6, 2021, ``Kids are suffering. Follow the
science and reopen schools now,'' by Alice Kuo, Los Angeles
Times, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers............................... 152
Article of March 9, 2021, ``School Isn't Closed for Lack of
Money,'' by Corey A. DeAngelis and Christos A. Makridis, Wall
Street Journal, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers...................... 156
Article of March 9, 2021, ``CDC misinterpreted our research on
opening schools It should loosen the rules now.,'' by Dr. Tara
O. Henderson, et al., USA Today, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers..... 160
Article of November 17, 2020, ``No way to check on hundreds of
kids missing from schools across Tucson,'' by Patty Machelor
and Danyelle Khmara, Arizona Daily Star, submitted by Mrs.
Lesko\1\
----------
\1\ The article has been retained in committee files and is available
at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20210311/111298/HHRG-117-
IF17-20210311-SD006.pdf.
KIDS ONLINE DURING COVID: CHILD SAFETY IN AN INCREASINGLY DIGITAL AGE
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m.,
via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Jan Schakowsky
(chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Rush, Castor,
Trahan, McNerney, Clarke, Cardenas, Dingell, Soto, Rice, Craig,
Fletcher, Pallone, Bilirakis (subcommittee ranking member),
Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon, Dunn, Pence, Lesko, Armstrong, and
Rodgers.
Also present: Representatives Blunt Rochester and Walberg.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Lisa
Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel;
Daniel Greene, Professional Staff Member; Tiffany Guarascio,
Deputy Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Alex Hoehn-Saric,
Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Ed
Kaczmarski, Policy Analyst; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director,
Outreach and Member Services; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital
Assistant; David Miller, Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press
Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Caroline Rinker,
Press Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez,
Clerk; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach and
Member Services; Sydney Terry, Policy Coordinator; C.J. Young,
Deputy Communications Director; Anna Yu, Professional Staff
Member; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael
Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and
Commerce, Energy, Environment; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff
Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel; Tim Kurth,
Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; and
Brannon Rains, Minority Professional Staff Member, Consumer
Protection and Commerce.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce will now come to order. That is the gavel.
Today we will be holding a hearing entitled ``Kids Online
During COVID: Child Safety in an Increasingly Digital Age.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via video conference.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute yourselves each
time that you wish to speak.
Additionally, Members will need to visibly be on screen in
order to be recognized.
Documents for the record can be sent to Ed Kaczmarski, the
staffer--sorry, Ed, for messing up your name--at the email
address that we have provided to all staff.
All documents will be entered into the record at the end of
the hearing.
I also wanted to mention that we do have votes that are
being called right now, and people will have to go in and out.
I will call on Tony Cardenas, the vice chair of this committee,
when I have to leave, but we can do it in segments. We are not
going to recess for votes.
The Chair will now recognize herself for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. So, again, good morning, and welcome to our
hearing on child safety online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Children are spending twice as much time online as compared
to before the pandemic. This time is increasingly spent on
digital platforms not designed with children in mind.
Although we all hope--and in some cases, it is already
happening--the kids will be able to safely return to schools,
we should not be naive, however, and believe that in-person
schooling will mean that companies stop targeting our children
online.
Techniques honed by companies during the pandemic, and
online habits developed by kids, will continue long after they
are back in school. Many online platforms are addictive by
design, grabbing attention and, of course, maximizing profits.
Children are especially vulnerable to addictive or
manipulative techniques and technologies. They are more
susceptible to coercive advertising and have trouble resisting
attention-grabbing features.
The more time children spend online, the more likely they
are to be subjected to harmful or age-inappropriate content.
There are few effective barriers that protect our children
and teens, as well, from the harmful content and hate speech
that plague our online discourse right now.
Nor are they shielded from the loss of privacy that has
become a feature of online platforms. Platforms that are
intended for general audiences are not required to protect the
privacy of children, and many of the most popular platforms say
they do not allow children that are under the age of 13 but do
almost nothing to enforce their minimum age requirement.
The harms that children and teens experience online have
very real and lasting side effects offline. More screen time
has been associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression,
sleep deprivation, obesity, and even suicide.
Children need tailored protections from privacy
infringements and manipulative marketing practices. Children's
privacy must be protected by updating COPPA, the current law,
for our increasingly complex and connected digital word.
And thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky
Good morning, and welcome to our hearing on child safety
online during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Children are spending twice as much time online compared to
before the pandemic. This time is increasingly spent on digital
platforms not designed with children in mind.
Although we all hope that kids will be able to safely
return to school soon, we should not be naive and believe that
in-person schooling will mean that companies stop targeting our
children online.
Techniques honed by companies during the pandemic, and
online habits developed by kids, will continue long after they
are back in school.
Many online platforms are addictive by design, grabbing
attention, and maximizing profits. Children are especially
vulnerable to addictive or manipulative technologies. They are
more susceptible to coercive advertising and have trouble
resisting attention-grabbing features.
The more time children spend online, the more likely they
are to be subjected to harmful or age-inappropriate content.
There are few effective barriers protecting children and teens
from the harmful content and hateful speech that plague our
online discourse.
Nor are they shielded from the loss of privacy that has
become a feature of online platforms. Platforms that are
intended for general audiences aren't required to protect
children's privacy.
Many of the most popular platforms say they do not allow
children under the age of 13 but do almost nothing to enforce
their minimum age requirement.
The harms that children and teens experience online have
very real and lasting side effects offline. More screen time
has been associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression,
sleep deprivation, obesity and even suicide.
Children need tailored protections from privacy
infringements and manipulative marketing practices. Children's
privacy must be protected by updating COPPA, the current law,
for our increasingly complex and connected digital word.
Thanks, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us
today.
I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague Ms.
Castor.
Ms. Schakowsky. And at this time I want to yield to the
author of this bill that we are going to be discussing today,
Congresswoman Kathy Castor.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chair Schakowsky.
You are right. When Congress wrote the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act, COPPA, back in 1998, 23 years ago, the
internet was in its infancy. The majority of households did not
have a computer, and even less had the internet. There were no
internet-connected cell phones or devices, and if a child
wanted to get on the internet, they would have to go to the
family desktop, usually in a shared space, and type in the Web
address and wait for a dial-up internet.
So, despite how antiquated this may seem to us in 2021, it
was revolutionary in 1998, and at that time Congress acted to
meet the moment, and they put in place safeguards to protect
our children in this new online environment.
But, boy, have things changed since then. We are at another
critical moment where technological innovations in our children
are at the forefront. Their every move is being tracked and
monetized by their phone, tablets, apps, and more.
Platforms are manipulating children to stay online longer
and pushing them towards extreme content, infinite scrolling,
and awards of badges for repeated interactions.
Big business is profiting, and our children are paying the
price. And, as our witnesses point out, that price is the real-
world harmful impact on our kids' safety, their development,
and their mental health.
It has gotten worse during the pandemic. Children's screen
time has gone up while parents' ability and time to monitor
screen time has gone down. So parents are looking to Congress
to make sure their kids are safe and that educational
experiences work.
So we need to meet this moment. I intend to reintroduce my
Kids PRIVCY Act and the KIDS Act to safeguard our kids, and I
would like to invite Members from both sides of the aisle to
work with me to update COPPA.
Thanks, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, for his 5 minutes.
You are recognized, Mr. Bilirakis.
STATEMENT OF HON. GUS BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
you for holding this very important hearing.
I know we share a similar view that, while technology can
be amazing in keeping us all connected, when it comes to
substitution for interpersonal communications, we are all at a
loss.
My father served on this committee, and back when he did
serve, we could talk amongst the dais, write each other notes,
communicate more directly on what is happening in our lives,
both personally and professionally. Unfortunately, here we are
all in a virtual hearing.
While we have gotten a bit better from the early days of
virtual hearings, we are all human. I expect there will still
be miscues today, like when someone is ready to talk or
providing the kind of attention our witnesses deserve for their
statements. And I appreciate them being here.
Now, think about what it is like for our kids. This is the
new reality, and it is a sad one, in my opinion. The COVID-19
pandemic has caused so many Americans to become isolated in
their homes, especially our kids.
Without the opportunity for children to interact in person
with their friends directly, many turn to social media to fill
the void. Sadly, this has led to a cascade of negative effects
for me.
I believe this hearing can serve as an important alarm bell
for safely reopening our schools and getting students and
teachers back in the classroom and reverse this trend.
To be fair, at the beginning of the pandemic there was much
unknown about the virus, and virtual school was seemingly
viable. It is a viable bridge to educating students, and it is
better than not having anything.
Distance learning can certainly be a positive tool for some
students. But the facts now make clear that, as a primary means
of instruction, it just does not work for advancing our kids'
education, especially those children with disabilities.
There is good news, however. A number of schools have shown
they can safely open up, including my great State of Florida,
and so I hope we can find avenues for all students to have the
same accessibility to educational opportunities.
The alternative is catastrophic, unfortunately. This was on
full display in Clark County, Nevada, last year. In that case
more than 3,000 alerts about students with suicidal thoughts
flooded the inbox of district officials.
The school district since reopened to in-person schooling,
but tragically too late. By December of last year, 18 students
took their own lives. Eighteen families lost their children.
We all believe, like Clark County, history can repeat
itself. That is why I was pleased that, earlier this year,
President Biden pledged to reopen the schools by his 100th day
in office, and the CDC Director Walinsky relayed that data
indicated schools can begin to safely reopen--and more than one
day a week, I'll add.
Still we are all alarmed by recent contradictory statements
to the science behind these commitments. So it will be
interesting to find out what changed. Hopefully, the panel will
have some insight there.
I also want to know as privacy protection is on the agenda
today that I want to be part of the real solution. Committee
Republicans have been and remain committed to this.
And to speak more on this topic, I would like to yield to
my good friend Congressman Tim Walberg for his efforts to reach
a bipartisan deal on a bill to improve upon the Child Online
Privacy Protection Act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gus Bilirakis
Thank you Madame Chair for holding this important hearing.
I know we share a similar view that while technology can be
amazing in keeping us all connected, when it becomes a
substitution for interpersonal communications, we are all at a
loss.
My dad served on this committee back when we could talk
amongst the dais, write each other notes, communicate more
directly on what's happening in our lives, both personally and
professionally.
Unfortunately, here we all are, in a virtual hearing.
While we have gotten a bit better from the early days of
virtual hearings, I expect there will still be missed cues
today like when someone is ready to talk, or providing the kind
of attention our witnesses deserve for their statements.
Now think about what it is like to be our kids. This is
their new reality, and it is a sad one.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused so many Americans to
become isolated in their homes, especially our kids.
Without opportunities for children to interact in person
with their friends directly, many turn to social media to fill
the void.
Sadly, this has led to a cascade of negative effects for
them.
I believe this hearing can serve as an important alarm bell
for safely reopening our schools and getting students and
teachers back in the classroom and reverse this trend.
To be fair, at the beginning of the pandemic there was much
unknown about the virus, and virtual school was a seemingly
viable bridge to educating students.
Distance learning can certainly be a positive tool for some
students--but the facts now make clear that as a primary means
of instruction, it just doesn't work for advancing our kids'
education, especially those with disabilities.
There is good news. A number of schools have shown they can
safely open up including in Florida, and so I hope we can find
avenues for all students to have the same accessibility to
educational opportunities.
The alternative is catastrophic. This was on full display
in Clark County, Nevada last year.
In that case, more than 3,000 alerts about students with
suicidal thoughts flooded the inbox of district officials.
The school district since re-opened to in person schooling,
but tragically, too late.
By December of last year, 18 students took their own life.
18 families lost their children.
We all have a Clark County where history can repeat itself.
That's why I was pleased that earlier this year President
Biden pledged to reopen schools by his 100th day in office and
CDC Director Walensky relayed that data indicated schools can
begin to safely reopen.
Still, we are all alarmed by recent contradictory
statements to the science behind these commitments, so it will
be interesting to find out what changed. Hopefully the panel
will have some insight there.
I also want to note as privacy protections are on the
agenda today that I want to be part of a real solution.
Committee Republicans have been and remain committed to
this, and to speak more on this topic, I would like to yield to
my good friend, Congressman Tim Walberg, for his efforts to
reach a bipartisan deal on a bill to improve upon the Child
Online Privacy Protection Act.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. I yield the rest of my time to
Representative Walberg.
Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. I thank my good friend.
When I first introduced the PROTECT Kids Act, there was a
pressing need to modernize the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act to reflect the digital era.
In the midst of this global pandemic, with children and
their parents challenged, there is an even more pressing need
than ever. While the FTC made improvement to COPPA in 2013,
they did not go far enough to protect children against new
threats in the evolving digital ecosystem.
The internet has drastically changed since 2013, and while
increased internet usage presents many complicated risks,
children's online privacy is one area Congress established
clear law.
But the law is outdated. It needs to be updated to ensure
children are protected from troubling conduct of Big Tech. The
PROTECT Kids Act represents a commonsense, bipartisan solution,
and I appreciate my good friend Congressman Rush for joining me
in this effort to put children's wellbeing at the top of
Congress' priority list.
Together we are continuing to work with stakeholders to
strengthen this bill. We welcome input from members of this
subcommittee and look forward to working together to pass these
much-needed reforms.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chair of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky.
The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health and
economic crisis which has greatly disrupted our lives. The
children, in particular, have had their world turned upside
down. Visits with friends and extended family have been
replaced by video conferencing and in-person activities
replaced with video games, social media, video services, and
other digital activities.
And as a result, kids' screen time has doubled during the
pandemic, and you just told me that, Madam Chair, on the
elevator and I did not realize it was that much, twice.
As this subcommittee has heard time and time again,
consumers online face manipulative advertising, disinformation,
harassment, dark pattern manipulation, and privacy intrusions.
For adults, these dangers are extremely hard to manage, but for
children, such practices are downright predatory.
Children do not possess the same levels of cognitive
development to defend themselves and are often uniquely
vulnerable to any negative effects. The online world can affect
children's mental and physical health.
Growing bodies of research confirm the link between
increased digital media use and depression and higher instances
of addiction, anxiety, sleep deprivation, and obesity. And we
also have seen harmful behaviors such as cyber bullying
increase during the pandemic.
Unfortunately, many companies are well aware that children
are spending more time online, and they are taking advantage of
that by proactively targeting, manipulating, and monetizing our
children. For example, some internet platforms, app developers,
and content creators propagate addiction by design through
sophisticated, thoroughly tested means to keep kids on their
sites and extract money.
Common elements include pressuring in-app purchases without
parental consent, so-called freemium apps that tease paid
versions, and gamification marketing where gameplay elements
themselves are used to promote purchases or products.
And then there is influencer advertising, Madam Chair.
People on social media with lots of followers post photos and
videos of themselves using a product, but kids, and sometimes
adults, do not understand that those people are often paid for
those posts.
And young children frequently have no idea that the video
they are watching of someone opening a new toy is actually
meant to sell the toy.
So online advertising spending is now the largest of any
medium, and spending on digital ads specifically targeting
children is expected to reach $1.7 billion this year.
Most apps directed to or used by children contain ads,
including 95 percent of the apps aimed at kids under 5. Ads for
toys or junk food are commonplace, but far too often kids are
exposed to ads for tobacco products, alcohol, violent movies or
video games, or other age-inappropriate content.
And it is deeply concerning that business models online
continually seek to maximize engagement to increase revenue at
the expense of children's health. Many parents try to balance
the benefits of internet use, such as social connections and
educational apps, while trying to limit the possible negative
effects.
But many parents are overwhelmed, and even their best
efforts are not enough to protect their kids against
sophisticated predatory practices.
And the pandemic has made it painfully clear this problem
is not going to fix itself, nor will the harmful activities
targeting our kids stop when the pandemic is behind us.
Despite laws to protect children's privacy, data collection
and tracking of children is disturbingly prevalent. Many apps
for kids on mobile devices are notorious for collecting
personal information, and their personal information is then
bought and sold, resulting in targeted advertising designed to
influence and manipulate children even more.
So Congress granted the FTC rulemaking authority under the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, precisely
so it could update the safeguards for children online as
technology advanced, and the internet has experienced a sea
change since the last updates to the COPPA rule.
I know that Ms. Castor mentioned this with her legislation,
and it is clear those rules are out of date and no longer
provide the intended protections for our kids.
So, while the FTC has started the process of updating its
rules under COPPA, we also must examine whether the statute
should be updated and whether other practices targeting
children should be regulated. We cannot leave it all to
parents.
The challenges children face online existed before the
pandemic, but they have only gotten worse. And it is going to
continue to increase after the pandemic is behind us, unless we
do something about it.
So I just wanted to thank you, Madam Chair, and also Kathy
Castor because of the fact that you are having this hearing
drawing attention to this with the legislation.
I look forward to this expert panel on what is a very
important topic.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health and
economic crisis, which has greatly disrupted our daily lives.
Children, in particular, have had their worlds turned upside
down. Visits with friends and extended family have been
replaced by video conferencing. And in-person activities
replaced with video games, social media, video services, and
other digital activities. As a result, kids' screen time has
doubled during the pandemic.
As this subcommittee has heard time and time again,
consumers online face manipulative advertising, disinformation,
harassment, dark pattern manipulation, and privacy intrusions.
For adults, these dangers are extremely hard to manage, but for
children such practices are downright predatory. Children do
not possess the same levels of cognitive development to defend
themselves and are often uniquely vulnerable to any negative
effects.
The online world can affect children's mental and physical
health. Growing bodies of research confirm the link between
increased digital media use and depression and higher instances
of addiction, anxiety, sleep deprivation, and obesity. We also
have seen harmful behaviors such as cyber bullying increase
during the pandemic.
Unfortunately, many companies are well aware that children
are spending more time online and they are taking advantage of
that by proactively targeting, manipulating, and monetizing our
children.
For example, some internet platforms, app developers, and
content creators propagate ``addiction by design'' through
sophisticated, thoroughly tested means to keep kids on their
sites and extract money. Common elements include pressuring in-
app purchases without parental consent, so-called freemium apps
that tease paid versions, and ``gamification'' marketing where
gameplay elements themselves are used to promote purchases or
products.
Influencer advertising to kids is also prominent. People on
social media with lots of followers post photos and videos of
themselves using a product, but kids, and sometimes adults,
don't understand that those people are often paid for those
posts. Young children frequently have no idea that the video
they're watching of someone opening a new toy is actually meant
to sell the toy.
Online advertising spending is now the largest of any
medium, and spending on digital ads specifically targeting
children is expected to reach $1.7 billion this year. Most apps
directed to or used by children contain ads, including 95
percent of the apps aimed at kids under five. Ads for toys or
junk food are commonplace but far too often kids are exposed to
ads for tobacco products, alcohol, violent movies or video
games, or other age inappropriate content.
It is deeply concerning that business models online
continually seek to maximize engagement to increase revenue at
the expense of children's health.
Many parents try to balance the benefits of internet use--
such as social connections and educational apps--while trying
to limit the possible negative effects. But many parents are
overwhelmed and even their best efforts are not enough to
protect their kids against sophisticated predatory practices.
The pandemic has made it painfully clear this problem will not
fix itself. Nor will the harmful activities targeting our kids
stop when the pandemic is behind us.
Despite laws to protect children's privacy, data collection
and tracking of children is disturbingly prevalent. Many apps
for kids on mobile devices are notorious for collecting
personal information from children. Their personal information
is then bought and sold, resulting in targeted advertising
designed to influence and manipulate children.
Congress granted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
rulemaking authority under the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act, or COPPA, precisely so it could update the
safeguards for children online as technology advanced. The
internet has experienced a sea change since the last updates to
the COPPA Rule in 2013, and it's clear those rules are out of
date and no longer provide the intended protections for our
kids.
While the FTC has started the process of updating its rules
under COPPA, we also must examine whether the statute should be
updated and whether other practices targeting children should
be regulated. We can't leave it all to parents.
The challenges children face online existed before the
pandemic, but it's only gotten worse. And it will continue to
increase after the pandemic is behind us, unless we do
something about it.
I look forward to hearing our expert panel on the
challenges our children are facing online and how we can best
protect them.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member
of the full committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, Madam Chair. And, everyone,
welcome.
Our discussion today is especially important to me not just
as a Member of Congress but as a mom. We absolutely need to
have a serious discussion about what is happening to our kids
online, their mental health and safety, and what needs to
happen to reopen schools immediately.
Yesterday we heard from four doctors who wrote in USA
Today, quote, ``Keeping schools closed, even partially closed,
based on what we know now, is harming our children.'' They said
the Biden administration misinterpreted their research and
science when creating the CDC guidance, and it ultimately led
to harmful policies that hamstrung States to reopen schools
quickly.
The science is clear. Viral transmission is minimal in
schools. Children are not at significant risk of poor outcomes
from COVID-19. It is time to reopen immediately and listen to
the experts who are saying loud and clear ``follow the
science.''
School closures are harming children. It is more than just
a homework gap. There are serious health and mental health
risks associated with children spending more time online. And
as we have heard today, it has doubled.
These are stories I am hearing from parents who are
pleading for schools to reopen. I hear it every day. Our kids
are not active. They are not engaged. They are falling asleep
during remote school. They are isolated.
Suicide and overdose risks are going up. As our children
spend more time online, they are more at risk to online
predators.
This has all happened in my community, and I know we are
not alone. The science tells us all these risks of despair far
outweigh COVID-19 in schools.
In addition to the USA Today, I encourage everyone also to
read a piece from the New York Times. It documents scientific
insights from health professionals.
Here is what one pediatrician from San Francisco said,
quote, ``We are witnessing a significant public health crisis
in our children who are experiencing unprecedented mental and
physical illness during this time. This would be mitigated, if
not completely alleviated, by in-person schooling,'' end quote.
I understand that our focus today is on child safety in an
increasingly digital age. For the safety of our children,
surely, we can all agree science, not fear, should dictate how
we protect them and build a better future, a future with hope.
We can mitigate a lot of the harms and risks we are talking
about today by not letting another day go by of school
closures. That is what is going to give our children the best
chance to succeed and thrive in life.
Now, specifically regarding the protection online, I am
committed and convinced as to the importance of updating and
modernizing our laws. I look forward to joining bipartisan work
for data and privacy protections, especially children's
privacy.
I sincerely hope these efforts resume soon and that this
committee plows the hard ground necessary to legislate in a
bipartisan way again.
As we look to the future of building a better world for the
next generation, I want to be clear: America can lead a new era
of technological innovation. We must lead with our values for
freedom, human rights, and human dignity.
But we are failing with closed schools, and this yearlong
experiment of remote learning, more screen time, and more
isolation is failing our kids. Our kids are in crisis.
Technology should add to education. It is not a substitute
for everyday learning. It is not a substitute, period.
Reopening for in-person learning does not mean 2 days a week.
It means 5 days, both with the teacher and the children in the
classroom together.
Before the President's address tonight, we should all be
asking why more is not being done to reopen. Just as the
doctors wrote in USA Today, this is a human rights issue. Let's
open the doors of our schools and let our kids learn and thrive
again.
Thank you.
And, Ms. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include both
articles I mentioned in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Good morning and welcome.
Our discussion today is one especially important to me, not
just as a Member of Congress, but as a mom.
We need to leave politics at the door and have a serious
discussion about what is happening to our kids online.
... their mental health and safety.
... and what needs to happen to reopen schools immediately.
SCHOOLS
Yesterday, we heard from four doctors who wrote in USA
TODAY.
Quote: ``keeping schools closed or even partially closed,
based on what we know now, is harming our children.''
They said the Biden administration misinterpreted their
research and science when creating the CDC guidance.
... and it ultimately led to harmful policy that hamstrung
States to reopen schools quickly.
SCIENCE
The science is clear.
Viral transmission is minimal in schools. Children are not
a significant risk either of poor outcomes from COVID-19.
It's time to reopen immediately and listen to the experts
who are saying loud and clear, follow the science.. school
closures are harming children.
It's more than just a homework gap. There are serious
health and mental risks associated with our children spending
more time online.
These are stories, I'm hearing from parents who are
pleading for schools to reopen.
I hear this every day.
Our kids aren't active.
They are not engaged and falling asleep during remote
school.
They are isolated. suicide and overdose risks are going up.
And as children spend more time online, they are more at
risk to online predators.
This has all happened in my community and I know we aren't
alone.
The science tells us all these risks of despair far
outweigh COVID-19 in schools.
MORE HEALTH EXPERTS
In addition to USA Today, I encourage everyone to also read
a piece from the New York Times.
It documents scientific insight from health professionals.
Here's what one pediatrician from San Francisco said:
``We are witnessing a significant public health crisis in
our children, who are experiencing unprecedented mental illness
and physical ailments during this time.
``This would be mitigated, if not completely alleviated, by
in-person schooling.'' End quote.
I understand that our focus today is child safety in an
increasingly digital age.
For the safety of our children, surely we can all agree
science--not fear--should dictate how we protect them and build
a better future....
... A future with hope.
We can mitigate a lot of the harms and risks we are talking
about today by not letting another day go by of school
closures.
That's what will give our children the best chance to
succeed and thrive in life.
PROTECTING ONLINE
Now, specifically regarding their protection online...
I am always open to updating and modernizing our laws.
I'm committed to bipartisan work for data and privacy
protections, especially children's privacy.
I sincerely hope those efforts resume soon....
... and this committee does the hard work of legislating in
a bipartisan way again.
WIN THE FUTURE
As we look to the future of building a better world for the
next generation, I want to be clear.
America can lead a new era of technological innovation.
We must lead with our values for freedom, human rights, and
human dignity.
But we are failing with closed schools and this year long
experiment of remote learning, more screen time, and more
isolation.
Technology should add to education. It's not a substitute
for everyday learning.
It's not a substitute period. Reopening for in-person
learning doesn't mean two days a week.
It means five days--with both the teacher and children in
the classroom together.
Before the President's address tonight, we should all be
asking why isn't more being done to reopen.
Just as the doctors wrote in USA Today, this is a human
rights issue.
Let's open the doors of our schools and let our kids learn
and thrive again.
Thank you.
Ms. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include both
articles I mentioned in the record.
Ms. Schakowsky. All of those will be added at the end of
the hearing, and she yields back.
Mrs. Rodgers. I yield back. Sorry, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And the Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant
to committee rules, all Members' written opening statements
shall be made part of the record.
And now I will introduce the witnesses that we have and
thank them so much for their participation today.
Dr. Nusheen Ameenuddin--did I get that?--Ameenuddin, chair
of the Council on Communications and Media at the American
Academy of Pediatrics.
We have Corey A. DeAngelis, Ph.D., Director of School
Choice at the Reason Foundation, adjunct scholar at the Cato
Institute, and executive director of the Educational Foundation
Institute.
And Ariel Fox Johnson, who is the senior counsel of global
policy at Common Sense Media.
And we want to thank all of you for joining us for this
very important hearing today, which I am getting the feeling
has a good deal of bipartisan support, and we look forward to
your testimony.
So, Dr. Ameenuddin, you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF NUSHEEN AMEENUDDIN, M.D., CHAIR, COUNCIL ON
COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; COREY
A. DeANGELIS, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL CHOICE, REASON
FOUNDATION; AND ARIEL FOX JOHNSON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GLOBAL
POLICY, COMMON SENSE MEDIA
STATEMENT OF NUSHEEN AMEENUDDIN, M.D.
Dr. Ameenuddin. OK. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Schakowsky, Ranking Member Bilirakis,
Chair Pallone, and Ranking Member Rodgers, along with members
of the subcommittee. Thank you so much for inviting me to
discuss young people's digital media use during the pandemic.
I am Dr. Nusheen Ameenuddin, and I am a pediatrician at the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. I am here today
representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, a nonprofit,
professional medical organization of more than 67,000
pediatricians, where I serve as chair of the Council on
Communications and Media.
Today's youths are growing up immersed in digital media. In
1970, kids began watching TV around 4 years of age, but today
babies start interacting with digital media within the first
few months of their lives.
Media's impact on children has been an issue for years,
well before a global pandemic forced us all to move our lives
online. The pandemic has laid bare this longstanding issue,
creating an opportunity to address structural issues within the
digital ecosystem.
As a pediatrician who has been caring for patients this
entire pandemic, I have to acknowledge the unprecedented
challenges that families are up against. It is no surprise that
screen time has increased significantly under these
circumstances.
As pediatricians, we also have to acknowledge the reality
of the ubiquity of digital devices. We do not simply preach
device abstinence. We encourage moderate, balanced, pro social
use of devices as part of the media diet.
Technology can have important benefits for children and
teens, like broadening horizons and as a learning tool. The
internet provides space for community building among youth who
are marginalized, including children with serious diseases.
Children of color who face racism can build resilience by
sharing those experiences and finding support online.
With these benefits in mind, we also need to focus on the
real threats posed by technology. The bottom line is that
parents need help, and technology companies must be held
accountable for the products that they create.
Data collection and compromised privacy are among the most
pervasive threats facing young people. Companies can contact,
track, and influence users through digital trails that they
leave behind. Users can unknowingly disclose location,
activities, likes and dislikes, along with in-app behavior.
This intentionally opaque process is then used to make ads
more effective and platforms more successful and profitable.
Children using these products do not fully understand the
ramifications of this data collection, which can also influence
the information that reaches them.
Ad content is tailored to their interests and creates false
norms that undermine healthy behaviors. Algorithms can
accurately predict what a child will want to watch next. These
elements make it so hard for young brains to resist.
Many products feature manipulative design that nudges users
into specific behaviors. An example is the autoplay feature on
platforms like Netflix and YouTube, which places the onus
entirely on young people to opt out of watching the next video,
making increased screen time an almost foregone conclusion.
But that is not all. Gamified ads and in-app purchases that
reward users for watching ads and buying products are very
appealing to children.
During the pandemic, users of a supposedly free math game
were shown 16 different ads and only four math problems over 19
minutes of game play.
Social media allows companies to reach young people with
paid influence they are marketing through platforms like
YouTube and TikTok. Young people are led to believe that posts
reflect the genuine preferences of the poster when, in fact,
they are actually being targeted by marketing campaigns.
Algorithms also drive young people to inaccurate,
inappropriate, and even harmful content like misinformation
about COVID-19 and vaccines, another issue that pediatricians
experience firsthand and have for a while.
Youth of color face challenges accessing positive aspects
of technology due to a longstanding digital divide, which
includes disproportionate targeting for unhealthy ads that
worsen health disparities and increase screen time stemming
from structural issues.
In order to make real progress for children and families,
we must preserve the positive aspects of technology while
removing the pervasive threats it can pose. The AAP recommends
that Congress strengthen the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act. An enhanced COPPA should protect all children
under the age of 18 and cover the wide array of devices that
collect data from children.
If data collection is even allowed for young people, it
should be an opt in.
Congress must also ban targeted advertising to those under
age 18.
And, finally, Congress should fund efforts to improve
digital literacy, address digital equity, and expand research
on how digital media impacts children.
The issues that young people and their families face in the
digital world are not insurmountable. Through effective public
policy, it is possible to build a better digital world for our
children during and after this pandemic.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ameenuddin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Now, I will recognize Dr. DeAngelis.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF COREY A. DeANGELIS, Ph.D.
Dr. DeAngelis. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, and distinguished Members of Congress. Thank you so
much for the opportunity.
There have been substantial costs associated with keeping
schools closed in terms of students losing ground academically,
mentally, and physically, and many of these negative effects
have disproportionately impacted less advantaged groups,
leading to inequities.
Meanwhile, the evidence has generally indicated that
schools can reopen safely for in-person instruction and that
school reopenings are generally not associated with major
increases in overall COVID-19 transmission or hospitalizations.
In addition to the science, actions by several teachers'
unions and the stark contrast in the response to the pandemic
from the private versus the public sectors suggest that
reopening decisions have had more to do with political
partisanship and power dynamics than safety and the needs of
families.
Private schools have been open for the most part of the
past year or have been fighting to reopen in that time. In
fact, private schools in Kentucky took the fight to the Supreme
Court in an attempt to provide in-person services, and private
schools in States such as Ohio and Michigan took similar legal
actions.
A private school in Sacramento even rebranded itself as a
day care to try to get around the government's arbitrary school
closure rules.
But many teachers' unions have been fighting to remain
closed by shifting the reopening goalpost every step of the
way. It is not because of a difference in intentions or
benevolence on the part of the employees between the two
sectors. The difference is one of incentives. One of these
sectors gets children's education dollars regardless of whether
they open their doors for business.
Several actions by teachers' unions also raise some
eyebrows. Just as school closures hit in March 2020, union
groups in States such as Oregon and Pennsylvania lobbied the
governments to make it illegal for families to switch to
virtual charter schools that have already been successfully
providing students with remote instruction for years.
These actions aimed to protect a system at the expense of
families at the worst time possible.
Then came the political demands. In their report on safely
reopening schools, the Los Angeles Teachers' Union called for
things unrelated to school reopening, such as defunding the
police, Medicare for All, a wealth tax, and a ban on charter
schools. At least 10 teachers' unions similarly joined the
Democratic Socialists of America to hold a National Day of
Resistance to demand safe schools, including political demands
on two occasions in less than a year.
Other things just did not add up. Why was it safe enough
for public school buildings to reopen for in-person child-care
services but not for in-person learning?
Why was it safe enough for teachers' union officials to
travel to Puerto Rico to vacation in person and to send their
own children to in-person private schools but not safe enough
for their members to return to work in person?
Why have four studies each found that school reopenings are
more strongly related to political partisanship and teachers'
union influence than COVID risk?
Why did the Congressional Budget Office estimate that only
5 percent of the $128 billion in relief funding would be spent
this year, while up to 95 percent of the funding would be paid
out after the pandemic if the goal is to reopen schools now?
Why did half of the Senate block an amendment that would
have made a Federal funding conditional upon reopening schools
in person if all teachers were vaccinated?
Why has Florida, a State that only spends about $10,700 per
student, far below the national average, been able to
essentially fully reopen its schools while California, a State
that has much stronger teachers' unions and spends about 38
percent more per student, has kept its doors shut?
It might be because the school reopening debate has always
been more about politics and power than safety and the needs of
families.
The past year has put a spotlight on the main problem with
K to 12 education in the U.S., a long existing, massive power
imbalance between public school teachers' unions and individual
families. And the only way that we are ever going to fix that
messed-up set of incentives that is baked into the public
school system is to empower families by funding students
directly.
Think about it this way. If a grocery store does not
reopen, families can take their money elsewhere. If a school
does not reopen, families should similarly be able to take
their children's education dollars elsewhere.
After all, education funding is supposed to be meant for
educating children, not for protecting a particular
institution. Families have been getting a bad deal, and they
are realizing that there is not any good reason to fund closed
institutions when we can fund students directly instead.
The latest nationwide survey conducted by RealClear Opinion
Research found that support for funding students directly
surged by 10 percentage points between April and August of
2020.
And we already fund students directly in higher education
with Pell Grants and the GI Bill and in pre-K with programs
such as Head Start. The funding goes to individual students and
families as opposed to buildings.
With all of these programs, in addition to food stamps,
Section 8 housing vouchers, and Medicaid, we fund individuals
instead of institutions. We should apply the same logic to K to
12 education and fund students, not systems.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. DeAngelis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Johnson, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ARIEL FOX JOHNSON
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Go ahead.
Ms. Fox Johnson. Good morning. Good morning, Chair Pallone,
Chair Schakowsky, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Ranking
Member Bilirakis, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you and for
recognizing that the digital world, for all of its
opportunities, poses unique risks and harms to children and
teens.
The pandemic has certainly exacerbated these risks and
harms, but they existed before, and unless Congress acts, they
will persist after.
I am Ariel Fox Johnson, Senior Counsel for Global Policy at
Common Sense Media.
Common Sense is the leading organization dedicated to
helping kids and families thrive in a rapidly changing digital
world.
My testimony emphasizes three main points.
First, children and teens are on the front lines of our
online world, and they are uniquely vulnerable to digital harm.
Second, the status quo is failing young people.
And, third, solutions to these challenges are the
responsibility of Congress and tech leaders themselves.
We need a healthy internet, especially now. In my house,
with limited to no childcare, our screen time rules have gone
out the window. Just this weekend I told my children to go
watch a movie or play on their tablet so that I could prepare
this testimony.
While it was once debatable whether you could choose to be
online, it is now clear that there is no choice. It is
necessary to connect with family, to learn, and to play.
Our research shows that device ownership was already the
norm for young children and that screen time had multiplied in
recent years, with children in lower-income houses spending
nearly 2 hours more daily with screens.
The pandemic has turbocharged this. Distance learning is a
big driver for older kids, yes, but screen time is up for all
kids. As of this fall, children ages 2 to 15 watch television,
including streaming, a full day each week. YouTube and gaming
consoles have seen spikes in usage, some with 82 percent more
daily users.
Social media and mobile use is up, and one study found that
kids were sending and receiving three times more messages than
the year before.
Parents are worried. Parents' top child health concerns in
2020 were overuse of social media, bullying and cyber bullying,
and internet safety.
Young people are impulsive, and they are prone to
overshare. They do not understand that data shared on an app
does not remain on their device, let alone grasp complex online
data and advertising ecosystems. They are more susceptible to
ads and other forms of online persuasion.
Kids are no match for tech companies who have grown
unchecked and remain unaccountable. Too many are manipulating
children, misusing their personal information, and exposing
kids to harm. And this is not something that will magically
stop when the pandemic ends.
Kids are surveilled everywhere. We talk about a digital
footprint, but at this point it is more accurately a full body
scan. Manipulative design pressures teens to click and scroll
constantly and to tie their self-worth to numbers of likes.
Elementary students can drain their parents' credit cards
with in-app purchases and get shamed by beloved characters to
spend more money.
More than 9 in 10 teens report seeing violent content
online. Our own forthcoming research details how the number of
teens who have seen racist content online has nearly doubled in
the past 2 years. Meanwhile, kids' mental health is taking a
hit.
So what should Congress do? Madam Chair, you and others on
this committee have been leaders here, and as we have seen from
the statements in the committee and the witnesses today, there
is clear agreement that there is a problem.
The challenge is ensuring that when Congress does act, it
makes a real difference. There is a risk that Congress may act
but not do enough.
We believe, as do many of you, that COPPA is outdated. It
must be updated in a meaningful way.
Congress should pass a strong, comprehensive privacy law
with special protections for vulnerable children and teens. The
PRIVCY Act, introduced by Representative Castor along with
Representative Dingell and other Members, would address many of
COPPA's shortcomings, would force States to acknowledge kids,
protect and empower teens, and prohibit behavioral marketing to
kids.
Congress should also pass Representatives Castor, Clarke,
and Wexton's KIDS Act, which would create rules around online
marketing to kids and encourage kid-healthy content and design,
banning autoplay and amplification of harmful content.
We support other steps to hold tech companies accountable
as well, but we believe that there is much that industry can do
right now. They do not need to wait for Congress to minimize
information collection and design healthier products for kids.
And their reluctance to act is inexcusable.
Technology and media offer enormous benefits, but kids
deserve better online. They needed it before, and they will
need it after the pandemic.
Thank you, and I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fox Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. And the gentlelady yields back.
We have concluded witness' opening statements at this time.
So we are going to move to Member questions. Each Member will
have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses, and I will
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
So the line between people's online and offline lives has
rapidly disappeared. This is particularly true for kids, and as
one of our witnesses said, even infants. I have seen babies
just holding devices in the airport and other places.
The ability to track children for behavioral advertising,
coupled with persuasion design tactics, has been a real problem
and a threat to our kids.
And I wanted to ask Dr. Ameenuddin. Can you speak to how
children and even teens struggle to identify and resist these
manipulative techniques in today's complex online ecosystem?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Certainly. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky.
I think your question really gets to the heart of the
problem. The fact is that children at different developmental
ages have different levels of ability to understand and to
resist persuasive programming.
For young children, I do not think that exists, period.
They just do not have the sophistication and are uniquely
vulnerable to persuasive design.
Even when you look at older kids, teenagers, who may even
have some training in digital literacy, media literacy, have a
lot of difficulty resisting these very, very persuasive, well-
targeted ads.
Frankly, it is hard for adults to resist too, and so that
is why the American Academy of Pediatrics feels that it is so
important to create structural layers that hold tech
responsible.
And we think this is a wonderful opportunity for Congress
to help pass laws that protect kids from that kind of predatory
targeting and data collection.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
Let me ask Ms. Fox Johnson. Given that these marketing and
design techniques are so sophisticated, thoroughly tested and
intentionally directed at children and teens, do you believe
that the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, should regulate such
practice, predatory behavior, under the unfair and deceptive
practices authority?
Ms. Fox Johnson. I certainly believe that the Federal Trade
Commission could regulate these things as unfair and deceptive,
particularly to children under 13 who may not even know they
are interacting with an advertisement in lots of scenarios.
I think that a less litigious and perhaps quicker path
forward would be Congress making it clear that these practices
are not allowed.
Ms. Schakowsky. And let me ask you this about the
platforms' accountability. Dr. Ameenuddin, do you think that we
need to have platforms accountable for exposing children to
harmful and inappropriate content?
Dr. Ameenuddin. I always think that accountability is
important, especially when you are creating products that are
not necessarily developmentally appropriate but are still
exposing children to sometimes highly inappropriate content.
We absolutely believe at the American Academy of Pediatrics
that tech companies need to take responsibility for that
because we all believe that we have a same general goal of
wanting to protect children.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And I wondered if you wanted to comment on that, Ms. Fox
Johnson, the accountability of the platforms.
Ms. Fox Johnson. Yes. These platforms are incredibly
powerful and have an incredible amount of resources at their
disposal, unlike many parents. They are not just making content
available to kids that is inappropriate, but in many cases
actively pushing it on them and taking them into outrageous or
concerning scenarios. So they can do a better job at what they
push and also a better job at identifying healthy, positive,
education content.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And, Dr. Ameenuddin--oh, I did it again--Ameenuddin, I want
to ask you. How might this repeated, regular exposure to
inappropriate content, often viewed together with appropriate
content, harm or affect our children?
And if you could tell us long term, as well, how it could
affect our children.
Dr. Ameenuddin. So that is a very important question. Thank
you so much for addressing that.
Repeated exposure to harmful content, whether it is violent
content or, frankly, you know, racist content that kids are
encountering online, really can be harmful.
We know from past research that bio space harassment and
being exposed to these negative images can really undermine the
child's self-esteem. It can cause significant mental distress
for them.
And being exposed to that repeatedly, unfortunately, only
multiplies that effect, which is all the more reason to be
careful and hold tech companies accountable for what they are
putting out there.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
I realize I have gone over my time, and I yield back.
And now I would welcome Congressman Bilirakis to ask his
questions for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate very
much.
Dr. Ameenuddin, thank you not just for your testimony but
your important work on kids' mental health. That is so very
important. They are our future.
I believe your contributions here today really serve
multiple areas we are working on. So, again, I really
appreciate all of the witnesses.
I am concerned about how children being, again, depressed,
anxious, and even suicidal this generation has become. You
know, you see it on a regular basis when you are in our
district.
Can you speak to the isolation that kids have felt since
the pandemic began?
And can you provide perspective on what are the most common
issues you are seeing that might be driving the sadness of
these kids?
And then as a follow-up, would you agree that one of the
best ways that we deal with these issues is to curb access to
these negative impacts?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Thank you, Ranking Member Bilirakis.
Such a critical question. There is no doubt that
pediatricians have anecdotally been reporting increased visits
for depression and anxiety. I find that those are two of the
most common mental health issues that I have personally been
seeing during the pandemic.
I do want to make it clear we have been seeing increasing
levels of this even before the pandemic hit, but certainly
exacerbated by a combination of factors. The pandemic has been
very stressful for everyone.
I have had children whose parents have lost jobs. I have
had patients who have lost family members to the COVID-19
disease. And so really I think it is multifactorial. Isolation
certainly plays into it.
And that is where in some ways we also have to look at the
positive benefits of technology where that has allowed them to
stay connected to grandparents, to elderly neighbors, to
friends, but obviously, you know, we want to maximum the
positive benefits without leaving them vulnerable to the
negative benefits.
And I apologize. You had a follow-up question.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Addressing it, would you agree that one
of the best ways that we deal with these issues is to curb
access to these negative impacts?
Dr. Ameenuddin. So I would agree that the best way to help
curb negative impacts is to look at the structural system and
to try to minimize those harms through accountability for tech
platforms and also legislation to help regulate what children
are able to access and what data is collected on them.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Again, Doctor, for you again, there have been many data and
scientifically backed pediatricians, including those at the
American Academy of Pediatricians, who argue that schools are
safe enough to open. Do you agree with your colleagues that we
need to begin opening schools back up for students and
teachers?
Dr. Ameenuddin. So I appreciate that question. I know that
that is a related issue, even if it is not the specific issue
of this particular hearing.
I think that the American Academy of Pediatrics has put
together a very thoughtful and evidence-based recommendation
for school reopening.
We also know that not all schools are equally resourced,
and in order to make sure that schools are safe to return, we
need to be able to ensure universal masking, hand washing,
social distancing. Ideally it would be great to have teachers
vaccinated as well. That is an additional layer of protection.
It is never just one thing when we talk about public health
or health benefits, but we certainly all can agree that we want
to move towards the goal of making it safe for all kids to
return to school and to make sure that schools are
appropriately funded so that they ensure those safety measures
for everybody.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. DeAngelis, would you like to comment on any of the data
from Public Health Masters supporting the reopening of schools?
We would appreciate that. Thank you.
Dr. DeAngelis. Yes. In fact, there was a systematic review
of the evidence published just today. So if you want to add it
to the record, you can find it at The 74 Million. A reporter
named Linda Jacobson actually summarized the study and said,
and I quote, ``Mounting evidence shows it is safe for reopening
schools and that the risk of in-person learning contributing to
the spread of COVID-19 is low,'' according to a new review of
research released Thursday.
That covered 130 different studies. So it is a huge amount
of evidence, and then also researchers at the CDC published in
a top journal, JAMA, saying that, quote, ``The preponderance of
available evidence from the fall school semester has been
reassuring insofar as the type of rapid spread that was
frequently observed in congregate living facilities or high-
density work sites has not been reported in education settings
in schools.''
And quote, ``There has been little evidence that schools
have contributed meaningfully to increased community
transmission.''
You can also look at places like New York City, where the
school positivity rate is less than a tenth of what the
positivity rate in the overall community is. You can look at
quotes from people like Anthony Fauci as well saying to close
the bars and open the schools and that schools are generally
not major contributors of community transmission.
I know I am over time, but there's tons of evidence
suggesting that schools can reopen safely, particularly if you
have the procedures in place.
And then my latest study in Social Science Research Network
suggests there is no relationship between funding and schools
reopening.
Ms. Schakowsky. We are going to have to call on the next
speaker.
I am looking for Frank Pallone. Yes, the chair of the full
committee is recognized for questions for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to start out with Dr. Ameenuddin. My concern is
that, you know, you have many of our constituents who work two
jobs and have to take care of their family and, you know, just
putting food on the table is a challenge.
And there was a recent Common Sense Media survey that
showed that children from lower-income households spend nearly
two additional hours on screens than those from higher-income
households. You know, so while parents can supervise--or, at
least, that is the goal--it is really impractical or not
possible for many if they are working two jobs and have all of
these other things.
So, Dr. Ameenuddin, are children able to self-monitor their
own digital consumption?
And do they know when to disconnect? I know parental
controls are viewed as an alternative when direct supervision
is not possible, but 71 percent of parents say they are not
satisfied that the tools they have to use to keep kids safe.
That is my question, to what extent the kids can self-
monitor, know when to disconnect or what to do, if you would.
Dr. Ameenuddin. Thank you, Chair Pallone.
So, again, I think that is a critical question, whether or
not children can self-monitor, and when we look at the
circumstances that this pandemic has really brought to the
fore, these are not new.
For a long time, for decades, the American Academy of
Pediatrics has recognized the unique vulnerability of young
children, in particular, but even teenagers to be able to
really self-monitor and resist manipulative designs.
And, you know, 20, 30 years ago, as I think one of your
members mentioned, it was easy to sort of turn off the TV and
for parents to monitor, but these days with the ubiquity of
digital devices and the ability to take these devices into
bedrooms, it really makes it so much harder for kids to self-
regulate and self-monitor.
Young children are not capable. I want to make that very
clear. It is just not going to happen without some structural
supports and parental supervision, which of course has become
even more difficult when you have got a parent in one room
working one job, a parent in another room working one job.
So really, again, we have to look at this as a structural
issue, as the American Academy of Pediatrics has done for
years, to recognize that we need more protections for our kids.
Even media-savvy teens have difficulty self-regulating,
although it is OK to give them a little bit of flexibility to
try to do that.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
Then let me ask Ms. Fox Johnson. Can you discuss briefly
the different parental control options that are currently
available, including how easy they are to use, how much they
cost, what that means for low-income families, and any privacy
concerns?
And then a second question: Given the limitations that you
are probably going to say about these devices, how do you
explain why baseline default protections from children are
important, if you could?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Sure. Thank you, Chairman Pallone.
So there are a variety of parental controls, and just
researching all of them it takes a lot of time, time that
parents do not have. You can have browserable controls. You can
have controls at the device level. Some apps and gaming systems
offer controls within them.
Like I said, it takes time to research these, and it takes
additional time and effort to try to implement them in
effective ways.
They also--especially the better ones that do more than
just allow you to block sites but allow you to, say, filter
content or see what your kids are doing--cost money, $10 a
month, $100 a year, more money if you have more kids.
This plus the time involved make it very difficult for
lower-income families, in particular, or families with less
digital literacy to use these tools effectively.
And then also, as you mentioned, concerns about kids
growing up with surveillance and feeling normalized, and it is
normal that someone can constantly follow them. Traditionally a
kid could go into a bedroom, shut their door, and have a moment
of privacy, but that may not be possible if their parent or
someone else is constantly monitoring them.
The U.K. has advised that, with parental controls,
companies should make that clear to kids so that they know
what's going on and have not sort of secret surveillance given
out.
Mr. Pallone. Baseline default protection, is that
important?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Pallone. Did you mention that? Go ahead.
Ms. Fox Johnson. Baseline protections are super important
because we know that defaults are super important. Lots of
people do not take the time to change defaults, and companies
make it very difficult to change defaults.
If companies had to put kids' best interests at the front
from designing their products from the get-go, it would be less
critical for parents to go to the trouble and time and money of
putting in extra parental controls.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And I recognize Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member on the
full committee, for her 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for this hearing today. I think it is very important.
I appreciate all of the witnesses being here and sharing
your insights with us.
You know, during my opening statement, I highlighted the
importance for schools to reopen fully for 5 days a week, for
students and teachers both to return to the classroom.
Dr. DeAngelis, you raise some startling statistics in your
testimony, especially regarding the disproportionate impact on
less-advantaged children in our country, like those with
disabilities.
Your testimony states that, in 2020, failing grades in
Arlington Public Schools increased 91 percent since the
previous year for middle school students with disabilities, and
81 percent for high school students with disabilities.
Can you explain what this means for these families and
these students and what it would mean for them to have school
in person again?
Dr. DeAngelis. Well, thank you so much for the question.
It can lead to a ton of long-term negative impacts, in
addition to the student achievement negative impacts that we
are seeing.
And I want to say there is a nationwide analysis done by
McKinsey & Company on two different occasions finding that
students have already lost months and months of learning, and
Eric Hanushek, an economist affiliated with Stanford
University, did a report published by the OECD, estimating that
this could have a net present value of a negative impact around
$17 trillion in the U.S. alone associated with reductions in
lifetime earnings and other negative impacts to GDP.
But then there are other problems that are not associated
with learning losses, like mental health problems increasing. I
know I think Ranking Member Bilirakis had pointed out that
suicides had doubled for students in Clark County Public
Schools, Nevada, since the same time last year.
So there are a ton of costs associated with keeping the
schools closed. One more district in my area, Fairfax County
Public Schools, their failure rate increased by 83 percent
relative to last year for students failing two or more classes,
and that number was even larger, 111 percent, over a doubling
in failure for two or more classes for students with special
needs.
So, obviously, reopening the schools would lead to more
options for individual families to make that choice of whether
they want to do in-person or remote learning going forward and
to be able to take the best learning environment for their
individual children, which would lead to better incomes later
in life and could lead to lower likelihood of criminal activity
and better lifetime earnings in the long run.
So these are important things that we need to consider.
There are a lot of costs in keeping schools closed, and at
first a lot of people were only looking at the cost associated
with reopening schools. We have got to look at both sides of
the equation.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
And as a follow-up, the Republican leader on this
subcommittee, Gus Bilirakis, mentioned that some of the schools
are beginning to open.
Washington State, where I come from, is still largely
locked down. Some schools, a small percentage, have opened, but
I wanted to ask you about the private and parochial schools,
because some of them have opened. More of them have opened, and
I wanted to ask if you had any data on the trends of
transmission rates in private and parochial schools.
Dr. DeAngelis. Yes. First, I think it is common knowledge
at this point that private schools have been substantially more
likely to reopen than traditional public schools in the U.S.,
if you look nationwide or in particular counties across the
country, as well.
And there are data on COVID case rates in private schools
collected by Brown University. I think Dr. Emily Oster, an
economist over at Brown University, has been compiling this for
months, finding that, one, the case rates in the schools are
substantially lower than the case rates in the community over
time.
But then also you can break it down by public versus
private schools and how many people are in the schools. So even
with the private schools, with a majority and a vast majority
of children returning to in-person learning, the COVID case
positivity rates in those schools had been substantially lower
than in the overall community, sometimes as much as a tenth or
a twentieth below the overall community positivity rate,
hovering around .5 percent or less pretty consistently over
time.
So the private schools have been able to do it, and some
public schools have done a good job at being able to reopen in
person as well. So it can be done, and you can see that with
the comparison that I pointed out earlier between California
and Florida.
Florida spends a lot less, yet they are way more likely to
be open than California as far as their schools are concerned,
and Florida tends to have a lot less powerful teachers' unions
as well.
Mrs. Rodgers. You mentioned in your testimony that, after
private and parochial schools open, nearby public schools often
follow suit. It seems to me that these schools were safe enough
to reopen from the beginning. Even the Director of CDC believes
schools could reopen.
So why do you think this is happening?
Dr. DeAngelis. It could be another reason why Florida is
more likely to reopen. They have a lot of school choice and
competition through even open enrollment with their public
schools and then private school choice programs. It is leading
the way on those fronts, which could lead to more competition,
as that Brown University study found, where places with low-
cost private schools, the public schools were more likely to
reopen as well.
So I think this has a lot to do with incentives.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I am going to go vote. Before I do that, I want to yield
now for 5 minutes to Bobby Rush, my colleague from Illinois,
for 5 minutes of questioning, and thank Tony Cardenas, the vice
chair of this committee, for taking over while I am gone.
So thank you to both of you, and you are recognized, Bobby.
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to thank all of the witnesses for this superb
hearing.
Ms. Fox Johnson, in your testimony you discuss how children
in lower-income households and those from racial and ethnic
minority groups are spending more time in front of a screen.
My question to you is, given the very positive and
inspirational request from the Biden administration in that the
vaccinations will be available to all Americans by the end of
May, and then it makes us more optimistic about schools being
able to open no later than the fall--but in the interim, how do
we use online opportunities to help abrogate or help address
the missed condition that a lot of our students have fallen so
far behind because of the closure of schools?
Is there any way that we can pivot from what the current
situation has been to what the current situation could possibly
be, given the fact that we will be opening soon?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Sure, and thank you, Representative Rush.
I mean, the numbers about more students of color and more
typical and more kids from low-income families spending more
time on devices comes from before the pandemic, and children in
lower-income households are more likely to also use apps that
have ad tracking and other sort of COPPA-violating information
collection practices.
I think, as everyone seems to be saying here, it will be
great when schools reopen. Screen time was a problem before the
pandemic. It will be a problem after. I think we need to create
a healthy environment for kids online.
I think Congress can help with this. Companies can help
with this. They can move away from business models that
prioritize engagement and sensationalist content, and they can
move away from behavioral ad targeting that preys on kids'
particular vulnerabilities.
They can try to promote high-quality and educational
content. I mean, Sesame Street is a media product. That is a
good product for kids. So the internet companies can change
their business models and work to push high-quality content
that respects kids and empowers them to grow and learn.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Ameenuddin, in your testimony you stated that
youth of color can cause additional challenges for digital
media and face various assessments of beneficial estimates of
technology. And this is something that is becoming more evident
over the past year and something I have witnessed here in my
own district in Chicago.
Can you please talk about the challenges the youth of color
face and what, if anything, can Congress do to help alleviate
these obstacles?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Yes. Thank you so much, Representative
Rush, for that question.
Digital inequity and the digital divide have been a concern
of ours for a very long time. Those of us who are pediatricians
were interested in this issue and really are seeing why it has
become such a problem.
Part of the reason why youth of color are so vulnerable to
this is that there is targeted advertising towards them for
unhealthy products, and you know, as we are still learning
during the pandemic and I anticipate a whole slew of research
that will come out as a result of this, I can also look
historically back at how, in lower-income neighborhoods or
neighborhoods with large minority populations, alcohol and
tobacco billboards were often much more prevalent there.
Like a child walking to school in the neighborhood would
pass several of these billboards, and again, that is
historical. But we have also seen that in terms of digital
marketing, whether it is for unhealthy foods or for tobacco,
alcohol, or even marijuana advertising, all of which the
American Academy of Pediatrics opposes being targeted towards
children, which I am happy to recommend our previous policy
statements on that.
In addition to that, we have to look at the built
environment around children and what is safe. It is not safe to
play outside if there are not green spaces. Children are by
circumstance, you know, going to spend more time indoors on a
screen.
Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Member Bob Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. I thank my friend for recognizing me and also
for the chair for holding today's hearing examining how to
protect children in the digital age.
That issue has become amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In my home State of Ohio, the Department of Education is
reporting significant areas of learning lag. Its reporting
shows the decrease in third-grade proficiency was clear among
students learning in districts that used a fully remote
education model as their primary education model in the fall of
2020.
In fully remote districts, third-grade proficient rates
decreased by approximately 12 percentage points compared to
decreases of approximately 8 percentage points in districts
primarily using a 5-day in-person model and 9 percentage points
in districts primarily using a hybrid model.
Students are clearly suffering across our country without
in-person learning. Where schools are open, children are
proving to be very resilient. However, they are much less
resilient to the impacts of remote or distance learning.
And, Dr. DeAngelis, thank you for your testimony and the
wealth of data explaining schools are safe to reopen. As you
also know, many children are struggling with distance learning
for a variety of reasons, including lack of social engagement,
difficulty concentrating, and Zoom fatigue.
My colleagues in the majority recently provided over $7
billion to fund remote learning, which makes us more reliant on
these small screens.
Now, if we are serious about connecting those without
broadband, we should have devoted that money toward improvement
of broadband infrastructure and reform our permitting laws to
deliver connectivity to these unserved Americans.
Even before COVID, we knew students without connectivity do
not have the same chance of success and can be left behind.
Dr. DeAngelis, have you seen distinctions on how broadband
can be an important bridge for learning?
Dr. DeAngelis. Yes, absolutely, and thank you so much for
the question.
And one thing I might add is that additional funding for
remote learning could disincentivize schools from reopening for
in-person instruction if they get more funding with remote
services.
But one way to access more broadband within communities is
to reallocate the funding from institutions to individual
students. There are at least 28 State legislators that have
introduced legislation to fund students as opposed to systems
in the form mostly of something called an education savings or
education scholarship account, which would take a portion of
the money that would have gone to the traditional public school
that students are residentially assigned to, and if they like
the remote learning that is going on in the public school, they
can still do that and keep that option on the table.
But they would be able to take some of that funding to go
to an in-person private school or a pandemic pod or a micro
school or other types of learning scenarios.
And with education savings accounts, it is possible to have
State legislatures or even the Federal Government approve the
funding to be used to access connectivity and broadband as
well. It could be used for any approved, government-approved,
education-related expenditure.
I think this could, in theory, fall into that bucket.
Mr. Latta. Let me ask. Let me follow up. How can schools
become responsible stewards of making education more accessible
via broadband without that becoming a crutch then?
Dr. DeAngelis. One way to do it is to incentivize the
schools to reallocate the existing resources, particularly
because my latest study at Social Science Research Network with
MIT's Dr. McCredie finds that resources have not been
statistically related to reopening in person even after you
control for things like household income, the age and race
distributions, and COVID risk in the area.
Meanwhile we did not find significant relationships between
COVID risk and reopening schools in person.
We also tended to find that political partisanship was a
strong predictor, along with a few other studies have found
this as well, of reopening in person.
Mr. Latta. If I can just follow up again with another
question. You know, in my district the majority of our schools
are open for a 5-day learning week, and I know that that is not
the norm nationally.
In your paper are school reopening decisions related to
funding. You examine the impact of per student expenditures on
if schools are open for in-person learning or not.
Does the level of funding per student have an impact on the
reopening decisions during the COVID pandemic?
Dr. DeAngelis. We do not find any evidence, and this is the
only existing study on this topic that is done nationwide. We
do not find any evidence that is statistically significant
between the funding, whether it is measured by revenues per
people or expenditures per pupil, even after controlling for a
ton of different characteristics in the area. No relationships
between funding and being more likely to reopen.
If anything, we find that in some cases the remote
districts actually were financially better off than their in-
person counterparts, and a Georgetown University study
similarly found recently that remote districts were more likely
to have surpluses.
In Los Angeles, they had about a half-a-billion-dollar
surplus estimated for this school year.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
My time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from Florida, Kathy Castor, is now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, I thank my friend, the vice chair, for
recognizing me.
And another big thank you to Chair Schakowsky for calling
this very important hearing on protecting kids online.
Ms. Fox Johnson and Dr. Ameenuddin, your testimony really
lays out the harmful effect on children caused by predatory
data collection and exposure to inappropriate commercial
content.
Last Congress I introduced two bills, the Kids' PRIVCY Act
and the KIDS Act. The KIDS Act--thank you to my colleague
Yvette Clarke and to Congresswoman Wexton from Virginia for
joining me in that effort. They both address the harms caused
by these kinds of activities online by the big tech platforms.
And our bill proposed to update COPPA and put new
safeguards in place to protect kids when they are online.
So just to go over a few of the things that are contained
in the bills: expanding protections to young consumers age 13
to 17; requiring opt-in consent for all individuals under 18;
banning companies from providing targeted advertising to kids;
increasing the FTC penalty authority; repealing provisions that
allow industry self-regulation; and changing the knowledge
standard from actual to constructive, among a variety of other
provisions that really help empower parents and protect kids.
So, Ms. Fox Johnson, do you agree with those updates to
COPPA to protect kids online?
And focus in. Are there any that are more important than
others, or are they important as a package?
Ms. Fox Johnson. I thank you for the question and thank you
for your leadership on this issue.
We wholeheartedly agree that these updates are critical to
COPPA and think that they are critical as a package. For us,
some of the most important ones are extending protections to
teenagers, who, as you have heard, have their own set of risks
and vulnerabilities.
Ensuring that sites cannot pretend like they do not have
kids. TikTok and YouTube pretending like they did not have
children on their site for years, even though they had nursery
rhyme videos in the case of YouTube or clearly had small tweens
and preteens in the case of TikTok.
We also think it is critically important that enforcement
gets enhanced. COPPA has been around for over 20 years, and the
FTC has brought about 30 cases. So we do not think that
enforcement is sufficient right now.
We also think it is critical that certain practices just be
flat-out off limits. Behavioral targeting to young kids is
unfair, and it should not be allowed no matter what kind of,
you know, consent is allegedly given.
Thank you.
Ms. Castor. Dr. Ameenuddin, what do you think?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Well, thank you, Representative Castor, for
being a champion for this issue.
Some of the elements that you mentioned are actually laid
out in our most recent digital advertising policy statement,
which came out in June of last year from the American Academy
of Pediatrics.
I would love to look over some more legislation to see
where else we are on the same page.
So thank you so much for that.
Ms. Castor. And then, Ms. Fox Johnson, the KIDS Act
prohibits companies from using design features like autoplay
and push alerts or any feature that unfairly encourages a child
to spend more time engaging with the platform.
The bill also prohibits platforms from amplifying harmful
content to children.
Are we on the right track here?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Once again, a wholehearted yes. Kids get
hooked onto autoplay until spending too much time and watching
inappropriate content that is pushed on them. They get addicted
to the dings and badges that they receive.
I mean, there is a reason that we give stickers to children
when we want to train them to learn to use the bathroom. This
is how they respond to awards, and this is what tech companies
are doing to them now.
Ms. Castor. You know, one way I have thought about it and
shared it with parents is that if there was a person outside
your child's window at home or following them to school, you
would call the police. You would not put up with this.
So it should not be any different for our online platforms
that just have enormous amounts of influence, and they are
profiting off it. So I am really hopeful.
And, again, I want to give a big thank you to Chair
Schakowsky for directing the committee's attention to this very
important issue.
And then I just add at the end everyone wants kids back in
school, and thank goodness President Biden has said all
teachers, everyone that works in the school, should be
vaccinated, and we passed the American Rescue Plan yesterday to
provide the resources for schools and students across the
country to operate safely and improve student achievement.
So I think we are all on the same page there too.
Thanks, and I yield back.
Mr. Cardenas. The gentlewoman yields back.
It is my understanding that Chair Schakowsky is back.
OK. The gentlewoman yields back, and the next person who
will be recognized for 5 minutes is Member Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Cardenas. I
appreciate that very much.
Thanks for having this hearing today. Thanks, Chair
Schakowsky and Ranking Member Bilirakis.
You know, since the COVID-19 pandemic began nearly a year
ago--or a year ago--kids have been experiencing extended
periods of virtual schooling away from their teachers and their
friends.
As a result of this increased time, longstanding concerns
around digital technology have been brought to the forefront.
We continually hear about the need for students to be
physically in the classroom learning and the positive,
cognitive health benefits it brings to a student.
I just want to point out the schools in my hometown. There
are two school systems in my home county. One country school is
in Bolling Green. Independent schools have been meeting in
person to some degree, not everybody at the same time, since
August 24th, the first day of school that was on the books.
Most schools in Kentucky spent the summer preparing to
allow kids to come safely. When it came time to start schools,
the Governor recommended schools not start, and my two
superintendents said, ``We prepared. We have been working at
it. We have got things in place.''
So they went forward, much to a lot of criticism from the
Governor and a lot of people. But I can tell you, if anybody
wants to see an example of schools meeting and kids in session,
right--not every kid every day, I am not saying that--but some
form of in-person learning since August 24th, prior to there
being a vaccine, without any evidence of any student-to-student
spread, then they can come to Bolling Green and see how it can
be done because they have been successful with it.
And we still have districts in Kentucky that have not met
one day in a public setting, when one just a few miles down the
road has met since August 24.
So it is kind of without incident. It is not like, well, we
are not going to meet because they have had incidents. They are
certainly a great example of schools being open.
But I would start out with some questions for Dr.
Ameenuddin. You mentioned in your testimony how digital media
can negatively impact a child's health and development. In your
practice, how do you help parents or legal guardians find the
balance for their children between screen time and physical
activity, especially since so many kids are learning online?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Thank you, Representative Guthrie, for that
question.
I have to admit, you know, it is an ongoing challenge.
Every family is a little bit different. I advise them. I try to
be a coach for them about finding balance, finding moderation.
You know, I also tell parents to give themselves a break.
It is just there is unprecedented stress on everyone right now.
Parents are being pulled in multiple different directions, and
the last thing that we want to do is create more difficulty,
more stress and tension in the home.
So what I have been advising families to do is really not
that different from before the pandemic, but maybe with a few
caveats, is to really prioritize mental health and physical
health.
And you know, way back when, when we just had TVs to worry
about, we would recommend no more than 2 hours of entertainment
or recreational screen time a day. That is not a hard and fast
rule, but it does help to have some rules. It does help to have
some guidelines and guardrails up.
But I also tell parents not to be so hard on themselves or
their kids, because some days might just be very digital- and
screen-time-heavy days, but that is OK. You can work on making
the next day a little bit more balanced towards physical
activity, towards, you know, in-person interaction with other
family members to keep things safe.
So really, I am telling parents to give themselves a break,
but to just practice moderation on a wider scale long term.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thanks.
And, Dr. Ameenuddin, have you come across research or data
that show reopening schools directly correlates to substantial
increases in overall COVID-19 transmissions or hospitalizations
from child to child or child to adults spread?
Dr. Ameenuddin. So that is an important question. It is not
my area of expertise, but I would recommend reading the AAP
guidance on school reopening because I think that lays it out
very nicely.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. So the schools could reopen safely if you
follow the guidance, correct?
That is what we did in Bolling Green, and we did it until
last August. So I just want to point that out.
Can I also ask questions to Mr. DeAngelis? In your
testimony, you state that a Gallup poll found 86 percent of
parents said that students being separated from classmates and
teachers was a challenge for their children.
From your research, have any studies that indicate that
virtual learning is more suited for kids than in-person
learning?
And you have about 30 seconds to answer.
Dr. DeAngelis. In general, the research suggests that in-
person learning is better, on average, than virtual learning.
So I don't want to say that virtual learning can never work. It
can work in certain situations. And it is most likely to work
in the best way possible when families voluntarily select into
that situation, and they can make those cost-benefit decisions
themselves.
But on average we are seeing that there is a lot of harm
going on as a result of the forced version of remote learning
that we are seeing across the country.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Thank you for that time, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for
yielding back.
And I now want to call on Congresswoman Trajan for her 5
minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So children's time spent with screens has increased
dramatically during the pandemic. I know this because I have
five kids. My two young girls are 6 and 10 years old, and they
have essentially grown up with electronic devices, but nothing
like we have been this past year.
Can I be clear? It is not because they are home from school
as much as it is the go-to during the down time, in the absence
of play dates and indoor extracurricular activities.
And we do know that the more time children spend on
screens, the more they are pulled away from engagement with me,
parents, siblings, and critical activity.
Ms. Fox Johnson, big techs employ mental health experts to
use persuasive design techniques aimed to increase engagement.
We know this, particularly in apps funded by advertising
revenue.
Can you explain the way companies leverage their
understanding of our children's cognitive developments to keep
children on their platform or in their app or network of apps
and why that is so harmful?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Sure, and thank you. I would be happy to
answer that question.
So, as you said, companies employ all kinds of experts who
know how to get to kids and to keep them hooked. They use a
variety of different features. One of them is the sort of
never-ending scroll feature.
Instagram found that, when they short of put in a natural
pause or an end spot, people were spending less time on their
product, and so they then decided to move that decision back
and put in more content so kids just get a constant stream of
new information.
Another feature that is really problematic for kids is
seeing how many likes their own photos get or how much
engagement from their friends. Teenagers particularly are
social creatures. They are looking for validation, and this is
a way to have how many people like them and how many people
like their friends numerically listed publicly for everyone.
Another way that social media companies keep the kids
engaged is through autoplay. They cannot step away because the
next video is already starting, and as has been mentioned here,
that video is tailor made often to appeal to them.
So there are a variety of ways that social media companies
right now are using their design tactics to keep kids hooked.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you.
And I have seen it up close in my own home. I have seen my
assistants.
Dr. Ameenuddin, in your testimony, you highlight that
increasingly exposure, especially ad-based, is correlated with
poor eating habits and loss of sleep, and the American Academy
of Pediatrics recommends that parents of children ages 6 and
older place consistent limits on the time spent using media,
specifically lower-quality media.
I have that right, is that correct?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Yes. Yes, absolutely. Of course--sorry. Go
ahead.
Mrs. Trahan. Just what I am hearing today is that even
parents who are trying to do the right thing, trying to keep
their children healthy by limiting certain types of digital
media, using every tactic they have to deploy, they are coming
face to face with products that have been designed to keep our
children on their apps longer, an end goal that is counter to
the recommendations of our pediatricians.
Ms. Fox Johnson, if products can be engineered to keep
users endlessly engaged, I imagine that these same products
could be designed to encourage healthy behaviors as well. What
policy changes would incentivize, would lead to that shift?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Definitely products can be engaged right
now to be healthier, but since we do not see companies doing
that on their own, we would really like Congress to act and
help them along.
In the United Kingdom, the age-appropriate design code
requires that companies build the best interest of children
into their products from the ground up with their design. You
are not supposed to use nudges in ways that harm children. You
are not supposed to use their information in targeted ads or in
other detrimental ways.
Help kids. Give ways so they can set their own limits. Give
them visual cues to stop. Do not use their information to keep
them hooked.
These are things companies can do.
Mrs. Trahan. Well, I appreciate that. You know, I am not
going to have time for my next set of questions, which is not
introduce them to Facebook Messenger Kids, which is going to
get them hooked and using Facebook at an age earlier than they
need to be.
So look. Parenting is hard. Parenting during a pandemic is
immensely hard. I can only hope that this last year and this
hearing today highlights the need for Congress to address
urgently the ad-based business incentives that are pervasive in
our economy.
I thank you all for your testimony and your deep knowledge.
And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentlewoman.
I had no idea when you talk about parenting that you have
five children. So I learned something, something new today.
Congressman Bucshon, you have 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And I am a parent of four children. Three of them are
grown, but I still have a high school junior, and so I can tell
you that, even with strong parenting, which I think my wife and
I have done over the years to help our children deal with the
online onslaught of information, that even with that it is a
challenge, and I do think Congress needs to address some of
these issues as have been outlined today.
You know, but after a year's shutdown and remote learning
and the hardships that have arisen from COVID pandemic, we have
learned that there are some real costs to being in distance
learning all year, physical and mental health costs.
And as I mentioned, I am the father of a high school
junior. She is a great student. It is not affecting her much.
We do not have to prod her to make her classes, but I can tell
you that across my district when I talk to educators, some
students, you know, when they do enroll, never get online or
only sporadically do and are not really technologically present
during the instruction.
In addition, there is access to broadband issues,
particularly I can tell you in my area, affecting rural America
in the same way that it affects urban America.
If you look at a map of the United States and look at the
percentage of students that do not have access to consistent
internet, it is shocking, honestly.
So we need to open our schools in person with the best
available data, protecting our students and our teachers and
employees. But we need to do this, again, based on the science
that is out there and the guidance that is there rather than
relying on politics.
So, Mr. DeAngelis, in-school learning afforded children
access to physical fitness activities that are often not
available for millions of students at home. This is something
we forget about because my daughter is on a crew team, and they
have not been on the water now in almost a year. They are at
home on rowing machines, if they have one.
So that could be gym class, extracurricular clubs,
activities in sports. What are some of the barriers that you
expect in getting these programs and activities back up and
running once in-person learning resumes?
And what can Congress do to make sure those efforts go as
smoothly as possible?
Dr. DeAngelis. Yes, this is just another unintended
consequence of keeping schools closed. We all kind of
anticipated the learning loss, but then we started to see job
market impacts, disproportionately impacting women. We have
seen mental health issues on the rise, and then now we are
seeing also physical problems and increases in obesity probably
related to the decrease in sports activity.
So one way to incentivize the schools reopen in person is
to not pass stimulus bills that are not contingent upon
reopening schools in person and given that all teachers are
vaccinated, which I think that water is already under the
bridge.
But another way to incentivize the reopening of schools,
and there are a couple of bills in Congress floating around
right now. I think one was introduced yesterday that would
reallocate nearly all Federal education dollars from
institutions to individuals, which would provide strong
incentives for the public schools to reopen their doors in
person, as has been found in the Brown University study finding
that competition was generally related to a higher likelihood
of reopening the schools in person.
I just want to point out something that you pointed out,
which was a great point, that there are a lot of inequities
that are a result of this because a lot of the families that
are the most advantaged do have choices at the moment. They can
afford to pay for private school tuition and fees out of
pocket. They can afford to move to a school district that is
offering in-person instruction. They can afford to pay for a
tutor at home. They can afford to pay for the best remote
learning services.
So we are really having a conversation about what kind of
access will the least advantaged have when it comes to
educational services, because this whole debate has really not
affected the most advantaged in society. So it is leading to
inequities, and I am glad you pointed that out.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I mean, you know, as we are having a
hearing on the dangers of and the online activities our
children are exposed to, you know, we are still having a
tremendous number of students who had no choice. They have to
be online.
And I can tell you, even with my daughter, like I said, who
is a good student, we still have to set 10 minutes an hour no
social media because, while she is on her computer, she also
has her phone.
And so we need to get kinds back into a better environment,
and you know, I think that can be done. The American Academy of
Pediatrics has put out some guidelines, as has been mentioned.
In my district in southwest Indiana and west central
Indiana, schools have mostly been open since last fall with
proper guidelines in place. And have there been some COVID
cases? A few, but overall consistent with what is happening
around the country, and not that many.
So, Madam Chairwoman, I cannot see the time clock. So
please remind me if my time is up because I am on my phone.
Ms. Schakowsky. Your time is up.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. Then I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney, you are next. You are recognized now for 5
minutes for your questions.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairwoman for holding this
hearing.
It is an important issue that tech companies have this hold
on our children, and we need to explore that whether there is
pandemic or not. I am very concerned about the techniques being
used by some tech companies that result in addictive behaviors
in children.
Some of this seems like the addictive techniques used in
gambling. For example, many video games and apps have children
use real money to purchase in-game rewards on so-called loot
boxes, and the tech companies often do this in manipulative
ways.
So, according to a recent survey in the U.K., one in six
children in Britain have stolen money from their parents to
play for video game loot boxes. I would not be surprised to see
similar statistics like that in the United States.
This is a worrisome sign of what effects these features are
having on children.
Dr. Ameenuddin, can you explain how gambling-like games are
harmful for children?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Sure. Thank you very much, Representative
McNerney.
Anything that would encourage kids to stay engaged and, you
know, could lead to addictive tendencies is a concern for
children's health and mental health.
These in-app purchases are another thing that we as
pediatricians believe should be banned, particularly since it
is something that is really outside a child's level of ability
to resist, and it is very concerning that children in the U.K.
were actually stealing their parents' money or using things
without permission.
That sort of persuasive design is really dangerous. It is
bad for mental health. It is bad for physical health, and we
strongly stand against that, but because that really is
targeting a very vulnerable section of our society.
Mr. McNerney. Well, do you believe that these loot boxes
will set up children for addiction to gambling later in life?
Dr. Ameenuddin. So addiction is a very complex issue. It is
multifactorial, and it is difficult to say with certainty and
with a good evidence base that this would set them up for an
addiction.
But it is certainly not good for them. I think we would
prefer to call it problematic internet use, and you know, as we
look at the DSM-5 manual, the manual of psychiatric issues,
they have mentioned, you know, the concern of internet gaming
disorder, but have not officially laid a diagnosis to it.
So, just to be clear and precise, I would hesitate to use
the actual word ``addiction.''
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
Moving on, the industry's response to concerns about these
loot boxes require disclosure in app stores around video games,
that a particular game contains an in-app purchase.
Ms. Fox Johnson, how effective is disclosure in these
cases, especially with regard to apps and games intended for
children?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you for that question,
Representative McNerney.
In general, we think disclosures are not that effective. I
mean, it is important to put them at the point of purchase, but
often these kids cannot read. So they do not know what in-app
purchase means, and then within the game, there can often not
be disclosures.
The purchases themselves, sometimes it is not clear to kids
that they are even using real money because things are referred
to as, you know, buy gems or sparkle wands. So we do not think
that kids and their parents know that they are spending money.
And I think that is clear from the fact that, you know,
millions of dollars of money have had to be refunded to
consumers when the Federal Trade Commission brought cases
against some of these platforms like Apple and Google and
Amazon for sort of bilking kids and their parents out of money.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I am going to talk a little about
artificial intelligence at this point. AI and machine learning
are used in targeting behavioral advertising and persuasive
design tactics that we are seeing today and discussing today.
This practice is everywhere. Compared to adults, children
and teens are more trusting of privacy-invasive technology like
GPS tracking, and I think that poses a major risk for children
divulging sensitive information.
Ms. Fox Johnson, how do platform developers use AI and
machine learning in their user interfaces to better target
children and monetize their data?
Ms. Fox Johnson. As you said, Representative McNerney, they
are tracking them everywhere. The kids do not realize that
their location is being shared because they think they have not
actively put it in. They do not realize that the conversation
they had with their smart toy is not staying in their toy, but
it is going into a data ecosystem.
And companies use all of this information to figure out
precisely what that kid might want to buy or might want to do
next and use it to create commercial profiles of kids at very
young ages.
Mr. McNerney. Yes. Well, I agree. Thank you.
I am going to run out of time. So I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, Mr. Pence, it is your turn for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky and Ranking Member
Bilirakis, for holding this hearing.
And thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us
today.
This pandemic has impacted us all. It has been particularly
troublesome for our youth, as the witnesses talked about today.
Students learning remotely are missing out on higher-
quality instruction from the in-person attention during
formative years of their development. I am concerned that those
lost opportunities will lead to damaging learning gaps setting
back an entire generation.
Instead of having exposure to social connections with their
peers at school, students in virtual settings across the
country are often isolated, spending more time on the internet
and away from their friends.
Comparatively, in my State, Indiana, Hoosiers underwent
local community-led efforts last summer to keep our kids in
school. Together with parents, administrators, and local health
officials, schools in my district developed comprehensive
strategies to ensure students and teachers could safely return
to the classroom, which they did. And that is exactly what they
did.
Every one of the counties in my district have schools that
have returned to the classroom with notable success. Having
students in person provides structure and stability that is so
important for the mental and emotional well-being of children.
Beyond the attention received in the classroom, clubs,
sports teams and other student organizations provide an
invaluable collected learning environment that cannot be
replicated from a Zoom connection, like leadership skills and
social skills.
Recently I had the opportunity to meet with bright young
students at St. Nicholas Catholic School and Batesville High
School, a public school. Both schools are prime examples of how
local stakeholders are best positioned to develop school safety
strategies that fit the unique educational needs of their
community.
From my discussions with these students, their teachers,
and administrators, one thing remained clear: Students feel
more purpose when they are in school and involved in person.
I share the concerns of my colleagues that the increased
online presence of children can be detrimental to their health
and safety. Shifting children away from in-person learning and
towards a digital life has surely sentenced them to more time
for predators to prowl, which is another argument for in-school
learning.
Dr. DeAngelis, I am afraid of a scenario of dueling
outcomes for students that participate virtually versus
students that participate in person. In your testimony you
mention substantial achievement gaps between these two groups,
specifically leading to increased dropout rates and impacts on
their future earnings.
Can you please expand on what this will mean for our future
generation of, in particular, community leaders that are losing
this sports and social interaction?
Dr. DeAngelis. Yes. I would first like to point out that,
look, this is leading to inequities. So this is hitting the
least advantaged in the community the hardest, particularly
because the most advantaged have access to in-person
alternatives or good versions of remote virtual learning at
home or even have more ability to cover the cost associated
with home-based education.
But to your point, McKenzie & Company in a nationwide
analysis in 2020 on two separate occasions found that they
estimated that achievement gaps would increase, and achievement
gaps are already a horrible thing in the United States that we
need to remedy.
But the gaps by race they estimate to increase by 15 to 20
percent, and they estimate dropout rates to increase by 2 to 9
percentage points, translating to about 232,000 to 1.1 million
additional ninth-to-eleventh-graders dropping out of high
school, which could translate to about 60 to $80,000 reduction
in lifetime earnings, which is a huge problem, obviously.
And there is a lot of evidence, this is just one source
from McKenzie & Company finding these exacerbated inequities
from keeping the schools closed.
So the best option is to give families options, allow them
to choose the in-person or hybrid learning setting of their
choice or, even better, allocate the money to the families so
that more families can access other in-person alternatives.
Mr. Pence. Which in Indiana we have school choice.
Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And now I call on Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
appreciate the honor of being the sit-in chair for just a
little bit. It is a bit addicting, but I relinquished it.
OK. Thank you so much. Appreciate your bringing this
committee together on this issue, Madam Chairwoman Schakowsky
and also Ranking Member Bilirakis.
I appreciate this opportunity for us to hear from many
different perspectives about what our families and children are
going through, but more importantly, being able to dialogue and
discuss maybe what some of the solutions are so we can have a
better environment, better world so that our children are less
negatively affected by all of this.
I am a father and, more importantly, a proud grandfather,
two grandchildren, ages 2 and 4, and, yes, they are on devices
already, and we need to protect every child as much as
possible.
And, of course, the responsibility of the individual family
raising those children is paramount, but at the same time I
think it is important that government understands that we do
have a responsibility of making sure that the guidelines and
the lanes in which these incredibly prolific and lucrative
businesses are in our homes and in the eyeballs and the minds
and hearts of our families and our children.
And also, I would say that it is unfortunate that we speak
of who is negatively affected the most or who in America might
not be as prepared as others to protect themselves and protect
their children from the potential negative effects and harmful
effects of what could be going on, but let me tell you this. I
think it is important that everybody understand that these
negative effects, they do not see color. They do not see race.
They do not see gender. A child is a child is a child.
And I believe that because about 60 percent of all children
in America are White, it is disproportionately affecting White
children, and I just want to point that out because I think
that some people get the misinterpretation that all we care
about is Black and Brown children.
We care about all children, and I do not want anybody to
think that because we mentioned minority children or poor
children in general that we are leaving out the 60 percent of
the children in America who are White. We are looking to
protect every child, regardless of their background.
Let me just go to my first question because time is
fleeting.
Dr. Ameenuddin, in your testimony you mentioned that for
infants and toddlers still developing cognitive language,
sensory motor, and social-emotional skills, screen time of any
kind is typically discouraged. What do you know about the long-
term effects early exposure to technology like tablets and
smartphones can have on a child's development in this area?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Well, thank you for that question, Vice
Chair Cardenas.
I will share what we know and what we do not know. Frankly,
there are still a lot of unknowns, and research is evolving.
But what we do know from early studies on tablets and
devices and apps is that there is very little benefit and there
is a strong potential for harm for children under 18 months of
age.
For children between the ages of 18 months and 2 years, if
it is a high-quality, educational app that involves parental
engagement with the app and the child and then the parent
teaches back after they have finished using the app, there can
potentially be some benefit there.
But we do know, again, from decades of research that early
introduction to screen time, even if it is purported to be
educational, can actually have the opposite effect.
For example, we had the Baby Einstein videos from several
years ago. One of my colleagues in pediatrics actually did a
study on that and found that children whose families used the
Baby Einstein videos versus those who did not use any kind of
screen time were actually having developmental delays in terms
of expressive language skills.
So we do know that there can be harms, but that we really
recommend, again, mindful, mindful use for older kids because
there can certainly be benefits with certain good, educational
programming.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Ms. Ameenuddin, for that important
information and those facts.
I hope that after today's hearing we will keep these issues
in focus, and that is why today, along with my colleague,
Representative Trahan, I introduced the Youth Mental Health-
Suicide Prevention Act, a bill authorizing the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to provide
funding to school districts for a variety of positive mental
health promotion and suicide prevention purposes.
Like I said, we all have the interest of every child at
heart, and I think that it is important that Congress play its
current--excuse me--its appropriate role and right-sized role
in making sure that we create and make sure that the lanes are
being followed and the lanes are created so that our children
can remain protected.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And now, Congresswoman Lesko, it is yours for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you,
colleagues. It is good to see you.
You know, this subject is very important, protecting our
children. I have four grandchildren. Two of them are elementary
school age, and so protecting them, they are hours on their
phones, they are hours on their tablets. This is a very
important issue.
I totally agree with the subject, and I have asked my staff
during this hearing--actually I left--asked them to write me up
decision memos on some of these bills that both the Democrats
and Republicans in this subcommittee have said that they have
introduced, and so I will do that and get back with you on my
decision on those.
I also totally agree with Mr. DeAngelis. I am from Arizona.
We have lots of school choice in Arizona. It started in 1994, I
think, when we opened up. Not only parents could go to
different school districts that were not in their neighborhood
with their kids, but also charter schools were legalized in
Arizona. And so we have many, many, many charter schools.
I also introduced legislation when I was in the State
legislature on empowerment scholarship accounts, which are a
way for now special needs children to go to private schools
using public funds.
And so, Mr. DeAngelis, I worked with Reason Foundation
before on pension reform, bipartisan pension reform, when I was
in Arizona, and you guys do great work. I totally agree with
the concept of more competition, more choices for parents and
students.
I do want to show everybody an article from a Tucson,
Arizona newspaper, but it is titled ``No Way to Check on
Hundreds of Kids Missing from Schools Across Tucson.''
And I would like to submit, unanimous consent, to include
it in the record, Madam Chairman, but I am going to read some--
--
Ms. Schakowsky. All of these will be added at the end of
the hearing.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Some of the things in the article were very disturbing. It
says it is unclear what is happening in the lives of over 1,100
young people who never show up for online school or only attend
sporadically. The combined total of students unaccounted for in
Tucson and seven other major school districts is at least
1,160, with some students missing since last spring.
On average, calls to an abuse hotline run by Arizona's
Department of Child Services are down 25 to 30 percent. The
agency's director attributes the decrease largely to schools
not being held in person. This lack of oversight by teachers
and administrators is happening at a time when families and
parents are under tremendous stress due to layoffs, social
isolation, and sometimes illness.
The largest school district, Tucson Unified School
District, is still working to identify how many kids have
fallen off the radar. That means the number of unaccounted-for
children is likely much higher than the 1,160 number coming out
of the other school districts across the county.
Tucson Unified School Districts have had an enrollment
decline of 2,600 students since this time last year.
And the reason I bring this up is because what we have
talked about, and others, is we need to get kids back in
school, and in Arizona my grandkids go to a charter school, and
guess what? Their charter school has been open almost the
entire time, and they have not had a COVID outbreak.
Also, because some of the district schools would not
reopen, parents have been very creative and they are doing
these micro schools. So even though they are paying all of the
taxes, the property taxes, everything to the schools, they are
hiring their own teacher. Like, groups of parents get together
and hire their own teacher.
And that is why what Mr. DeAngelis says is so important.
You know, I guess I want to give my last 15 seconds to you, Mr.
DeAngelis. I took up most of the time, but tell me why that is
important.
Dr. DeAngelis. Yes. I mean, the Wall Street Journal wrote
an article about the teachers' union's tiny little enemy, which
was tons of micro schools over there in Arizona, and they have
been very successful. You can socially distance better with
small settings in a micro school.
And the reality is that most advantaged families without
school choice already have those opportunities, and they are
able to get that one-on-one attention with the kids and also
have more social interaction. So we might as well fund the
students directly like Arizona does through the education
savings account and allow more families to have access to those
alternatives.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you so much.
And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. All right. And now I am happy to call on
Congresswoman Clarke. Welcome back, and it is your turn for 5
minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and I thank our
Ranking Member Bilirakis for convening today's hearing.
I thank our witnesses for your expert testimony here today.
As we all know, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated many
issues that are plaguing our Nation. We have seen a dramatic
increase in the adoption of digital devices due to individuals
and families working and learning from home.
However, along with the uptick in digital device usage,
there has been an increase in screen time across our Nation
during the transition to life online. This transition has had a
tremendous impact on one of our Nation's most vulnerable and
impressionable populations: children.
With this increase, I am concerned about the exposure of
advertisements that children are now bombarded with. These ads
are concerningly harmful to a demographic that is unable to
comprehend their persuasive impact.
Ms. Fox Johnson, in your testimony, you mention a Pew
Research Center report that stated 53 percent of children
younger than 11 view YouTube daily, with 35 percent viewing
multiple times per day.
Additionally, you go on to support that we have discussed
time and time again. Children from low-income communities and
communities of color are more likely to utilize mobile devices
and have limited connectivity, which limits the productivity of
this uptick in screen time. This is all very concerning.
However, as I stated, screen time is up for young kids, and
they are being targeted with ads from companies, influencers,
kid influencers on social media now more than ever before the
pandemic even struck.
So my question is to Ms. Fox Johnson, and I think our
chairwoman may have posed something similar to you earlier. In
your testimony you mention that children are uniquely
vulnerable to digital harms for a variety of reasons, including
increased screen time and the fact that their brains are still
in development.
What strategies can we use to protect our children from
digital manipulation and ad targeting? And how do we hold big
tech companies and advertisers accountable?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Sure, and thank you, Representative
Clarke, for your question and for your leadership in this area.
There are lots of things that companies and advertisers
could do to be more accountable to children. First, we need to
make any disclosures of ads more meaningful. A surprising
number of teenagers cannot even tell that an ad is an ad when
it has an orange box that says ``Ad'' around it.
We also should ban advertising techniques that take
advantage of kids' feelings of special relationships with hosts
and with cartoon characters and not allow for product
endorsement.
We should ban advertisements and endorsement ads for
unhealthy food and drink, which primarily targets or
disproportionately targets communities of color.
We should stop companies from allowing kids to get more
content or more rewards from viewing more advertisements.
And we should stop companies from turning teenagers and
kids into unwitting product promoters themselves by
conscripting them into paid posts that feature their liking of
a product to their friends.
These are things that Congress can do, and they are also
things that the Federal Trade Commission should be able to work
on by updating its endorsement guidelines.
And in the meantime, again, we think companies can take
some steps themselves and do not need to wait.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Ms. Fox Jackson.
Dr. Ameenuddin, kids are not just learning in front of
screens. They are spending their leisure time there too.
Utilizing platforms like YouTube and TikTok with deceptive or
hidden ads may be harder for children to detect.
Due to the rise of social media influencers and kid
influencers, should this influencer marketing be allowed to
target kids? And what unintended consequences might this have
on their development?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Well, thank you so much for the question,
Representative Clarke.
And I wanted to say that I agree with everything that Ms.
Fox Johnson said. I think those are excellent suggestions.
In addition to that, specifically with regard to the
question about kid influencers and unboxing videos, that really
is a form of deceptive advertising. As Ms. Fox Johnson
mentioned, kids feel like they are just watching a friend, yet
it is really a targeted marketing technique.
So the AAP supports banning that kind of advertising
towards children, paid advertising, and I apologize. It looks
like we ran out of time. Sorry.
Ms. Clarke. Well, very well. If you would just submit your
response to our committee, that would be great. We want to be
aggressive in this space.
And I thank all of our witnesses for testifying today.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now, Mr. Armstrong, it is yours for 5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I have a 13-year-old daughter. I have an 11-year-old
son. I was a high school baseball coach a long time ago, still
the best job I ever had.
And so I appreciate the conversation particularly about
the--and my kids went to private school. They went for in-
person--but I really do appreciate the fact that we are talking
about--I mean, just in every single school across the country,
there is a kid who that is the grade equalizer in his or her
life, and without it we are leaving them behind.
And sometimes it is poverty issues, sometimes it is family
life issues, sometimes it is all kinds of different things. But
one of the greatest things about COVID and maybe one of the
only good things is that it happened now and we are capable of
doing these things. The technology has allowed us to do these
things.
But there is no doubt in my mind that we have to get them
back into sports, into clubs, into school as quickly as
possible, or these gaps are going to continue to grow.
But I want to talk a little bit about something that is
going to continue to plague us as Members of Congress outside
of schools reopening, and that is how we deal with digital
information and particularly with more screen time going
online.
COPPA covers the collection, use, and disclosure of
children's personal information, but FTC regulations pursuant
to COPPA define personal information to include, in part,
geolocation information sufficient to identify street name and
name of city or town.
This definition means that coarse geolocation data on a
child, which may be a ZIP code, county, region, et cetera, can
be collected without direct notice, verifiable parent [audio
malfunction].
I am not convinced we should be collecting any of this data
on kids without parental consent, and I understand that ZIP
codes are widely used geographic boundaries, but some ZIP codes
in densely populated areas narrow it down to a very specific
location.
And there might be a few legitimate reasons to collect this
information on minors, but I just fear that potential harm may
outweigh those reasons, and we cannot view nonconsensual coarse
geolocation data collection as stand-alone data points that
only show child-specific [audio malfunction] because a lot is
covered in COPPA's definition of personal information.
There are so many other data points when viewed in
combination with coarse geolocation data--can further specify a
child's location, their habits, and identity.
This question is probably for Ms. Fox. Why are we
collecting this from minors?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you, Representative Armstrong. I
mean, that is an excellent question.
Why are companies collecting this information if not to use
it to target or profile a kid? There is no reason that they
need to know one ZIP code over the other to, say, determine
language or country or things like that.
One of the things that we really like in the Kids PRIVCY
Act from Representative Castor is that it would update what
forms of information are covered in COPPA and ensure that in
statute and not just in the FTC rule. They are taking a full
look at the modern ways that companies track minor kids and
monetize kids these days.
Mr. Armstrong. And then this is another question, because I
think we have to start having this conversation as well. Does
this conversation change, particularly as you are involving
minors, if we look at data through a property lens instead of a
privacy lens?
Ms. Fox Johnson. There are lots of discussions in the
broader privacy landscape right now about if my privacy is my
property or, in Europe, if my privacy is more of a fundamental
right.
However you look at it, I think for kids it is not
something that we think that they should be giving up or be
forced to give up. It is not really a choice. It is sort of a
false way of looking at consent.
And children should have the right to do what they wish and
to learn and to grow without being surveilled and monitored at
every step of the way.
Mr. Armstrong. And then just lastly, there is a reason we
have juvenile courts. There is a reason we treat juveniles in
the court system significantly different than we do adults.
There is a reason we seal records when they are 18.
But we are continuing down this path of holding people
accountable when their brains are still developing. We have
professional athletes getting in trouble for tweets they have
done when they were 13.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong, we are going
to have to ask for a response in writing to this. You are well
over time.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I am on.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am sorry. I am looking now at 25, 24. I
am sorry. Go ahead. I am sorry.
Mr. Armstrong. In GDPR there are technical challenges with
Right to Be Forgotten. California has got a law, and we really
have to start having conversations about allowing minors and
allowing parents and allowing guardians to be able to block
information that children are putting online.
I mean, they have to function. My daughter is 13. I wish
she did not have a phone, but if she did not have a phone, she
would not be able to communicate [audio malfunction].
So now I am over time, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. No, no, no. Give her a couple of seconds to
respond. A good time.
Go ahead.
Ms. Fox Johnson. Sure. Thank you.
I would say that we fully agree what you do at 10 should
not come back and haunt you when you are 40. So we support the
rights for kids to be able to erase their information and take
control of what they have inadvertently or intentionally shared
at a young age.
Mr. Armstrong. And I would just end with this: I think
there are probably Members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle that may not be here if we all had social media when we
were 13 years old.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. And now Debbie Dingell. I know you have
been waiting patiently, and thanks for sitting with us the
whole time, and it is yours for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky.
And thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.
I am not the only Member sitting here patiently, because
this subject is so important.
Many modern digital media platforms are designed to keep
youth users engaged and incentivize the reengagement, leading
to compulsive habits or what some refer to as addiction to
their devices. A lot of adults too, I might add.
But we have seen an increasing number of reports
correlating time on digital media, social media, and
electronics to mental health issues in children and
adolescents, among a variety of other serious impacts,
including obesity, anxiety, and what really deeply disturbs me,
electronic bullying.
In an increasingly digital age, we need to be vigilant in
reevaluating how online content is consumed by children and
ensure that they receive meaningful protection to their privacy
and their mental and physical well-being.
So I want to ask some questions focused on these
protections.
Influencers' marketing is now a billion-dollar industry and
the fastest growing method for acquiring customers online. Many
of today's top influencers are children themselves, so-called
kid influencers, with massive followings on social media.
Ms. Fox Johnson, has the FTC brought any enforcement
actions against influencers or their sponsors that have a
significant child audience?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you, Representative Dingell. That is
a great question.
The FTC has not, and in fact their current endorsement
guidelines do not even talk about kids or teens or special
issues that might pertain to them.
Mrs. Dingell. Some influencers, including those targeting
children, are just as well-known or even more well-known than
the brands that they promote. Yet the FTC had tended to focus
its enforcement actions against the brands and not the
individual influencers, limiting action against individual
influencers to just warning letters.
Ms. Fox Johnson, have the FTC actions been effective? What
more should FTC be doing?
Ms. Fox Johnson. I would say the FTC actions have not been
effective. There have been multiple complaints filed against
the kids influencers. Sometimes the folks are making, you know,
$20 million a year hawking products to children in ways that
appear to not look like advertisements and what appear to be
just sort of sharing a game with a friend.
And so I think the FTC, as I mentioned, should update their
endorsement guidelines. They should look at banning this
endorsement for young kids certainly and ideally for teens, and
for all endorsements in general because sometimes teens are
watching particularly things that adults might be watching.
They need to make sure that disclosures are effective,
because right now the hashtag ad that comes at the end of some
long piece of information is not sufficient.
Mrs. Dingell. I agree.
Social media platforms facilitate and make a lot of money
from influencer marketing. Ms. Fox Johnson, what responsibility
do social media companies have to protect kids from
manipulative marketing? And what can the FTC do to hold them
accountable?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Social media companies can take more
responsibility, particularly when they are dealing with
individual influencers or other people. They can do a better
job of being more transparent in ways that are proven to be
understood by kids and teens about what is an ad and what is
native content.
The FTC--who has not done as much as we wish they could
have done in all of these areas, in social media, in privacy--
they need more resources so they can do more enforcements and
they can update and codify the regulations and guidelines.
Mrs. Dingell. Dr. Ameenuddin, I want to ask you at least
one question before my time is up.
Is there concern that the media consumption habits
developed by children and adolescents during the pandemic will
continue post-pandemic? And should we be concerned by the
potential impacts in terms of their health and privacy?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Well, thank you, Representative Dingell.
I think it is a huge concern, and I suspect that this will
continue to be an issue long after the pandemic. As we have
mentioned earlier, increased social media use, increased screen
time was an issue well before the pandemic ever started. It
obviously increased.
But making little changes will not mean that everything
goes back to normal. I think it will continue to be an issue.
We have somewhat mixed data. I am grateful to you for
bringing up the concerns about mental health and the connection
to social media. We have conflicting information. For some
kids, you know, it has led to sadness or I guess it is
correlated with sadness, possibly depression, but for other
kids, it has actually been a lifeline. You know, for
marginalized kids sometimes finding community online can be a
huge source of support.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to yield back, but I will
say our children are 100 percent of our future, and it is our
responsibility to ensure their safety and security online.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now I call on Mr. Dunn for 5 minutes for his
questioning.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Schakowsky.
I am glad the committee has convened this important
hearing. The long-term impacts on our children are one of the
greatest travesties of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.
As some of our witnesses have noted, the amount of time
that kids spend in front of a screen has been a health concern
for quite some time. The problem has been vastly exacerbated by
the pandemic.
And the science is clear, the evidence is abundant: The
schools across the country have the ability to reopen safely
today.
I also appreciate Dr. DeAngelis rightly pointing out that
the schools in America are largely closed purely due to
politics.
I am grateful to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who led the
way in reopening, and due to that fact all schools in my
district, Florida's 2nd District, are safely opened for in-
person learning at this time.
Parents across the country know the best thing for their
kids is to be in school. This even includes the heads of
powerful teachers' unions who drop their own children off at a
private school at the same time they are fighting to keep
public school kids out of school behind a computer screen at
home.
I have been an advocate for school choice for a long time.
I think the best thing we can do for school-age children is to
empower the parents to seek out the best educational
opportunities available. So let me start with a question for
Dr. DeAngelis.
Families are especially vulnerable to the economic and
educational impacts of COVID-19 and the lockdowns. Many parents
have been forced to work longer hours, provide essential
services, and work from remote locations. This obviously
impacts their ability to provide adult supervision for their
own children.
So briefly, would you say school choice allows households
of all socioeconomic groups the best chance for parents to
place their students in an educational setting that fits the
needs of their individual family?
Dr. DeAngelis. Absolutely, and as I have noted before, the
most advantaged families already have school choice. They can
already afford to live in the neighborhoods that are
residentially assigned to the best public schools in America.
They are more likely to be able to afford to pay out of
pocket for private school in-person learning. They are more
likely to be able to afford the cost of home-based learning and
micro schools and pandemic pods.
Funding students directly through programs like the ones in
Florida allow more families to access alternatives so that at
least the more equity and more freedom at the same time, and I
think that is a lot of the reason why Florida has done such a
good job when it comes to reopening public schools.
Mr. Dunn. You are very articulate on that. You shared a
statistic, I believe, that is worth repeating. Florida, a State
that spends about $10,700 per student per year, has been able
to essentially fully reopen its schools, while California,
which spends about 38 percent more per student, has kept their
doors closed.
With your research on this issue, what role should the
Federal Government play to incentivize the State governments to
minimize screen time and return to the classroom?
Dr. DeAngelis. Well, it is not a good idea to pass stimulus
bills that do not make the money contingent upon actually
reopening the schools, because then the schools can just get
more money and then fail to reopen the schools, especially in
context of my new study with Christos Makridis from MIT finding
no relationship whatsoever in any of our models or analytic
techniques between resources and reopening the schools in
person.
And as you pointed out, just looking at places like Florida
and California, California spends 38 percent more per pupil per
year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and yet Florida is
mostly----
Mr. Dunn. I am going to cut you off, Dr. DeAngelis, because
I want to get to a couple more questions, but you have been
very articulate, and I appreciate your presence here today.
Dr. Ameenuddin, thank you for your testimony. You work as a
pediatrician. As a doctor myself, I know the challenges you
face. I appreciate the work you do for our children.
COVID-19 and the lockdowns have drastically changed the
lives of all Americans, especially our students who find
themselves sitting in front of a computer more and playing
outside less, along with a complete absence of formal physical
education.
I noticed that Kelly Armstrong had been a high school coach
at one time. He knows this.
In your testimony, you recommend specifying times where
families turn off the screens and play. Can you speak to the
long-term impacts of less outside play and physical education
that students have experienced over the last year?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Sure. Thank you, Representative Dunn.
Well, I have an opportunity to refer you to another AAP
policy on the importance of play and the importance of making
sure that children have a safe environment to play in outside.
You specifically asked about the long-term impacts of
essentially sedentary activity and lack of physical activity.
You know, we have known for years, as we have seen screen time
increase, device use increase, that nonactive time is not a
good thing for kids.
I have been working with----
Mr. Dunn. I am going to ask you to put that in the written
responses, because my time is elapsed.
Dr. Ameenuddin. OK.
Mr. Dunn. I am also going to ask you to conjecture in
response to that question. You know, we know that a lot of
screen time is bad for kids. Is it also bad for Members of
Congress?
So I would like to, you know, consider that option, because
I think it is. [Laughter.]
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Congresswoman Rice, it is your 5
minutes for questions right now.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky.
Ms. Johnson, I would like to ask you a question.
In 2019, the New York State Attorney General and the FTC
secured a settlement from Google and YouTube for $170 million
for violating the COPPA. The settlement required Google and
YouTube to pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to New
York for violating COPPA.
The $136 million penalty is still, I believe, the largest
amount the FTC has ever obtained in a COPPA case since Congress
enacted the law in 1998.
Despite that enormous amount of money, two Commissioners
voted against it, citing that the penalty did not go far
enough, and one of the reasons was because of the cost of doing
business. A hundred and seventy million dollars is nothing
compared to the billions of dollars that these companies make
from ad revenue.
So, in your opinion, Ms. Johnson, have these penalties been
an effective deterrent for companies who violate the laws that
are meant to protect children's privacy?
And if not, what steps can the FTC take to deter
violations?
I hope we really are going to be able to consider
Congresswoman Castor's bill because I think it moves to fix
just one aspect, but just in your opinion, you know, is it
effective? And if not, how can we make it effective?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you, Representative Rice.
We agree with the dissenting Commissioners that, in my
opinion, it is not effective. Google is still able to profit
off of its activity, and for them $170 million was so small
that they did not even have to report that to investors.
They also got the sort of first mover advantage of taking a
bunch of children's personal information, collecting that in
violation of law, and being able to design better targeting and
more addictive and attractive products for kids, and that is
not something that they are going to give up, you know, even if
they delete, which sometimes companies do not always delete, as
they are supposed to, the data later on.
I think that we have seen with this settlement and with
other settlements in the privacy space--you know, we objected
to the Facebook settlement--these are not meaningful deterrents
for companies.
And so things that the FTC could do, luckily with COPPA it
has several penalty authorities, but those fines could be
increased. It could get civil penalty authority from Congress
in other privacy situations. It could get rulemaking authority.
Right now, in general privacy cases it does not even have
the ability to fine for the first time of a violation.
In addition, we think the FTC needs more resources itself
so it can bring cases. Attorneys General get more civil penalty
authority and the ability to obtain penalties under COPPA.
And then also, if you let parents sue on behalf of their
kids, that is another way to increase enforcement and to
improve the landscape.
Miss Rice. So I am glad you brought up the States'
Attorneys General. You know, New York has a very big office
with enormous resources, but that is not true of every State in
the country. And we want, I believe, State Attorneys General to
play their crucial role in working with the FTC on these types
of cases.
So what tools do State Attorneys General need to continue
to bring these cases like New York was able to do?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Yes, thank you.
And New York is one of the sort of more technologically
savvy Attorney General's Office, and that is something that the
Attorney General's Office and the FTC, again, need more of too.
They need more technologists to understand what is going on
sort of beneath the very opaque veneer of these tech companies,
and we hear from Attorney General's Offices all the time
because we work in a variety of different States that they do
not have resources.
You might get a great new privacy law, but they will only
be able to bring, you know, one case a year maybe because they
are up against tech companies and they are understaffed and
underresourced.
Miss Rice. Well, that is always a big issue not just in
this field but in others when you are dealing with
cybersecurity issues or the issues that we are talking about
today, that these private companies are able to attract all of
the talent because of the enormous salaries that they can pay
the government agencies like State AGs just simply cannot.
Dr. Ameenuddin, just very quickly: Expanding this
protection to children between the ages of 13 and 17, what is
the impact going to be?
I mean, I have a 15-year-old niece, and I worry about, you
know, the impact that these, you know, living their lives on
social media, especially with all of this information coming
up, and the impact, how this is going to help 13-to-17-year-old
vulnerable kids.
Dr. Ameenuddin. Yes, thank you, Representative Rice.
I think the effect will be huge. I mean, so many teens are
online. As you mentioned, they are living their lives online,
even before the pandemic, but including children under 18 under
these protections I think will have a huge impact on mental
health, on multiple other issues too. So thank you for asking
that.
Miss Rice. Thank you all for being here.
And I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back.
And now I call on Representative Soto for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
This hearing is about our children being increasingly
brainwashed by sophisticated targeting popup ads, autoplays,
and algorithms, among other techniques, and the result is they
are spending more and more time online.
Add in video game addiction, and we see a generation of
kids becoming couch potatoes, racking up hours of screen time
and barely going outside.
This puts our Nation's children, our Nation's future at
risk. Parents are outreached and increasingly asking for
Congress to act.
Considering the critical subject, I was a little surprised
to see an attempt to shoehorn fake GOP talking points about
school reopenings into this very important hearing. So it is
important to at least go over the facts briefly.
Forty-one States, both Democrats and Republicans, do not
have school opening or closing orders in place. They leave it
to school districts.
Five States have orders to reopen. Four States have orders
to be partially open.
So saying it is a Democratic or Republican trend is an
absolute and total lie. The vast majority of States leave this
to local school districts to make a decision, as they should
because urban districts have different challenges than suburban
and rural districts, all in my district.
Affluent families have more resources for their children to
learn from home. Many American families have to go to work and
need their children to attend in-person schools.
Add in health complexities of students and other
difficulties, and local school districts and families need this
flexibility.
In Central Florida, I supported schools reopening, like
many Democrats in our State. So what are you really talking
about? My wife taught in the public schools at the peak of the
pandemic in July and August of last year in Central Florida in
the classroom with a mask on, socially distanced, with kids
having plastic barriers.
She is a member of the teachers' union. She cares about her
students and taught them in school without a vaccine, risking
her life for the students.
So I find it shocking that no one here today has even
mentioned the hundreds of teachers who have died of COVID-19.
The students who have died. In Florida, we have already had
45,000-plus cases of students, nearly 5,000 teacher cases of
COVID-19, 3,000 COVID staff cases, and 7,000 other COVID-
related public and private K-through-12 school cases.
Bashing teachers' unions is so predictable for some of you.
Actually fixing the problem takes work. When we passed the
bipartisan Coronavirus Stimulus Relief Act in December, some of
our colleagues across the aisle joined us. Thank you.
Fifty-three of you, including some on this committee, voted
against school coronavirus relief funds. Then just yesterday
all of you voted against the American Rescue Act.
So what are you talking about? You are complaining about
opening schools, then voting against funding for them to do so
safely. That is absolutely absurd, and the American people know
it.
Turning back to the subject at hand, many parties have
opted for distance learning, and this has exacerbated these
online addictions. So I want to go to the KIDS Act briefly that
Kathy Castor had put together, and I want to talk to Ms.
Johnson first.
What are, you think, the most important parts of the KIDS
Act that we need to pass right away, like auto banning and
banning push alerts and banning badges?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you, Representative Soto.
I think that we need to pass all aspects of the KIDS Act,
but the manipulative design that keeps kids hooked and the
protections that would prevent against the commercialization of
our children and marketing are really important.
I also think it is important to note I would be remiss in
not mentioning that schools use a lot of technology, too, and
we need to update our student privacy laws and other privacy
laws because wherever kids are learning, whether they are in
the classroom or not, a lot of these schools have bought
computers and new technology, and they are going to keep using
it no matter where kids are, and we need to keep kids protected
and safe.
Mr. Soto. Thanks so much, Ms. Johnson.
Dr. Ameenuddin, what do you think are the most critical
parts of the KIDS Act that we need to pass right away?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Well, thank you for that question,
Representative Soto.
Again, I am going to go back to our AAP recommendations,
which are nicely outlined in our digital ad policy.
I think number-one thing is to expand COPPA to ban targeted
advertising to children under 18 and also to make sure that
they have the highest privacy levels possible and to really
stop online tracking and data collection of kids. Those are the
two most important things.
Mr. Soto. Thanks so much.
This is a really important subject. I am glad we are
handling it today, Madam Chair. We know with kids being at
home, distance learning, some of them by parents' own choice,
that we have to step up our ways to protect our kids online.
And I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I really want to thank you for
your testimony and your remarks, Mr. Soto.
And now Angie Craig, Congresswoman Craig, it is your 5
minutes. Take it away.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
you for holding this incredibly important hearing today.
Dr. Ameenuddin, I also want to thank you for representing
the Mayo Clinic so well in the great State of Minnesota and for
helping to keep our kids and our families safe and healthy. I
am just thrilled that you are on our panel and I get to ask you
a few questions.
So I would like to start with kids online during COVID and
just share that, as the mother of four boys, I know it can be a
challenge to consistently and diligently enforce limits on
screen time for our kids and particularly during a public
health crisis when so many of our children, our students have
been learning remotely or partially hybrid.
This, in fact, was the case for our youngest son, who is a
senior in high school this year, and I guess our own experience
in our family is that it becomes harder as kids get older and
they become more independent, which is why I think that trying
to instill good habits and stricter limits on younger kids is
so important.
But parents trying to do the best thing and start these
habits early really do face an uneven playing field as they try
to compete in a digital ecosystem that, as you know, is replete
with features intended to influence user behavior while
maximizing product use and engagement.
So, Doctor, in terms of the policy recommendations to
Congress that you have made in your testimony today, would you
consider any of them being particularly critical as you sort of
segment it to younger children, those age 2 to 10, for example?
Dr. Ameenuddin. Well, hello, Representative Craig. I am
thrilled to be reaching you from Southeast Minnesota. Thank you
for that question.
Number one, I just want to say, you know, I hear you. The
concerns you expressed about children and parents having a hard
time is absolutely what I have been hearing from pretty much
all of my patients here today.
And so in looking at, you know, how to protect kids, you
know, around ages 2 to 10, what are the most important things?
Again, I think that we should make sure that there are not any
loopholes in COPPA. Even though technically they are not
supposed to target advertising or gather information on
children under 13, there are just huge loopholes.
So I think the more we can do to tighten up those
loopholes, to ensure that there is appropriate enforcement, if
there is any sort of breaking of those rules, would be
absolutely critical.
Ms. Craig. Well, thank you so much.
You also mentioned in your testimony the need for more
research on the effects of advertising and digital media in
children, and I certainly could not agree more with that
recommendation as well.
I have a followup question, and I want to direct this to
Ms. Fox Johnson. I appreciate that you have provided us with a
number of policy recommendations as well from your perspective
at Common Sense.
Are there any of these recommendations, again, that you
feel would be particularly helpful for parents with younger
children who could be thinking about limiting their screen time
and what they are exposed to online?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you, Representative Craig. That is a
great question.
I think the KIDS Act would be particularly beneficial for
young children, and another thing that would be particularly
beneficial for young children would be the CAMERA Act, the
Children and Media Research Advancement Act. In passing that,
it would give funding so we could better study the long-term
longitudinal effects of all kinds of technology on kids,
including really young kids.
As you have heard today, there is discussion about how
social media affects teens, which way, and that would be really
incredible to have studies funded, you know, not by the
industry.
Ms. Craig. Well, I appreciate so much the two of you being
here.
And with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back a minute of
everyone's life.
Ms. Schakowsky. Next, let me call on Mrs. Fletcher. Are you
still here?
Mrs. Fletcher. Yes. Thank you so much, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you for waiting. Five minutes for
questioning.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
I am here, and I really appreciate you organizing today's
hearing. I have appreciated the testimony of our witnesses.
Both the written testimony that has been submitted and hearing
from you all today has been really very helpful in working
through these issues that communities across the country,
including mine, are facing throughout this pandemic, and more
broadly these concerns about keeping kids online safely,
increasing use of digital media, and how we move forward is
really important.
So I have a few questions, and I want to follow up on some
of the things some of my colleagues have asked. Ms. Fox
Johnson, I want to start with you.
In your testimony, you shared that 75 percent of children
between the ages of 8 and 11 cannot distinguish ads from other
content, and I think this is really important to kind of throw
down on this.
You also mentioned that students or children who see only
apps are significantly more likely to use those products, and
you touched on this briefly in response to Representative
Dingell's questions.
One of the things you mention is that kind of the hashtag-
ad-sponsored media post just is not sufficient.
So can you talk a little bit more about what research has
been done to indicated change in consumer habits, especially in
children, about when an ad is properly identified or when it is
not, and maybe even more broadly kind of research efforts that
you would recommend to be able to determine what we can do that
will be sufficient?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you, Representative Fletcher.
So research shows that really young kids, 4, 5, you know,
they do not even know that an ad is an ad, and as kids get
older, they do not know that an ad's purpose is to sell them
something.
A lot of these studies were done with traditional media. So
now it is even more confusing with native content on the
internet. You might think you are reading a Teen Vogue article
and then not realize that Facebook has, in fact, sponsored it.
You might be playing a game and not realize that Coca-Cola has
paid for the game. You may be watching a boxing video and not
realize that that is product placement.
So the research shows that kids do not understand this
stuff, and the internet has made it much more confusing, and
also these ads can be more problematic for kids because they
are personally targeted to them, designed specifically to
appeal to that individual based on what they have done in the
past.
We need more research. As I mentioned, we need things like
the CAMERA Act. We need research that is funded by NIH and by
independent entities so that it is not all the companies
knowing what is most effective based on their own research.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
And kind of on a related note, I agree. I think a lot of
this legislation is really important for us to be looking at
and moving, and especially when it comes to the research and
making sure that we're looking at research at NIH.
But, you know, one of the challenges we face in Congress is
that it does take a while to respond, and so, yes, technology
continues to adapt and change. You know, how do we make sure
that the tools that are in place stay up to date?
How do we make sure that COPPA, for example, is inclusive
of new developments and can respond to the quickness of
technology that moves a whole lot faster than Congress and that
is for the [audio malfunction]?
You mentioned better resources for the FTC earlier. What do
you think we can and should do?
Ms. Fox Johnson. If you give the FTC more funding, they
will be able to hire more technologists. They will be able to
hire more attorneys and other experts. We and others have
proposed having a division specifically focused on kids or
specifically focused on privacy and technology at the FTC.
Another really important tool for the FTC that we have seen
with COPPA is the rulemaking authority. You know, COPPA was
passed over 20 years ago, but happily it was at least updated
in 2013 by the FTC. So any future laws should give them the
ability to be a little more nimble even though they are, you
know, not as nimble as tech companies.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much.
And I just have a few more seconds, but I would like to
direct my last question to Dr. Ameenuddin.
What do you wish had been in place, both in terms of
digital infrastructure and safeguards, prior to the pandemic in
order to help families manage this difficult time?
Dr. Ameenuddin. So thank you, Representative Fletcher.
Essentially what I wish for is what we have outlined and
recommended from the American Academy of Pediatrics for years,
which would be stronger protections, no targeting for kids
under 18, and really kind of closing those loopholes that
unfortunately tech companies can exploit.
So, yes, ideally, everything that has been on our wish list
for years, but thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for that, and it coincides
with the end of my 5 minutes.
So, Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
So welcome people who are not on the subcommittee to come
and ask questions, and in this case, we have two people, and I
am going to call first on Congressman Walberg.
Five minutes of questioning for you.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I appreciate the
opportunity to join this subcommittee today on a very, very
important hearing that I think that we hear a lot of
bipartisanship about as well. So I appreciate that.
Families in my district tell me day after day that their
children are frustrated. They are lonely and sad. Kids who once
were good students and athletes are now struggling with
depression and anxiety.
One parent who wrote me recently described the feeling as
simply being trapped, totally trapped, and I have been
advocating to safely open schools since last summer. I think it
is time, frankly, to do it. It is unacceptable for leaders in
charge to be dragging their feet for political purposes at the
expense of our children. Again, my opinion.
I would though like to give Dr. DeAngelis a moment to
respond to some of my colleague's statements regarding his
testimony. Dr. DeAngelis is an expert witness on how our kids
are being impacted by constantly being online. He has important
evidence from medical and academia professionals about this
having the impact it is having on them. He deserves to be
heard.
So, Dr. DeAngelis, would you like to speak briefly, and
please briefly, about the political dynamics regarding school
reopening decisions?
Dr. DeAngelis. Yes, absolutely. We cannot just sit here and
cover our ears acting like the teachers' unions have had
nothing to do with fighting against the reopening of schools
for in-person instruction every step of the way in so many
places.
In every single study that has been done on the topic--and
there have been about a handful, and I have done one or two of
them--have found that the strongest indicators of reopening in
person, all else equal after throwing in a ton of controls into
the models, is political partisanship and strength of the
teachers' unions in the local area.
There has been a Brown University paper on this. There is a
full upcoming publication in Social Science Quarterly that has
looked at this. Brookings University Scholar has also. Jon
Valant has also found, using the national data, that COVID risk
did not predict the reopening of schools, but that the
political partisanship in the air [audio malfunction].
Mr. Walberg. Did we lose him? Am I still on?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, Mr. Walberg, you are still on.
Mr. Walberg. But we lost Corey.
But I think he made some strong points there, and I am not
going to suggest that there was any untoward action to cut him
off at all.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you for that.
Mr. Walberg. That is the challenge we face with this, you
know. So I get it. I get it.
Madam Chair, as I mentioned at the beginning of this
hearing, I am proud to introduce, reintroduce, the Protect Kids
Act with my good friend and colleague Congressman Rush. The
bill represents, I believe, a reasonable, commonsense, and
bipartisan agreement that better reflects the realities of
today's online world and strengthens children's digital safety.
Currently the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or
COPPA, imposes requirements on website operators that
specifically deal with information, personal information, of
children 13 years of age and younger.
I would like to turn to Ms. Fox Johnson, and thank you for
being here. I understand that my time is limited. So, if you
could answer me just yes or no--and I hate that request, but I
have to ask you this time.
Do you agree that the COPPA law has by and large succeeded
in Congress' intent to protect children's digital footprint and
remains to a great degree relevant today? Yes or no.
Ms. Fox Johnson. No.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
I understand you have also authored a piece called
``Thirteen Going on 30.'' One of your conclusions is to extend
COPPA beyond 13 years of age, to include adults as well.
Is it fair to say that you would support a strong national
standard without a private right of action, as COPPA has
succeeded in doing?
Again, be brief if you can.
Ms. Fox Johnson. I can't speak to whether the private right
of action without knowing what is in the bill, but one of
COPPA's shortcomings is that it does not cover anyone over 13
and sites can pretend like it does not apply to them, and so if
it applied to everyone, they could no longer pretend that.
Mr. Walberg. Well, thank you.
Madam Chair, I would just like to point out that, while
there are much-needed reforms, COPPA has been a fairly
effective law for 23 years without any private right of action.
It needs to be amended. It needs to be updated. I agree.
But I certainly would ask my Democratic colleagues to work in a
bipartisan manner as Congressman Rush and I have done to
modernize this law. Reforming the law with a provision aimed at
helping trial lawyers certainly does not help kids.
And with that, I appreciate being involved and I yield
back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
And now I call on last but certainly not least,
Congresswoman Blunt Rochester.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you for this important hearing, to Ms. Castor for your
leadership on updating COPPA, and to the witnesses for
attending this hearing, and also for your patience waiting for
me to go last.
When I chose to lead the House version of Senator Warren's
DETOUR Act, it was because I was worried that everyone,
especially children, would increasingly be exploited by
manipulative digital practices known as ``dark patterns.''
Sadly, the testimony today confirms these concerns and
these fears, and as a few of our witnesses testified, these
trends are worse for lower-wealth households, as children in
them may spend significantly more time with screens than those
of households with greater wealth.
Worse still, this gap grows when considering race and
ethnicity.
And, as many have noted, we all should have serious
concerns for ethical and public health reasons. We may soon
have a tech-pessimistic generation that only sees the
exploitive potential for the innovative technologies of the
future.
And so my question, and I will start with you, Ms. Fox
Johnson, and it really follows up on the previous question that
we just heard, some of the line of questioning.
I believe Congress needs to act and address ``dark
patterns,'' such as design choices that are intended to
manipulate individuals into using products or services without
their consent or for a little personal gain, especially when
applied to children. And we often see tech designs subverting
parental choice, but you mentioned a troubling though natural
parent-child relationship. As children grow older, their
parents naturally supervise their behaviors less.
So my first question is: For older kids and teens, do you
believe that the subversion of their choice is a unique
problem, and why?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Thank you for that question,
Representative Rochester.
So we think that children and teens need to be recognized
for their evolving capacities. So you should not treat a
teenager exactly the same way that you would treat a young
child.
Teens still need special protections and safeguards, and we
can think of them like training wheels or like your temporary
driver's permit, right? They still need help, but they should
be empowered and learning how to make more choices for
themselves.
The U.K. age-appropriate design code is an excellent
example of this. It breaks kids into five different age groups
and talks about meeting kids and teens where they are and doing
things appropriate to their mental capacity.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent. And do we need more
research to better understand how dark patterns affect teens?
Ms. Fox Johnson. One hundred percent. We need more research
to understand how dark patterns affect teens, affect kids,
affect adults, and that is one thing, especially with kids and
teens, that the CAMERA Act would support.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Do we know anything about how tech
companies today are designing their products in relation to
teens, such as making specific design choices or products that
are targeted to this age group?
Ms. Fox Johnson. Yes. I mean, teens are like the canary in
the coal mine, and they are also a very attractive commercial
target for these tech companies, and they are designing their
products to hook kids early and to keep them for life.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. I think my last question kind of goes
to the issue of transparency with many of these tech companies.
As you and my colleagues have identified, often personal
information of minors is mined by these apps for commercial
purposes, but it seems to go deeper than this in ways that we
do not know.
A few years ago Facebook gained infamy for conducting
psychological experiments and behavioral studies on its users
without their consent.
Do these experiments and studies pull in children? And do
we know if these studies have stopped, or has the lack of
transparency continued to be a significant problem?
Ms. Fox Johnson. These studies have definitely involved
teenagers, and they have probably involved, for all we know,
everyone on Facebook and social media company sites.
One of the biggest problems with these studies is we are
just finding out about them because there will be a leaked new
report or a rogue employee. There is so much data that these
companies have.
You know, a researcher would have to get consent and go
through processes. These companies can largely do whatever they
want with all of the massive stores of data they have and
conduct behavioral research on all of us without our knowledge.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much for answering that
question.
I will just say that I think one of my colleagues mentioned
that there are opportunities for bipartisanship here. This is a
vital area. I am so glad that Ms. Castor is, again, taking up
the mantle on this.
Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership as
we look at these issues that affect everyone, but particularly
affect our children.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you.
And now I would like to give a hearty thank you to our
witnesses for their participation in today's hearing.
Before we conclude, I request unanimous consent to enter
the following documents into the record, and there is quite a
list:
A written statement from the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children; a letter from Prevent Blindness; an
article from Vox; an article from the Chicago Sun-Times; an
article from the Globe and Mail, Inc.; an article from NPR; an
article from All About Ann Arbor; an article from the World
Health Organization; an article from the New York Times; an op-
ed in the Chicago Tribune; an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times;
an article from the Wall Street Journal; an article from USA
Today; an article from the Arizona Daily Star.
If there are no objections--and I hear none--so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Arizona Daily Star article has been retained in committee
files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
20210311/111298/HHRG-117-IF17-20210311-SD006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Schakowsky. I remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, they have 10 days to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who
have appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any
questions--and I know there were some because people were
running out of time--that you may receive.
And at this time, with a lot of gratitude for the
participation by the Members and by the witnesses, the
subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]