[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]