♪ host: right out of the starting blocks of your 2024 presidential

campaign, nikki haley is making her relative youth a key asset. she is 51. joe biden and donald trump are 80 and 76 respectively. nikki haley is campaigning for a new generation of leadership. specifically she is calling for congressional term limits. and a mental competency test for politicians over the age of 75. it is friday, february 17, 2023. our first hour this morning will ask you broadly about age in politics. how old is too old for elected officials? we have separated our lines like this. if you are under the age of 30 use (202) 748-8000. if you are between 30 and 60, that line is (202) 748-8001. callers age 60 and older, use (202) 748-8002. anyone can text us at (202) 748-8003. tell us your name and where you

are texting from. we are on facebook, also twitter and instagram. we will show you some of the comments of nikki haley and her campaign announcement, specifically about this mental competency test and also share some of the reaction from the white house as well. we will also hear from the white house on the president's annual physical, which happened yesterday, and the results of that. this segment is not specifically about the age of donald trump or joe biden as a presidential contender. we have talked a lot about that. you are more than welcome to comment on that, more broadly the issue of age has come up in the announcement of and feinstein to retire after her current term. age is a factor, of course, in not just the military, but other organizations. here, nikki haley calling for term limits, calling for a mental competency test, perhaps

is not something new. how old is too old to be an elected official? (202) 748-8000 if you are under the age of 30. (202) 748-8001 for ages 30 to 60. if you are over the age of 60, that line is (202) 748-8002. checking some recent polling. the headline, americans want upper age limits and term limits for federally-elected officials. a recent reuters poll found most americans support upper age limits for political service as a member of congress, supreme court justice, or the president. two thirds of americans agree there should be upper age limits for service as a president, senator, and member of the house of representatives. and 61% of americans say when a supreme court justice reaches a certain age they should be forced to retire at the end of the courts term.

again, republicans, 62%, and democrats, 67%, agree. they say four in five americans agree there should be term limits for the house of representatives and u.s. senate. 79 percent, including 87% of republicans and 80% of democrats. they say the complexity of perceptions of age, three in five americans agree that leaders who are older often have valuable experience and should be not discounted just because of their age. additionally, a similar number of americans say as long as a lawmaker or judges in good health they should not be barred from serving because of age. republicans and democrats are equally likely to agree on both points. how old is too old for elected officials? this is a headline this morning -- this week, i should say, from politico. nikki haley calls for competency test for politicians over the age of 75 in her campaign launch. let's take a listen to

ambassador haley. [video clip] >> when it comes to our politicians, we will light a fire under them. [cheering] their job is not to say things on tv. their job are to do things in d.c., like solve problems, instead of ignoring or creating them. in the america i see, the permanent politician will finally retire. [cheering] we will have term limits for congress. [cheering] and mandatory mental competency tests for politicians over 75 years old. [cheering] host: there is nikki haley this

week in her campaign announcement, as you heard, calling for a mental competency test for those over the age of 75 politicians, that is, and for term limits. how old is too old for elected officials to serve? (202) 748-8000 for those of you under the age of 30. (202) 748-8001 for those of you between the ages of 30 and 60. and for those over 60. (202) 748-8002. after that announcement, the headline, elderly senators have mixed feelings about nikki haley's call for mandatory mental competency tests for politicians over 75. chuck grassley and dianne feinstein, who are both 89 years of age. nikki haley is calling for mental competency tests for politicians over the age of 75 a category that includes more than one sixth of current u.s. senators.

both presumptive presidential front runners. and more than 30 current u.s. house members. insider asked some of those senators age of 75 and older what they made of nikki haley's idea. while some said they would take such a test, others were dismissive. jim risch of idaho said, "i would have to think about that before i respond to that." let's get to your comments and calls and get to karen, rapid city, south dakota. over 60 line. hey there, karen. caller: hi. host: mute your volume on your tv, then go ahead. are you still there? alright, madison, wisconsin. jeremy, go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. i was surprised to see you this morning. thank you for c-span. surprid to see this money. i would like to take the questi another way. i apogize. i'm sorry.

what happens if we had a bunch of 16-year-olds running around the house of repsentatives? what is going to happen there? i think we can throw mental competency out of the question and just say, age is important. and thank you for the question. host: michigan is up next. randy on the over 60 line. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: good morning. thank you and all of the other men and women it takes to bring us this great program. you are doing a great service. i don't agree with term limits, because that is taking away my right to vote for someone. as far as the competency test, you can run that on just about most of the republican candidates that we have running. i'm not so sure age is necessarily the rule for competency when you cl these republicans claiming that the

last election was stolen. where do we draw the line on who is competent or not? the voters in this country is how it is set up. when you don't get voted for, then you don't win an election. the only ones i think should be limited as the supreme court. there should be some kind of limit on them. nothing should be lifetime. that is the only thing i believe. host: why should it be different in the court. -- court? obviously there are term limits for president. why the court? caller: because i don't get to vote on the court. at least the president of the united states and everyone else i get to vote on. so if i don't like the way they do something the first time, i can vote them out on the next time they come up. the supreme court, i have no control over that. once some partisan or however they get in, they are in there

for life. that is something i just don't agree with. everybody else, i get the choice to kick them out. if you can't get enough other people to agree with you to kick somebody out, then obviously the majority of people still like that candidate, and you should not take their right to vote for that candidate away from them by some phony term limit. host: appreciate that, randy. we are focused on elected officials, but a good perspective there on the age of supreme court members. feel free to weigh in on that as well. tennessee. teresa on the 30 to 60 line. hello there. caller: good morning. i don't agree with nikki haley. it's not about the age, it is about the competency and experience to be president. donald trump is younger than joe biden. donald trump is immensely qualified and competent to be a

president. joe biden is not. joe biden, it is clear he is not capable of being our president. one other thing i want to say. i know it is not on this subject, but i would never vote for a woman to become president of the united states. i am a woman, and nikki haley will not win the republican primary. host: why is it you would not vote for a woman to be president? caller: first of all, i believe a man -- i know this is going to sound bad, but i believe a man is more capable of running this country, running our businesses. women are backbiting and vindictive. they use their sexuality and feminism to get where they are going. what has nikki haley ever done? she was a good ambassador. she speaks well. but what has she ever done that qualifies her to become

president? she has never run a business. she has never run a company. host: one minute, teresa. she has been governor of the south -- of the state of south carolina, right? she was ambassador to the united nations. certainly that puts you in at least the hunt for the nomination, right? that would be sort of a basic, i would think, right? caller: first of all, i don't agree with her as governor. host: but she was governor of the state, that's my point. she checks that box. caller: i don't like this identity politics is -- identity politics. vote for me because i'm black. vote for me because i'm woman. vote for me because i'm this. it's always, photo for politics and never for experience. she is not experienced to be president. you know, she is just not. and i have one other thing,

please. host: go ahead. caller: if her sexuality and her sexual escapades going to be in the news like donald trump was? she has been accused of having several affairs. host: we will not go into that. this is not specifically about nikki haley, it is about age and the proposal that she just talked about. we showed you her comment, calling for a mental competency test for elected officials over the age of 75. also calling for congressional term limits, although her entry into the race did spark controversy on the cnn morning program yesterday. this is the headline from the washington post this morning. cnn's don lemon says he regrets comments about women's primates. in the latest setback for cnn's struggling new show, don lemon said he regretted his in artful and irrelevant comment about when women are "in their prime,"

that drew quick backlash. lemon, who left a prime time purge to host the program made a response for nikki haley's call for mental competency tests, a veiled reference to president biden, and former president donald trump. the whole thing about age makes me uncomfortable, lemon told his cohosts. i think it is wrong -- the wrong road to go down. she says people, politicians are not in their prime? nikki haley is not in her prime. when a woman is considered to be in her prime is in her 20's and 30's, maybe 40's, said don lemon. apologized for that, but nikki haley tweeted this in response to what don lemon had to say on cnn yesterday. nikki haley tweeting that, liberals cannot stand the idea of having competency tests for older politicians to make sure

they can do the job. by the way, it is always the liberals who are the most sexist, said nikki haley. let's go to robert in roanoke, virginia. how old is too old, do you think, robert? caller: in my opinion, age is not a qualification for being a politician. neither is sex or national origin. but if you are competent to do the job and lead our country, either republican or democrat, i don't know why we could not elect either official. they are working for us is the main thing. i like the 75 number, just because it is -- by then you should be retired and enjoying life with your family and taking care of your own business. and not worrying about the country. host: all right, robert. we will go to dion in richmond,

virginia on the 30 to 60 line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i just wanted to say quickly, i think that nothing past 70, because the general retirement age is, i think, 67 right now. i think once you hit 70, no. the supreme court, they should retire. everybody in congress over 70 should not be allowed to be there. definitely president's age, 70, in my opinion, that is way too old. what i be going to a doctor -- because i think joe biden is 86 or something. host: he is 80 right now. he would be 86 -- trying to do the math in my head -- if he ran and won in 2024, he would be 86 at the end of that term. caller: yeah, by 86 if you are trying to do a second term, me,

personally, that is too old. i wouldn't go into a position at 86 years old. i wouldn't feel comfortable having surgery by an 86-year-old. i think that is way too old. that is my opinion. host: why do you think the motivation of some politicians -- i think the number inside her head was 1/6 of the u.s. senate is over the age of 75 what is the motivation of some politicians to continue along well past 70, 75? caller: i think personally they like that power. you know what i mean? it seems like they don't want to give it up. i think it is maybe, like, a power trip thing. they liked another fact that they can make laws, help pass laws, and things like that. i think that is why they don't really want to give up their seats to the younger generation. that i do feel like the younger generation, since it is the future, since they are our future, the millennials and things like that, i think the

older generation need to give it up and let the younger generation step in there. because i don't think it is fair to make laws for the future that is really going to impact us it may not necessarily impacted them, because they may not really be around. host: appreciate that. new brunswick, new jersey. marcia, hello there. caller: yes, good morning. host: just make sure you knew your volume on your tv and go ahead with your comments. caller: sure. i believe 70 should be the limit. because you not only need mental acuity, you need physical strength. and i watch and see how many congressmen show up to vote. half of them do not show up. why? that is their job. show up and vote. why aren't they there?

are they taking for granted their power and prestige? i don't get it. host: our question this morning in part prompted by the call by nikki haley for a mental competency test to continue in politics past the age of 75 -- federal politics, for members of congress, the president, and supreme court. a reaction here, the headline says the white house brushes off nikki haley's call for mental competency tests. here is the white house press secretary. [video clip] >> she is calling for mental competency tests for politicians 75 and up. clearly a dig at the current president. she said america is not past our prime, just our politicians are passed to theirs. if we keep trusting politicians from the 20th century, does the

president have any response to that statement? >> i'm going to be careful, as i am speaking about a candidate. she is a candidate for 2024, so i am covered by the hatch act, so i'm not going to speak to her directly. i will say this, more broadly, you know, we have heard these types of attacks or remarks before, and if you go back to 2020 they said that the president couldn't do it in 2020, and attacked him there, and he beat them. in 2020 one, when he entered the white house and worked to do his best to turn everything around with the economy tanking, with covid, comprehensive response, the president got to work and was able to pass the american rescue plan with the help of democrats in congress. guess what? they turned around the economy and he beat them there too. when everyone was talking about a red wave, the president beat

them at their own game there as well. i don't know. be they have forgotten, maybe they are forgetting the winds that this president has had over the last couple of years, but i'm happy to remind them any time. host: yesterday's news conference. this morning not specifically about president biden or donald trump, in general, how old is too old for elected officials? (202) 748-8000, the line for those of you between 30 and 60. excuse me, those of you under the age of 30. perhaps showing my age there. if you are between the ages of 30 and 60, (202) 748-8001. for those of you over the age of 60, (202) 748-8002. some comments on social media. there are not she has in her prime, i would never vote for nikki haley. she had to be forced to lower the confederate flag. talking about her term as

governor. this one said we need term limits on all government agencies. every political job. we need cognitive testing on all candidates. we need less corruption in d.c. don't think age has anything to do with qualifications. follow the national retirement standards. more importantly, they should all be honest. in north carolina, i would say over 70 will be to all. i'd agree with haley on the cognitive test. we have too many that would fail that test. from rebecca, too old for elected officials? age is just a number, and mine is unlisted. tim in rochester, new york. caller: how are you doing? good morning. it doesn't matter. voters need to do their homework and stop going off and just voting because they are democrat, independent, or republican. study the candidate and see what they are about.

they can be 120. if they are about the right thing for me, i'm going to vote for them. but they do need term limits on the supreme court. congress, some of them have been in there too long. it is up to the younger generation, i think, to get involved. i think it's going to be a change, probably another decade. they've got to start voting younger. i'm about to be 50. i'm with the young generation. it is up to them. so, thank you. have a good morning. host: thanks, tim. bradley up in marietta, georgia, on the 30 to 60 line as well. caller: nikki haley d get the [indiscernible] i'm going to have to give her credit on that. i don't necessarily think there should be an age limit, but we

have to get these all people out of congress. we need the younger generation there. i have confidence. i have two daughters. i think they are perfectly capable to take over the world. this older generation sold us out, with guns, and the drug war. i don't want to put an age limit on it because people can be competent pretty much at any age. if you have problems with your politicians, that is on us, because we elected them. host: there is the thing, bradley. obviously members of congress and the senate, particularly members of the house are voted by their specific district. the idea of a competency test, take that out of the equation for members of the district who may like their 80-year-old congresswoman, or whoever it may be? caller: they just [indiscernible] technically i'm responsible for her being voted in. it is difficult. there is a lot of apathy, and

the younger generation, they are not as involved in politics as they are going to have to be if we are going to save this country. they are busy, you know, politics is lame and they think it is all corrupt. the worst is they say, they are all the same. yes, they are corrupt. democrats and republicans. but republicans, they are just on a whole another level. i appreciate it. host: president biden had his physical yesterday, pronounced fit for office in a day-long physical here in the nation's capital. the final report issued by the physician, kevin o'connor, here is the summary. this patient's current medical considerations are detailed as above. the thank you -- they include afib, hyperlipidemia, gastro reflex, spinal arthritis, and mild neuropathy of the feet.

for these he takes three common prescription medications and two common over-the-counter medications. dr. o'connor says president biden remains a vigorous 80-year-old male who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency, to include those as cheesy cash as chief executive and commander-in-chief. rollins, maryland on the over 60 line. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. caller: yeah, think joe biden is way too old to be running our country. host: do you think the same thing for donald trump as well, or -- he would be 78 if he runs for president -- when he runs for president in 2024. caller: i believe he is too old as well. the media has really beat him up. host: next up, to our under 30 line, west chester,

pennsylvania. jan, welcome. caller: thank you. my great-grandfather retired at age 80. and my great grandma forced him to retire. he didn't want to. he was very fit. this individual, this very individual, some people at age 60, they are physically not up to -- it depends on the job. if the job is more physical or the job is more mental. each individual is really -- it is kind of hard to put an age. but maybe with the supreme court, maybe they should be in there to a certain time, and then, you know, have to retire. that i feel a little different about. but as far as for president or -- yes, they should have a psych eval as well as a physical.

i do believe. host: all right. to doug in millington, maryland. hey there, doug. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i believe most of this should be term limits across-the-board. it is a little difficult with the supreme court, because of how they have been put in for their complete term that they won, until they retire. if we put in term limits in across-the-board for politicians i think that eliminates an awful lot. and we have some competency in there too. host: this is from the pew research center. as the 118th congress gets underway, they took a look at the age. the house gets young, the senate gets older. a look at the age in the 118th congress. the u.s. house of representatives is getting younger, the senate's median age

continues to rise. the median age of voting house lawmakers is 57.9 years, down in the 117th congress. and 58 .4 in the 100 15th. the senate's new median age is 65.3 years, up from 63 point six in the 116th. it is crofton, maryland. jorge is up next. caller: good morning. with regards to what nikki is proposing, i think they are both reasonable propositions. i'm not a fan of nikki haley, but i am in favor of term limits. it is kind of ridiculous that in this country you can have someone come into office and stay there pretty much their entire life. dianne feinstein is in her upper 80's. that is crazy. i am in the military and in the

military we have to switch out every so often, right? this ensures that the people behind us, the experience, it brings in a new set of ideas. i am all for it. with regards to the competency test for folks over 75, i think that is a reasonable thing. as we get older we start to lose certain functions. but if you are fit at 75, if you are fit at 80, just take the test and it will come out. host: you had mentioned the military. and i don't know, so are the there -- so there are annual physical tests, and other organizations as well. is there a mental competency test issued to members of the military or government organizations? are you aware of any mental competency exam? caller: there are personality exams and evaluations for

certain roles, but not all. also commanders, they wrote out every two years. even if you have a really good commander, you know, in two years you are going to get a new commander who is going to bring in a new set of ideas. it doesn't always work, but you can rest assured two years later you're going to get somebody new. it just keeps moving forward. host: spokane, washington. either. -- high there. -- hi there. caller: good morning. i think anyone running for office, whether it is in the congressional area, presidency, or even supreme court judge, i think everyone should take a test. but it should also include whether they can think logically , if they have a knowledge of civics and history.

just like people who are immigrants and studying to be citizens, and they take a test. so, i mean, why don't these young congresspeople who are just coming in, you know, before they got elected why didn't they take a test? and then i also think there should be term limits. yes, for congress. the representatives and senators. host: all right, and another view from washington state. it is olympia this time. stephen, go ahead. caller: good morning. in talking to you. i'm going to make it -- this is not rocket science. i'm going to make it real sweet and right to the point. there is the solution for everything. i don't care if it is the supreme court, i don't care if it is the house of representatives, the senate, the presidency, here is the thing, you are asking how old is too

old for elected officials? here's the deal. no ages too old, but here is what i recommend be done for everything. let's do a lie detector test. we don't need competent liars in all of these offices. what we need are honest politicians, honest everything. let's do a lie detector test annually. that is my solution. host: we showed you the results, the summary of the president's physician, dr. kavanaugh, -- dr. kevin o'connor. this is in the new york times. resident is fit to hold office, biden's doctor says, after a physical. the press secretary took some questions on the president's physical, and the report. if she is. [video clip] >> we get this question a lot,

as you all know. here's what i have to say about it. the president always says this, which is, watch. if you watch him, you will see he has a grueling schedule that he keeps up with. that sometimes some of us are not able to keep up with. at the state of the union i believe he spent 90 minutes speaking to congressional members, in front of them, to the american people. after that he spent an hour shaking hands and greeting the congressional members and their guests. this is a president that works day in and day out in a grueling fashion, with a grueling schedule, and delivers. let's not forget, it is interesting we get this question about this president, who has had one of the most historical presidencies in his first two years than any other president. almost any other president. he think about the historic pieces of legislation he has gotten through, that many have made jokes about. think about the bipartisan

infrastructure law. the last guy joked every week it was infrastructure week. and could not get it done. many presidents tried to get that done and could not get it done. this president did it in a bipartisan way. where is a list i could go through. i know you guys don't want to hear me go through them at this time, but we have talked about them over and over again. it is surprising that we get this question, when you look at this record of this president, and what he has been able to do and deliver for the american people. and he is able to do that because he is clearly capable on so many ways, on so many levels. and he is going to continue to do that in the years coming. host: open question for you this morning. not specifically about the presidency, but in general how old is too old for elected officials? if you are under the age of 30 the line you use is (202) 748-8000. between the ages of 30 and 60, use (202) 748-8001.

if you are over the age of 60 it is (202) 748-8002. some comments via text and on social media. this one says, every individual is different, but if we need to set a cap hour would say 76 is the oldest they should be when running for office. i would also say anyone running should have a competency test before the primaries, and every year every elected official should have a competency test. term limits, three years for senators, and five terms for representatives, says joan. it is not age, it is competency. biden is clearly not running the country and senator feinstein is even worse, says tony. the canary in the room for the 24 -- 2024 election will be other biden will debate. in the normal process i believe he will again not debate or try to change the rules, says john. this one, i don't think a person over 70 should be put out to pasture. blender 70 should have a voice

at the table, because they have knowledge, wisdom, experience, and common sense. our younger generations they know everything about everything, and haven't lived long enough to know anything, says wilhelmina from georgia. back to your calls on our line. between 30 and 60 in massachusetts, carol. hello there. caller: good morning. first of all, american citizens, you have the power to vote people out of office. we talk about term limits, just don't vote them back into office. and elect someone else. the other thing a want to say is, our representatives have a large staff who help them. they write speeches for them, they probably make reservations for them, they make their appointments. they have a lot of people helping them to fulfill their duties. they are not doing it by

themselves. for instance, president biden has someone who cooks for him, helped him exercise, and every aspect of his life. all he has to do is stand up there and say whatever somebody else wrote. that is one of the ways they can stay in office, because they don't want to leave, because of all the benefits they have been getting all of these years. and they also, like i said, have a large staff that helps them fulfill their role. they are not doing it alone. i wish i had as many people helping me as they do. host: right, to rapid city, south dakota. it is paul on the line. caller: i support term limits, and i believe biden is too old. mike pence is too old. donald trump is too old. their time has passed. i would love to see a different generation get into office.

if it is nikki haley, i think that would be fine, or if it is mr. scott, that would be fine. but i really would like to see some new blood, and i believe everybody that is 70 years old should be out of office. and i would like to see the fbi caught and the cia caught. we don't need them all. thank you. host: next up is clive, calling from rosebud, missouri on the over 60 line. caller: yeah, this is rosebud here. host: you are on the air. caller: 78. there is a lot of competent people that are old. mentally i think i ate too bad of shape. physically it is different. there ought to be limits.

not so much age, but competence. the competence test is fine, but the test i would really like to see is, they all have to pass a drug test. you can drive a truck without passing a drug test, and yet we have these people running the country that are a damn site more dangerous than truck drivers, and they don't have to pass no drug test. they should have to pass want to get in, and they should be randomly tested at any time. if you can't pass, you are out. host: you mentioned your age is 78. that is the age donald trump will be in 2024. joe biden will be 82. you said yourself that physically it is more challenging at age 78. put yourself in their shoes. the physical demands of campaigning, presidential campaigns, can you imagine what that would feel like for you, a

78-year-old man? what do you think that would do to you? caller: look, i used to be quite capable physically. i have had a stroke. there ain't a whole lot of me left physically anymore. i still think pretty decent, and i'm happy for that, but age is not the real issue. biden is an absolute fool trying to ruin this country and his white house spokesman is little better. and there is a bunch of them. they should be gone. i got no use at all for the head guy in the senate on either party, republican or democrat. there is a lot of good people out there. we need some running. it is the general population's fault. don't pay enough attention to these people. they put fools, crooks, lying, cheating thieves back in office time after time without paying attention to them. host: we will go to justin in

new britain, connecticut. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i was sitting here listening to the last gentleman speak, and, you know, as we all know there is a minimum age limit to be president. you must be 35 years old to be president. with that in mind, in my opinion, there should be at least 72 years old should be the maximum age for the president. i believe 72 years old should be the oldest you should be allowed for the president. as far as the supreme court, there should be term limits on the supreme court, because if on the 1930 census or you are on the 1940 census, i think you are too all. host: a quick point. he made an interesting point. the minimum age for the

presidency is 35. why do you think the founders did not address the upper end? you have to be a minimum of 35, and you said no older than 72. why do you think they did not put in a restriction on how old you can be to be president? caller: in that time of history of america a lot of the land owners were older men. so at that time older men with the main voting people in the country, older white men. as we all know, history allowed some people to vote at certain times in history. that is why i think it was older people, they left that specific reason out of the constitution. we can be 35 years old as a young man, but 105 as the president. i think they should fix that part. host: appreciate the call. manwell is next in inglewood,

california, on the over 60 line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i have a few thoughts about the age. first and foremost, i would like to say i am a proud 72-year-old, and i can tell you from my personal experience, from friends and family members and coworkers i have known over the years, you know, you kind of slow down a little bit and you start to feel it at about 65. that doesn't necessarily mean your cognitive functioning is diminished. so i think it is important, first of all, to make sure that you keep the wisdom and experience in their for the newcomers coming in, so they can learn, but at the same time i think there should be a prerequisite, or sometimes of -- or some type of competency test

for even beginning to apply or think about, you know, being, running as a candidate for any office. with that said, if you can get that in place and you know you have some competent people that have some knowledge of our governmental system, which it seems like nowadays many people are getting in there that really don't seem like they have a full understanding of our system, our capitalism, our democracy, but with all of that said, i think the wisdom and experiences are important to pass down to the younger generation, it at the same time, as far as a limit is concerned, i think no one should able to run for an office or position that will extend their

term past the age of 80. that is my thoughts about that. host: you are old enough to remember the election of ronald reagan, at the time was the oldest president elected, age 69 in 1980. you remember back then this was an issue. what do you think about the reflection now that in 2024 joe biden will be 82, and if it is donald trump, donald trump would be 78 in -- that is quite a bit older than 69 of ronald reagan in 1980. caller: absolutely. and it is interesting you should mention ronald reagan. because at an older aged did not take long to see, as he went to his terms, he finished up, i think many people were starting to begin to see the diminished capacity of the man who was

still in office. now, for those who have been following joe biden for many years, there is no doubt about it. he is not the joe biden of young anymore. he has slowed down. he still has a strong cognitive function, but how long is that going to last? i don't think much longer. i'm not sure if i much agree that he should go another four years, and i'm not even sure he knows whether he will be able to handle it or not, physically and mentally it is a lot of work. and i think as you have seen with ronald reagan, you will see with joe biden if he runs another term, i think we are all going to start seeing that diminished capacity. host: a story in the washington times about john fetterman.

the headline, federman checked himself into hospital for severe case of depression. senator john fetterman is battling the lingering effects of a stroke, has checked himself into an walter reed medical center to receive treatment for clinical depression. chief of staff adam general's and in a statement said mr. fetterman arrived to the hospital wednesday night. he said mr. federman has experienced depression off and on throughout his life, and only became severe in recent weeks. the attending physician evaluated mr. federman earlier this week and recommended inpatient care at walter reed. a tweet from john fetterman's wife with this statement from communications chief for john fetterman. this tweet saying, after what he has been through in the past year, there is probably no one who wanted to talk about his own health less than john. i'm surprised of him for asking for help and for getting the care he needs.

a little more than 10 minutes left of your calls and comments on how old is too old for elected officials? go to zachary, west lafayette, indiana on the 30 to 60 line. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. what is important to think about is david graber's quote. the hidden truth of the world is that we can imagine it differently. there is a competency test and term limits every election cycle. it is very simple to remove people from office. if people actually get involved in the political process. i think too many people are focusing on the individuals that are elected, as if that is the problem, and not the political parties themselves. at least the major ones. in terms of, are they competent

and have they been in there too long? is that how some of the corruption stays in all of the political systems, whether you are looking at the local level, the city, the county, the state, or the national level? whether it is congress or other elected officials. especially the president as well. i think that is a strong signal everyone needs to focus on a bit marcus he is in a fragile state. more involvement, whether you are young or old, involvement is good in a democracy. more speeches important, and c-span contribute to that -- contributes to that greatly. i am appreciated of that. host: joe is in bloomfield, kentucky on the over 60 line. caller: hello. host: good morning, joe. caller: good morning. i think it is simple. term limits.

look at how old you are going to be, and not how old you are. host: so how old you would be at the end of a congressional term or presidential term? caller: exactly. that is the number you are shooting for. you are not shooting for the number on the front end. because if you are eight years into it, you know, you are 78, so on and so forth. host: sure. this is a headline from the wall street journal this morning. another story, objects not linked to china spine. the president briefing the press yesterday on the shootdown of the three additional objects, one over alaska, over canada, and lake huron. he was with the president had to say yesterday. pres. biden: last week in the aftermath of the incursion by china's high-altitude balloon

our military through the north american aerospace defense command's so-called norad closely scrutinized our airspace, including enhancing our radar to pick up more slow-moving objects around our country. around the world. in doing so they attract three on identified objects. one in alaska, over canada, and over lake huron. they acted in accordance with established parameters to identify unidentified aerial objects over u.s. airspace. at their recommendation i gave the order to take down these three objects due to hazards to commercial air traffic, and because we could not rule out the surveillance risk on sensitive facilities. reacted in consultation with the canadian government. i spoke first with prime minister trudeau from canada on saturday. just as critically we acted out of an abundance of caution and

an opportunity that allowed us to take down these objects safely. our military, and the canadian military, are seeking to cover -- to recover the debris so we can learn more about these objects. our intelligence community is assessing all three incidents. they are reporting to me daily and will continue their efforts to do so. i will communicate that to the congress. don't know exactly what these three objects were, but nothing right now suggests they were related to china's spy balloon program or that there were surveillance vehicles from any other country. the intelligence community's current assessment is that these objects were most likely balloons tied to private companies, recreation, or research institutions studying whether or conducting other scientific research. host: some comments on social media and text to our question this morning. this one is robert. be careful about getting rid of old-timers. if there is one advantage you gain with age, it is judgment.

i appreciate the experience and length of time biden brings to office. donald had age, but he certainly did not have experience, except as a real estate flipper. the kind of integrity those types have. in wyoming. to be fair, let us look at younger ones. they do not need a mental test? i would lean toward term limits, majority of people who have been in congress have been there forever. your average person is not going to run for office above the age of 60. that is why term limits would take care of that, says greg. this one, as an 82-year-old i think 70 should be the limit for holding public office, including judges. father time and mother nature take their toll after 60. you need the most vibrant in charge, says larry. david is on the under-30 line in st. petersburg, florida. caller: how are you doing this morning?

i have been watching videos. when he ran for office that was the lesser of the two evils. trump or biden? you know, here we are now. my opinion that, if you are 85 years old you have great mental acuity and you are very witty and you have a physical, i all means you should be able to be in office.

host: next up is done in hampton, virginia. caller: good morning. i agree with nikki haley. it could be a little bit lower, like the other lady said at 70.

the prominent washington literary agent, people are different is good. one replacement for readers of serious nonfiction involves what he calls president-adjacent characters, like the 2022 book about revolutionary war agitator samuel adams, or susan glasser and peter baker's bestseller about james regular third. that is a politico.com. let's hear from scott. how old is too old, scott? caller: i would say, i don't

know if you mention this, but i would like to point out america is 39, and they want a legislative body to mention race and adversity but never mention age. maybe we should think about our representatives representing america in terms of age. what do you think? host: to betty in indiana on the under 30 line. caller: i would say 70 years old.

usually when you get over that age, most people their abilities change, if you work on the job there is not that many people that work on a job and if they do it is their second job, not the first job they had. they are working towards not to want to retire. these people are making major decisions that are affecting millions of people. i work in health care. i would not have a 86-year-old dr. doing a brain surgery or skilled heart surgery. most lawyers retire at that age. most callers are retired at the age. why would you want someone making decisions for millions of people at that age and people probably say well because they

got the experience. they have been there 30 years or 40 years. if you have been on a job 30 years or 40 years, new people come in and they train and they learn how to do the job. you're not going to stay there to 86 years old just because new people are too young. . host: good points there betty. to you all, thank you for calling on the opening segment. there is more ahead in the program. there is a bipartisan place in congress to protect children safety online. josh golin from the advocacy group will join us to talk about what they would like to see in the new legislation. the talk about testimony this week as well. later see a congressional reporter for transport topic to talk about the train to rome northeast ohio, questions of the safety of transporting chemicals via rail. ♪

>> there are lots of places to get political information but only c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading others discussing the latest nonfiction books. 8:00 p.m. eastern reverend otis senior pastor at trinity united church in chicago shares his book dancing in the darkness. about overcoming the political a

spiritual challenges of today. 2:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, ucla law professor examines how the u.s. legal system handy's police misconduct for should. watch book tv every sunday on c-span 2 and find this full schedule your program guide or watch online any a booktv.org. >> >> pre-order your copy of the congressional directory of 118th congress. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. important information for congressional committee, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code at the rig t pre-der your copy today. it is $29.95 plus shippi handling. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations at c-spanshop.org.

>> since 1979 in partnership with the cable institute, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. host: with us next is josh golin who is executive director of fairplay. we are talking about kids and online safety. he is not only the executive director, he testified this week looking into the very issue. tell us about your organization

fairplay. what is your mission and how are you funded? guest: thank you so much for having me. fairplay is an advocacy orchid -- organization dedicated to building a world where kids can be kids free from the false promises of marketers and harmful manipulations of big tech. we work to keep kids safe when their online and also to make sure they can get the offline time they need to really drive. we are funded by foundations and individual donations. we have a strict policy of not taking any corporate donations from the tech industry. what is the purpose of not taking donations from the tech industry? guest: our commitment is to the well-being of children and when you take money from the tech industry it starts to cloud your judgment and the policy to advocate for a not the best for children but industries.

it want to make sure we are representing kids and families. host: we will start broadly on this. how much time our kids spending on online platforms particularly with social media? guest: preteens are now spending about 5.5 hours a day online, just entertainment. watching videos on social media. the figure does not include homework or time they are in school. teens it is up to 8.5 hours a day just for entertainment. if you kind of think about it, 24 hour day, throw in time for sleep and being at school, it is about all of the time there in school and not sleep. >> axios did a story about the types of social media change in percentage of teens who use seleka social media platforms. it is hard to keep track of what

kids are watching online. i want to get your reaction to this. changes axios shows kids are doing up from between 2014-2015 the current day 2022. the use of instagram is up 10%. the a snapshot of 15%. facebook down 30%. timber down 9%. youtube strong, 95%. with instagram and snapshot, why is viewership up? guest: facebook is consider a platform for people my age these days. young people do not want to be caught dead on places where their parents and grandparents hangout. snapchat has risen in popularity because of the disappearing met -- message feature. it has become a place where kids communicate with each other and

in group test very much. tiktok is what you did not mention. it has been a huge rise over the last several years. their algorithm and their short form video platform is so good at capturing kids attention and getting them in the state where they go from one video to the next. instagram is a platform to clay pop -- popular with young girls all focus around appearance in the filters you can be on pictures in order to make yourself look in a weight maybe you do not look in real life. a lot of these platforms that have risen in popularity are visual basic platforms where you are consuming or posting videos of pictures. the research shows those can be the worse 14 mental health. host: josh golin is our guest. rep focusing on kids and online safety. here are the lines to use if you want to join the conversation.

eastern/central timezones, 202-748-8000. mountain/pacific timezones, 202-748-8001. if you are a parent of a kid, a young kid or teenager, we would like to hear from parents in particular. that line is 202-748-8002. what is your organization? what is fairplay do to help parents and teachers or administrators? helping them cope with kids use of social media. guest: we offer advice to parents and to school districts but our focus is much more on what the platforms themselves are doing and how we can create policies that create a healthy video file is for kids. link kids spent 8.5 hours a day on these platforms, it is unrealistic to expect parents to monitor that.

also one of the things people say, keep your kids off of these platforms. the fact of the matter is as kids enter adolescence, the most important thing is to be with their peer group is and all of your peers are online. glass like my kid from their peers and worry about them being lonely -- do i isolate my kids from their peers and worry about them being lonely? while i look to be aligned with the harmful content -- do i let them be online with harmful content? it is a catch-22 for content. we are focused on how can we make the program safer. one the things we will talk more about today is platforms are designed to addict our kids. they are designed to check as often and they do that are often harmful to kids. there are these parents can do and i would say, the most

important thing is no device is allowed at the bedroom. assumption time for you take the phones from your kids are shutting out your wi-fi for the night. one of the things we know is that these devices and social media platforms are really disrupting to sleep and not getting enough sleep is linked to that outcomes -- to bad outcomes. we think parents need help. for in a mental health crisis. for social media addiction crisis and parents need help in putting the burden on parents is not going to work. host: did a factors we talked about -- the addictive factors we talked about a place to kids and adults as well. does it means addressing that to kids and adults on the addictive nature of online platforms? guest: that is absolutely true. i think most adults i know,

including myself, probably really struggle to moderate our own use. children's brains are developing. they are more vulnerable to the design tactics, pressure tactics and peer pressure to be on social media. i would love to see these platforms be designed in different ways there were more healthy for adults as well, but the most important thing for my perspective is how can we at least make the changes that allow our case to go up in a healthier media environment and not feel if i'm not on instagram and tiktok 24/7 i am letting my friends down. i am missing out the most exciting thing going on in the world. so kids can get things like sleep and exercise and face-to-face interactions which are so important to developing empathy, relationships, camaraderie, and teamwork. i would love for the stuff to better for adults. i clicked put her ears ago because i think -- i quit

twitter years ago because i think it is a vast wasteland. host: josh golin is our guest with fairplay. we welcome parents online, parents of kids and teens as well, your number is 202-748-8002. eastern/central timezones, 202-748-8000. mountain/pacific timezones, 202-748-8001. you testified this week for the senate judiciary committee. i want to hear some of what you had to say to that committee. was it for you the comments of senator whitehouse on an issue he focus on in the hearing. here is senator whitehouse. [video clip] >> we are having a bipartisan moment here today with the blooming call blackman legislation, and i would be

prepared to make a bet that if we took a vote on a plane section 230 repeal, it was clear this committee with virtually every vote. the problem where we bogged down as we want to 30 plus, was a rebuilt 230 and have x, y, z. we do not agree with the xyz are. i would encourage each of you, if you wish, to take a moment when the hearing is over, and write down what you would like to see with respect to section 230. if this is not your area, fine, do not bother. would you be happy with a flat 230 repeal? would you like to see 230 repeal with two or three things added? what would your reclamation

speak for look at this? host: section 230. if you to briefly explain that and what was your reaction after hearing that from senator whitehouse? guest: for the viewers, section 230 is a law that says online platforms, social media platforms are not responsible for the content that their users post. they are not liable by posting something threatening to attack you or say something, the platform itself is not responsible for what the users post. who has been extremely unfortunate -- what has been extremely unfortunate is that courts have interpreted this broadly to mean the platforms basically have no liability for anything. we think there is a clear difference if i just say, i post content that encourages kids to cut themselves, which there's

content like that all of these platforms, that the existence of that is not something necessarily the social media platforms should be liable for, i posited, they cannot catch everything we pose. but once the algorithm start recommending that content to kids, putting it into their feet saying this is the content you're probably going to be interested in, the reason they put the content there is because they think it's going to keep kids scrolling and other devices as long as possible. must those companies put their finger on the scale to maximize their profit, we do not think they should be protected anymore. we think section 230 should be amended to make clear what the platforms are designed and algorithms are not protected speech which would allow us to continue to have social media platforms where there is user generated content, but make a much safer because the platforms would have to be really careful about what they're pushing on kids. host: i'm going to share our

views policy recommendations fr fairplay. guest: when i -- what i talked about in my testimony and what fairplay believes is we need to expand privacy protections to teens. we have one law that protec kids online, children's online privacy and protection act. it is 25 years old and only covered kidup until their 13th birthday. there is no other contexts will retreat a 13-year-old and i don't but it is what we do on the internet every single day. teens need protection two. need abandonment traded -- data-driven advertising. it allows companies to target kids with extreme vulnerabilities. facebook had a memo they gave to advertisers where they were bragging about how they could target as to kids at the exact moment they were feeling bad

about themselves including when they were feeling about their bodies. we did not want that. kids and he's insecurities and not trip, we do not want that to be a business opportunity. all the data collected for advertising purposes is used in other harmful ways. we believe these companies should have a duty of care to prevent and mitigate the worse harms the case. right now, their only obligation is to their shareholders to maximize profits. how do they maximize profits? by keeping kids on as long as possible serving them content that is most likely to keep them online regardless if the content is good for them or not. we need to put brakes on the business model and say you have an obligation to kids and families as well. we also think all the default settings on these platforms for kids should be on the most protective setting by default. right now, if you're a parent or a kid yourself and you want to

have a safer experience, you got to figure out and work your way through a maze of 60 settings in order to figure out how to do it. it is not easy. why not start from a place for things like location is turned off by default? settings is private by default rather than being public. why not start from a same spot? we think we should prohibit the use of dark patterns. whenever the tactics used all of us to keep us -- manipulative tactics used on all of us to keep us all mine longer. -- keep us online longer. we think we need more enforcement. we think there should be a division at the federal -- federal trade commission dedicated to protecting children online. right now, there is not enough enforcement of existing laws and if we get more protections for children legislation are going

to need more regulation. it is important we have a cop on the beat that is making sure these policies want to see or enforce. host: we have calls for josh golin. if folks want to read more the website for fairplay is fairplay for kids.org. mary in wisconsin. mary is on our parents line. caller: good morning. parents need to say no to their children. big tech needs to realize all those people have their children -- that should be a red flag. kids nowadays cannot write a letter, you do not see them playing outside, unable to cultivate friendships in school. they cannot deal with their emotions in the development personalities that causes more bullies and children are spending more time at home,

maybe not having a parent monitoring what they are seeing on a computer. i think the worse thing for the government will be -- would be to pay for people to have the internet. people having the internet are not learning anything. her going on websites that are bad -- they are going on the websites that are bad for their brains. the boy's brain does not mature into the air 28 years old and the girls 27 years old. the last things parents used to use babysitter now they're using a tablet for a babysitter. schoolteachers remove computers otherwise kids would not be able to be critical thinkers in a row going to be in trouble later in life and their children will have problems. host: several points there. guest: i agree with mary that this is shaping kids in ways

that are extremely concerning. their ability to concentrate. their ability to form friendships. their ability to develop empathy. there learning. i absolutely agree this is something of concern. i do think it is important everybody has internet access. it is a fact of life. more and more of the world is moving online. not having access to the internet could me not having access to school, and having access to banking, all sorts of things we need to move through the world. but that is not mean just because we have access that should be a free for all and it is what we advocate for policies that would create safeguards for case and make it easier for them to not be online all of the time. ashley agree. -- i absolutely agree. far too much of our kids education is moving online. not just in remote schooling during pandemic in the

classroom. -- but in the classroom. it is sad when you have seven-year-old on their ipads rather than using their hands and all of their senses to learn give a noisy classroom because kids are talking to each other and learning from each other and are you going to second grade classroom and it is quite as their own alon -- it is quiet because they are all on their ipads. these are all things that are having an enormous impact on how our kids are growing up. host: she majors something like tech free schools. have you ever heard of that concept? guest: i have heard of that as he schools which are private schools, very tech free. i think of until seventh grade or something like that. i do not think kids should be

unscreened in schools until third or fourth grade and they should be slowly introduced and the majority of their time should be hands-on learning. kids learn better with hands on learning. they learn better when they interact with their peers face to work in small groups and learn from each other. we all a society have a bill of goods by the tech companies that their algorithm are going to teach our kids better when really is about their profits. host: emory in virginia. caller: hi. i really appreciate you talking about this. it is so important. i was in a portion of the hearing in between doing things for my work and it was shocking. testimony from the first mother was talking about how she did all of these things right.

for example, keeping my kids off of our cell phones and not giving them a cell phone until they are certain age. monitoring things. he had a job. he had a life. he was 16 years old. he was cyber bullied by these programs were people could be anonymous and how is that legal? it is shocking this kid. also listening to child pornography factor, there not enough police enforcement online and monitoring of this activity. it really is taking your child and putting them on a corner street and leaving them alone. that's the equivalent of what it is today. host: thank you for sharing that. need thoughts? guest: she referring to mom who

testified when her son carson died by suicide when he was bullied by anonymous axons that check. he was being tormented and he did not know where the messages were coming from. he knew he followed them on snapchat but he did not know who they were. this is one of the reasons why for these policies -- while we advocate for these policies because there is a long history if you give teens the ability to talk to each other anonymously on the internet, they are going to abuse that. they're going to be mean to each other. they're going to bully each other. if they had an obligation to figure out if we at this and future, is it good for kids are not, they would not have implemented that feature and her son will be alive today. this is what we are asking for. we are asking for companies to evaluate these features and their algorithms because the

only stem on our children and create these unsafe situations. host: the cdc had a report out on the health of teenage kids, girls in particular. u.s. teen girls experience increased sadness and a part of that focused on bullying, boys and gind the report they say 16% of high school student were electrically bullied and clearly through texting, instagram, facebook and other social media during the past four years. they students were more likely to be bullied than most students. lgbtq plus students and students who had anything sex partners were more likely to be electronically bullied. what is it that these companies need to do more aggressively to help stop that? guest: it is about how they are

designed. they are designed features and things not allowing anonymous acts would be a good thing, but also it is the way these platforms are designed popularity which i think is a huge piece of the equation. on all of these platforms, everything you do and say is quantified and your giving a score on it. in the forms of how many likes you get and how many shares you get and how many views you get at yourself. how many followers you have, how many friends you have. kids are being taught the most important thing to do is to get attention online. so you can show you our core and popular through these metrics. there are -- they are incredibly powerful and tap into teens developing brains and their need for validation and need to be

seen as cool and popular among their peers. what do kids learn? they learn to be mean, provocative, posting provocative pictures is the best way to get attention online. as long as we have an attention economy and very teaching case most important thing is to get attention online and it does not matter that attention is good or bad, it is just getting attention we are going to have kids being really mean to each other because that will get you attention. the platforms love it. the more kids fight with each other, it means the more the kids are going back to the platform to fight with their peers or to watch the fighting that is going on. one of the most heartbreaking things that is happening in our schools is that our fights breaking out regularly and why the kids doing that are there, break up the fight, reported a

fight? no, they're all standing around recording hoping to get the best footage for the kids fighting so they can get the views online. we need to disrupt that. host: to indiana, good morning to tracy. you are on. caller: there is a site being developed now because parents real-time notifications when there kids do something out of the norm. it is a great site. i was looking at it online. i know i was talking to the ceo and he is trying to give people a good experience social media. i know there are other people working on things to help with this. constructive criticism between the users and the bickering and offers help when they need help with counseling, any type of

mental illness or military veteran services. it was a great platform. host: are you aware of them? guest: i'm not aware of that particular platform. i do think there are technological solutions that can help but i also think we need to focus not just on how to stop things after they happen or as they are in process, but we need to work on building these platforms so they are safer in the first place. the problem is these platforms make more money the more our kids are online. as long as that is the kids, as long as a's they are designing their platform strictly to keep our kids eyeballs and attention focus on their platforms, as must be a lot of harm that occurs in that crisis. this is why we want to change the way the platforms are designed to help, yes, spotless cyber bullying when it is

happening and technological tools may be possible to help it happen, it also design platform so it is less likely bullying a core -- occur or be rewarded in the first place. host: your organization fair play was one of the lead promoters, sponsors of the 2022 only act and the treasurer and teen privacy protection act. was so far has been the effect of that legislation? what is it intended to do? guest: we are big supporters of two bills. children and teen online provider -- privacy protection act and the kids on my safety act. these two bills within targeted advertising take children, it would give teens privacy protection for the first time. the kids on my safety act would

create the duty of care. these platforms have a responsibility to prevent and mitigate content or design that causes addictive behaviors or addictive patterns of use on the platform promoting eating disorders, promoting self-harm, promoting cyber bullying. all these concerns parents have about horrible content the kitchen counter online, these platforms would have a duty to mitigate -- these platforms would have a duty to mitigate what happens online. you express is concern of the way you look or if you look for a recipe or dieting tip, within minutes, the platforms will be feeding you content about how to starve yourself. content that teaches you how to have an eating disorder. if you indicate you are depressed, the platforms will be due content about how to harm

yourself. we need to stop that and that is with the duty of care will do. the bills or do other things like create transparency requirements, better enforcement mechanisms, this would be a change. i mentioned earlier we have not had legislation protecting twitter online in 25 years. when congress passed the bill in 1998, we do not have smartphones, youtube, tiktok, instagram, so we need new legislation the updates for the internet we have not the one back in 1998. that's what the two bills would do. host: back to the parents line. kate in maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you c-span. love your show. my questions for the guest, as a parent i am always giving my kids information to read but

it's all written by adults and it primarily for adults. can you hear me? host: yes, we hear you fine. caller: i am wondering if there's any material out there that is written by kids for kids. they have different way of thinking information. if you have any resources for that, that would be great. we are dealing with this issue and really want to get our kids to understand what is happening and it is hard to do. host: how old are your kids? caller: 14 years old and 12 years old. we try our best but as you know there's a lot of pressure on parents both to have the kids want to be on because their friends are and what them off of it we agree with everything you said, but it is hard to get them to see it. i give them articles i read. just wondering if there's any

materials out there market focus. host: we will hear from our guest. thank you for the question. guest: my daughter is 14 years old do so i know exactly what she is going through. i recommend a terrific new book called, you are your own best teacher by claire nader. it is not just talk about the harmful stuff that happens online but it gets into how these companies are designed to m -- manipulate kids and profit off of them and help the kids are experiencing is because these companies are trying to manipulate them profit off of them. that is a good frame as kids get to be towards adolescence. they hate the idea that adults are manipulate in them. they hate the idea that maybe they are ponds in a bigger scheme going on. this book, you are your own best teacher by claire nader does a

good job of talking to kids in language they can understand. host: on the most notable wins was facebook decision a year and a half ago headline here from the wall street journal about that, facebook back in september 2 021 was halting their instagram kids project among pressure from lawmakers and parents groups. optimism there in the work your organization does and for parents in making effective change with some of the social media platforms. guest: absolutely. back in 2021, facebook announced they're going to release instagram -- it was leaked facebook was going to release a version for of instagram for younger cans. we thought they platform all focus around appearance with so many data collection problems was a terrible idea. younger kids will be less equipped to deal with the pressures and addictive nature

of instagram noted kids so we organized a huge campaign that involve state attorney general's and members of congress, over 200,000 parents wrote to facebook and said do not do this. to me, there was a bit of a turning point. it was parents and policymakers and public health professionals rising up and saying, enough is enough. we do not want to six-year-olds on instagram. also this is not up to individual families. we need to tackle this as a society and as a society we are saying no to instagram for younger kids and facebook was forced to back down. i think was a powerful moment. is indication of when parents and public health professionals and policymakers come together on this issue that we do have the power to send up to big tech but it's going to take much more work. host: you come to this role in fairplay ss tom as associate director for campaign for

commercial free kids. a common theme between the two jobs here you have had. tell us more about the past find your profession. guest: the campaign for commercial free childhood is the same organization. we changed the name of years ago. their roof has always been somewhat the same although he shifted -- it shifted. the real concern was how television commercials where shaping kids values and now obviously it is the on my situation which were much more concerned about. what we believe in what i have always believed and why i have gotten involved in this work is the primary institutions and people in children's lives that shape their values and behaviors that help them grow up should be institutions of people that care about their well-being. may not always get it right as

parents, schools, doctors, but we know we are trying to do the best for kids. these platforms have no duty to care about kids. we talk about kids spending 5.5 hours a day or 8.5 hours a day, that means they have a tremendous ability to shape what is going on for children and how kids are growing up. we do not think those tech companies should be deciding how kids grow up. we think we should decide what the rules are and how the companies engaged with our kids so kids can get what they need. the off-line time is so important. developing empathy to face-to-face interactions is important. not always comparing yourself and how many likes you are getting compared to your friends and your peers is so important. this is always been about should we let for-profit companies be the ones who decide how kids grow up or should we say, if your motive is profit an art motive is our kids growing up in

a safe and healthy way because our society depends on the development of well-rounded critical thinkers who know how to collaborate with their peers, we should be the ones to determining with interactions look like with tech platforms. it cannot be the wild west anymore. it is not working. host: jan in georgetown, massachusetts on the parents line. caller: thank you for having me on. i went through this from the beginning. my kids are 17 years old and 21 years old. but i was so surprised about and trying to regulate with these devices is the lack of any support from the school and how surprised i was that these

devices frisking the schools and the kids could use them at will. they could get away from that, wish they could in most classes. we were kids, we were not allowed to pass notes to each other in the class. he would get in a lot of trouble if you're caught passing a note but now we all have smart phones the classrooms. our schools are a big mess. it seems like the teachers are not keeping the kids engaged enough and there is the excuse of the smartphones there and it is a big mess. i struggled to not have my kids have their funds in their rooms -- have their phones in their rooms when they were kids but i was the minority in my family. but i've been a rough road -- it

would have been a rough road if i apprehended the phones and lock them up every night. host: do you think there's too much focus these days on technology in classrooms? guest: absolutely. i could not agree more with dan, schools need policies for they take the phones away from kids at the beginning of the day and give them back at the end of the day. there's a terrific book called free school by met miles where they discuss what it is like to teach the kids who have their phones on their lap while they are teaching, and basically have access to the world's biggest arcade, every movie and tv show that has ever been created, an endless stream of pornography, not communicate it with all their friends who have their phones on their lap. how do you compete with that as a teacher? you cannot. we should be not allowing phones in schools during the school day. let the kids concentrate on

learning and also have less of that learning occur on ipads and tablets and all laptops and get back to the face-to-face interaction. the schools absolutely cell phone free policy during the day would be a step forward. host: missouri senator was a part of the hearing yesterday, josh hawley was to create a legal age to be a lot on social media. would your group support that? guest: yes. i think we should consider all solutions but i do not think at this point that is probably the best one. there is an age right now which is 13 years old and it does not work. there are millions of kids lying their way onto social media platforms before they are 13 years old. if you make it 60 years old, you're probably -- if you make it 16 years old i do not think it's practical you're going to keep kids off. if we started with 16 may be but

now that the culture it a huge part of team quarter it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle and a warner -- and i worry if you say it is a band you drive kids completely underground so they around we have a less idea of what they are doing. it is not just social media platforms. gaming platforms which get a lot less scrutiny than tiktok and mr. graham, on these gaming platforms there is terrible bullying going on with the voice chat, there's lots of sexual predation where predators are reaching out and playing games with the kids and getting to know them and getting them to exchange pictures and things like that and it's extorting them or praying on them in real life. it is not just social media. it is any of her own mind rich kids can communicate with each other -- it is anywhere online where kids can communicate with

each other and adults. i do not think it is practical. host: arlene in florida, you're on. caller: i hope to see you again. subliminal suggestion has been an ad on tv and for quite a while i even heard them discuss this and this could be with all these ads, if these kids are watching, subliminal suggestion. could you comment on that? host: one question about artificial intelligence in terms of the use of things as simple as seery around the house. does your organization have a view of the potential harm or effects of that among kids? guest: one of the think that is

unfortunate is that we have integrated all these devices marketed to us and everything in our house is collecting data from us. that is not good. kids should be able to grow up in spaces where they are big tech. everything they say and do is creating a dossier on them. honestly, i understand there is convenience with things like siri or alexa but better to not let these things create all this information and shape the answers for us. what kids to learn and critically think and not just be answered is google or alexa tells me. even these the devices, we need to get less reliant on big data and what big tech wants us to use and more reliant on ourselves as human beings to learn from each other and explore things on her own. host: the organization is fair,

josh golin executive director, fairplay for kids.org. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: pleasure to be here. host: coming up next transport topic eugene mulero joins us talk about the train derailment in northeast ohio and questions about safety and transporting chemicals and federal oversight of the rail industry. later on research america president and ceo mary woolley will be here to talk about the importance of federal investment in research money for medical, sinus and technology research. ♪ >> historian robert kagan has been writing about foreign affairs for most of it 64 years.

the first book in his plan trilogy in their american foreign-policy was published in 2006 and focus on u.s. history before founding up to spanish-american war. senior fellow at the brookings institution has just completed the second book in the trilogy title the ghost at the feast, america and the collapse of world order 1900-1941. robert in conclusion rights of americans have complex attitudes towards power and morality. they have a sense of distinctiveness and remoteness and tumultuous highly contested political system. >> robert kagan on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span now apple or you get your podcast. >> there almost 80 new members in the congress.

c-span interviewed more than half of them about their upbringing, careers and political philosophies. monday at :00 p.m. eastern here from representatives nathan moran, greg glassman, cindy, kevin kelly, and he ogles, and eli crane. watch new members of the 118 congress at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or online at c-span.org. >> the name of america which belongs to you in your national capacity four score and seven years ago. >> ask not what your country can do for you. >> throughout american history presidents had delivered public speeches through times of challenges and tragedies in our saturday watch our 10 part

series speeches that define the presidency in american history tv. hear from abraham lincoln through reenactment the john f. kennedy, ronald reagan, george w. bush and barack obama. this week will feature several ben franklin speeches. his 1941 speech to a joint session of congress following the attack on pearl harbor. yesterday december 7, 1921 >>

will talk about the rail and chemical spill and buyer there in ohio. guest: mostly have a lot of regulation all things and commodities as well as chemicals. it really falls under the

purview of the safety administration and acronym for you in the sense of working closely with industry, the chemical industry as well as commodities industry. in homeland security s of the transport of the chemicals in order to regulate the labeling, marking, and what information is delivered to communities or agencies at the state level and private industries and secretary of transportation is the one that works to ensure the sub agency are in direct content with private industries. host: in response to an incident like this, we will see comments from the epa administrator in a bit. the primary response in term of federal level is the federal redwall administration? guest: when it comes to commercial transportation, yes. as an incident like this one,

the spill of this chemicals, the environmental protection agency has been brought in to help manage fema and other agencies with recovery and cleanup efforts of these chemicals but when it comes to ensuring the safe transport of these chemicals as well as commodities , a false to the federal railroad administration and then right now for in a position where federal agencies are not the lead agency right now. it is the independent investigator, they're the ones taking the lead right now and do an assessment of the areas, the accident areas as well as taking a complete survey of what took place in their considered the gold standard by stakeholders and industries throughout.

right now, they have a preliminary information that functions one of the cars in their investigation as likely to take about a year or so. host: you mention petroleum. a range of the type of of chemicals transported every day by rail across this country. guest: there are several million types of chemicals throughout the years that are transported around a freight rail system. they range the entire, for instance, in ease policy there were reports of vinyl chloride, is one of the chemicals that is prevalent in the transport of these rate rose. petroleum, oil, byproducts are very common. also chemical waste with factories produce certain items, they do create waste and those

chemicals are often shipped by rail throughout the country to the final destination and throughout these chemicals are shipped there depended on the severity of the sensitivity of the chemicals so depending on the danger of that chemical, it will less densely populated area and can go in -- host: are there federal regulations that tell rail companies or chemical companies responsible for traditions know certain chemicals are removed through the area? guest: my reporting and research , i have arrived at a

comprehensive answer. there is not a real easy answer to that question. because of the sensitivity of some of these chemicals, agencies such as, department of homeland security want to make sure that they are not widely known because they have potential, they do not want to create potential danger with the transfer of these chemicals. nevertheless private industry and regulators have manifest records of what is being transported and there are cases where agencies may request the information and industry regulators will provide them information or depending on these chemicals or chemical waste, the companies will alert a certain town or certain state jurisdiction that these chemicals are being transferred ported. at the same time state

department of transportation are made aware of the nature of the freight route. they know a certain route will be predominantly petroleum products. another freight rate -- another freight route will be predominantly chloride or other chemical waste. then communities are informed other state jurisdictions of the potential that these chemicals are being transported to the rail lines. host: on the level of informing the local first responders, hazmat teams, this particular load is coming through our town or county. guest: that is practice, according to the freight rail industry, one of their best practices approach is to maintain along the bear freight rail lines emergency crew and in an event of an accident those crews are equipped with information that is being transported and they work with

local jurisdictions, first responders to alert them of what is being transported and we saw that in this instance and it is why the company and first responders and epa were able to come according to the officials in >> our guest is eugene. he covers the transportation industry. congressional roles and federal oversight roles, particularly about the federal response to the train accident in east palestine ohio. we have a line set aside for higher residence. we will tell you that it is eastern and central. mountain and pacific. for ohio residents, especially if you are affected in ohio.

it has been affected by derailment there and the spill. let's go to cincinnati. we will hear from lionel. good morning. i've been a cincinnati resident for the past 10 years, and i work in this industry. those from management --. >> we lost you. you can call back. your call dropped, but we have a line for ohio residents. it is on the screen. white mills building is next. claudia. caller: good morning. host: make sure you meet your television. go ahead. caller: i just -- i don't understand how through the news

reports they have on tv, how they can say that with the epa, they are saying that the water is safe to drink, and were seeing reports with our own eyes. somebody is doing something shaky behind-the-scenes or something. host: i think she is referring to the, yesterday about water being safe to drink. guest: i didn't catch the last part of her question, but the agencies at the federal level and state level report they have tested the air as well as the water. right now, they have returned with exclusive results that they say will be safe to return to homes.

the area safe to breathe, but notwithstanding the facts remain that there are many reports saying that residence remain concerned and they are continuing to complain about the air. there are a lot of concerns about water. that is something that members of congress on capitol hill as well as the governor are continuing to raise with the white house, the white house says they're working at the state level to address these concerns. it continues, according to reports with the epa. they indicated that upon request, you can ask federal agencies to test the water in the air. senator sheriff brown has reached out to the white house to deal with the emergencies with declarations which would open up fema response units, and they will take care of that. the one thing i want to make as

a point is that in this industry, with commercial transportation, they have invested billions of dollars annually over several decades on ensuring that these commodities arrive at their destination safely. there is no harm done through chlorine, and in the industry, they point out that there is a test rate in delivery with hazmat materials. it is 99%, or more. >> with the advancements, and the ev's, for example, we don't hear a lot about the modernization of u.s. freight rails. what sort of technologies are being introduced to make those railcars, and chemical cars safer. there is a lot of adoption of various technology and

inspections in freight rails. they use other sensors, ultraviolet light, --. >> for looking at the rails. >> not only for the railcars, but also the infrastructure. they look at the actual rail line to make sure they can sustain what is being transported. when it comes to railcars themselves, they have been modernize. for the past two decades, newer cars are introduced into the marketplace. then in the private sector, they invest the class one freight rails with billions of dollars to make sure they have the expos. they advertise and they really showcase new equipment, and they argue, not only is it more efficient, but with an incident like this, it does raise a lot

of questions about personnel and regulations. about oversight in the industry, as well as public transportation. we can expect a lot of oversights on the house side, and it really gets down at a granular level, but what i believe is they will wait for the results of the ntsb investigation before proceeding with legislation. >> let's go back to the ohio line. this is ohio. david. go ahead. >> top of the morning. >> i have a few inconvenient facts i like to bring up. the average is over 1700 and four derailments per year. that is from newsweek. that is from 1990 to 2020. the other thing i have a real problem with is the epa is already stated that the water

quality is acceptable. you do that in flint michigan when he said the water quality was acceptable. you also said that after 9/11, and twin towers, the water quality was good. it is just hard for us to believe in what you're saying, anymore. >> i know eugene, you missed some of that, but the number of derailments between the. of 1990 and 2020. 1700 it seems. i don't know if that is freight derailments. i don't know if that is passenger or freight. but even in the days after, there was a headline. the daily mail. another terrain with chemicals, and derailment near detroit. inconveniently, very close to

the east palestine derailment as well. how frequent are these? >> i'm not familiar with that number. but, i reporting after doing this for a decade, it is a high profile derailment that is very infrequent. they do occur at amtrak, but they are not -- the last time -- my reporting, i can think of a very high profile derailment from 10 years ago. and, there were 47 because of the accident. the freight rail industry, as well as the federal government is working to improve a passage of chemicals. in order to minimize and eliminate these derailments, as

recently, the bind administration with the department of transportation announced a stakeholder safety initiative to bring in and galvanize the virtual transportation community to pledge for a mission zero. in the near future. it promotes safe transport, of these products, and if you look at the industry, specific to the records, you can see that safety has improved over the past. it gradually improved for decades. >> let's hear from ohio. william. you are on the air. go ahead. >> hello. i grew up in palestine. i don't live there any longer. but i was wondering, since trump deregulated the railroad industry, and there is such

devastation in my old hometown, why can these people not be held criminally liable? >> i will take my answer off the air. >> ok. >> that's a really good question. it is a multipart answer, and the white house announced that they are going to pursue whatever means necessary to make sure that the people involved, the companies involved are held accountable for what happened. what remains to be seen is what that means. there is an investigation. the outcome of the investigation will pretty much be the authority on what took place and what led up. these reports also have recommendations and findings. that will be used by potentially, in the event that

they seek a criminal investigation, that will be critical in that state agencies are pursuing the attorney general, and he has been involved. they are working to investigate what took. to see if there is any negligence. as well as, at the federal level, the administration will work with other agencies like the department of justice to see what avenue they can pursue in order to recover any money and damages. >> as part of the response we point out, the epa was there yesterday. he held a news conference. after that, he talked about seeking answers to questions and also holding the operator accountable. here are the comments. >> the community has questions. they deserve answers.

i want the community to know that we hear you we see you. we will get to the bottom of this. residence, including those in ferguson, whose home i just left. we had a meeting earlier today. i understand their fears, and i understand the family work. i am a father, first and foremost. i am a husband and a son of parents over the age of seven. all families need to know that they are safe. all families deserve access to clean air and safe drinking water. i want the community to know that they don't have to manage this issue on their own. president biden told the governor anything the state needs, we are here to help. the governor and i discussed last night that we are going to get through this as a team. at the same time, we are

actually going to hold them accountable, and i can promise that. >> epa administrator echoing holding them accountable. >> exactly. that has been the message from the department of transportation. that will be the line from the bind administration. i do want to -- i'm not minimizing that it is a severe and horrible event that took place, but at the same time, because of the transportation, i worked with these stakeholders, and i interviewed the -- executives. with the freight rail industry and the commercial transportation, we want to emphasize that safety is the number one priority for them. they work closely with the industry, and they work closely with the government. the federal government. they've invested about $20

billion annually, and they celebrate safety. when you look at the other modes of transportation, like the trucking industry, companies have incentives for drivers who are accident free. they promote those initiatives, and that is something the administration is working with on several initiatives. the secretary just unveiled a national safety strategy, and it encompasses an entire multi mortal landscaper transportation. nevertheless, they have put out information, resources, and they have a community outreach. they create and establish a fund with money to assist residents in the community.

obviously, the reaction is palpable at this point. but, with members of congress on the ground and the vine administration on the ground, my reporting suggests a potential to arrive at a resolution. >> outside of any liability, they could be subject to millions of dollars in fines on federal regulations. >> yes. >> yes. >> if they are found at fault. >> that is true for any company. any company in violation of safety regulations will be subject to penalties. >> was here from michigan next. dave, good morning. >> i grew up close to a rail line. in my hometown. southern michigan. my understanding was that my

observation was there is an investigative process, but my question is, we -- i, i heard they suddenly take cars and so forth, and secondly, on certain parts of the line, we don't get much ownership in one place. was it a switching problem, was it too much in one area, and another thing is, who owns those cars. i understood the republicans actually own these cars. i don't know about this, but who old cigars, and are they sharing that problem. who is on the oversight role. who is the one? >> a couple of good questions. >> the first point is one that

really goes into the investigation process, and i hesitate with the details of what i've read, and with my sources, i do want to point to the ongoing investigation because right now, even the ntsb is saying they have really merry information, and reporting out there with videos that are anecdotal at this moment. there has yet to be a definitive cause of what took place, and i do, ntsb has worked on these high profile acts, and i'm going to wait for the report to dissect that. and the other point of the ownership of the car, that is there is no easy answer for that. some cars are owned by

providers. some cars are owed by customers who pay to have that. there was more than a hundred cars in the line. i don't have a definitive number. the typical size for a chemical tray moving through of that nature. that is all the time. >> it actually depends on the route and it depends on the content that is being shipped. >> we have one more call for you. we will hear from ohio. >> good morning. >> good morning. i just want to say that they ought to deal with the southern, and they shouldn't be allowed to operate in the state of ohio. everything made whole. >> ronald, do you -- it is pretty hard.

it is hard to see your child laying in a coffin in a funeral home. it is all money from southern. >> we are asking, because of the accident, where there any media changes in terms of regulation or temporary measures by the enteral railroad administration to tell other operators, hay, move slower on the line. were there any changes in the short-term freight operations across the country. >> i have not been informed of any disruptions or any changes to the supply chain operation and in fact, i am getting the opposite. i have insurances from the industry and the government that this is a point of the supply chain. if it remains operable, for the industry to avoid disruption in the supply chain, it will continue to invest in conductivity.

i have not seen or reported on any immediate changes at this point. however, there is going to be an oversight hearing on capitol hill. i suspect that lawmakers are going to get the forefront of any potential changes. >> we will look forward to reporting on that topic. a senior congressional reporter. thank you for being on with us. as always. still to come in washington, up next, the american president and ceo will be with us. we will be talking about the importance in medical science and technology research. that is next.

>> washington journal continues. >> next with us is the president and ceo of research america. we are going to talk in the segment about government funding for medical and technological research. mary, good morning and welcome to washington journal. >> good morning. thank you. for the opportunity to talk about a topic close to my heart. >> science and technology, every chance to deliver as promised. >> tell us about the

organization. what is your mission? >> research america is an alliance and a nonprofit alliance. it is an industry with academia and independent research. a scientific society and philanthropy. it all determines to make research and health in particular a much higher priority. we stand firmly for science and technology so we can make sure that science and technology, medical research deliver on the promise. better help, stronger nation, more prosperous and should appear. >> one of the reasons we have you on is the president has said in his state of the union, calling on more federal funding or areas of research and science

and technology. tell us broadly about what you heard from the president that peter interests of the speech. >> president biden has been a champion of medical and health research, and cancer research in particular which he often refers to. but also, i champion of science, and it is a privilege to be at a bipartisan affair for the chips and science act. ships and science is about catching up. i want to refer to the diagram. a chart about china. united states is in a position of catching up to china's investment in research and development. china took a page from the playbook several decades ago in ramping up our research and development capacity in order to

assure a more prosperous and secure nation. the president of china is quoted on this from science and technology. that helped us we founded it, and we continue to help lita. he says, we must regard science and technology as our primary productive force. >> can i ask? with china, it is pretty dramatic when you look at the line of the u.s.. the percentage of global spending, research and development, background 2000, it is 40% of the level of spending on research and development. it is from the united states. what has caused the slide in research and development dollars? >> i think it has taken progress for granted.

the effect is that as we go about our daily lives, we don't think about science and technology very much. it is important to our taxpayer dollars actually percentagewise. with our taxpayer dollars, we support science and technology, but it is a case of the future. the rest of the world has been catching up to the united states. not just china, but also taiwan, korea. japan. israel. many countries have made a commitment of the national priority to assure that they are benefiting from the promise of federal investment, which is often at the most risky level. then, the creation of public and private partnerships and so important to advancing innovation and delivering on the

solution that we all aim for. energy solutions, agriculture solutions, security solutions. >> we welcome your phone calls. the numbers are on your screen. for independents, the number is on your screen. mary, give us a couple examples of how, historically, research has benefited. the american public. it is been widely quoted that 50% of our economy is driven by technology. in our recent survey, which you can see, research america.org on her website, this is from january.

75% of the american public said that investments in science and tech knowledge e creates job opportunities. it always has. that is a huge statement about the value of federal investment in science and technology. the american public one set to continue. you can see that in the slides we have showing that six in 10 americans say that more taxpayer dollars should be invested. it is pretty important. we talk about cutting the federal budget while it is rampant. this is a call you don't want to make it it is a cut that would put on hold entrepreneurial interests, driving investment in businesses. it may go elsewhere to other nations at work, but it sends a

message that you'll have to wait. parents are desperate for a cure. for their child's rare disease. they are worried about their own parents and their struggles. we shouldn't be waiting to find this. we have to move forward. >> your survey says six in 10 americans, 73% of democrats were surveyed to say that more taxpayer dollars should be invested. 54% of republicans. the fact is the number continues to slide. how do you make an argument admits the calls for federal budget and in particular. >> i don't think those numbers are reliable. we've seen over three decades of public opinion surveys, and we've commissioned those surveys and conducted them ourselves. >> i mean the actual spending of the u.s. as a percentage of global development. >> that is true.

it is a striking problem that bipartisan support is there, and yet, we are spying. sometimes, it is stable and sometimes it isn't. i think it is because we do take progress for granted. sometimes, bipartisan topics get taken for granted. we can't afford to have the gas drive the economy and assure prosperity. >> you mentioned the types of research, and you said some of the work of the federal government is often at its most risky level. explain that. >> there is another slide showing strong bipartisan support. that is the foundational research.

it is probably the highest risk. it is the kind of research where we don't know where it's going to be. in some places, it turns out to be important. years of investment in the work that led to the mrna vaccine that has saved as many as 3 million lives. many lives have been lost. every loss of life is a tragedy. we need to do better. we need to support the foundational research. that will prevent the next pandemic. in this light, you have an opportunity to take that. it is not only bipartisan, strongly bipartisan, but it also contains some disturbing news. we always find in the surveys that we commissioned that there is concerning news on business. but the concerning news here as we've seen for the last couple

of years is that younger respondents are less likely to be supportive of basic research. we had prophecies about -- hypotheses about that, we don't have answers. one question is that young people have become disillusioned with the institution, generally, and the government being included. another hypothesis is the k-12 science is acacian is failing us and this nation. we have another slide that shows strong bipartisan support for improving this education, and for the federal government, interestingly, we have a role. we think about education as a local or state. it pretty much is. but there is a role in federal

government. incentives and otherwise strengthening the science and technology, engineering, and edison pipeline. we need that pipeline to meet the jobs requirement of science and technology and to drive our future. >> the phone lines for comments and questions. for republicans, it is on the screen. on twitter, or at c-span, a question for you from lauren. what good is r&d if production is set overseas, leaving us at the mercy of china. we don't see the best interest at heart. >> thank you for that question. that is exactly the point of making progress. some years ago, the united

states lost its lead in consumer electronics. we weren't paying attention to what we thought was our prominence in consumer electronics. we lost the edge yesterday. even further back. a center of the world. we lost the edge. it's ok. for the rest of the world, let's be clear about that. we can all work together, but we want to work together on a level and fair playing field. that is where we get into problems with fairness as much a prominent commitment as we do. one of our underlying principles , fair enough. we are working towards that. many people are working, but they can't do it but they can't do it without a friend. >> we will hear from carl in

york. democrat. go ahead. >> good morning. i'm a big proponent of science, research, development. i believe scientists when they come on tv and they tell me stuff. my question to you is how am i to devote more resources to research and development, when i hear big pharma saying drug prices are so exorbitantly high because a lot of it goes to research and development. for some reason, i don't put a lot of stock in that. can you help me out with that? thank you. >> you are not alone. you are concerned about the cost of health care, broadly speaking, including medications that many of us depend on for

our quality of life and well-being. we know from our survey, again, that when we asked people to name the number one most important health related issue that faces the nation, today, health care's number one. followed by covid which used to be number one. after that, mental health, the opioid crisis, and other things we are all too familiar with. to get back to that complicated question, there are many moving parts. many moving parts. there are actually research behind understanding the most effective way to deliver health care in all respects. based on evidence, rather than happenstance. or status quo thinking.

research helps with that. we strongly support that, and it is underfunded. we need more of it so we can get that out of delivery. research is still -- essential, but if you can't of orit, it is not helping. we want to help. we want research to succeed and not fail. >> what is interesting in your research, analytics and the pole that you did for curing diseases wherever they occur, you asked folks about the federal government, in curing diseases wherever they occur. 73% of democrats, 59% of publicans, and 60 3% agree that the government should invest in curing a disease wherever they occur. that doesn't really align with some of the pushback folks gave

on the covid vaccines, for example. does that surprise you? >> there were a lot of things that surprise many of us during the worst part of the pandemic. it took everyone by surprise. one thing that we've got to remember is we succeeded in this nation in developing a vaccine in record time. we were clear that we are going to put the public and private sector jurors to their own capacity. we believe that kind of push determination should apply to other diseases as well. it's about time. to the point, worldwide, a reality, there are no boundaries when it comes to disease.

it flows in every direction all the time. i think that is why we see a strong bipartisan support for getting involved on the taxpayer dollar to stop disease in his track wherever it occurs. clerks we're talking about funding science and technology research. we are hearing from ralph, calling from washington dc. independent line. >> good morning. i appreciate the money being spent on this, but i am skeptical. we need to invest in areas where there is existing proof of medicine. there are other areas. they can't be brought to market officially because they can't be patented, and the government --

no one will get involved when there's a half billion dollars to bring it to market. an example, what scares me is that companies like pfizer who by other companies out 15 or 16 years ago, it has an injection to clear up the plaque your arteries in one year. if you took an injection every two weeks, but pfizer bought that company out, but they were selling lipitor with a questionable utility at best. they were making $10 billion a year. we need to step in and spend a half million dollars to bring that to market. another example is the national laboratory. they developed a reactor prototype, basic prototype which can produce electricity at half the cost of coal. it didn't have all the other

issues with regular reactors. it was incredibly abundant. it got rid of the waste disposal and the proliferation issue. it got rid of the explosive issue. but we don't spend any money on that. if we want to spend the cost of an aircraft carrier, we can get for different prototypes to market, and end our energy issue, when it comes to electricity. but were not going to do that because it is too many big interests out there who everyone from oil to coal. >> restraint eludes you. any comments? >> i appreciate you saying you're skeptical. we are trained to be skeptical. it is important to throw sunlight where we can. i'm not going to get into the details or examples because i don't know all of the details,

but it is a fact that we are under invested as a nation. all of us, taxpayers, we are under invested in finding the cures to ails us, and taking every opportunity to build discoveries that are made in federal labs, and with federal dollars. just as an example, we are talking about the nature, the capacity we have to invest more. the defense budget is about $300 billion. that includes a lot of r&d, and some of that is going to medical and health r&d because of course, our troops require the best of the best medical care and vaccines for prevention. but that is $800 billion.

the national institute of health right now is responsible for ultimately, a radically -- eradicating thousands of diseases. $50 billion. that is a lot of money, but it is not 800 billion. we can do better. it is about national priorities. the national priority are chosen by our elected representatives. everyone who cares about taking advantage of the investments and making more of them, they should urge elected representatives to do just that. thank you. >> should americans expect products developed as a result of a large amount of government research and private and public partnership, the products and the profits that come from those, that there should be a benefit to americans, more than just of the product excel, and

that the product should be made for -- affordable for americans because the government has funded a basic research which has made the product, whether it happened at oak ridge or wherever government money is. should americans have that expectation? >> of course. successful companies pay taxes, which is one way there's a payback, if you will for federal investment. it is also a fact that americans have always benefited from the commercialization of the discovery of research that the federal government finances. the federal government doesn't only finance this, but it is involved in other things as well. they can't and never will do everything. that is not the model we are talking about. the model that has succeeded so well and has been replicated all around the world at this point is public and private -- private

investment. there is a payoff that we've all benefited from with the federal investment over the years, and we will continue to demand it. >> let's go to bayshore new york. robert on the republican line. bayshore new york. are you there? we will go to greg on the independent line. palm beach gardens. >> i was just listening to your expert, and i have a few issues. the first is, she sets that it very important for people, american people to invest in private business. but the american people are going to need -- ok, great, they need addison, but why are we not profiting in the investment. we are making a monetary investment. we are not getting any monetary profit. she mentioned the mrna vaccine.

that vaccine has been very helpful and is very important to society. it was made by pfizer and moderna. they are for-profit businesses. they are not there to help people. they are there to make money. why is the government helping them make money, and then, facilitating -- what do we get back? is that how we make cars so we get cars to buy -- i don't buy this argument. this model that has been presented to the people by the leaders. they should create the model that helps us all benefit. >> do you care to respond? >> thank you, greg. i would argue that there has been tremendous value to people from the vaccines, and they

always have been for vaccines. they are one of the most important components of keeping our society healthy. you're also asked doing -- echoing some skepticism, and i urge you to get involved in this conversation. it is complex, with a lot of moving parts. it is always changing and evolving. as we find out, what works best. we actually had invested over the years, and every commercial enterprise you can name, it has to start from somewhere. that could be from entrepreneurs, and benefiting from education. the federal government helps to support that, and it benefits from tax incentives. it can benefit from special incentives and difficult times. injured trees are struggling.

with recent shifts in science, for example, it led to chip manufacturing getting away from the united states. now, we are bringing it back. but we should not have let it get away, and that is the kind of thing that is happening in other industries as well. it could very well happen in the industries that involve the kind of medication that many of us depend on, and certainly, families at large do. >> a follow-up to the previous caller. this is a tweet from steven anderson who says with the government investing in research and development of medicine, why should we pay 10 times more than many other countries for the same medication. they are basically paying twice for medicine developed here in the united states. >> we pay a premium.

developed in the united states, we get those first. that is not a trivial fact. if you are the parent of a child with a rare disease, it is in fact critically important to have that opportunity. there are many moving parts, and i mentioned that earlier. in the health care ecosystem, if you will. not all of those parts have to do with research, but all of them can be influenced by understanding what the most effective way is to get more medicines for people who need them across what they can afford. there are many models proposed for accomplishing just that, and i assure you that everyone in the research community and the health care delivery community is working towards that goal. they have families, too. they are not just about making money. even though they can make that

living, they are about finding a solution to what ails them. >> we have 10 more minutes with our guest, talking about government funding or medical science and technology. the house is coming in at a session at 10 a.m.. we go to st. joseph michigan. >> good morning. >> hello. thank you for the information and also the help that you are providing. my husband and i are patients, and we have a compromise. -- come right stemming system. pfizer has the covid vaccine, and all of the boosters. we got covid. we had in infusion, and in two days we were fine. i highly recommend that people, especially with compromised

health, they get there vaccines and boosters because it has been a blessing for us, but i have a question. why do we spend so much money -- send so much money for research. i am really against that. i think we should keep our money here. we have great people and great scientists. another question i want to address is why do we educate these other scientists in other countries and then they go back with all of our secrets, and they develop things in their own country. i will go off the air and listen for your comment. >> ok. >> thank you for your question. i am pleased that you and your husband have had the benefit of a vaccine and booster, and you are doing well.

it is great to hear. it is a myth, really, an urban myth that we spend a lot of money on research and other nations, especially a tiny amount, and is very strategic. if we didn't spend that money, many might've died of a bullet. there are other diseases as well for which there are no answers, and many countries don't have the resources to combat them or study them. not those we have. you could say it is a selfish move to help other nations,, but it is also globally responsible and i would argue appropriate. similarly with education, we believe that educating people worldwide will ultimately benefit the united states. as well as the rest of the world.

i made a point earlier, that we strongly believe it is important to be careful about nations that might not have our best interest at heart. we are careful, and we will continue to be, but we can't be neglecting the fact that working together, you can think of it as a science diplomacy. it is a soft way of assuring a healthier and better future. >> we will go to tom in connecticut. good morning. >> hello. your opinion, to -- she was more competent to run the united states. >> on the topic of our first our

conversation, we will move on to bob in new hampshire, independent. go ahead. >> good morning. i just have to say, quickly, this is one of the -- i've been watching for years and years, and i'm 83 years old. one of the greatest programs on tv, and they are unbelievably good. i called because this -- something that turns my stomach almost every day. i watch tv, and i usually watch c-span. but i do watch local news and things like that. every few minutes, there is an ad about a drug, and it's over and over again. you can't turn the television on without hearing a drug being advertised. what is one of the biggest problems we have? drug addiction.

i will get off because i don't want to overdo it, but it should be a doctor if a person is a pain or feels bad. hopefully, they can get medical attention for persons or people who are subscribed to what they might need. but instead of that, we have a barrage of against the wall with the ads. that is my comment. i appreciate you taking michael. >> thank you for that. mary, do you want to respond to that? go ahead. >> i agree with you that this is a great public service.

i would say to you that from our public opinions which is what i know the most about, and we have about, we know that people trust their doctors and nurses. they trust them, number one. they advised with care and health. in to your point, it is well taken that people should turn. it is important that there is access to health care for professionals who are here to deliver good advice, regardless of what they may be hearing. for a lot of media sources, this information is a challenge, and we also have questions in our survey about public concern on this information. we've learned that it is a very concerning topic, phenomenon,

and on a bipartisan basis, it is a large percentage of americans who are quite concerned about misinformation, running rampant, and undermining the trust in institutions and people who are trained and capable of delivering expert health care advice. i completely agree with you that those are the people. >> we have a couple minutes left at you mentioned a term, science diplomacy. we started with our viewers looking at the numbers in the united states, and the percentage we spent on global research and developing. i wonder if that has declined in the amount of spending on research and development read diplomacy efforts vis-a-vis china. overseas and similar to business investment by the united states.

a partnership between the u.s. and other countries. >> great question. the united states has invested, since we started talking about in the beginning of the century. it was invested significantly more in china and other nations overseas. part of the reason is they are ready for the investment. the workhorses there. so on. but with diplomacy, right now, it is especially a concern. sometimes it is through official channels, and sometimes through the one-on-one connections of science to other society. one of the things we know is that many people cannot name a living scientist.

they don't know where science is conducted. that means they are disconnected from the opportunities to ask questions like some of your callers have asked today. they've asked questions of people who are on the front lines of the future. science and technology. they are the future. we owe them support so they can deliver on the hope and promise that science offers to us all. >> mary, the ceo of research america. we appreciate you joining us. >> great to be with you. >> that will do it for the program this morning.