Latest news with #ToddYoung
Politico
4 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
5 questions for Sen. Todd Young
Hello, and welcome to this week's installment of the Future in Five Questions. This week we interviewed Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), one of the Senate's leading voices on tech policy and a key architect of 2022's CHIPS and Science Act. Young, who earlier this year published an essay in The National Interest proposing a 'Tech Power Playbook for Donald Trump 2.0,' discusses his skepticism about the value of social media, the insight of Alvin Toffler's 'Future Shock' and why America risks falling behind China on biotech. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows: What's one underrated big idea? Using our tech diplomats at the State Department to accrue more geopolitical power as a country. We saw in the CHIPS and Science Act that this group of individuals, which I characterized as our special teams — it was football season when I put this together — they can help shape norms of use, develop standards and even help us gain market share. To the extent we advance our tech in different geographies, we're advancing our values, because our values around privacy, consumer protection, transparency and many other things are embedded within the standards of our different technologies. If the Trump administration and others adopt this approach, I think we can force our adversaries, most obviously the People's Republic of China, to have to produce in a bifurcated way. They produce one set of standards and embedded technologies for their domestic economy, where they'd spy on their own people, and then they'd have to produce for another set of standards for export. Because they have an export oriented economy, they couldn't sustain two different streams of production and they'd have to choose. What's a technology that you think is overhyped? Social media, without any question. I'm the father of four young children, and I don't think it is meaningfully, or on balance constructively, enhancing their lives. Actual social connection in person with people, or even by phone, is preferable to the sort of clickbait culture and abbreviated means of communication that we've all become accustomed to. I think it has diminished our attention span, I think it has coarsened our culture and I think it's made us dumber collectively than we would have thought in a universe in which we have instant access to all kinds of information. As I talk about this topic with regular citizens — that is, those who don't own major social media companies or work at Washington, D.C., think tanks — there is an appetite for certain smart regulatory approaches. However, in the last few years I think there's been a heightened awareness of the potential when you regulate to constrain speech, and a general skepticism of regulators' intentions and ideologies and good faith in trying to intermediate conversations. When I entered the public fray, I think there was an appetite — or maybe a missed window of opportunity — to come up with a better model through law. It's really challenging right now, because we've become, in many ways, a nation of distinct tribes not just in terms of our political identification but our belief system. There's a distrust of efforts to sort out fact from fiction and to referee the public square, and private actors have seized control of the public square through these social media outlets. We haven't figured out how to address that in a pluralistic, highly populous and dynamic democracy, and we're going to have to come up with answers at some point. What could the government be doing regarding technology that it isn't? Unleashing the power of biomanufacturing, which is something I've been deeply immersed in for the last couple of years as chairman of a national security commission on emerging biotechnology. Other countries have invested heavily in this. Notably, China is more advanced than the United States in some of these areas. The epicenter of this biomanufacturing revolution could be in heartland states like Indiana, using agricultural feedstocks to put into tanks and manufacture many of the components and products that are made through conventional manufacturing right now. McKinsey estimates that today, the technological capabilities exist to biomanufacture 60 percent of items that are conventionally manufactured. What we need is scale in order to make these things cost-competitive, and we offer recommendations for Congress to achieve this sort of scale. What book most shaped your conception of the future? Alvin Toffler's 'Future Shock' had a big impact on me. It talked about something that is now familiar to every American: the disjunction between technological change and human adaptation to those changes. We are essentially living the anxieties that Alvin Toffler predicted from a world upended by increasingly rapid technological change. It impacts our psyche. It impacts our relationships. It impacts our professions; it profoundly impacts every facet of our lives and is therefore unsettling and disorienting. Toffler labeled this whole gamut of effects and emotions 'future shock,' and I don't believe he gets frequent enough mention or credit for identifying this profound change that was underway. The other one is Alexis de Tocqueville. In 'Democracy in America' he talks about how democracy shapes our way of thinking about ourselves in such profound ways, and how it permeates everything in our culture. In this time of tectonic political shifts we are — unless we discipline ourselves against it — inclined to ascertain what is right and true based on what our neighbors think rather than conviction, or trenchant analysis. If any person who lives in a small-'d' democratic culture thinks that they're not susceptible to this, they're wrong. That cultural milieu is put on steroids in an era of social media and, more generally, a fractured media environment in which people live in tribal echo chambers. We all are hardwired in our DNA to want to be part of the crowd. None of us wants to be lonely, and we look to others for guidance about what is right. So you can think again about how in this populist political age, members of the different parties have fundamentally changed their views over the past few years on some pretty foundational political issues. Setting aside some calculation from politicians here and there, there is a sincerity to it because people are persuaded by the popular opinions of people within their tribe. So you've seen a swapping of policy positions across parties on some really foundational things, and some have genuinely arrived at those new positions through analysism but others are more impacted by democratic culture than is typically realized. What has surprised you the most this year? Well, if we're going 365 days back, it would be Indiana University football's No. 5 ranking in the College Football Playoff era. But in this year, it's the Pacers' deep run in the playoffs, and it ain't over. doge rolls on Although Elon Musk is personally stepping back from government, DOGE remains at furious work. POLITICO's Robin Bravender, Danny Nguyen and Sophia Cai reported Thursday on how Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought is quietly directing lasting changes to the federal bureaucracy, which one anonymous White House official described as the 'true DNA of DOGE': The staffers made political appointees at various agencies who can remain at their posts indefinitely. DOGE staffers are also taking a quieter approach to cutting programs and staff by going to lesser-known departments and agencies, even as courts often stymie their changes. During the last two weeks, DOGE has tried to access the Government Publishing Office, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, and sent teams to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Government Accountability Office. 'Everyone's more nervous about [Vought] than Elon actually, especially because he knows government a little bit better,' an anonymous federal worker told POLITICO. 'While people are excited that Elon is gone, this doesn't change much.' a new berkeley supercomputer The Department of Energy announced a new supercomputer project, teaming with Nvidia and Dell on a system to support physics, artificial intelligence and other types of research. POLITICO's Chase DiFeliciantonio reported for Pro subscribers Thursday on the announcement of a computer based at Berkeley, California's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which has around 11,000 researchers. Scheduled for completion in 2026, the computer will be named after Nobel Prize-winning CRISPR scientist Jennifer Doudna. 'AI is the Manhattan Project of our time, and Doudna will help ensure America's scientists have the tools they need to win the global race for AI dominance,' said Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a statement. In response to a question from reporters, Wright defended the administration's broader science cuts. 'Politics and bureaucracy are the antithesis of science,' he said, adding that 'this administration is 100 percent aligned with speeding up and energizing American science, removing the shackles, removing the bureaucracy, cleaning out the politics, and focused on science and progress.' post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Derek Robertson (drobertson@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
Forbes
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Congressional Biotech Commission Highlights Workforce Investment Needs
Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), chair of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, speaks ... More to reporters in the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC. (Photo by) Last month, the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (NSCEB), chaired by Senator Todd Young (R-IN), published a report raising the alarm around the United States' ceded ground in biotechnology to competitors like China. Among its many policy prescriptions, the report calls for bringing 'the full weight of American innovation" to maintain U.S. leadership in the biotechnology industry. Based on two years of research, the 195-page document offers a sobering conclusion: China is quickly leapfrogging the U.S. in biotechnology dominance, having made the emerging technology a priority for the next twenty years. The United States must act in the next three years to remain competitive. Central to the agenda is a charge to build the biotechnology workforce of the future through expanded 'bioliteracy' and training programs. Much like AI literacy has become a zeitgeist in education and national security circles, the Commission argues that biotechnology ought to be front and center for workforce leaders. The report emphasizes the importance of these goals for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the nation's grant-making wellspring for research and STEM education. However, President Trump has halted NSF funding and proposed gutting the agency by halving its budget. The move follows a wave of DOGE-led cancellations of over 1,000 scientific studies and student fellowships, mass layoffs, a halt in research proposal reviews, the dissolution of the agency's internal infrastructure, and the abrupt resignation of NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan—himself a Senate-confirmed Trump appointee. Research from New America's Future of Work and Innovation Economy initiative has studied the role of the NSF and national science policy for emerging technology workforce training, including around the ability of community colleges to meet labor market needs in emerging biotech tech hubs. For example, Forsyth Tech Community College in Winston-Salem, North Carolina is leveraging NSF funding to prepare students for skilled technical workforce jobs in biotechnology and regenerative medicine. These jobs will not serve the health of North Carolinians but bolster the state's economic development and contributions to national security ambitions. Last year, the college was the site of the announcement of the U.S. National Science Foundation's historic Regional Innovation Engines program. This key CHIPS and Science Act investment represents the broadest attempt to support place-based research-driven economic development since the Morrill Act at the height of the Civil War. Each of the NSF Engines aims to grow industries around emerging technology areas. As a key partner in North Carolina's Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medicine Engine, Forsyth Tech has added a new non-degree credential focused on bioprinting. This credential offers hands-on training in industry-grade equipment essential to the Commission's biotechnology aspirations. NSF funding has enabled the community college to purchase cutting-edge equipment that would be otherwise cost-prohibitive and create hands-on learning environments that mirror real-world biotech workplaces. This includes: In one case, a Forsyth Tech student used the lab's mass spectrometer to isolate a compound from a botanical native to Madagascar, known for its healing properties. The same lab infrastructure that helps students learn also supports startups and small biotech firms, offering access to high-end tools they could not otherwise afford. Unlike voucher-based training programs housed at other federal agencies, NSF funding enables colleges to contribute more ambitious and strategic forms of tech-based economic development. Several NSF programs like Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies (ExLENT), which NSF created following the CHIPS Act and was a best practice called out in Young's report, were designed to scale hands-on work-based learning opportunities in emerging technology areas just like these. Across the country, MiraCosta College in California leveraged NSF ExLENT funding to expand internship and pre-apprenticeship programs in biomanufacturing. Speaking at a Community College Congressional Caucus briefing hosted on Capitol Hill by New America and the Association of Community College Trustees earlier this year, Forsyth Tech President Janet Spriggs said that this progress would not be possible without NSF funding, commending Senators Thom Tillis, Ted Budd, and Representative Virginia Foxx for their support. The return on this investment is clear in North Carolina, where biotech is a major economic driver, and that could be the case all across the country if NSF funding is sustained and increased. Spriggs said these policymakers recognize that NSF funding is not just an educational investment—it is a strategic commitment to economic development and the health and safety of the nation. The NSCEB's report confirms that view. In a world where scientific talent is urgently needed, community colleges prove that workforce opportunity, innovation, and public good can thrive at the same intersection. NSF investments empower these institutions to deliver on that promise. Continued federal support—and bipartisan advocacy—are vital to ensuring that this work continues and expands. After all, the next life-saving breakthrough might begin in a community college lab.
Washington Post
25-05-2025
- Automotive
- Washington Post
The Indianapolis 500 can run just fine without a tax break
Dominic Pino is the Thomas L. Rhodes Journalism Fellow at National Review Institute and host of the American Institute for Economic Research podcast 'Econception.' In most circumstances, 'it's the month of May' is an anodyne statement about the time of year. For fans of auto racing, however, it's one of the most exciting sentences you can hear. The 'month of May' refers to the weeks of preparation for the Indianapolis 500, which always takes place the Sunday before Memorial Day. Drivers combine to run thousands of practice laps throughout May and compete in a regular season race on the infield road course before multiple stages of qualifying, with a pole speed of around 230 mph. Congress moves a lot slower than that, but the Indianapolis 500 has put tax policy on the minds of some lawmakers. The Indianapolis Star reported that Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) is pushing a bill with Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia) called the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act, which would provide a tax break for investments in motorsports facilities. I'm the biggest fan there is when it comes to racing, but Congress should let this bill crash and burn. Politicians have a habit of channeling their constituents' fandom into taxpayer-funded goodies — just look at the current talks over a new football stadium in D.C. The bipartisanship of motorsports favors extends beyond Young and Warner's bill. North Carolina, under Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, used money from Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan Act to help refurbish North Wilkesboro Speedway. A law supposedly about covid recovery was used to fund improvements to a track that had been vacant since 1996, for the use of NASCAR, which has plenty of money of its own. Some reasons to oppose this latest racing bill are specific to the sport. Most racetracks are small operations that don't generate extraordinary amounts of economic activity, and the large tracks that do host premier racing series only create significant economic impact one or two weekends per year. Eleven out of 12 months are not 'the month of May,' and aside from one weekend hosting NASCAR, Indianapolis Motor Speedway is little more than a museum, gift shop and landmark for most of the year. It's an enchanting place to race fans like me (a photo of the Yard of Bricks at the finish line that I took on a tour of the track is my phone background), but federal taxpayers shouldn't be asked to give special privileges to our interests. In an administration where personal connections matter a lot in policymaking, it's also hard to ignore that the speedway's owner, Roger Penske, is a billionaire friend of Donald Trump. But the larger reason to oppose the bill is in the title itself: A bill with 'fairness' in the name should not give a special tax preference to motorsports facilities. Instead, Congress should help businesses around the country with some related tweaks that benefit them all. The co-sponsors of this latest bill do have a point on policy. It's not a story about racing, though, but about Congress taking a smart, pro-growth tax idea, trying to do it on the cheap, and opening itself up to these kinds of industry-specific shenanigans in the process. The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act concerns depreciation schedules under the tax code, meaning the pace at which businesses can write off their investment costs over time. Many of the investments that motorsports facilities make have long depreciation schedules that could stretch out over 29 years. Beginning in 2004, Congress made a temporary carveout for motorsports facilities that reduced that to seven years. This is good for racetracks because it allows them to write off their investments faster. Congress has extended that provision since then. But what's good for motorsports is also good for everyone else. So in 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made the shortened period of seven years largely irrelevant by allowing businesses to write off 100 percent of the cost of many investments immediately, including many of those made by motorsports facilities. The problem is that doing this reduces federal revenue, and Senate Republicans agreed at the outset of their 2017 tax negotiations to only increase deficits by so much. So to ease passage of the bill, this new 'bonus depreciation' began to phase out in 2023. The percentage of an investment expense that is allowed to be deducted immediately has declined by 20 points per year, so it currently sits at 40 percent and will be gone entirely by 2027. Which brings us to our current proposal from Young and Warner. If Congress wants to encourage businesses to make capital investments, they have an opportunity to do it right now in the One Big Beautiful Bill Trump is trying to get across the finish line. As of now, they only want to extend bonus depreciation through 2029, setting up yet another cliff. It may take shuffling around some priorities, but a permanent and fair code beats a line of rent-seeking industries trying to sneak their own side deals through every year.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should put us on year-round standard time, not DST
Most Americans hate seasonal clock changes. But it matters how we abolish them. Sen. Todd Young's (R-Ind.) 'Make America Rested Again' amendment, which would put the U.S. on permanent standard time, was proposed during Senate Commerce Committee review of the deceptively named Sunshine Protection Act. The amendment aims to abolish the annual switches to and from daylight saving time, in order to improve Americans' health. The Sunshine Protection Act, first proposed by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in 2018 and earlier this year by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), would do the opposite, putting the U.S. on permanent daylight saving time. That bill passed the Senate in 2022 in an unannounced unanimous consent vote, but some senators said afterward that they didn't realize what they were voting for. The bill died that year in the House, whose Energy and Commerce Committee had just heard testimony from Vanderbilt University neurologist and sleep specialist Beth Malow about the potential harms of permanent daylight saving time, including increased risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and cancer. Newer studies also show misaligned clocks are associated with a higher risk of motor vehicle crashes, depression and suicide. Daylight saving time forces us to start the day an hour earlier to go to work and school. It also creates a misalignment between our body clocks, which align with the sun, and our social schedules. Daylight saving time's harmful effects would be exponentially worse in the short days of winter, when it would cause months of sunrises after 8 a.m. At a recent Senate committee hearing, Jay Karen, representing the National Golf Course Owners Association, suggested that the earlier sunsets of standard time might reduce revenue from golfing and other outdoor recreational activities. But standard time does not shorten the number of summer daylight hours. Golfing continues to flourish in states that already follow permanent standard time, including Arizona and Hawaii. If we were to adopt standard time year-round, workers' increased productivity would drive a stronger economy and generate increased income for workers' vacations and recreational activities. Children would not have to go to school in the dark throughout the winter months. Most states that passed bills calling for permanent daylight saving time in the last few years saw it as the quickest way to end bi-annual clock changes. Some legislators were misled by false promises of alleged health benefits and energy cost savings. Since recent efforts at the state level to address these misconceptions, only one bill calling for permanent daylight saving time has passed in the last two years. More state bills now call for standard time year-round. Public opinion in favor of standard time is growing. A recent Gallup poll found 48 percent of Americans favor standard time, whereas only 24 percent prefer permanent daylight saving time. More than seven in 10 Americans would like to end bi-annual clock changes. The U.S. has tried permanent daylight saving time twice before, during World War II and in 1974. It quickly became unpopular and was reversed. Other counties have had similar experiences. Legislators in Paraguay are currently seeking to end the country's experiment with permanent daylight time. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and other health organizations back permanent standard time. That would bring our inner clocks more in line with sun time, with the sun overhead at noon. Permanent ST would foster improved sleep, workplace productivity, academic performance, driving safety, and mental and physical health. It would also reduce health care and utility bills. The Senate Commerce Committee did not discuss Sen. Young's proposal to establish permanent standard time. It voted instead on an amendment of the Sunshine Protection Act by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asking for a start date of 2027 to give states time to decide whether they want permanent daylight saving time or permanent standard time. After the bill goes into effect, states would not be allowed to change to permanent standard time, even if permanent daylight time is unpopular, as history predicts. The 16-12 vote in favor of this amendment did not advance because many of the votes were proxy votes, and 15 in-person Aye votes were required. The close count is a big change from the unanimous support of the bill in 2022. Even Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who supported the measure, expressed concerns. The vote was not partisan. Senators from states with the latest sunrise times were most likely to vote against it. The close vote and expressed concerns signal an unlikely road for it to pass the full House and Senate. Everyone who wants to end clock changes should get behind permanent standard time — the science-supported, history-tested, naturally healthy way to ditch the bi-annual switch. Karin Johnson, MD, is a professor of neurology and a sleep medicine specialist. She is the co-chair of the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time and vice-president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Save Standard Time and creator and host of its educational video series, 'The Science of Clock Change.' Jay Pea is a former software engineer and the president of Save Standard Time. Lynne Lamberg is a medical journalist and editor who writes frequently on sleep, biological clocks, and mental health. She is the book editor of the National Association of Science Writers. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
20-05-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Congress should put us on year-round standard time, not DST
Most Americans hate seasonal clock changes. But it matters how we abolish them. Sen. Todd Young's (R-Ind.) 'Make America Rested Again' amendment, which would put the U.S. on permanent standard time, was proposed during Senate Commerce Committee review of the deceptively named Sunshine Protection Act. The amendment aims to abolish the annual switches to and from daylight saving time, in order to improve Americans' health. The Sunshine Protection Act, first proposed by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in 2018 and earlier this year by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), would do the opposite, putting the U.S. on permanent daylight saving time. That bill passed the Senate in 2022 in an unannounced unanimous consent vote, but some senators said afterward that they didn't realize what they were voting for. The bill died that year in the House, whose Energy and Commerce Committee had just heard testimony from Vanderbilt University neurologist and sleep specialist Beth Malow about the potential harms of permanent daylight saving time, including increased risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and cancer. Newer studies also show misaligned clocks are associated with a higher risk of motor vehicle crashes, depression and suicide. Daylight saving time forces us to start the day an hour earlier to go to work and school. It also creates a misalignment between our body clocks, which align with the sun, and our social schedules. Daylight saving time's harmful effects would be exponentially worse in the short days of winter, when it would cause months of sunrises after 8 a.m. At a recent Senate committee hearing, Jay Karen, representing the National Golf Course Owners Association, suggested that the earlier sunsets of standard time might reduce revenue from golfing and other outdoor recreational activities. But standard time does not shorten the number of summer daylight hours. Golfing continues to flourish in states that already follow permanent standard time, including Arizona and Hawaii. If we were to adopt standard time year-round, workers' increased productivity would drive a stronger economy and generate increased income for workers' vacations and recreational activities. Children would not have to go to school in the dark throughout the winter months. Most states that passed bills calling for permanent daylight saving time in the last few years saw it as the quickest way to end bi-annual clock changes. Some legislators were misled by false promises of alleged health benefits and energy cost savings. Since recent efforts at the state level to address these misconceptions, only one bill calling for permanent daylight saving time has passed in the last two years. More state bills now call for standard time year-round. Public opinion in favor of standard time is growing. A recent Gallup poll found 48 percent of Americans favor standard time, whereas only 24 percent prefer permanent daylight saving time. More than seven in 10 Americans would like to end bi-annual clock changes. The U.S. has tried permanent daylight saving time twice before, during World War II and in 1974. It quickly became unpopular and was reversed. Other counties have had similar experiences. Legislators in Paraguay are currently seeking to end the country's experiment with permanent daylight time. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and other health organizations back permanent standard time. That would bring our inner clocks more in line with sun time, with the sun overhead at noon. Permanent ST would foster improved sleep, workplace productivity, academic performance, driving safety, and mental and physical health. It would also reduce health care and utility bills. The Senate Commerce Committee did not discuss Sen. Young's proposal to establish permanent standard time. It voted instead on an amendment of the Sunshine Protection Act by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asking for a start date of 2027 to give states time to decide whether they want permanent daylight saving time or permanent standard time. After the bill goes into effect, states would not be allowed to change to permanent standard time, even if permanent daylight time is unpopular, as history predicts. The 16-12 vote in favor of this amendment did not advance because many of the votes were proxy votes, and 15 in-person Aye votes were required. The close count is a big change from the unanimous support of the bill in 2022. Even Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who supported the measure, expressed concerns. The vote was not partisan. Senators from states with the latest sunrise times were most likely to vote against it. The close vote and expressed concerns signal an unlikely road for it to pass the full House and Senate. Everyone who wants to end clock changes should get behind permanent standard time — the science-supported, history-tested, naturally healthy way to ditch the bi-annual switch. Karin Johnson, MD, is a professor of neurology and a sleep medicine specialist. She is the co-chair of the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time and vice-president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Save Standard Time and creator and host of its educational video series, 'The Science of Clock Change.' Jay Pea is a former software engineer and the president of Save Standard Time. Lynne Lamberg is a medical journalist and editor who writes frequently on sleep, biological clocks, and mental health. She is the book editor of the National Association of Science Writers.
