And so the House Judiciary Committee just wrapping up this hearing on u. S. Citizenship and immigration services. A house judiciary subcommittee will be moving into this same room for a hearing with the ceos from amazon, apple, google and facebook. Theyll be discussing antitrust law and Online Platform market power. The Company Heads expected to appear remotely. Again this hearing being held in the same room as the previous hearing we just showed you. So there will be a little bit of a break as they take time to clean the room. The hearing expected to begin shortly. As for the tech ceos, this will be amazon Ceo Jeff Bezos first appearance ever before congress. Well be watching the room before if gets underway here on cspan3. Once again we are live on capitol hill this afternoon as we await the start of a house subcommittee hearing with the ceos of amazon, apple, facebook and google. Theyre talk about unfair competition and market dominance. They are expected to appear remotely. It was scheduled to begin at noon eastern today but the roam is being cleaned from a previous hearing. While we wait for that to take place, we will show you a portion of todays washington journal that previews this hearing. Reporter with axios, this morning joining us on the phone to talk about this hearing. It will be taking place at noon eastern time by the way on cspan3 on our website cspan. Org and you could listen on the go with our free cspan radio app. Ashley gold, what committee is holding this hearing and why . Its the House Judiciary Committee antitrust subcommittee. Theyre holding this hearing because they have been having an investigation of the digital market and the Big Tech Companies for the past year. And this hearing is a culmination of sorts of that investigation. Why are they investigating these companies . Theyre investigating these Big Tech Companies, apple, amazon, google and facebook, because among the democrats and amongst some of the republicans as well there is a feeling that these companies are simply too big, they take up too much of the economy, and they gobble up the competition by acquiring Smaller Companies, in amazons case by both selling products and being a platform, and in apples case running the app store, and the lawmakers just feel that antitrust law has not kept up with what the Digital Economy looks like and they want to get to the bottom of that. Senator Elizabeth Warren has tweeted out recently, here is what you wont read in big techs bought and paid for research. Amazon, google, facebook and apple have too much power over our economy, society and democracy. They think theyre too big to be held accountable. We need to break up big tech and stop mergers that kill competition. What is she talking about when she said we need to break up big tech and stop mergers . So, take facebook, facebook is a very large company. They also own instagram and whats app, other Huge Companies that people everywhere across the world use. What shes saying is that Smaller Companies never have a chance to emerge into the market place and become successful if maybe, which has the means to buy up Smaller Companies, keeps doing that. She thinks that google is too big and should be separated from youtube. That amazon should not be able to be both the seller of products and the market place of products. She thinks that the federal agency, the federal trade commission and the department of justice should sue to have these companies spin off from each other and become Smaller Companies. So it is a role for regular lators, not a role for congress . Well, what congress can do is pass new antitrust laws that would make it easier for federal regulators to do so. Currently some of the lawmakers feel that our antitrust laws that are on the books simply arent Strong Enough to do that and they want to give regulators a different road map to be able to do so. Senator john thune, a republican member of the Senate Leadership for their party, tweets out, sweeping protections for large Tech Companies under section 230 have meant that with very few exceptions, internet platforms are not held responsible for the comments, pictures and videos that their users post, no matter how harmful, its time to reexamine these protections. Could this issue come up as well today . Definitely this issue could come up. Section 230, the law that senator thune is talking about is also something that has been a huge issue for Tech Companies over the past couple of years. And in addition to antitrust action, taking away or limiting section 230 is something that lawmakers have also been discussing. Now, this law is kind of obscure. It is part of a 1996 Communications Decency about but essentially it makes it so tech platforms are largely not liable for what other people post on their platforms. The Tech Companies say that it allows them to moderate and keep bad things off their platforms but there are many people on both sides of the aisle that think that the immunity has gone too far and that Tech Companies should be able to be sued for what is on their platforms. Where is there bipartisan agreement about what needs to be done with these Big Tech Companies . There is not much. We talked to a couple of members of congress, Representative Ken Buck who is a republican, he told me the other day that he, after a year of investigating Tech Companies, he does feel the antitrust laws could use some changing. That strayed a bit from the republicans historically who want to leave big businesses alone. I think that our antitrust laws are fine and they are not so much worried about the competition aspect, theyre worried about the idea that the Big Tech Companies are biased against conservatives. So i think what youre going to see today is there is not a whole lot of agreement when you come across partisan lines. Everybody is mad at the tech for some reason. But it is hard to know how theyre going to go forward when they cant agree on what exactly the problem is. Ashley gold, Technology Reporter with axios. You could follow her reporting if you go to axios. Com and on twitter at ashley gold. We appreciate your time this morning. Thank you. Live pictures from the Rayburn House Office building on capitol hill this afternoon. As we await the of a house judiciary subcommittee hearing with the ceos from amazon, apple, google and facebook. Theyll be testifying remotely, answering questions regarding concerns of unfair competition and market dominance. Amazon Ceo Jeff Bezos will be making his first appearance ever before congress this afternoon. Just a few more minutes before it gets underway here. Live coverage on cspan3. So were hearing it is a few nor minutes and possibly up to 15 minutes before this house judiciary subcommittee hearing on online competition gets underway. We will have it from the start here on cspan when it begins. While we wait, remarks from colorado Congressman Ken Buck who joins us this morning to talk about his new book. Ken buck, republican of colorado, with us this morning. And congressman, we were just getting our viewers opinion of the Big Tech Companies, the ceos are testifying on capitol hill today. You are on the antitrust subcommittee that will get the opportunity to ask those ceos questions. What questions do you have for them. I think it is important that we delve into antitrust in having huge platforms in the hightech area. So i think a lot of the members will talk about the competitiveness of the market place, i think some of the members will talk about privacy and some will talk about the bias that some of the these platforms have demonstrated. Where do you think there could be bipartisan agreement on capitol hill to enact legislation that would impact these companies and how would it what would be the impact . I think everyone realizes that the antitrust laws need to be updated. We have started with laws really that were intended to break up trusts involving the rockefelle rockefellers and the carnegies an the turn of the last century. Congress has updated those laws to apply to telecommunications and mob bell and i think we need to take a serious look at the law based on the results of our investigation and update that law so that the regulators have the opportunity to apply the law, make sure that we are continuing to have a competitive market place that is innovating and staying ahead of the rest of the world. Tell our viewers about the investigation that the subcommittee did, why did you do it and what did you find . Well, for over a year now, we have looked at and listened to a number of companies that have been discriminated against by these highTech Companies. And frankly, the type of discrimination that were seeing indicates that there is a monopoly impact of these platforms in the market place. And i think that is what really concerns most of us, is it is not in a there is bias, but it is that there is bias and there is no opportunity to redress that bias because there is no place to else go. And there are privacy concerns, but the privacy concerns, again, cant be addressed because you dont have four or five different platforms to choose from. So what were looking at is how do we make sure that the law that we have is applicable to the new technology that were dealing with in our current world. Senator john thune, republican, has tweeted out that sweeping protections for large Tech Companies under section 230 have meant that with very few exceptions internet platforms have not held responsible for the comments, pictures and videos that the users post, no matter how harmful. It is time to reexamine the protections. Do you agree and would you explain section 230. Section 230 protects the large company. If they are Bulletin Boards and once they start getting into the area of being publishers and changing content or removing content, got a whole new issue and that is really, i think, section 230 will be examined. It is not the examination that were going to be doing today, with these Tech Companies. Although some members may get into that. But the antitrust subcommittee is most concerned about the anticompetitive nature of these platforms. So i think that when we look at section 230, it is going to be a separate examination than the meat of the subject that were dealing with today. Our viewers could hear lawmaker questions including those of Representative Ken Buck and the answers from these tech ceos when you tune in at noon eastern time to cspan3 or watch on our website, cspan. Org and also listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. Congressman, you have a book, capital of freedom restoring american greatness. Why did you write the book . I give tours in the evening of the United States capitol and we have all of the great features and stories that occurred in the capitol and i wanted the American People to get an opportunity to see really i think the greatest museum we have in our country, Living Museum that we have in our country. And we also are now talking about canceling our culure and moving away from our history and denying our history as opposed to explaining our history. And i think it is really important that people see what is in the capitol and understand the meaning of it and then make sure that we are moving, we are progressing in a way that makes sense. And so i wrote this book, it is a political book, it is a historical book and hopefully a book relevant to the issues that were talking about today. We want to encourage our viewers to call in, join the conversation, republicans 2027488001. Democrats 207488 thousand and before we get to calls, congressman, what do you think about the proposal introduced by Senate Republicans for more economic aid due to the coronavirus pandemic around a trillion dollars, what do you like, what do you dislike. I havent read it yet. It has been going through negotiations for a while now. I am anxious to read it. I think that obviously we need to help Small Business people that had been shut down by the governors their businesses have been shut down by the governors in this country. Many appropriately, im not suggesting that the governors have acted inappropriately, but i think that we have to make sure at the same time that we recognize that we have a huge budget deficit this year. A Huge National debt. And we have to take all of thoses into account and not overspend and not spend on pork projects and unfortunately many of the past bills have been stuffed with pork. Theyre necessary and any time you have a necessary bill, it attracts the kind of wasteful spending that im opposed to. Congressman, could you support the following from the heals act, reduce unemployment increases to 200 weekly and direct payments of 1,200 per individual and 2,400 per couple. A new round of loans under the paycheck protection program, Liability Protection from covid19 related lawsuits anz money for Virus Testing as well as 105 billion for schools an colleges . Yeah, im not going to get into those kind of details until i have a chance to look at the overall bill. But i could tell you, when we talk about unemployment, people should not make more money on unemployment than they do in their jobs. Have other constituents in my district that talked to me about how theyre having getting trouble back to work now they are reopening. We have to incentivize work as much as possible and recognize this is been a very difficult burden on americans and american businesses. But many of the things that you talked about, i support. I need to look at the details of the bill to make sure that im in favor of the bill overall. Congressman, yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee the attorney general testified for hours. What did you learn from him . Well, what i learned is that there are many good explanations for very difficult situations. And unfortunately during this president ial Election Year and in at a time of great stress in our country as a result of the pandemic and other issues, the attorney generals very good faith actions have been taken out of context. I am proud of this attorney general and im proud of the way he is conducted himself at the department of justice and the way he conducted himself yesterday in a hearing was just more evidence of that. What about the protests that have been happening across the United States and the descending of Homeland Security, Law Enforcement into cities like portland. Michael chertoff, a republican who was the Homeland Security security under george w. Bush writes an opinion piece today in the new york times, the hijacking of Homeland Security and he said the trump administrations deliberate decisions to intervene in the protests in portland with a heavy hand unconventional means and inflammatory political rhetoric was cnn has written that it endangers or democracy and undermines the safety by hurting the Development Ability to carry out the core mission of protecting americans from genuine threats to our security. I dont think that this administration has acted inappropriately. I think theyve acted in a way that gives Many Americans comfort that this president recognizes that when you have loots and arson and other crimes being committed, this president needs to protect federal property and if he sends the department of Homeland Security personnel to a city to protect federal property, that is absolutely appropriate. The mayors of these large cities are allowing these destruction of property and it is absolutely inappropriate and illegal. Now there are Peaceful Protesters and we should recognize that this is a country built on peaceful protest and encourage both sides of debate or many sides of the debate engage in that kind of peaceful protests. But when it turns violent, the police absolutely should intervene and the federal police are in a position that they need to protect federal property and federal personnel. Lets get to calls for you, congressman. Deborah, west chester, ohio, republican. Thank you for taking my call. Im interested in the privacy status on individuals counts, something that i didnt realize is that i have to tell anyone i deal with, like macys or visa that i want a privacy status. I was widowed several years ago and when i moved to try to get control of that, i moved all of my mail to a post office box and calmed all of the suppliers and said i would like to have the privacy status on my account, otherwise they have the option of selling my information, even macys can sell your information to a third party. To me, the law should be that i would have to opt that i would have to select a nonprivate status in order to keep my privacy. The other thing is i would be willing to pay for a subscription like to facebook in order to maintain private statu