I would like to say to everyone that is here testifying today. Thank you so much. Because i do represent the sixth congressional district. I would like to give a warm welcome. Special thanks to a fellow georgian. Your written testimony examines the decline and competition in the georgia press. What has that meant for the information that they are going to receive. About the government at all levels. Thank you for the question. In a way, i guess you could probably answer it after the Spirited Campaign in the sixth district. I think it was clear that we devoted a awful lot of our folks to covering that. I mentioned that because i think it can be loss. Crucial elections where other news organizations may not be in a position in different parts of georgia to cover a campaign. To deal with the controversy to sort through potential misleading television thats. I also think that we increase the situation where we are not competing with each other as those organizations as much. Everyone is better off with true competition. I mentioned that as well. That is what has had the American Press such a powerful part of our democracy. We have always had a healthy and vibrant press. I think we can point to that. Is part of the reason our country has enjoyed so much success. I have heard from editors and journalists that they really value their brand reputation. I understand a lot about that. Readers can trust their content. We all know in our online world, this information is always a click away. What are some of the ways that Online Platforms could help them maintain that relationship with his readers and help readers know theyre getting information from a reliable source. He has spent a lot of time on this issue. One of the things that is important to us, it is clear when users of any service come to our content. It is clear that is from the Atlanta Journalconstitution. All that means in accuracy and fairness and how we presented in this. What is confusing to anyone about the source of content way about the idea of this information and been struggling to get to the truth. Would like to add to the . There have always been crazy conspiracy theories. All the indicators about brand are suppressed. They lose signals about what information is coming from. It is a serious issue that does need to be addressed. Some have argued that reforms could have a cause in higher prices for advertisers including Small Businesses. Do you buy that argument . I do not. I think the lack of competition in the text space is raising prices. I dont know if you have it here. Uber and lyft sitting notifications to the writers of special deals. That is them having to get better deals to their customers to get their business. That is what we see if we introduce more competition. Are there reforms that could preserve and promote journalism . Also assuring the Small Businesses do not have access to affordable housing. They have already committed millions of dollars to supporting advertising initiatives. The rate at which the revolution was it is usually 74 percent going to the news publisher. All that being said, we recognize that more can be done to promote journalism and there is a variety of sources and solutions providing to various programs for journalism promotion. Thank you so much. There testifying as an important topic. We have lost nearly 1800 newspapers. One of those was my states very own Rocky Mountain is. It closed down in 2000. There is a direct correlation in government accountability. Hackney talk about your comments involving antitrust. My sense based on testimony. They are deemed to be potential solutions. All were subject antitrust laws. We have argued against him during the antitrust mission that i played my just wanted. While testimony is the example their reciting leads to google. Does the same ratio applied to the other companies . On this year the report in some cases this up to 100 percent. I appreciate your answer. I will be interested in perhaps we can follow up on this after the hearing. Help wont load this journalists story this. Who will promote this idea the road tested zero this story ideas were high engagement was taken as a finds publish the story. Is used to propagate stories that happens before. I would caution that that is the true test. I just think it is not a untenable position. I am happy to give mr. Riley a chance to respond to that question. The witnesses may answer the question. Im not familiar with the study. Invites users to make suggestions. To me that is sort of a tangent to the court thing that we really worry about with local journalism were just getting out there and find out what is really going on. Ghostly publisher versus the puffers. Thank you gentlemen. I now recognize myself for five minutes. Google captures 80 percent of the u. S. Online search market. 94 percent on all smartphones and 70 percent in the market. 59 percent of the thirdparty display. I take it that these do not appear to be competitive market. Which market are we talking about . Lets start with searches on smartphones. Controlled by one platform. You would agree that is not competitive. I think i would say 94 percent relative market would be Something Worthy of considering. I think the relative market would be what economist ellis compete with that. Another surgeon on my phone in the browser, i can also search on my phone in a number of different ways. Speaker in my room. And all the places that users can go to get answers that extend beyond the browser search experience. These are paperless tools that do not require a search engine. Desktop search is a discrete market. It is something not in consideration. Whether that is a market. Google has given preferential treatment to its own services. Do you at least acknowledge the risk of self preferential treatment. Let me start by saying that is a reference. Obviously european antitrust laws. As i understand it, the district are on the question of self referencing. Whether or not the county preferential treatment that is in fact a risk in this market. Whether there is any way for a publisher to identify this preferential treatment. Any of our companies to speak to that issue. I will be concerned about a rule that says the Grocery Store cannot put its own Brand Products at eye level in the story. It would be helpful that we at least agree to, side effects. You encouraged the caution. I think our caution is what we have had for the last decade. Emergence of advertising. I think it is time to try something different. A single algorithm change resulted in google directed traffic. Caused it to fall by 50 percent. The fact that a platform can effectively shut off and affect the independence of the purse. Clearly it is a monopoly problem. No one company should have the ability to decide which publications can exist. The ability to turn off the traffic to any publisher. Is problematic from a democracy standpoint. Is basically a shield to criticism. Knowing this can be done. Several have commented that they have been too permissive. And loss of competition. Or potential competitors. Googles acquisition in 2007. It is examples of mergers that involve the loss competition. Parking enforcement be tightened. Also, you cannot rely on antitrust alone. I wonder if you would share what tools in communication market. To be thinking about as we confront these challenges. Mr. Chairman, i do think that potential competition is an area of dramatic underenforcement. When i was at the justice department, we did raise concerns about comcast purchase of nbcu at at time and raised the question of impact on online video distribution. It was not the first time, but it was very seldom that that tool was used. I think antitrust enforcers need to use it much more aggressively. I think going back and looking at those transactions, there probably are some that ought to be reviewed now to determine whether they were rightly decided, whether theres a basis under antitrust law to revisit those. Id say most importantly in the marketplace of ideas, where you have Communications Platforms that are the most critical way in which we get content for our news and information, we ought to be most careful to be promoting as many entrants, as much potential competition as possible. Thank you. I just want excuse me. One final question. You know, i think you made reference to the increasing number of people that are obtaining their news from digital services, record, you know, participation by subscription, lots of interesting engagement in news. So huge increase in consumer and in customer use of your product, but declining revenues. But i think mr. Shears as said thats the way it is. Thats the moment were in. Whats your response to that . Present trends cant continue. If we continue on this path, were going to lose vast amounts of quality journalism, particularly in communities all around the country. Thats not just a bad business outcome. That is utterly destructive to our Civic Society and cant be allowed to happen. And what weve asked for is a chance, a chance for a different kind of future. And we need that future collectively. Thank you, mr. Chavern. I would like to ask unanimous consent to allow a member of the not a member a member of the full Judiciary Committee, the gentleman lady from texas b allowed to ask a question. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Chavern, let me take you for the journey you have started this subcommittee on, and out of your courtesies, i hope to be able to join you as you make this journey. Forgive me for my delay, but i was in the rules committee, which is a long process dealing with ongoing amendments. I serve on the full committee for a pretty long time and have served on this committee in the past, and my recollection might serve me. I might have even been Ranking Member at some point in time. But it is an important committee, but there is important work as we speak. So i will try to be focused in my questions. But to read a statement that i think will guide my questioning, a small number of digital platforms appear to have outsized control over access to trustworthy news online, and i am a partaker of the national nnpa, which is the association of africanamerican newspapers, newspapers that have an enormous history back to reconstruction, periods after slavery as the vehicle of information for many. There are many papers that reflect different communities. Newspapers, maybe online as well, but they seem to be adhering to newspapers. And then in the last election, of course in 2018 and 2016, we know the conspicuous invasion of the foreign adversaries who utilize online tools to mislead voters, to utilize russian bots, which we expect to occur in the coming 2020 elections. So we are putting ourselves in a very difficult challenge if we dont look at the source of news. And then as i see the gentleman from the Atlanta Journal constitution, i know that the paper newspapers are online. We understand that. But i think i would ask this question of everyone, and i think was that mr. Chavern who, as i came in, said we cant last this way . And so im going to ask the question as we begin this journey of how do we deal with online, digital . I know that mr. Chairman cicilline, who i compliment, will also have some overlapping of Digital Privacy issues which were dealing with in homeland security. But i want to have everyone answer, if they would, the achilles heel of dealing with online truth and a correction that they would want to see this committee engage in. And, mr. Chavern, are you the first . I cant see your placard there. If everyone take that question, maybe the Atlanta Journal might want to comment on what its doing to newspaper, even though i know you may be online as most are. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. Just briefly, the answer is more quality and more responsibility. My members produce quality journalism for which they are responsible. If the platforms have a problem with quality information and they do, the answer is more content from quality publishers. We need a sustainable partnership. We could have one. We can have one. Its achievable. But the platforms have been unwilling to do that to date, and thats why were here. Thank you. Congresswoman, i totally agree that we need quality content. I think we have a problem both on Online Platforms that comes from every user of those platforms and every Media Company that is not doing careful, trustworthy curation of information. It comes all across the marketplace with the same incentives for the most salacious material. I would urge you to consider in you as you do your factgathering and investigation, to consider whether you need legislation to create some Public Service duty for everyone online, whether it be a news Media Company, a newspaper, or a platform to deliver trustworthy information and create financial incentives to produce that. That would give the marketplace better information, better signaling of what is fact and what is fiction, and hopefully it would create the kind of money that were hearing from local newspapers they need to sustain themselves. Thank you. Ms. Hubbard . Yes. Thank you, congresswoman. So as i said earlier, i think competition would help with this disinformation problem because consumers right now dont have an option of choosing a platform that doesnt boost disinformation with its engagement algorithms. Facebook and youtube both use these engagement algorithms that actually boost the propaganda and disinformation. So consumers need to be able to vote with their feet and same with publishers so that facebook so that youtube and google actually have a risk of losing profits, and theyre motivated to fix this problem by not losing profits. And the other thing i would like to add quickly is privacy regulation would also help because it is this 360degree view of users, collecting their data across the web that allows disinformation agents to then precisely target people based on the Data Collected about them. So if we collected less data about people, especially not in ways that they would never expect, there would be less ability to hyper target them with disinformation. Thank you. Thank you. The time of the gentle lady has expired. Im going to now ask unanimous consent to add a number of letters and statements to the record regarding the subcommittees recently announced investigation into Major Technology firms potentially anticompetitive behavior, a statement from Consumer Reports expressing their support for the investigation, a joint statement from Laura Bassett and john stanton, two journalists laid off by the huffing post and buzzfeed respectively, without objection, and a letter from epic, without objection. This concludes todays hearing. I want to say thank you again to our very distinguished witnesses for their testimony. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. This hearing is adjourned. Are there deficiencies in the existing framework when you consider these statutes were mostly written during the monopolies and the oil barons. Looking at are the statutes sufficient . Are the resources necessary . Is the enthusiasm of the antitrust agencies sufficient . But also are there other things we can be doing to create more competition in this space, to prohibit anticompetitive or discriminatory conduct, to, you know, promote competition, to ensure that companies are not acquiring their rivals. So theres a whole range of issues about the way these markets are not working and what congress can do to make them more competitive to protect privacy rights of consumers, to protect users ability to control their own data, to prevent these Technology Platforms from engaging in anticompetitive conduct that is detrimental to workers and consumers. So this is kind of i think part of it is you look at the acquisitions, one example of whats happened on instagram. You know, i think its clear that those were rivals of facebook, and they were acquired. I think thats something we have to look at is how did that happen, why did it happen. Are there ways to look at those acquisitions. You want to go back and look at [ inaudible question ] i think all of the potential legislative solutions are on the table. This is just the beginning of the investigation. The purpose of this is really to gather the best evidence, the best information to hear from the smartest technologists who have been thinking and writing about these issues for a long time, to bring them before the committee to conduct, you know, witness interviews and document productions so that when were making judgments about what is the best way to respond to these challenges, were doing it with the best information, the best thinking, with a full understanding of how the markets working and the behavior of these large Technology Platforms. How much resources or time might be required for this kind of investigation . I mean its obviously farreaching. This is a farreaching investigation. Im very pleased to remind everyone its a bipartisan investigation. I think members on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of this review. You know, this will take some time. Im certain im confident that we will conclude the investigation and complete a report in this congress so that well have time to act on the recommendations. And, you know, as we begin this work, it may require some additional resources. And if so, ill obviously speak to the chairman and the Ranking Member about some additional resources. Any concerns that other investigations that are going on right now in the Judiciary Committee might impede that . Obviously the chairman had to leave because of its the nature of our work. We have to multitask. Some other things going on right now. Have to do both. Do you think that those mergers should be unwound, the facebook mergers you mentioned . Whats next for the investigation . Were going to continue to have hearings. Were going to look at the dominant platforms impact on innovation and entrepreneurship. I do think looking at how these acquisitions occurred and kind of looking at retrospectively whether they ought to remain, you know, the ability of congress to unwind it is pretty limited. But i think we need to understand how it happened if, in fact, it resulted in anticompetitive conduct of these particular platforms, we ought to know that and figure out how we prevent that [ inaudible question ] you know, were going to have as i said, well be hearing from a number of experts, expert technologists. Well be hearing from people who have suffered the impact of the monopoly or dominance of these platforms. Thats the benefit of having an investigation. Those who are concerned about economic retaliation will have the ability to share information with the investigators. That could be useful to our consideration of these issues. So, you know, well lay out when our next hearing will be with witnesses, et cetera. But this is going to be a very kind of comprehensive look at this marketplace. I know theres a lot of interest, and i have referenced particular companies. But the truth is this is about the digital marketplace broadly, and there are obviously large, you know, dominant actors in this space that we all know. But its really to look at how this market is functioning, what the absence of competition means for consumers, for users, both on privacy, on behavior which favors their own products and services, and the impact on consumers. Has the committee already asked facebook or google to testify . We havent made requests yet for the next hearing. Have you heard from any competitors like yelp or spotify . Heard from them . Yeah. Just like called me up and said hi . Have they reached out to you or the lawmakers . Look, i dont think theres anything surprising that congress is undertaking this investigation. This is an issue which i think everyone recognizes requires thorough review. These are easy problems to diagnose. Theyre more difficult problems to solve. I think all the Technology Companies recognize this is an important responsibility of congress. I expect that they are all going to engage in this investigation in an authentic way and share their perspectives and theyre their best thinking. But we are going to do this, and were going to come up with a set of recommendations with or without their cooperation. But i fully expect them to be part of this evidencegathering initiative. Did you happen to see mr. Delrahims speech today . I didnt. Do you know why the ftc dropped the google case without taking any action after examining a lot of the same issues that youre talking about here . Yes. Is that something youre going to look into . One of the things we want to look at is in addition to the existing antitrust statutes, we also want to be sure the antitrust agencies are actually using them properly and that they are fulfilling their own responsibilities. I have very serious concerns about the ftcs sort of commitment to some of these issues. There hasnt been a serious antitrust case here in decades, and i think part of what were looking at is not only the legislative architecture, but what are the antitrust agencies doing . How aggressively are they pursuing these procompetition policies . Are there things we can do to the statute that can make that easier, more effective . Its a really thorough review. How are you reviewing acquisitions of nascent competitors because, you know, when you look at what the ftc and doj have said on what they want to change, i think theres an appetite to do more on that in the tech space. I mean what is your thinking . I think thats going to require a review of the conduct of some of these large platforms and their acquisition practices, both in specific cases and broadly what their kind of Business Model is. But thats a very serious issue. You look at, you know, the kind of clearest example of facebook acquiring instagram and whatsapp and, you know, their effort now to sort of integrate them so to make separation of them much more difficult. Those are, i think, concerns of the committee, and that will be the subject of part of the way we think about how these very large, dominant Technology Platforms are behaving in a space that doesnt provide a lot of competition. Instead of looking at like a facebook, instagram, isolated, youre saying lets look at this is really not about a specific this is not an investigation that relates to the prosecution of one company for wrongdoing. This is an investigation that is designed to give us a lot of information about how the market is working broadly. You know, examples will help illustrate those practices of these companies but the goal here is to come up with a deep understanding of the way the market is working, where the deficiententsies in competition are, and a set of solutions that responsibility to those deficiencies. Do you expect the hearings to yield significant changes to antitrust laws by the end of the you know, im not prejudging this. Its hard for me to believe there wont be some ways to improve an antitrust statute that was written more than 100 years ago, that will more accurately respond to the but i cant say for sure that will be the end result. Im approaching this with a very even mind about kind of what are the solutions that will get this marketplace to work right, that will provide real competition, that will encourage innovation and entrepreneurship and that will prohibit discriminatory behavior or anticompetitive practices and looking at the legislative framework is just one piece. Ive got to go back to my office. Thanks. This weekend, American History tv has live twoday coverage of the annual Gettysburg CollegeCivil War Institute summer conference. Starting saturday at 8 30 a. M. Eastern with a discussion on jubl early and the unionist cause with katy shively. A look at matt turners rebellion with Patrick Breen of providence college. The combat experience of civil war soldiers with peter carmichael. Then a Panel Discussion on the artifacts of the civil war moderated by brian lusky of West Virginia university. On sunday, our live coverage continues at 8 30 a. M. Eastern with a discussion on preserving Gettysburg NationalMilitary Park with Jennifer Murray of Oklahoma State university. Violence in the civil war with aaron sheehandean of Louisiana State university. Then a look at the civil war and e manscation mancipation in the america with ed ayers, following on a discussion of seeing the conflict through the eyes of leading historians. Watch the annual Gettysburg CollegeCivil War Institute summer Conference Live this weekend on American History tv on cspan3. Oh, do i look forward to running against them. Tuesday, President Donald Trump holds a rally in orlando, florida, officially launching his run for a second term. Watch live at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. A house education and labor subcommittee is looking into whether elementary and secondary schools are prepared for natural disasters. The assistant education secretary for elementary and secondary schools explained federal efforts to help school systems, especially those on island territories like the northern mariana islands, u. S. Virgin islands, and puerto rico